Poll: Which company is doing more damage to gaming?

prince_xedar

New member
Aug 25, 2010
156
0
0
Activision with its yearly COD sequels, or EA with its terrible marketing ideas>

personally for me, even though i love EA games, i have to say they are doing worse damage with marketing such as Your mother will hate it
 

Hisshiss

New member
Aug 10, 2010
689
0
0
EA without a doubt, there isn't anything wrong with yearly sequels if people want to keep buying them, and aside from that, really liking money is the biggest crime activision is guilty of, which is about as light of a sin you can commit as a business, since that's kind of what your there for.

EA on the other hand are just bastards, day one DLC, project 10 dollar, their childishly brutal and immature add campaigns, its like a fucking 10 year old.

To hell with EA, if they didn't publish Volition games, I wouldn't have to give those bloodsucking fucks a dime -.-.

It's also important to note that EA release MORE yearly roster update style games than activision anyways. And are certainly atleast as greedy, if not more, so there really isn't anything acitivision does that those vermin don't do worse.
 

gideonkain

New member
Nov 12, 2010
525
0
0
Activision, easily - spend 6 years to make a game, then make you stay connected all the time, then if you take a break from playing it, they disable your account and say they did it for your protection because your activity has changed.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Probably EA.

Activision are at least restricting their meddling to just a few major series.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
EA

Easy isnt it...

Insert Sports Game Here:
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012

You know it would just be faster to Wikipedia "Electronic Arts"
 

Raziel_Likes_Souls

New member
Mar 6, 2008
1,805
0
0
You know, as much as I hate the sports rehashes from EA, at least that crowd isn't all over my highschool talking about how sexy they're quikscop was xD and how they got the 360 dubel barrel 720 varial mctwist on rust with marathon pro and ninja.

Holy shit, that was hard to type. But at least EA still publishes games that aren't COD. Like Mirror's Edge, which I hope will have a sequel now that BF3 is done.
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
Neither. They're both just large publishers. Neither is actively stopping anything from coming out, forcing you to play things you don't want to play or kicking your puppy.
 

Eggbert

New member
Jun 9, 2010
161
0
0
StriderShinryu said:
Neither. They're both just large publishers. Neither is actively stopping anything from coming out, forcing you to play things you don't want to play or kicking your puppy.
EA is definitely kicking a puppy, dude. They won't put System Shock on GoG.

/troll

Seriously, though. They put Dungeon Keeper there. Why not System Shock?
 

leonhax

New member
Jul 5, 2011
35
0
0
EA i would have to say
releasing 35 percent of a game then releasing the rest in overpriced pieces known as DLC.... one fAAAMOUS exapmle is the entire sims series, dont get me wrong i enjoy the games themselves but by the time ive bought the game 6 new DLC's have surfaced with content that "revolutionizes your sims experience" or so EA says.... very very damaging
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
Activision. They have Blizzard. If only they could own some other horrid game company, then you would have the last six in place for the end of gaming. :(
 

Omniponent

Regular Member
Nov 19, 2009
38
0
11
EA for sure, with that Online Pass BS they're trying to get away with, punishing someone who maybe can't afford to buy a 60$ game, like a kid, they're just hurting them
 

Thaius

New member
Mar 5, 2008
3,862
0
0
EA, even just because of their awful marketing and publicity. Both release cash grab games as well as good ones, but it's EA that's actually doing damage to the medium's ability to really reach our culture like the medium can.

Seriously, whoever came up with the "Your Mom Hates Dead Space 2" campaign is a horrible person and needs to be flogged.
 

StrixMaxima

New member
Sep 8, 2008
298
0
0
The entity who is causing the most harm to gaming nowadays is gamers themselves. They are accepting abusive game practices and abysmal titles. Thus, they empower a greedy, barren industry.
 

NickCaligo42

New member
Oct 7, 2007
1,371
0
0
I'll play devil's advocate and say that Activision are just typical corporate jerkwads when you get down to it. You get the sense that they're difficult to work for, and I know a few first-hand stories of times they've hijacked the reigns from developers in the interest of business over creativity... but to be fair, most of the time they didn't "hijack" so much as make a reasonable deal. "We'll give you extra perks if you work on this game that we want you to make instead of that game that you want to make."

There's the whole Infinity Ward scandal, but we have no idea what the full details are on that, and it's largely an isolated incident in not only Activision history, but gaming history as a whole. What's more, to their credit, rather than liquidating the studio after half of it left, they valued the jobs of everyone who was still there enough to keep the studio alive. That has to be worth something.

There's canceled games, like Brutal Legend and Ghostbusters, but... have you played those? I'll be honest, Activision kinda' called it on those two. They would have cost more than they were worth to promote and publish. There's the death of Guitar Hero, too, if you want to get really critical, but then how strong of a concept was that for a game, anyway? Not enough to justify yearly sequels as much as a steady stream of DLC tracks. The business model, I think, just wasn't there for it, and Activision as well as the gaming world as a whole realized it a bit too late. Better that they shot that particular race horse instead of trying in futility to put more resources into revitalizing it. Give it a few years, then maybe bring it back.

There's Bobby Kotick's constant running his mouth off... which is usually taken out-of-context and usually amounts to about as much as any given Jack Thompson ramble. I mean, yeah, Call of Duty Elite, the writing's been on the wall for that one for a year or two, but then you can't blame them for trying a new business model, can you?

When you get down to it, they're just doing what they can to keep their resources focused and maintain a certain sense of quality. They're WAY conservative and uncomfortably forward about how much control they maintain over their properties and studios, but they're just doing what publishers do, and don't kid yourself thinking that they're the only ones that do this. Frankly I can think of worse places--like Capcom.

---

EA, though, actively damages the image of the gaming industry with its terrible ads and acts like a cancer to the companies underneath it. They've killed many once great studios, including Origin Systems and Bullfrog Entertainment--two companies that helped define what gaming is today.

Let's put that into perspective. They killed Origin Systems. That's the company that brought us Wing Commander, System Shock, and the Ultima series. I'm not exaggerating when I say that this is like if Sega somehow bought Nintendo and managed to permanently kill Mario, Zelda, and Star Fox. The hell of it is that they're still doing it--not as quickly as they used to, but I'll bet you that their management hasn't done Visceral or Bioware many favors.

Then there's all the consumer rights stuff. The DRM, the online passes, and the online distribution system that nobody was asking for. Then there's the endless sports game sequels; good business sense, yes, but it's well acknowledged in the Madden community that the last decent one was somewhere around 2004-2006 and that the series has not only stagnated, but actually gotten progressively and steadily worse. Shit, I still don't know what the Escapist's reviewers were smoking when they gave Madden 2011 a glowing review last year. I've seen that game in action, it looks pitiful...

---

EA is competitive, yes, but they're consummate under-achievers. They're the game industry equivalent of that one guy you knew in high school that did the bare minimum effort to get a B-, usually relying on gambling the grading curve, taking ill-advised shortcuts, or copying someone else's homework, and even then you never felt like he deserved that much credit. Activision is the snobby straight A student. You hate how stuck up they are, but then they consistently end up being right, and then you hate them even more because you don't like admitting it.
 

WouldYouKindly

New member
Apr 17, 2011
1,431
0
0
Can I vote Ubisoft? Seriously, they are really beginning to piss me off, always treating me like I'm a criminal.

I know EA is jumping on the always online bandwagon, but Ubisoft fucking developed it.
 

John Pepperell

New member
Mar 4, 2011
34
0
0
Between the two of them EA out of all of the developers I would say any that don't bring over games from successful series IE Bandai Namco not bringing over certain tales of games or the re-releases that japan gets as well as online pass ripoffs
 

everythingbeeps

New member
Sep 30, 2011
946
0
0
Eh...the pendulum swings back and forth. Any time Activision makes a stupid comment or kills another franchise, you can bet that right around the corner EA will have some idiotic marketing scheme to draw the attention back to them.

Neither of them is killing gaming...yet. Overall EA seems to put out much better games, so it's easier for me to forgive them.
 

Qitz

New member
Mar 6, 2011
1,276
0
0
I'd have to say EA since, as far as I know, no other company has a strangle hold on one specific game genre simply because no one else can use that license.

EA has an exclusive license with the NFL so only they can make football games with the NFL licensing. No one else has THAT kind of a stranglehold on an entire genre. Nothing kills innovation like being the only person who can do something, it'd be like if only Apple could make smartphones.