Poll: Do you think we're being too harsh or Unfair on E.A's Games recently?

[O maestre]

every single franchise or company they acquire takes a nose dive in quality and respectability. take a look at bioware and the whole dead space debacle

their business practices are abhorrent, and their blatant attempts at "mainstreaming" genres into action shooters or shoe horning social media into games is stupid beyond words. I dont like steam very much but origin is 10 times worse.

EA is big, it is in some ways the standard bearer of the industry, but they have sunk the bar so low that i can find very little that is redeemable about them. In some ways i think it would be better if EA failed and folded, or was split, the industry is in serious need of a renaissance or an overhaul. The gaming industry is almost indistinguishable from how the movie industry operates, and that is not a good thing. Its curious how a medium that is so young has become just as stagnant in creativity as the movie industry is now.

I wish more gamers would vote with their wallets, i have not bought or played a single EA game since mass effect 2 in early 2010

EDIT: im not counting inde games in my considerations in regards to the creative stagnation, just studios

 

[Abomination]

Well polished, reliable mechanics and strong development?

Spoiler

*Cough cough*

By comparison? Yes. Everything is relative.

Even Dragon Age II had some high points to it. The voice acting, combat flow, and characters. The game didn't have terrible bugs. EA can pump out a good AAA title, just they seem to be obsessed with gimicky bullshit or new marketing ploys that spoil the end product.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

No.

They've yet to change their destructive practice of trying to:

1) Follow the money leader that is COD.

2) Homogenise everything 'to appeal to a wider audience.'

Not everything needs to make the megabucks in order to be successful. Several modest successes is better than one big one followed by several large failures.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Hells no. They keep producing generic, "mass-market" tripe, they even get worse with micro-transacting in fill-priced AAA games. They get worse, not better. They killed Pandemic, Westwood are killing off BioWare slowly, have made worse games over time, not better and are responsible for driving the industry toward a very unwelcome direction. They dropped off the stock market (was it the NASDAQ or DOW Jones?) because of how irrelevant they've become.

So hell no, they've not had nearly enough hate yet. Maybe when shareholders realise the CEO is destroying the company around their ears, alienating gamers and costing them so much in missed profits, they'll ditch him (maybe in a ditch) and get someone who knows how to manage a games publisher. This guy makes sure every garbage title they release (with a development budget of millions, I'm sure) is a boring, bland shooter with token story and elements from whatever franchise gave it birth.

Mass Effect 3 - Generic shooter with biotics
Syndicate - Generic shooter
Dead Space 3 - Generic Shooter with HL2's gravity gun
Medal of Honour - Generic Shooter (Didn't this tank and kill the franchise cold?)
Crysis 2 & 3 - Generic Shooters with a suit
Battlefield 3 - Generic modern-military shooter, even worse than a generic shooter
Kingdom of Amalur - To call this a generic fantasy RPG would be to insult generic RPGs that couldn't interest me after 5 hours.

 

[xefaros]

Personally i see each game with an open mind not because i am all fair but i have a really poor memory.From what i have seen they make decent games.All the hate comes by business practices.Now hold on a minute there are they the first that do it?No all the bull*** practices are ripped off other companies.
DLC activision
Always on DRM steam and activision
On-Disc DLC capcom activision
Integrated microtransactions ACTIVISION
Now tell me why they get all the hate.Keep a note that EA actually have money trouble and it is logical to try fund its studio by any means.BUT closing down studios while they have money to keep the flames of hell lit for eternity ISNT.Those practices were endorsed by users but in a different company so EA only jumps into their bandwagon and getting aimed by what i would call fanboys.

In the end EA ended being a gamers jihad

 

[TeapartyTokyo]

I don't think we are, no. I'm a huge fan of Bioware as well as Visceral (the team behind Dead Space), but there is no denying that EA's business model is very harmful to the - dare I even say 'our' - business!
After having played Dead Space 3 now for a while and then reading about how they're ending the series due to bad sales, I can't help but think that their bad sales actually come from people boycotting their practise. Microtransactions? Forcing co-op on every game project, even a so-calle horror title? We vote with our wallets and no one wants the gaming industry to be like that. Dead Space 3 is a really enjoyable experience, but even I was on the fence about paying and thus encouraging the continuity of such business, regardless of how much I loved the two previous installments.

I'm especially mad at them because I actually attended a talk by EA at a conference only last spring where they said very explicitly that they were moving AWAY from this pracise of basically conquering promising companies and then enforcing all sorts of meaningless limits on their development process. They stood there and told us that no, they didn't do it like that anymore because they'd realised that not all companies can operate the same way, and that the goal should always be to make good games.
Yeah, I can see that...

 

[Teoes]

Extra Credits ran a couple of good episodes on EA, specifically regarding their Marketing [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh3FN3YCwYk] and Project Ten Dollar [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXm4EvQG5rg] practices.

I've not seen the marketing aspect brought up so far in this thread (although kinda skim-read it while I'm supposed to be working..) but they're really not doing the game industry any favours. Specifically the way they try to sell violent, gory games that are supposedly not for kids, as "Yer maw's gonnae hate this!!"; and backing projects they know will cause controversy, then buckling to the inevitable complaints instead of backing up their developers. It undermines the industry and stymies the credibility it needs.

Yes, EA deserve all the flak they get for all the reasons posters have given. They need to change. I can't comment on their games as I've not been interested in an EA game for a couple of years and that was the first in a while. I don't care for their output so can't criticise/compliment it; I can complain about their business practices however.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I can't help but think of EA in a similar way that I would think of...say DC Comic's corporate level around the time of Amazon's Attack or, Countdown. The game studios EA owns are a mixed bag but studios like Bioware and, Visceral seem absolutely fine by me. The problem is, it's pretty easy to see the wounds where EA had to crack it's hypothetical whip. Thins like Micro-transactions in Dead Space 3 as a recent mandate and something like locking out Zaeed and, Javik as a not-so-recent example.

I like those studios but I hate how EA abuses them. Change the genre of Dead Space 3, add in unpopular features and, then expect it to sell however many millions of copies in the first two weeks or else we'll kill Visceral Studios just screams of abuse. It's also been revealed that EA also held Crysis 3 to ransom and ended up axing it for the Wii U since they and Nintendo couldn't reach an agreement concerning Origin [sub](kinda weird considering Mass Effect 3 made it in but ME3 isn't a sexy new shooter)[/sub]

On the poll I put that it's debatable; obviously there are some people who have had nothing but good experiences with EA and love the company. There are also people who are repeatedly shit on by EA. Finally there are people like me who gets annoyed when EA does something arguably douchy but overall, doesn't care too much one way or another since EA will be kept afloat on the back of its horrible sports division.

 

[Auron]

I like quite a bunch of their published games but despise it's corporate culture and the way it more than often interferes with excellent concepts by either warping them into monstrous deformities or canning them entirely.

WAR, TOR, Dead Space, that Bioware Spy game, Syndicate, Ultima, Command & Conquer 4(which was a rejected concept for an arena style casual rts spin-off by the way.) and many others were all games that were affected negatively or completely destroyed by EA's meddling in their developer's work trying to maximize profitability, when it doesn't work the franchises and developers get axed or become a skeleton crew.

 

[Abomination]

Well polished, reliable mechanics and strong development?

Spoiler

*Cough cough*

By comparison? Yes. Everything is relative.

Even Dragon Age II had some high points to it. The voice acting, combat flow, and characters. The game didn't have terrible bugs. EA can pump out a good AAA title, just they seem to be obsessed with gimicky bullshit or new marketing ploys that spoil the end product.

I disagree unless you are comparing the game to something from the mid to early 90s.

The game had about a year of development, not what anyone can call 'strong' Its reliable mechanics, while they worked most of the time were utter rubbish (yay for enemies appearing mid air and dropping 30 feet to the battlefield), and polished, not really, the art assets are out dated compared even to the game it is supposed to be a sequel to, I mean it takes a lot of work to make your game look worse than the game that came before it. And if the game was 'well polished' caves and houses and the like would not have to use the same map over and over again, they would have had specific maps for each location.

Thing is, I enjoyed DAII. Sure it didn't have DA:O's... not sure what, spark? But it did have what I enjoyed in RPGs, seeing character progression over years and the effects of actions.

While it wasn't as great as DA:O it was still a good game, or at least not a bad one.

 

[pblizard]

First, no, EA deserves everything its getting- if not more. The real problem, and I believe the heart of the question, is an EA games failure due to game quality or business practices. How can the gaming community properly convey that a game lost sales due to the business practices. I no longer buy any game at release. I have been burned to many times. I use to be one of those that had to have it but the industry has officially broken me of that. I will only by a game after enough time for the price to drop and all the initial dust has settled (thank god for steam). Only then can you determine the good from the bad. I will not buy dead space because of the microtransactions. It is a practice I am against. But other then complaining on forums and maybe sending an email no one will care about, how does EA know the reason they lost my sale. The fact that they may ruin DA3 because of this crap sickens me. Dragon age origins may not have been the most technically advanced offering ever, but it was a great story with great characters.

 

[IronMit]

Mass Effect 3 - Generic shooter with biotics

Mass Effect 3 is only a generic shooter if you try to make it a generic shooter, and even then it has its unique mechanics.

It's painfully obvious that the "generic shooter" argument holds no weight, especially given that ME3 gives you significantly more freedom than any of the previous games to fight battles without firing a single shot.

I don't know. The combat customisation and weight system was really good..
but... apart from the combat...everything else..

There was a lot of auto dialogue
A lot of crap happened off screen that was unexplained while ME1 was pretty tight.
Less proper side missions
Less exploration
stupid ending
Can't customise or mix and match squad mate armour

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Mass Effect 3 - Generic shooter with biotics

Mass Effect 3 is only a generic shooter if you try to make it a generic shooter, and even then it has its unique mechanics.

It's painfully obvious that the "generic shooter" argument holds no weight, especially given that ME3 gives you significantly more freedom than any of the previous games to fight battles without firing a single shot.

Not only was it a generic shooter, they even enabled the previously non-combat oriented classes (all classes in fact) to carry any weapons they wanted. I don't think it's possible to make it thru with firing one's weapons....particularly when you consider they even managed to cram in that other mainstay of MMSs, the "obligatory turret section"....more than once. It was as generic a third-person shooter as cover-based shooters with regenning health can be. Plus biotics.

 

[Dryk]

First, no, EA deserves everything its getting- if not more. The real problem, and I believe the heart of the question, is an EA games failure due to game quality or business practices. How can the gaming community properly convey that a game lost sales due to the business practices. I no longer buy any game at release. I have been burned to many times. I use to be one of those that had to have it but the industry has officially broken me of that. I will only by a game after enough time for the price to drop and all the initial dust has settled (thank god for steam). Only then can you determine the good from the bad. I will not buy dead space because of the microtransactions. It is a practice I am against. But other then complaining on forums and maybe sending an email no one will care about, how does EA know the reason they lost my sale. The fact that they may ruin DA3 because of this crap sickens me. Dragon age origins may not have been the most technically advanced offering ever, but it was a great story with great characters.

Voting with your wallet is terrible from a feedback perspective, it's SIMO, poorly discretised and has terrible phase lag

 

[Playful Pony]

I certainly don't hate the games they make, the ones I have bought and played have been really enjoyable games. They also brought me some of my favorites, including Mirrors Edge and the brand new Sim City, but the way they do their busniess... The "always on" thing with Sim City is one huge and obvious problem. There is no way to play without being connected to their service, a service that failed in the exact way everyone predicted it would. Their servers simply couldn't handle the number of people wanting to log on. You'd think they would learn from other peoples mistakes, but clearly they don't... It's the same issue Diablo III had, and I'm sure they are no alone. I'm sure it'll be sorted out in a very short time, but that simply isn't good enough. The question on my mind is, being an European, will the launch here be as problematic? Are they taking measures to make sure it doesn't happen again? I'm not confident, and that they don't offer pre-loads is simply stupid...

On a personal basis I still have more of a problem with Ubisoft. I have had far worse experiences with them, and I've actually decided not to buy any more games from Ubisoft, not until a VERY noticable change occurs anyway... I'm not yet at that point with EA, but the way things are going I will be soon! Wargaming.net is also a company I've decided to distance myself from, after some bad experiences with their game World of Tanks (such as them removing camo skins I bought with real money, and only refunding me a fraction of what they cost, and removing a premium vehicle I actually got for voulenteering as a moderator for them during the BETA..).

 

[WanderingFool]

I want to say something's before getting into the issue I wish to discuss about. This is very generalize and does not apply to everyone. I am aware that people dislike E.A, The games they publish, or both.

Now then, I think it's safe to say that a lot of people really hate E.A, but seem to really love the products they publish. People despise the business practices they have done, but Love the work that the various companies who work for E.A do. However, I've been noticing a lot in message boards, Comments on Reviews, and in various articles that people hatred is starting to grow beyond that. I've seen people despising a lot of the games because of those business practices and it has been influencing their feeling on a game. I've also really notice that a lot of the hatred towards these games seems less about that game, and more towards E.A.

Now, I can completely understand if someone where to hate E.A because of the business practices and the decisions they have made. Hell, I think it's great and can help the medium; If more people, especially game journalist, slowly mention things like Dead Space 3's Micro transactions, it can help prove to E.A that Micro Transactions are a waste of time. However, when people talk about their dislike towards the company and the game, I don't feel that it's their honest opinion or that they have even played the game. I feel like they can't just say "I hate this game because E.A has done crap business practices," but they're more or less just making up reasons why they dislike the game so they don't have to be called an idiot or something like that; I feel that they didn't even play it, pretend they did, and are just saying it just to say "E.A sucks." I just get this vibe of pretentiousness when ever I read stuff like that.

Now, this could be just be just being insecure, thinking to hard on this, or focusing too much on the negative side of this. Hell, maybe it's the fact that this is the internet and the real world, and everyone feels like they have to say something even when they don't have to. I want to know what you think? Do you think we've been misjudging E.A's recent games, like Dead Space 3, Need for Speed: Most wanted, and that one Sci-Fi game that has something bad near a certain point of it that I'm sick of hearing about!? Do you think we let the hatred of them get too far in how we discuss something they publish?

My dislike for EA comes from a number of choices they make with the various games that come out under them. Thing is, Im actually not sure just how many of those design choices (like the DS3 micro transactions or ME3's multiplayer) is actually because someone at EA said "DO THIS!"

But I actually tend to like most of the games they put out... save DA2, as that was just shit in comparison to DAO.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

The only place I see people hating on EA is on the internet, I never see it in real life.

Yes I think people are hating on EA too much, I disagree with a few of the things they do too (such as online passes with their games) but overall I find them to be a good company that publishes great games. Mass Effect, Amalur, Dragon Age.....these are all great RPG's and as a consumer I am happy to give them my money for producing a great product.

But hating big companies is all the rage these days, it's the "cool" thing to do. So let the hate begin.

 

[Little Gray]

The real issue is that people just like to hate on EA. EA gets all the blame when a studio releases a poor game but none of the praise when the studio releases several of their best games in a row while under EA.

I call bullshit for 2 reasons.
1. I never see this happen. No studio has released better games after being bought by EA that I can remember.
2. People do support EA when their developer releases a good game. Dragon Age Origins as an example, people were like "Wow, EA didn't ruin something for once!". A lot of people did the same for Mass Effect 2. After that though EA ruined things and the hatred overtook any praise of EA.

Well since you mentioned it I will toss Mass Effect 2 out there. There are a ton of people who consider it to be far better then Mass Effect. Also you will be hard pressed to find a Command & Conquer fan that didnt find Westwoods later games better. Hell Red Alert 2 and its expansion are often considered the best in the series. The same can be said with Origin and the Ultima games. Except for the last couple they only got better and better after EA bought them out.