So IGN decided to ask "why do people hate EA"

fozzy360

I endorse Jurassic Park
Oct 20, 2009
688
0
0
rob_simple said:
Of course we all know that will never happen because, despite their constant bleating about boycotts on forums, fanboys will always buy every installment of their beloved franchise without fail.
I can understand why they would despite their reservations. Take Dead Space 3, for instance. Many people aren't happy with it and the direction it seems to be going on, and not buying, yes, does seem like a perfectly reasonable tactic to teach EA a lesson about alienating your fanbase. On the other hand, if DS3 doesn't live up to their own unrealistcally high expectations, they'll just ignore the actual complaints on people, focus on the sales numbers alone, and announce that there's decreased interest in the franchise, which will mean that the franchise will be lost. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. Damned if you do (buy the game just to support the franchise, but EA only pays attention to sales, continues in this "broaden audience appeal" mentality), damned if you don't (don't buy, EA gets disappointed, kills Dead Space).
 

Avalanche91

New member
Jan 8, 2009
604
0
0
EA hate exists because

-EA makes terrible business decisions a la Origin(after taking a look I estimate more then 50% of the origin forums are people asking for help because their purchases don't work or origin bugged out. take a look there, it's really quite depressing)

-EA has horrible PR. (If one of your people is trying to make a system to have the player pay for bullets, you try to avoid that guy's idea from ever leaving the meeting room, not post it online)

-EA has horrible PR cont. (Their reaction on the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy was to call their customer base entitled whiners. Which brings us to-)

-EA ruins the developpers it publishes (Possibly not entirely EA's fault, I don't know enough about the subject. I do know that I enjoyed Dragon Age Origins a lot more then Dragon Age 2.)


I could go on, talking about Day 1 DLC, DRM shenanigans, dumbing their games down almost insultingly and more Origin bargage. But I wont
 

Cowabungaa

New member
Feb 10, 2008
10,806
0
0
According to me, this part is the key:
As companies go, EA is not as cuddly and nice as, say Valve. But then, Valve isn't publicly traded. Valve isn't owned by banks.
That's the problem right there. EA isn't owned by people who are passionate about the medium of videogames. The people who keep that business afloat probably haven't touched a videogame in their life. And for a business that's engaged in a creative industry that is dangerous.

Of course I understand that thanks to those unaffiliated people we get increased budgets. But that doesn't change the problem that the people who ultimately rule over EA just don't get the industry and it's customers.
Dexter111 said:
I don't think that companies should be there and inherently exist to "just make more money", I don't think that's a healthy way of conducting business and there should be company values, business ethics and morals to uphold.

And I don't think having those would drive them bankrupt or anything of the likes, just have to look at other companies like Valve and CDProjekt and they've seemed to manage fine so far without employing business practices that piss of a large part of consumers and without gouging either, not to talk about smaller development studios or indies.
That's exactly why I hate shareholders. They just want to make more money. They have no other interest in the company. And they ultimately decide the course of business, because what are you going to do without investors when you're a public company?

I honestly I have no doubt that the majority of EA's actual employees are passionate about videogames. But they're not on top of the food chain, and that's an issue.
 

veloper

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
Poorly researched article, but

"banning accounts for no good reason", should be reason enough to understand why gamers hate EA.
Some of us are just social enough to realise bad things aren't bad only when they happen to ourselves.

Then there's the rest of the list:
- pioneering heavy DRM with Spore and ME
- shutting down multiplayer game servers
- buying and destroying favourite studios
- destroying popular franchises in the proces
- day-1 DLC on top of $60 games (this one did get a line in the article)
 

teebeeohh

New member
Jun 17, 2009
2,896
0
0
i generally don't think companies should exist just to make money. i know this is the main focus but i always thought providing the customer with something that makes their lives better and caring for the people you employ should be as important.
and i hate EA because they ruined my childhood when they killed Ultima. and now they dare call their shitty steam clone Origin.
 

rob_simple

Elite Member
Aug 8, 2010
1,864
0
41
fozzy360 said:
rob_simple said:
Of course we all know that will never happen because, despite their constant bleating about boycotts on forums, fanboys will always buy every installment of their beloved franchise without fail.
I can understand why they would despite their reservations. Take Dead Space 3, for instance. Many people aren't happy with it and the direction it seems to be going on, and not buying, yes, does seem like a perfectly reasonable tactic to teach EA a lesson about alienating your fanbase. On the other hand, if DS3 doesn't live up to their own unrealistcally high expectations, they'll just ignore the actual complaints on people, focus on the sales numbers alone, and announce that there's decreased interest in the franchise, which will mean that the franchise will be lost. It's a kind of a no-win scenario. Damned if you do (buy the game just to support the franchise, but EA only pays attention to sales, continues in this "broaden audience appeal" mentality), damned if you don't (don't buy, EA gets disappointed, kills Dead Space).
I think you missed my point. I was saying that the fanboys will buy it anyway, not to support the franchise (because who is honestly willing to spunk forty quid/sixty dollars up the wall on something they will hate just to support a video game series?) but because their complaints are just impotent whining because things aren't going the way the want it to, yet they will still buy it anyway because a good game is a good game.

While alot of the complaints about ME3 seemed to be valid (I haven't played it, or any of the others), it's set a worrying precedent where now everyone thinks that if a game isn't being developed to their personal standards then they have the right to demand it be altered until such times as it aligns with their vision; even when that vision can be summed up as 'more of the same, forever, please' or what's commonly known as 'Nintendo'.

My approach to gaming is this: Buy a game if you want to play it; don't buy it if you don't. If a series I love suddenly goes in a horrible new direction I am sure will fail (Ratchet & Clank: All4One) I don't buy it, I play the games I already own from that series and I generally get on with my life.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
Well, so I don't hate EA. I dislike some of their games and a part of their business strategy.

I want to start off with saying that I don't mind day 1 DLC. I buy all my games new (or for PC) and never sell them. It's not an issue for me, but I can see how it may be for some. I haven't heard one actual good reason why it's bad though. It's all comparisons to cars and saying that when you pay the full price you should get the full game.

Mass Effect 3 is a game I don't care about and I am not sure I would blame EA for screwing up that or Dragon Age 2, but bullshit around release and publishing is their choice. However with Mass Effect 3 they did the thing where they had day 1 DLC which was exclusive to those who bought the collector's edition which put the actual price tag to 70$ in USA (don't know, don't care what it cost here).

There's Origin which is only a small annoyance to me, but it has pushed me a little towards console gaming. I like Steam and I have a pretty big collection of games there. I don't want to run unnecessary programs in the background. I have Origin installed, but I don't really use it.

All in all, as long as EA continues the way they do I will scoff at their stupid choices and their announcements, but I wont care much beyond that. EA isn't any more evil than most companies. They're just fronting stupidity more. I guess I can understand the EA hate, but I'm not one of those who hate.
 

TwiZtah

New member
Sep 22, 2011
301
0
0
Because they always want to "broaden the audience" IE. Make a shooty shooter of everything.
 

Ghilz

New member
Dec 14, 2011
1
0
0
Can't help but notice how the article makes no mentions of EA's habit to buy out promising/successful developpers and franchise, then grind mediocre, poorly developed sequels till they become a mere joke of what they once were and then EA can then close the studio.

Ya know, like Ultima 8&9, Dragon Age II (DA:O had begun development before EA happened to Bioware), etc...

I'm sure everyone's got their own memory of franchise going to hell after EA happens to them.
 

Hattingston

New member
Jan 22, 2012
96
0
0
I think IGN is going to see their numbers start dropping pretty soon. With their lack of acknowledgement of the fiasco that was the ME 3 ending, lack of comment on Diablo 3 problems, and articles like this cropping up, their viewership will (hopefully) realize that this site doesn't voice opinions they value and leave.
 

devotedsniper

New member
Dec 28, 2010
752
0
0
The main thing i hate is when they say there going to make the next game for a wider audience (nothing wrong with that), usually when it comes to dev's working for EA that means scrap most things the previous game has and make it different!

Theres also the fact they push such tight deadlines on developers that it affects the work, just look at Dragon age 2 compared to origins, the amount of recycling going on is dreadful. Personally i think that alot of developers which EA have working for them would be better off with other publishers.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,316
0
0
rob_simple said:
It's like when people rage over a company changing the format of a game like Dead Space 3 (without even having played it): if you don't like the new direction the developer is taking, then you still have two perfectly good games that you clearly already like to play; let the rest of us who aren't so close-minded try something new and also, if it really is the wrong direction, let the sales dictate that.
It's really easy to say, "Hey everyone, lets all hold hands and forget about our worries; to each their own." One could technically use this argument against almost any grievance others might have, but sadly life isn't that easy. You can say 'let us enjoy this new thing while you cling to your old' but you completely ignore the fact that this is the death of the series. That is not an opinion, but the reality you have to accept. This "New Direction" has increased production costs so much, they said if the game doesn't sell 5 million, they will kill the franchise because it is no longer profitable. In case you don't know about the average game sales, it's basically guaranteed not to sell that much, (the second game didn't even sell half that much) hence Dead Space is now no-more, thanks to EA's business practices. They created a problem, asked us to bail them out, all because they made changes to a franchise, changes that no one asked them to make.
 

Dryk

New member
Dec 4, 2011
981
0
0
rob_simple said:
I think the 'if you don't like it, don't buy it' ideal stills holds up in the above scenario because, as I've pointed out several times, all of the games mentioned in the example are sequels; if you like the series then you already have a previous installment in your collection.
That argument never holds up with media, because by its nature you have to buy it before you know if you'll like it. Which along with a few other factors makes it damn-near worthless as a control system.
 

.No.

New member
Dec 29, 2010
472
0
0
Hattingston said:
I think IGN is going to see their numbers start dropping pretty soon. With their lack of acknowledgement of the fiasco that was the ME 3 ending, lack of comment on Diablo 3 problems, and articles like this cropping up, their viewership will (hopefully) realize that this site doesn't voice opinions they value and leave.
I'm pretty sure that if people put up with all the other bullshit IGN pulls, they won't be losing many people due to this.
 

Scrustle

New member
Apr 30, 2011
2,031
0
0
I avoided this article since I knew it was going to be bull shit, plus I didn't want to give IGN the ad revenue for what was clearly nerdbaiting, but God damn you IGN.

Firstly, when will people realise that publishers do not make games. Publishers fund, publicise and distribute games. They do not create them. The only times when a publisher has any input to the actual creation of a game is when they want to meddle with it's design in a way that can make them more money. See Dead Space 2 multiplayer. But the main thing which I feel need re-iterating (for IGN et al., not The Escapist) is that publishers do not deserve credit for the creation of a game! EA owns some great studios who make great games, because they have loads of money. EA knows this and exploits this.

And yeah, EA is a corporation. Big woop. We all know that. That's not what pisses people off. It's how they run their corporation. They do it by using underhanded tactics to squeeze as much money out of the consumer as possible. Online passes, day 1 DLC, over priced DLC, paying for servers etc. These things are not necessary to be successful. Obviously a corporation wants to be as successful as they possibly can, so they won't be content in only being moderately successful if they're trying to be the best, but you don't have to be unethical about it. Valve and Steam for example. Valve are extremely successful and they have done it in a way that is focused around pleasing the customer and not being a dick, and it works ridiculously well, even though Valve are the biggest trolls in the industry.

And the past is irrelevant. So what if the company started trying to makes games that make people cry? It's been a very long time since they gave a shit about that. Now they just want your money. That version of EA is long gone. I'm not going to give a free pass to all the shit they try to pull now because they started out with good intentions. And at the risk of breaking Godwin's law, there are plenty of examples I could give of people who started with good intentions but ended up being completely evil pricks. Just because they started out trying to do the right thing doesn't mean that they are somehow undeserving of scorn for their later actions.

Although I think I should point out something. This article will probably perpetuate the idea that publishers (especially EA) bribe gaming news sites (especially IGN) in to saying nice things about them and their games. This isn't true. There's no evidence for this other than the fact that IGN and others give inflated scores (or perceived inflated scores) to certain games. But what's actually happening isn't bribery, it's worse. They pretty much blackmail them. And this is no secret. There's plenty of cases of publishers bullying gaming sites in to being nice or else they will withdraw their support, thus losing them ad revenue. Take a look at the firing of Jeff Gerstmann for his Kane and Lynch review at GameSpot. The editors buckled under pressure from Square Enix because Jeff dared to call it like it is.
 

Hattingston

New member
Jan 22, 2012
96
0
0
.No. said:
I'm pretty sure that if people put up with all the other bullshit IGN pulls, they won't be losing many people due to this.
I'm inclined to disagree. Prior, they didn't (or at least I didn't notice) when they outright denied large vocal elements of the gaming community and trumpeted the publishers or developers when the community was so obviously in the right. I see it as the difference of someone saying "Hey, this is pretty cool" and "NO. SHUT UP. THIS IS F*CKING AWESOME. STOP NOT LIKING IT."