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

[CarlMin]

I love how people in this thread are instantly attacking the IGN article, while simultaneously proving it's point. And the fact that some people would vote EA as worst company in America really proves just how completely out of touch with the reality some individuals in our gaming community has become.

In one way, I'm ready to applaud IGN and Campbell for at least daring to post an article about EA which distinguishes itself from, and even questions, the irrational, mainstream sentient against the company, when it would be so much easier for them just to echo the exact opinions their obdurate target audience wants to hear, just like most other gaming websites.

A daring move that will, ironically, generate exactly the kind of impulsive hatred that the article condemns.

 

[lacktheknack]

Snipt

I'm one of the biggest advocates of "figure out what you're buying first". You're preaching to the choir there. I just did badly with the bread analogy, sorry. D:

Anyways, I don't complain a whole lot about the companies, I just keep on top of which ones do things I don't like. And you're right, I AM the consumer. However, I'm not a blind consumer. I actually give a rip about where my products come from, what it took to make them, and the strings attached to them. Free range eggs exist entirely to appeal to consumers who want ethical animal treatment, even though it has little to do with the eggs themselves (whether or not free range chickens are actually free is a different thread). What I think of the people selling me the game is a perfectly valid thing to consider.

As I said, I love gog.com. I like Steam. I dislike Origin. I make this opinion based on the companies running them and the attached requirements. THIS IS VALID. It's worth discussing. People who purchase games they didn't look up are silly, yes, but I don't. I've never bought a game I didn't like. It doesn't stop me from giving care about the other factors surrounding the game, often connected directly to the developer or publisher.

And I refuse to talk about the merits of Diablo 3, newer Assassin's Creeds, etc, because there's an entry barrier I can't surmount on them. Thus, I'm trapped outside of the game, and the only input I have is on the entry barrier.

"What do you think about Assassin's Creed: 's new features?"

"Sorry, I have no idea because my internet is too unstable to even consider buying a game with such restrictive DRM."

See the problem?

I'm gonna start out by saying that when I said "you", I didn't mean "you" personally, but I think you got that.

I'm going to try to simplify my thoughts on this, but I'm afraid I might not be able to do so properly.

People are forgetting that gaming is about the games. It's about the enjoyment you get when you play them. It isn't about business practices. They have absolutely no effect on your enjoyment.

For example; I like Call of Duty. Always have. Now, let's say Activision donates $100,000,000 to a charity. Does that make me like Call of Duty more(or less)? What if Activision spent $100,000,000 on euthanizing dogs in shelters instead? Would that make me like Call of Duty less(or more)?

No.

My concern is with the game, not the company. I don't care if they buy everyone in the world a muffin, or if they curb stomp stray cats for fun. It has no effect on my opinion of the game, and if you dislike a product/service just because you dislike the company that made it, you're a moron. And that's the nicest way I can put it. You can dislike the product because of its quality all you want, but we both know that isn't what happens around here. Anything attached to EA is quickly dismissed for no reason other than being attached to EA.

Take a quick look at the gaming section of the forums and tell me if it looks like a gaming section, or a "***** and complain about developers/publishers" section.

But here's the thing: If Activision donated $100,000,000 to charity, I'd be more likely to buy their stuff. Even if it has nothing to do with the quality, it's still a factor.

And I checked, it looks to be a healthy mix of bitching about publishers and talking about games.

We may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Evil Smurf]

I just hate greed and greedy people

 

[theheroofaction]

Hmm, why do people hate EA.

Oh yeah.

Origin spyware.
Your mom hates this.
Project ten dollar.
John from afghanistan.

To say nothing of the long stream of devs they sunk.

 

[Ziame]

You know what if EA went bankrupt and goes under, it's gonna be pretty cathartic when it does happen and we laugh and celebrate at its demise.

Although I will feel sorry for the people that will lose their jobs in the process if this ever happens.

yeah and they will hold all the cool IPs in their dead hands, like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space... really great moment.

At least they are dead right? right?

sigh.........now you made me depressed.

They can die after they let all those things go.

Read about Interplay (iirc) holding rights to FreeSpace even though it has no interest in it. Just because.

Being the greedy fucks that they are they will hold on to those franchises to their corporate grave.

Oh wait I forgot I only cared about Mass Effect and that's over. So, let them die. Or let them live. I don't care.

I don't know, as far as I'm concerned Bioware is already indoctrinated with the EA corruption so they are already a lost cause and that includes the Mass Effect series.

Alright then. You bring the gasoline, I'll bring the flamethrower then.

before it lays eggs.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Because they're cunts.

The end.

 

[brom0220]

is pretty anti consumer right now. I believe they are right that AAA games are a little undervalued on the consumer side right now given how expensive it is to make them, but it is madness to suggest that they are trying to tackle the issue in a way that is fair to the consumer.

Bad DRM, forcing the use of Origin and letting IP they own rot on the vine rather than trying to use it are good reasons to hate them. Killing more than a few good classic studios and churning out the same copy/paste games year after year is another good reason(who the fuck buys a new football video game year after year after year? a co-worker who was getting into game design told me that these titles are so rehashed that there is code more than 20 years old in these pieces of shit).

I don't buy a lot of their crap because...it's crap. Bioware is about the only reason I have to purchase from them, especially since 38 Studios is dead.


But the worst in America? Really? There are companies that have been implicated in horrific environmental disasters, economic failures and outright embezzlement on a scale that makes anything EA has done X 1000 seem like the taking of school lunch money from a kid once, by comparison.

Pretty overblown if you ask me.

Which I think you did.

But the worst in America? Really? There are companies that have been implicated in horrific environmental disasters, economic failures and outright embezzlement on a scale that makes anything EA has done X 1000 seem like the taking of school lunch money from a kid once, by comparison.

The western world really needs to get its shit together in this regard before we end up killing ourselves or worse. Especially the US *shakes fist* try leading with a positive example for once ya bastards.

I think Dexter111 has already answered why EA beat out the companies that crashed the economy and polluted the planet for the award this year. If you click on the link in his quote, he explains that all those companies have already won the award, and he even sources his info. Kudos. Basically, EA was the worst company that hadn't already won.

Well, they bring up some good points that I kept iterating over too, like for instance when this came up back in the day: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.369872-Why-EA-Just-why#14335463

I just don't agree with the conclusion.
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.

In the end, I'm happy that EA seems to be going down the crapper and their share prices are ever so often reaching new all-time lows:

And I welcome the new power of KickStarter and similar to self-fund games I (and other people) want to play. I believe the gaming world would be better off without Activision and EA, maybe not bigger or more profitable, but certainly better off in the long-term.

If they wanted to "better themselves" and be more attractive to consumers and get some good PR for once, they could always trim down all the fat to keep development costs lower and maybe save some money from those $100 million marketing campaigns to give them on to their customers.
They somewhat tried some of that in ~2007-08 by introducing a lot of new IP and trying to cut down on the gouging, but rather soon turned around to more of it.
Whenever they are somewhat getting into monetary trouble they aren't looking for a fault in their business models but with the customer, surely by charging more, gouging with microtransactions and offer more cut out DLC to buy at Launch, as well as producing ever more sequels and shortening the development cycle to a year or two tops they're going to fix that right up.

OT: I haven't been able to afford any new games recently, and I don't game on PC so I haven't had to deal with Origin. I haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet, so I don't know how bad the ending supposedly is, and I have done my best to avoid spoilers. From what I've heard, it seems to me that people are mad because the ending supposedly makes all the choices you made in the series up to that point meaningless, which is a bad thing for a series where your choices carrying weight was a defining feature. If at the end you ask yourself, "The path I took, did it really matter?" I can see how that would be terrible for Mass Effect. It would rob the experience of what is arguably its most appealing aspect and make the whole thing feel like a hollow shell of itself at the end. But as I've said, I haven't played it yet, so I can't really comment with any authority on the matter, that's just the general vibe I get.

I've never played Dragon Age so I can't comment on that.

I personally don't hate EA, but I haven't had to deal with any of its recent transgressions personally. I have heard of some of its business practices and I disapprove, but my disapproval carries no weight with them as this is the first time I have made it known, and even if I had made it known earlier and directly to them, they can afford the disapproval of one guy (or several million it seems). The article from IGN does make a few valid and understandable points, and some of the rational comments in this thread also make some good points, but what some (not all) of the people defending EA fail to realize is that despite some rather vocal opposition from its consumers (you know, the people who make them a successful corporation and should be treated with respect because of that fact) EA continues to engage in deplorable and disrespectful business practices that alienate and unnecessarily inconvenience consumers and insults those consumers who bring this fact up. And part of the reason people are so mad is that EA is a successful enough company that it doesn't need to engage in these kinds of practices at all. I understand that shareholders carry a lot of weight with a company and its policies, but the consumers should carry at least as much, if not more, weight because it is the consumers that fuel a company's continued success. Then again, I am not a Business or Economics major or specialist, so maybe I am too ignorant on the subject to understand the complexities of the problem. Maybe I'm just not thinking this through enough, but I doubt anyone is going to expect my opinion at 4 a.m. to be so logically sound as to be airtight.

A question (not topic related): if I quote someone who has quoted somebody else, do they both get a message?

Sorry for the long post, I would have snipped some of the quotes, but some of the points bear reiterating and I didn't want people forgetting the context.

 

[KeyMaster45]

Wow, people still read IGN? I haven't been there since 2006 when they said I need to pay them money to watch a gameplay trailer for KH2. I promptly laughed and went find it elsewhere with the power of Google.

I tried to keep an open mind for this, but after reaching the end and reflecting on it for a bit I just can't not feel offended by it. It's evident the author is walking on eggshells the whole article; he stresses more than once that EA dissenters are a very small minority, he plays the "starving children in Africa" card as a reason for why no one should complain about the working conditions, and then calls the dissenters haters. I've half-assed term papers with more legitimate arguments than what's in this offense to journalism. Christ, I've seen forum posts argue in EA's favor better than this.

Here's the bottom line. EA is a company that time and time again, in recent years especially, has made decisions and implement policy that push the boundaries of acceptable treatment of it's customer's. They had plenty of goodwill, but then they decided to start betraying that goodwill little by little, and now there's not much of it left. People are angry, and as someone has already posted on page 1, their stock is starting to reflect that anger. Obviously this is not a problem of a vocal minority, this is a problem of a majority that is very much pissed off. As the author stated himself, you can't use sales figures to figures out who's happy with them and who's not.

I don't think the company is going to crash and burn any time soon, but I do think it's only a matter of time before those in charge realize that things got really bad while they were trying to make the investors happy. By then though it may be too late. Personally I'd hate to see them go under because they're going to end up taking a bunch of great studios with them.

 

[Tradjus]

I am of two minds about E.A.
First, I hear a lot of people talking about how E.A is just in it for the money, and how that is the cause of most of the mistakes and missteps, and outright bone headed moves they make.
While that is certainly true, the games industry is incredibly unforgiving and E.A. has the art of making money down pat in the Games Industry at least. I don't think it's right to assume that E.A. making less money would be a good thing, or that asking them to think less about money is fair.
However, on the other hand, I think there are a lot of problems that come out of E.A. that could be solved simply by them having a better understanding of their customer base, and being less confrontational toward us. We give them money, I think it'd be fair for them to at least try to understand why, and at the same time gain insight into how not to utterly piss us all off. While it wouldn't be fair to ask E.A. to take all focus off profit in my opinion, asking them to put a lot more focus on understanding the customer base, and making changes that benefit our relationship with them as product distributors would be a fair thing to ask.
All in all, they really just need to understand this one, clear, concise rule.
Don't treat your customers like enemies, they give you money, you exist, -solely- based on the level of discretionary income they are willing to spend on your products, so treat them like friends, not enemies.
That's the biggest thing they need to learn, before anything else, and I doubt it would cost them much.

 

[jklinders]

is pretty anti consumer right now. I believe they are right that AAA games are a little undervalued on the consumer side right now given how expensive it is to make them, but it is madness to suggest that they are trying to tackle the issue in a way that is fair to the consumer.

Bad DRM, forcing the use of Origin and letting IP they own rot on the vine rather than trying to use it are good reasons to hate them. Killing more than a few good classic studios and churning out the same copy/paste games year after year is another good reason(who the fuck buys a new football video game year after year after year? a co-worker who was getting into game design told me that these titles are so rehashed that there is code more than 20 years old in these pieces of shit).

I don't buy a lot of their crap because...it's crap. Bioware is about the only reason I have to purchase from them, especially since 38 Studios is dead.


But the worst in America? Really? There are companies that have been implicated in horrific environmental disasters, economic failures and outright embezzlement on a scale that makes anything EA has done X 1000 seem like the taking of school lunch money from a kid once, by comparison.

Pretty overblown if you ask me.

Which I think you did.

But the worst in America? Really? There are companies that have been implicated in horrific environmental disasters, economic failures and outright embezzlement on a scale that makes anything EA has done X 1000 seem like the taking of school lunch money from a kid once, by comparison.

The western world really needs to get its shit together in this regard before we end up killing ourselves or worse. Especially the US *shakes fist* try leading with a positive example for once ya bastards.

I think Dexter111 has already answered why EA beat out the companies that crashed the economy and polluted the planet for the award this year. If you click on the link in his quote, he explains that all those companies have already won the award, and he even sources his info. Kudos. Basically, EA was the worst company that hadn't already won.

Well, they bring up some good points that I kept iterating over too, like for instance when this came up back in the day: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.369872-Why-EA-Just-why#14335463

I just don't agree with the conclusion.
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.

In the end, I'm happy that EA seems to be going down the crapper and their share prices are ever so often reaching new all-time lows:

And I welcome the new power of KickStarter and similar to self-fund games I (and other people) want to play. I believe the gaming world would be better off without Activision and EA, maybe not bigger or more profitable, but certainly better off in the long-term.

If they wanted to "better themselves" and be more attractive to consumers and get some good PR for once, they could always trim down all the fat to keep development costs lower and maybe save some money from those $100 million marketing campaigns to give them on to their customers.
They somewhat tried some of that in ~2007-08 by introducing a lot of new IP and trying to cut down on the gouging, but rather soon turned around to more of it.
Whenever they are somewhat getting into monetary trouble they aren't looking for a fault in their business models but with the customer, surely by charging more, gouging with microtransactions and offer more cut out DLC to buy at Launch, as well as producing ever more sequels and shortening the development cycle to a year or two tops they're going to fix that right up.

OT: I haven't been able to afford any new games recently, and I don't game on PC so I haven't had to deal with Origin. I haven't played Mass Effect 3 yet, so I don't know how bad the ending supposedly is, and I have done my best to avoid spoilers. From what I've heard, it seems to me that people are mad because the ending supposedly makes all the choices you made in the series up to that point meaningless, which is a bad thing for a series where your choices carrying weight was a defining feature. If at the end you ask yourself, "The path I took, did it really matter?" I can see how that would be terrible for Mass Effect. It would rob the experience of what is arguably its most appealing aspect and make the whole thing feel like a hollow shell of itself at the end. But as I've said, I haven't played it yet, so I can't really comment with any authority on the matter, that's just the general vibe I get.

I've never played Dragon Age so I can't comment on that.

I personally don't hate EA, but I haven't had to deal with any of its recent transgressions personally. I have heard of some of its business practices and I disapprove, but my disapproval carries no weight with them as this is the first time I have made it known, and even if I had made it known earlier and directly to them, they can afford the disapproval of one guy (or several million it seems). The article from IGN does make a few valid and understandable points, and some of the rational comments in this thread also make some good points, but what some (not all) of the people defending EA fail to realize is that despite some rather vocal opposition from its consumers (you know, the people who make them a successful corporation and should be treated with respect because of that fact) EA continues to engage in deplorable and disrespectful business practices that alienate and unnecessarily inconvenience consumers and insults those consumers who bring this fact up. And part of the reason people are so mad is that EA is a successful enough company that it doesn't need to engage in these kinds of practices at all. I understand that shareholders carry a lot of weight with a company and its policies, but the consumers should carry at least as much, if not more, weight because it is the consumers that fuel a company's continued success. Then again, I am not a Business or Economics major or specialist, so maybe I am too ignorant on the subject to understand the complexities of the problem. Maybe I'm just not thinking this through enough, but I doubt anyone is going to expect my opinion at 4 a.m. to be so logically sound as to be airtight.

A question (not topic related): if I quote someone who has quoted somebody else, do they both get a message?

Sorry for the long post, I would have snipped some of the quotes, but some of the points bear reiterating and I didn't want people forgetting the context.

EA's business practices aside they are not guilty of crimes like embezzlement or outright destruction. EA getting the title of "worst company in America" was consumer backlash completely out of proportion to their "crimes." So these other companies got the distinction in the past. Whoopie. They are still worse. Their misbehavior took the American people to the cleaners. Twice. Once for crashing the markets and again to bail their sorry asses out with no consequences at all.

Ea might be over charging some folks for a game. Boo fucking hoo. Perspective please.

PS the above quotes are a bit of a mess otherwise I might have snipped it down a bit.

 

[Von Strimmer]

Because they're cunts.

The end.

Because the share holders are cunts.

FTFY.

I like to believe EA's developers have passion for their game, but the evil shareholder stands over them and threatens to take their business elsewhere if they dont churn out something that will make money. Share holders kill innovation imo. This is why Valve is such a good company, no shareholders to answer to.

 

[ezaviel]

Sadly, I agree a lot with this article.

Yes, EA have done a lot of dumb things, and annoyed a lot of people, but the sheer level of hatred out there does not feel appropriate for their "sins".

I mean, there are companies out there exploiting children, destroying the environment, ruining people lives etc. And the most hate on the internet seems to go a video game company. It is bizarre.

EA have done a great many things that I dislike, but I would not say that I hate them, not even close. Hate is a rare thing to me, and I reserve it for people/companies that truly deserve it.

 

[Murmillos]

I have no problem with game companies making money, more power too them. That means more money to invest for more or into bigger games. But EA problem is they are more worried about their Quarterly statement bottom line instead of game quality. So much does that Quarterly statement matter, that certain games endings are cut and changed in the final months just to meet that Quarterly window. Artistic Integrity my ass EA, you forced Bioware to change the ended of ME3 just so you can have that game on the books, instead of still being polished and refined to make the best damn trilogy in recent decades.

You thought you could turn a hit 3 year in the making RPG into a yearly franchise, just look how that turned out for you.

And because you need to continue to pad those Quarterly statement every quarter, you come up with more and more ways to nickle and dime your customers, while delivering less and less quality in the process. You ruin popular developers, and either stagnate and rot popular IP's (because they aren't FPS) or turn a popular FPS into a yearly clone.

I get it, games are expensive, but you only make them expensive because you chase the 1% crowd that expects your game to be the end of all end graphics - and dump so much money into mostly meaningless bullcrap.
Just go back to making fun games, lose all DRM, and start treating your customers with respect.

 

[Kiardras]

People hate EA because they treat their fans like cunts. Restrictive DRM, day one DLC, all this indicates that instead of supporting us, they want to milk every cent from out wallets.

EA is not evil. They assist in funding many games, and many good games get published under the EA banner. But they are letting their pursuit of the quick buck get in the way of keeping a loyal and supportive fanbase.

 

[Antonio Torrente]

You know what if EA went bankrupt and goes under, it's gonna be pretty cathartic when it does happen and we laugh and celebrate at its demise.

Although I will feel sorry for the people that will lose their jobs in the process if this ever happens.

yeah and they will hold all the cool IPs in their dead hands, like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space... really great moment.

At least they are dead right? right?

sigh.........now you made me depressed.

No if they go into administration they will need to sell ALL their ip´s en masse.

Thank you at least there's still hope
If it ever happens, because right now EA being bankrupt is like when pigs fly.
But hey Duke Nukem Forever was eventually released.

 

[Antonio Torrente]

You know what if EA went bankrupt and goes under, it's gonna be pretty cathartic when it does happen and we laugh and celebrate at its demise.

Although I will feel sorry for the people that will lose their jobs in the process if this ever happens.

yeah and they will hold all the cool IPs in their dead hands, like Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Dead Space... really great moment.

At least they are dead right? right?

sigh.........now you made me depressed.

They can die after they let all those things go.

Read about Interplay (iirc) holding rights to FreeSpace even though it has no interest in it. Just because.

Being the greedy fucks that they are they will hold on to those franchises to their corporate grave.

Oh wait I forgot I only cared about Mass Effect and that's over. So, let them die. Or let them live. I don't care.

I don't know, as far as I'm concerned Bioware is already indoctrinated with the EA corruption so they are already a lost cause and that includes the Mass Effect series.

Alright then. You bring the gasoline, I'll bring the flamethrower then.

before it lays eggs.

Just two questions, how much? and what else can I bring?

 

[RJ 17]

I find it funny how he states that EA was voted the worst company in America because of nerd rage over the Mass Effect 3 ending, while in fact EA was voted the worst company in America BEFORE Mass Effect 3 was released.

Because there was no nerdrage going on over ME3 before ME3 was released...

There's nerd rage over ANY game (especially any sequel) before that game is released, but you don't suddenly see Bungie or Rockstar being called the worst company in America. The nerd rage that occurred before Mass Effect 3's release had absolutely nothing to do with it. In fact, on the scale of pre-release nerd rage it barely even registered.

I don't know about all that...what with the script being leaked before the release, the endings being leaked before the release, people bitching about the announcement of Day-1 DLC being something as important as a Prothean, and people STILL bitching about the fact that they were tossing in Multiplayer. The rage that came after the game's release was superior by far, but there was still plenty of bitching about ME 3 before the game was released.

As for my thoughts on the article.....yeah, talk about a fluff-piece. Sounds like the author wasn't out to get to the bottom of why gamers hate EA, but rather give EA a chance to exonerate (spelling) itself of any hate by explaining it's actions. The problem is, IGN, that we've already heard all of this BS in the first place.

Yes, it's true, the reason a company exists is to make money for the employees that work for it. But if you do your job well, you shouldn't need to sodomize your customers just to make a profit. Don't like people buying your games used? Try making better games. It's a novel idea, I know, but if you make games people actually look forward to, then *gasp* they might be willing to actually buy them new!

Day-1 DLC? Well you might have gotten away with playing it off as "This was all stuff we made after the game was already finished. We used the few months of down-time while finalizing all the distribution stuff to make some more content so you don't have to wait for it!" Too bad everyone knows that content is already on the disc and really the only thing you're downloading is a key to unlock it. Is it any wonder why people are saying you're selling them incomplete games and charging them for what you're keeping away from?

 

[imperialus]

One other point I'd make is that EA really doesn't seem to be learning anything. In the Deadspace 3 thread people were talking about how they were shocked that EA hadn't learned anything from the Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3 debacles but EA's habit of crapping all over a great IP happened long before that. Look at Ultima 8 and 9. Ultima 8 was just a technically bad game, but Ultima 9 was stupidified to the point of comedy. I mean your character spends the entire game wandering around with zero clue as to what's going on in Britannia. The whole idea was that they needed to broaden the games audience and give new players a way of figuring out Ultima's backstory which, to be fair by game 9 had grown incredibly complex.

This could work, except for one tiny detail. Your character is The Avatar, quite literally the Christ figure of Britannia's entire system of religion/morality and he's going around asking questions like "What are you?" When you encounter a gargoyle that you spent all of Ultima 6 leading a religious war against and asking basic fundamental questions about the 8 virtues when, to carry the Christ analogy further it would literally be like Jesus returning to earth and asking the first guy he sees "What are the ten commandments?" There isn't even a nod to dialog options that suggest the player might actually be familiar with the game. Anyone who does know what's going on I guess just has to assume that the Avatar took a major blow to the head or something and you get to suffer through terribly voice acted NPC's explain to you what the Codex of Ultimate Wisdom is.

Spoony (from the Spoony experiment) did a great bit on a part of the game where the Avatar asks (and it's the only dialogue option) "What's a paladin?" I'm paraphrasing Spoony here but the long and short of it is that for the first 7 games (up to Serpents Isle part 2) a Paladin named Dupre was one of your constant companions and best friends who sacrificed himself by throwing himself into a fire to save the world and prevent the Avatar from having to do the same. To not even have an alternate dialogue option from a game that used to have on of the most creative keyword based conversation systems ever was pretty well unforgivable.

 

[JediMB]

My biggest problem with Electronic Arts is that it seems to exist to destroy successful niche developers. They don't seem to realize that since video games cover a lot of ground, a lot of genres in both gameplay and theme, you just have to settle for a specific niche with your game and cater to that one.

Most commonly, you'll see them trying to appeal to fans of other franchises (with higher sales), by changing direction mid-series. And then usually it's a about making cinematic action the focus. It doesn't matter if it's a survival horror game or an RPG: it always just needs to be more like Call of Duty or Gears of War, despite that the players they're trying to appeal to don't really have any interest in playing games that aren't Call of Duty or Gears of War. (Why they don't ask themselves how they can appeal to more survival horror and RPG fans instead is beyond me.)

They can make a profit with niche games, but since they're publicly traded it's apparently their responsibility to try to maximize their profits, and they only really have one formula for trying to do that: widen the audience and squeeze as much money out of them as possible. Because it's not the games that matter, but the shareholders.

So maybe the solution is to do away with publicly traded video game publishers?

 

[Chris Beck]

It really isn't about hating EA, it's about hating bad business practice. It's not bad business, for instance, to not make the ending of a game something that pleases everyone, or even most people, that's bound to happen. It IS bad business, however, to pull your games off of a major digital distribution venue in the blatantly obvious hope that by having the "better" toys on your side most people will use your service instead. It IS bad business to repeatedly insult the intelligence of your user base by throwing out meaningless tag lines like "freedom of choice" when, all opinions aside, your company IS trying to limit gamers to one choice: Origin. This, of course, doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of EA's history of nickel-and-diming their own bread and butter with practices like day-one DLC and second-hand buyer prohibition. Do I hate EA? no, their games are just fine by me. Regretfully, I haven't purchased one since Dragon Age II was released (on Steam, mind you) because their dishonest and underhanded business practices have simply become more than I (as a consumer who believes that the buyer should still ultimately have the freedom of choice) could reasonably stand to see my hard earned money go towards. EA needs some severe changes in terms of its business model if it ever wants to see another dime of my income. If that sounds like hate then I guess I'm the biggest hater there is, but I will not be COERCED into doing business with any company, period.