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

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
No. Given there's a fucking wait to play Simcity. That's a series that used to be a single player experience that they fucked around with to make it both have a multiplayer focus and always on DRM. Yeah, I used to love Sim games. My first was Sim Tower, could never figure out how to get rid of those roaches. From what I've seen, it's got better simulation than any other game, pretty in depth on how the different cities in a region interact. I just want to be able to do that alone and have all the cities progress at the same time when I'm on, not just when I'm watching that city. But they fucked with it.

So, I might buy the game, but I'm going to follow Jim's advice and ***** and ***** and ***** about what's wrong with it.
 

Liquidcool

New member
Jun 5, 2010
68
0
0
I see a lot of people dislike what EA does to the development studios they acquire. They have had that reputation for years now. So I'm confused about something and that is why do the owners of those studios sell their companies to EA? Either those companies were performing poorly or EA offered their owners a fortune. Or is there something I'm missing?
 

CriticalMiss

New member
Jan 18, 2013
2,024
0
0
When EA stop acting like an only-for-profit corporation then I'll probably give them a break. They do have a habit of acquiring small developers and running their work in to the ground before firing them and stealing their IPs for later homogenisation. That I dislike intensely especially when teams are laid off because of unrealistic targets set by EA.

I dislike Activision more though, arseholes to those guys.
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
EA has potential to be good. Great even.

However....They don't treat gamers as customers. They treat us as consuming mouths with wallets. They aren't thinking about creating brand loyalty, they are just in it for getting money as fast as possible with day 1 dlc and microtransaction schemes. Consumers are catching on and they don't like being treated like this.

And with no brand loyalty, people will often call you out on mistakes.....And EA makes a lot of mistakes.

So yeah. They deserve the abuse they get.
 

mohit9206

New member
Oct 13, 2012
458
0
0
EA's games deserve all the shit its been getting lately. from the horrible horrible always online DRM in sim city to absolutely pathetically trying to grab more cash from consumers through microtransactions for a game we already paid full price for, its quite clear by now that EA is one of the worst publishers in the gaming industry today
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
ShadowRatchet92 said:
I want to know what you think? Do you think we've been misjudging E.A's recent games
Nope.

If EA wants me to pay north of £100 to play all of a released game, that game better be damn well perfect. If it's not I'm not parting with sixty quid, plus ten to fifteen quid four or five times to keep playing. Nor will I be impressed when EA pulls support eighteen months to two years later and my game's not playable anymore (hi EA sports).
 

Vetta E-dom

New member
Mar 10, 2012
93
0
0
Unfair lately, no not really. "Gamers" will always ***** about any little thing they possibly can, while having very little perspective or understanding of how the industry works. Forget that you know EA, is a company, composed of actual people. "Gamers", can be some of the most childish disgusting people on the planet just cause they cant play their little games.
 

felbot

New member
May 11, 2011
628
0
0
no, and quite frankly people should be harsher on them.

also why whenever someone makes a thread about disliking something theres always a million threads with some jack ass going "hurr you people are so entitled and should all stop complaining."

makes me more enraged than any of the people hating on ea.
 

A_Parked_Car

New member
Oct 30, 2009
627
0
0
I hate the publisher's business practices. That is not the same as hating EA's games. From what I have seen, EA produces some pretty high quality stuff from time to time. I think that Battlefield 3 is extremely good, and the robust post-launch support has exceeded my (admittedly low) expectations.

That being said, I have no interest in buying any of the games EA has announced in the last year. I'm fortunate enough to play mostly RTS or grand strategy games, and my pseudo-realistic, multiplayer FPS scratch is satisfied by BF3 for the foreseeable future. As a result, I only really need to deal with various small-time publishers in addition to Paradox and SEGA.
 

Hero in a half shell

It's not easy being green
Dec 30, 2009
4,286
0
0
Liquidcool said:
I see a lot of people dislike what EA does to the development studios they acquire. They have had that reputation for years now. So I'm confused about something and that is why do the owners of those studios sell their companies to EA? Either those companies were performing poorly or EA offered their owners a fortune. Or is there something I'm missing?
Welcome to the EA Acquisition Crash Course. This time with 50% less bias (I'll reign it in for this thread.)

What you have to remember is that we are looking back in hindsight at what happened to these companies, but most of them were acquired in the late 90's/very early 2000's when there wasn't this stigma and the mass shut downs really took hold in the early 2000s.

Sometimes the developers had made some really crappy economic decisions and the debt was piling up and they were on the way out (this is the case for Origin Studios, although even then EA had their eyes on the company and deliberately worsened their economic standings by launching several phoney lawsuits against them to tie up their legal expenses and hasten the decline of the company)
Origin Systems: 1992-2004

In the case of Westwood the two owners of the company were offered $122 million between them, and for that money they let their company go.
Westwood: 1998-2003

The company Bullfrog was co-founded by Peter Molyneux, who went on to briefly become vice-president at EA, and EA was at that time the publisher for Bullfrogs games, While Molyneaux was CEO at EA he bought Bullfrog so they were put completely under the control of EA, I suppose you wouldn't be too concerned about being bought by a company if the bloke in power was also someone you personally knew and in fact co-founded the business you were in.
Bullfrog: 1995-2004

Maxis was a straight up standard acquisition as far as I can tell, I only mention it because technically Maxis is still going, but very few of the original staff remain and the actual Maxis building was closed in 2004, also it should be noted that EA slowly phased out the Maxis name until about 2006 it was harder to find in their games than Wally, but Marketing brought it back in 2011 because it was a recognisable brand and considering people would probably react more favourably to a videogame published by The Nazis than one published by EA. It exists more as a brand than an actual studio.
Maxis: 1997-Zombiefied

Finally the big guns, Bioware/Pandemic were acquired in 2007. As I said before, if you look at the dates of the previous studios, most were acquired before EA got the developer devourer stigma, but this was well after. So what happened?
They had both seen huge success and profits, but had a bit of a run-in with publishers, so they decided to merge together as they would be stronger this way. To do this they were bought by a private shareholding company owned by Entrepreneur/Businessman John Riccitiello, and that funded their companies so they could expand.
Then the universe ran out of original ideas for different ways EA could buy companies and settled for it's second Death Star: John Riccitiello became CEO of EA and bought Bioware/Pandemic from himself, although unlike Molyneux who simply had previous connections to the company he was buying, Riccitiello was still technically the owner of Bioware/Pandemic and because of this earned $5 million as a personal handshake from the stakeholders in his company for doing such a good job with the company that year.
Pandemic released one more game (the Saboteur) and was shut within a year, with around 4-6 games at varying stages of development.
Pandemic January 2008 - February 2009

Bioware did really well; for a while, but recently the skin's been peeling away from the tip and it's been oozing this strange yellow discharge but I'm too embarrassed to go to the doct... Umm, anyway. Bioware, like Maxis, have been declared a marketable brand name and thus have survived in name to release a pile of games that had nothing to do with the original developers, while the remaining Bioware employees are trying to resuscitate a failing MMO, put out the Mass Effect 3 fires, and not dick up Dragon Age 3 because it's the only franchise left that hasn't completely assed itself up and we all know how willing EA are to create brand new franchises.
Bioware 2008-being taken round to the back of the cabin with Pa's shotgun

Ok, I write about this subject way to much. I think I have a problem.
 

Little Gray

New member
Sep 18, 2012
499
0
0
Liquidcool said:
I see a lot of people dislike what EA does to the development studios they acquire. They have had that reputation for years now. So I'm confused about something and that is why do the owners of those studios sell their companies to EA? Either those companies were performing poorly or EA offered their owners a fortune. Or is there something I'm missing?
Its because EA tends to buy up a lot of studios and sometimes they close them. When a studio stops being useful and starts costing to much money in losses EA will close it.

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.

fix-the-spade said:
ShadowRatchet92 said:
I want to know what you think? Do you think we've been misjudging E.A's recent games
Nope.

If EA wants me to pay north of £100 to play all of a released game, that game better be damn well perfect. If it's not I'm not parting with sixty quid, plus ten to fifteen quid four or five times to keep playing. Nor will I be impressed when EA pulls support eighteen months to two years later and my game's not playable anymore (hi EA sports).
Is there a difference between not being able to play online because EA closed the server or not being able to play online because nobody is online anymore?
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Little Gray said:
Is there a difference between not being able to play online because EA closed the server or not being able to play online because nobody is online anymore?
Yeah, big difference. The latter never actually happens, there will always be some small group of people somewhere who want to play that obscure game 'nobody' bought.

Maybe they're a clan and it's retro Friday, maybe someone brought it up on a forum and bunch of people have gone 'I've got that!'

There will always be people wanting to play games, even if it's just twelve people on a weekend private server. EA actively prevents people from using the games they paid for (and the online mode doesn't disappear from the box blurb when support gets yanked either). There isn't even a mechanical reason for this either, games had built in server browsers, stat tracking and local server support over a decade ago, EA (and others it must be said, but EA have blazed a trail in this regard) have removed all that and put it in their own servers for no other (practical) reason than to gain control of the off switch.

So the games cost more and they have a kill switch built in from the day they're released. I have a problem with that, just because you no longer play a game doesn't mean no one else wants to.
 

Little Gray

New member
Sep 18, 2012
499
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Yeah, big difference. The latter never actually happens, there will always be some small group of people somewhere who want to play that obscure game 'nobody' bought.

Maybe they're a clan and it's retro Friday, maybe someone brought it up on a forum and bunch of people have gone 'I've got that!'

There will always be people wanting to play games, even if it's just twelve people on a weekend private server. EA actively prevents people from using the games they paid for (and the online mode doesn't disappear from the box blurb when support gets yanked either). There isn't even a mechanical reason for this either, games had built in server browsers, stat tracking and local server support over a decade ago, EA (and others it must be said, but EA have blazed a trail in this regard) have removed all that and put it in their own servers for no other (practical) reason than to gain control of the off switch.

So the games cost more and they have a kill switch built in from the day they're released. I have a problem with that, just because you no longer play a game doesn't mean no one else wants to.
The thing is there are tons of games where there literally is nobody who plays then online for days on end. Its idiotic and a waste of money to keep running those servers because hey three years down the road there might be a half a dozen people on a forum who want to play it for an hour for kicks. EA and other companies started using their own servers to save money. Its easier and cheaper to run one network of servers then thirty.

Keeping those server browsers, stat tracking, and local server support running costs money.
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
Little Gray said:
Keeping those server browsers, stat tracking, and local server support running costs money.
Thank you for completely missing the point.

It doesn't have to cost money, local server support, browsers and stats can all be handled on your own computer. That costs EA nothing, it's even easy to do. EA have moved all that off gamer's equipment onto their own 'services' specifically to let them hit the off button when they, not you, want to.

The system of game 'support' is a business one, not technological and it's something I don't like.
 

Little Gray

New member
Sep 18, 2012
499
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Little Gray said:
Keeping those server browsers, stat tracking, and local server support running costs money.
Thank you for completely missing the point.

It doesn't have to cost money, local server support, browsers and stats can all be handled on your own computer. That costs EA nothing, it's even easy to do. EA have moved all that off gamer's equipment onto their own 'services' specifically to let them hit the off button when they, not you, want to.

The system of game 'support' is a business one, not technological and it's something I don't like.
If you really believe that then you truly are delusional.