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

[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.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

I don't know about you guys, but the reason I hate EA is because, frankly they seem to be activley trying to bring down the industry with their goddam horrible practices. It's only a matter of time until we ditch big, souless publishers like EA and Activision, but until they leave they're trying to break every single thing about the medium (gameplay, story, online, customer rights) just to stay afloat. Something's gonna give, and if we don't get rid of them soon... we're gonna have another crash on our hands.

 

[MURPHYCHACHO]

Ha ha ha. Oh IGN. You still think people take you seriously. That's just cute.

 

[Valdus]

Please don't go to the website to view the article. It's very obvious nerd-baiting. The people that don't like EA (myself included) are very vocal about it, so chances are this article was made to get people like myself angry, which in turn means we talk about it, leading others to the site.

 

[Krantos]

saying working at EA is better than working in a diamond mine, Id bloody well hope so jeez.

I particularly liked that part, too.

It's like saying "So I shot your dog. At least I didn't shoot your entire family AND your dog."

Just because it's better than Diamond mines does not make it right, ethical, or acceptable.

I'm not typically one to accuse people of being apologists, but it was written all over this article. The writer even mentions a lot of the stupid things EA has done, then brushes them off and says he doesn't understand the hate.

My favorite was the last sentence, though: "I think the average gamer enjoys what we do and gets what needs to happen etc. etc."

No. No, I don't think you understand. The average gamer does not enjoy getting nickel and dimed. They do not enjoy you preventing them from playing the games they PAID for. They do not enjoy watching you buy developers and drive them into the ground so you can buy another one.

Most people tolerate these things. They do not enjoy them.

I know this guy is just doing PR here, but that last sentence makes him come across as either a complete ass or a total moron. Don't screw us and tell us we enjoyed it. We'll tell you if we do, not the other way around.

 

[Krantos]

I don't care if they buy everyone in the world a muffin, or if they curb stomp stray cats for fun.

I don't think you're helping your case with that analogy. I don't think I'd buy anything from a company that curb-stomps cats for giggles.

I think I see what your saying though. To sum: "You can dislike a company, and refuse to buy from them. However, not liking a product just because it came from the company is wrong."

Essentially, Don't say Mass Effect 3 sucked just because EA made it. If you didn't like the game itself, fine. Or if you refused to buy it because EA made it, fine. But don't confuse the two.

Does that, basically, sum up what you're saying? If so, I agree with you.

If on the other hand, you're saying the company's policies should have no impact on your purchase and you should only care about the product, I must respectfully disagree.

As a consumer any purchase you make is akin to giving the company an endorsement. You're saying "I approve of what you are producing and how you are doing it. Here's some money to keep doing so."

I don't like EA's business practices, so I don't buy from them. Which kind of sucks, really, because BF3 looks really good.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

Now the thing is when EA does an objectively good thing they still get bitched at. Case and point : The kickstarer indie support.

It was pretty simple. Any project that had reached their goal in funding would be given 90 days free distribution over Origin. Now say what you will about Origin, but free distribution is free distribution. It is a free meal for a developer who is working hard to make the money last. Yet comment on every site I found this story on was damming them for doing this.

Its no longer about what they do, But who they are. They are just a hate target now regardless of what they do.

Last time I talked about this someone quoted me and said "Because we know the minute we change our tune they change theirs too and go back to being exploitative douchebags.".

That is more or less saying "If we stop hating them they will do something that makes them deserving of the hate". Its not about what they do. It is about who they are now.

That's probably true of most people, but I, personally, don't hold the Indie Support thing against EA. My issues with Origin are issues with Origin and Origin alone. I don't remember the Indie Support thing happening, but now that I've been told, my goodwill towards EA has increased. I won't take advantage of it (because Origin), but oh well.

Feel better?

 

[Zack Alklazaris]

EA has been losing money for years. Honestly I don't care how big they are I hate how they rush products and try to cast a wide net to gain the most market. These are overused tactics to gain the most capital and unfortunately the product suffers for it.

Instead of trying to make everyone happy with one product. Make multiple products that are real good for a select range of customers and take the time to make your product strong in substance. If your only making 5 dollars a game then raise the price. I don't mind paying 80 dollars for a game I really want. Besides we've been sitting at $50-$60 for a decade now.

Thats all I want... thats all I ever wanted. I am just tired of the generic games that have come out of EA. They are the first of many gaming corporations that are going the way Hollywood did and it makes me sad.

Marketing works well when your selling a product such as shampoo, cookies, or a clothes. Stories and gameplay are much more complex than that.

 

[ThriKreen]

Yet again, I don't think by linking that you are making quite the point you are trying to make, I actually agree though, EVERYONE in this thread should read that.

On what point do you say I'm trying to make then?

I seem to have missed the memo that made you the source of authority.

But not because it'd exonerate EA, but because that article is a prime example of what business practices they use against competitors, what kind of mistakes they make with acquisitions of companies (after all they're responsible for them still running after being bought off), as well as how EAs corporate culture and infighting potentially ruined a once great studio, many games and made almost every single employee leave.

I never tried exonerating EA, just saying that if fault is a colour, and EA is blue and Studio-That-Got-Shutdown is red, then the resulting colour is some mix of purple.

You, and many others on the other hand, seem to just say "NOPE!" and you cover your ears going "Lalala I will not acknowledge the studio had any fault in their own closure! The colour of fault is red and can only be red!" despite plenty of evidence to the contrary, like in said article or tidbits like this: "In response to EA's buyout, many long-time Westwood employees quit and left Westwood Studios." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westwood_Studios].

 

[giggetygooo]

Bye bye Deadspace, I have great memories of both games, really enjoyed them. Can only hope that Deadgears 3 bombs so badly as to send some kind of warning message.

 

[Callate]

"We're deeply baffled why anyone could be so mean to poor, defenseless EA. So rather than asking any serious questions about why that might be the case, we said, "hell, no one thinks we have any journalistic integrity anyway", and decided to offer up our space for a fluff piece from one of EA's top executives. Mmm, mmm, do his boots taste good!"

Seriously? The "alternative" to accepting the system is to move to Cuba? Companies needing to make a profit, or other companies also behaving badly is an excuse for all behavior?

I'd call it "bullshit", but at least that can be used for fertilizer or fuel. Someone who pens a piece like this with a straight face doesn't deserve a place in any kind of journalism.

 

[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.

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

A cistern will do. Bring marshmallows.

 

[survivor686]

I'd think its the fact that some of EA practices seem to muscle out the other talent in the market.

EA doesn't have a habit of producing unique content by itself (I'll admit there are some exceptions). It business model seems to be dependent on buying out smaller companies and their IPs and then milking it for all its worth and beyond.

While there are projects that benefited from EA's investment (ME2, CnC 3, Dragon Age etc..), there exists other projects which have suffered as well (ME 3, CnC 4, DA2 etc...). Combined with the rise of charging full price for products, with signifigant content held back (aka: Javik from ME3), I personally find myself wary of purchasing EA products at full price (ME3 was the exception...and now I regret it).

There are plenty of other great companies out there, don't let EA's practices negatively affect them.

 

[AncientSpark]

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.

That's your prerogative. If anyone hates on you for that, then they rightfully deserve as much spite as you have. But the thing is that not everyone shops this way and not even most people shop this way. Many people do look into design ideas, advertising, business practices, and similar ideas to figure out what they're getting into. Short of actually buying the game and playing it, that is largely the only ways people can hear about the game.

The thing is that "***** and complain about developers/publishers" is not only an inevitable fact about the industry, it HAS A PLACE in the industry.