Why we do let EA abuse us and get all hyped up for TitanFall?

[Eclectic Dreck]

Because the only thing people actually care about when push comes to shove is getting games that they want to play. That is, after all, at the heart of just about every complaint people have about EA.

Consider, for example: Dragon Age 2 - the problem was that people didn't like mechanical changes (alienating the old fans) and the art reuse (makes that 60 bucks seem poorly spent. The problem was that EA gave people a game they didn't want after being sold on a game that was almost entirely different. Or consider Battlefield 4 - the complaint is that it was (and still is in many ways) broken. The problem there is they wanted to play the game but couldn't. If the game was broken and terrible, there would be no complaint.

 

[lord canti]

Because this game has yet to show any of the practices that EA is hated for and I plan on rewarding them for it.If that changes however that might change. I've never been part of the boycott EA just because it's EA group i judge them on a game to game basis.

 

[thewatergamer]

I'll be honest I was skeptical about titanfall, but I got into open beta and ITS AWESOME

I think it deserves all they hype, however all that said, EA is the publisher and I hope to god that they won't but they could, screw up the game entirely with DLC whoring practices or other BS...

 

[spartan231490]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

Except for the games that aren't good, or don't work, and have issues that make them either a completely different experience than they should be, or not playable at all. You know what? Gamers are entitled. They are entitled to ask for games to be not shit. They are entitled to want products that actually work. They are entitled to complain when a game does not work as it should, or even at all, because they paid for the game that was advertised, not the buggy mess they were given.

If you bought a car that was advertised to be work completely fine, run well with a good gas mileage, not many miles on it, and a decent interior, I think you'd expect that car. If you instead got a car that needed constant repairs, had shit mileage, had many thousands of miles on it, and the interior looked like someone smeared it with shit, I think you would complain. Same applies for games.

But I suppose that if you don't agree with this, the best thing to do is insult anyone that does feel the need to criticize games and expect a quality product from game companies.

Sure, they don't make good games. That's why Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Madden, the Sims, Dead Space, Battlefield, and Crysis never have sequels and have such poor sales. /sarcasm

Get off the cross.

 

[spartan231490]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

So Sim City,the BF4 lawsuits,and the PR problems EA has had for the past 2 years don't mean anything?If you're going to be a EA apologist then come up with a better argument than the tired 'whiny,entitled babies' ad hominem.

My argument isn't an ad hominem. What you call an ad hominem fallacy is simply an extraneous opinion. My argument is inherent in the good games comment. If EA was really abusive, we wouldn't continue paying their bills by buying their games. They're providing us with a good at a price we agreed to pay. You can whine about day one dlc or forced online play, but you bought the game, which shows that you believed the game, as it was, to be worth the price. And if, in retrospect, you really concluded that EA was delivering games that weren't worth the price, you'd stop buying their products. Nice fallacy fallacy though, try again.

As for your comments, those are appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies.

Lastly, I'm not an EA apologist, I hate EA, I'm just sick of people whining about it when they're clearly still buying EA games.

Your comment suggested otherwise,why else would you resort to ad hominem to describe people who don't like the way EA does things?You act like EA is doing people a favor and that they should shut up and accept whatever bullshit the company does.

That my friend is the kind of logic corporate apologists use when trying to undermine consumer rights.

It's not an ad hominem because it's not an argument. It's an opinion about the kind of people who complain about EA.

Also, EA does do people a favor, they produce and distribute games. You don't like how they do business? Don't do business with them, it's really that simple.

Also, your last statement is a begging the question fallacy. You don't even remotely support the claim you make that my comment is the kind of comment made by corporate apologists who are undermining consumer rights, nor do you support the inherent claims that my comment is inaccurate, or that making such a statement once would make me such a person. Even if you did, the entire chain of logic is an ad hominem.

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

So Sim City,the BF4 lawsuits,and the PR problems EA has had for the past 2 years don't mean anything?If you're going to be a EA apologist then come up with a better argument than the tired 'whiny,entitled babies' ad hominem.

My argument isn't an ad hominem. What you call an ad hominem fallacy is simply an extraneous opinion. My argument is inherent in the good games comment. If EA was really abusive, we wouldn't continue paying their bills by buying their games. They're providing us with a good at a price we agreed to pay. You can whine about day one dlc or forced online play, but you bought the game, which shows that you believed the game, as it was, to be worth the price. And if, in retrospect, you really concluded that EA was delivering games that weren't worth the price, you'd stop buying their products. Nice fallacy fallacy though, try again.

As for your comments, those are appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies.

Lastly, I'm not an EA apologist, I hate EA, I'm just sick of people whining about it when they're clearly still buying EA games.

Your comment suggested otherwise,why else would you resort to ad hominem to describe people who don't like the way EA does things?You act like EA is doing people a favor and that they should shut up and accept whatever bullshit the company does.

That my friend is the kind of logic corporate apologists use when trying to undermine consumer rights.

It's not an ad hominem because it's not an argument. It's an opinion about the kind of people who complain about EA.

Also, EA does do people a favor, they produce and distribute games. You don't like how they do business? Don't do business with them, it's really that simple.

Also, your last statement is a begging the question fallacy. You don't even remotely support the claim you make that my comment is the kind of comment made by corporate apologists who are undermining consumer rights, nor do you support the inherent claims that my comment is inaccurate, or that making such a statement once would make me such a person. Even if you did, the entire chain of logic is an ad hominem.

'They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.'

That entire post was a ad hominem....you insult a entire group of people simply because you disagreed with how they view EA.

UHHH...

http://www.screwattack.com/news/ea-creates-code-wars-steal-fresh-ideas-competitive-indie-developers

Or Battlefield 4 being broken, Or SimCity having DRM, or Origin being forced on every fucking game like the spam it is. Microtransactions in fucking Dead Space 3, the letter (couldn't find the link, but trust me it exists) from a housewife about the worker abuse there. They are FUCKING AWFUL!They are a shit company with shit policies and the quality of their products to me, can go fuck a dick.

It's not the same situation completely but it definitely fits here: I will never, ever, ever, watch a Woody Allen film. I will never, EVER, EVER, watch a Roman Polanski film. I will never buy a R. Kelly CD, I will never get a Terry Richardson book, etc. etc. ET-Fucking-C. This rule applies to EA too, until they truly clean up their act whether I'm a fan of their products or not.

 

[The Crispy Tiger]

God forbid people actually enjoy games.

Exactly, how dare they think about the way those games are made.

 

[faefrost]

Because Respawn Entertainment isn't EA and they're making a very interesting looking game. Pure and simple really. I'm not going to stop myself from buying every single game that has EA on it just to prove a point. If I really want a game, I will get it.

But by the same token it quickly became apparent that Respawn Entertainment doesn't have a hell of a lot of control over how their game is coming to market, or under what terms. Note the fact that Respawn seemed to be among the last to know that their game was to be a MS exclusive.

I can't shake the feeling that there is going to be some sort of heinous cash shop bolted on to this thing.

 

[klaynexas3]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

Except for the games that aren't good, or don't work, and have issues that make them either a completely different experience than they should be, or not playable at all. You know what? Gamers are entitled. They are entitled to ask for games to be not shit. They are entitled to want products that actually work. They are entitled to complain when a game does not work as it should, or even at all, because they paid for the game that was advertised, not the buggy mess they were given.

If you bought a car that was advertised to be work completely fine, run well with a good gas mileage, not many miles on it, and a decent interior, I think you'd expect that car. If you instead got a car that needed constant repairs, had shit mileage, had many thousands of miles on it, and the interior looked like someone smeared it with shit, I think you would complain. Same applies for games.

But I suppose that if you don't agree with this, the best thing to do is insult anyone that does feel the need to criticize games and expect a quality product from game companies.

Sure, they don't make good games. That's why Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Madden, the Sims, Dead Space, Battlefield, and Crysis never have sequels and have such poor sales. /sarcasm

Get off the cross.

Did I say all their games were bad? Please point out where I said that. I'd really like to know. Oh wait, maybe it was...no, no I didn't say it there. Maybe over here? Nope, not there either. Well, I sure am stumped, though would you please inform me when you find it? That'd be great.

 

[Vigormortis]

You're know what's worse than condescension? White knighting. Especially when it's for things you're projecting onto others.

At no point did I call anyone "children looking for the hot new toy".

So I'm white-knighting myself?

Look, you said this:

Two words: Instant Gratification. Most gamers are not willing to put aside their entertainment long enough to stick it to EA and do what is necessary to get them to change their behaviour.

That's pretty much it.

Indicating your agreed with him. And, since the desire for "instant gratification" is considered a childish trait...

Admittedly, maybe I stretched a bit, but you did agree with the assertion and all that it implies.

You used quotations, indicating something specific, and since you're addressing me with it, I can only assume you're pinning it on me.

Wasn't "pinning" anything on you so much as pointing out your agreement with Prime's post was insulting.

The meat of the post was more for him, not you.

So at this point I stopped giving a fuck about what you're saying, because your attempts at self-righteous shaming rely on putting words into my mouth.

I'm not trying to shame anyone. And I certainly didn't put words in your mouth.

I may have used hyperbolic paraphrasing, but all I really did was point towards your agreement with the "instant gratification" comment.

If this is the caliber of condescending behavior you're condemning, well, wallow in your hypocrisy, I'm through with you.

I'm not sure why you've become so offended, but boy....do you seem offended.

This reaction really isn't countering my previous point.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I don't care that we don't agree. I don't care where our opinions differ.

I was just saying that there are enough insults and demeaning comments flying around this forum on a daily basis. We don't need to add to them.

There are many reasons I'm looking forward to playing Titanfall. "Instant gratification" isn't one of them.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

because respawn isn't owned by EA. BF4 could be fucked up by meddling from EA because they own DICE. same thing with anything bioware does these days.
respawn had the same shit with Activision and back when it was announced that EA would back them(that was years ago) they basically said they would take EAs money and tell them to keep their grubby paws of the creative side. This is how the publisher/creator relationship should work

Here's the funny thing about Respawn. They're not EA, sure. But they are Infinity Ward, or at least the people who matter from it. Before that, they were called 2015, inc. -- that would be the company that made the third Medal of Honor game for EA. These guys have basically been bouncing back and forth between EA and Activision for the last 15 years.

 

[teebeeohh]

because respawn isn't owned by EA. BF4 could be fucked up by meddling from EA because they own DICE. same thing with anything bioware does these days.
respawn had the same shit with Activision and back when it was announced that EA would back them(that was years ago) they basically said they would take EAs money and tell them to keep their grubby paws of the creative side. This is how the publisher/creator relationship should work

Here's the funny thing about Respawn. They're not EA, sure. But they are Infinity Ward, or at least the people who matter from it. Before that, they were called 2015, inc. -- that would be the company that made the third Medal of Honor game for EA. These guys have basically been bouncing back and forth between EA and Activision for the last 15 years.

I know. They left ea once because there was too much corporate bullshit and then made the biggest franchise in gaming as until Activision decided to fuck with their bonuses.
I think ea is not dumb enough to interfere with their development, at least for now. Maybe in a couple of years but not right now.
I guess that's the problem when you want to make big AAA shooters, you need the backing of a big publisher.

 

[Ieyke]

I am cautiously optimistic about Titanfall not in ANY way because of EA, but because of Respawn.
Those are the guys who originally made Call Of Duty into a smash hit, and are the reason Activision can continuously ride that series straight into the ground. They're EXTREMELY good at what they do, and this is what they WANTED to do.
Also, I'm casually friends with their Community Manager, Abbie Heppe. I know her well enough to know how high her standards are, and that she left her job at G4 working with Adam Sessler on blind faith to work for Respawn (a company that didn't even exist yet) because of how much she respected the team they had put together and how much she believed in their project.
And she's still 1000% behind it, and even Adam Sessler seems to be right there with her on that, seemingly very impressed and proud of what his friend's company has put together.

NOW, however.....the ball is in EA's court. EA already pulled the rug out from under Respawn by making the game exclusive to PC and Xbone when Respawn had been working under the understanding that it would obviously be on all possible systems.
Respawn was kinda pissed.

From here on out it's up to EA to maintain the servers, to market it properly, to make it available in places where people will actually buy it *coughSteamcough*, to allow Respawn to properly support it, etc etc etc....and that's obviously where this all gets shaky, yea?

Now we have to hope they put it on Steam and we don't have to deal with Origin.
We have to HOPE the servers work.
We have to HOPE it gets patched properly.

All hope for Titanfall is based on Respawn's reputation. Them being good enough to make something great IN SPITE of EA's meddling failure.

 

[spartan231490]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

Except for the games that aren't good, or don't work, and have issues that make them either a completely different experience than they should be, or not playable at all. You know what? Gamers are entitled. They are entitled to ask for games to be not shit. They are entitled to want products that actually work. They are entitled to complain when a game does not work as it should, or even at all, because they paid for the game that was advertised, not the buggy mess they were given.

If you bought a car that was advertised to be work completely fine, run well with a good gas mileage, not many miles on it, and a decent interior, I think you'd expect that car. If you instead got a car that needed constant repairs, had shit mileage, had many thousands of miles on it, and the interior looked like someone smeared it with shit, I think you would complain. Same applies for games.

But I suppose that if you don't agree with this, the best thing to do is insult anyone that does feel the need to criticize games and expect a quality product from game companies.

Sure, they don't make good games. That's why Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Madden, the Sims, Dead Space, Battlefield, and Crysis never have sequels and have such poor sales. /sarcasm

Get off the cross.

Five of those had games that resulted in several backlashes and major PR shitstorms for EA.

Which is exactly my point. Despite the fact that people bitched and moaned they still bought a lot of the games and their sequels. Makes the bitching and moaning very disingenuous.

 

[spartan231490]

Easy answer. Because EA doesn't actually abuse us. They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.

So Sim City,the BF4 lawsuits,and the PR problems EA has had for the past 2 years don't mean anything?If you're going to be a EA apologist then come up with a better argument than the tired 'whiny,entitled babies' ad hominem.

My argument isn't an ad hominem. What you call an ad hominem fallacy is simply an extraneous opinion. My argument is inherent in the good games comment. If EA was really abusive, we wouldn't continue paying their bills by buying their games. They're providing us with a good at a price we agreed to pay. You can whine about day one dlc or forced online play, but you bought the game, which shows that you believed the game, as it was, to be worth the price. And if, in retrospect, you really concluded that EA was delivering games that weren't worth the price, you'd stop buying their products. Nice fallacy fallacy though, try again.

As for your comments, those are appeal to authority and appeal to popularity fallacies.

Lastly, I'm not an EA apologist, I hate EA, I'm just sick of people whining about it when they're clearly still buying EA games.

Your comment suggested otherwise,why else would you resort to ad hominem to describe people who don't like the way EA does things?You act like EA is doing people a favor and that they should shut up and accept whatever bullshit the company does.

That my friend is the kind of logic corporate apologists use when trying to undermine consumer rights.

It's not an ad hominem because it's not an argument. It's an opinion about the kind of people who complain about EA.

Also, EA does do people a favor, they produce and distribute games. You don't like how they do business? Don't do business with them, it's really that simple.

Also, your last statement is a begging the question fallacy. You don't even remotely support the claim you make that my comment is the kind of comment made by corporate apologists who are undermining consumer rights, nor do you support the inherent claims that my comment is inaccurate, or that making such a statement once would make me such a person. Even if you did, the entire chain of logic is an ad hominem.

'They provide us with good games and, like the coddled, entitled whiney-babies we are, we whine because this or that tiny little issue that isn't exactly how we'd want it.'

That entire post was a ad hominem....you insult a entire group of people simply because you disagreed with how they view EA.

An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem. For it to be an ad hominem, it has to be the argument. I never argued or even implied you were wrong because you're whiny. In fact, what I said was the exact opposite, that you're wrong but whine anyway. You're just fucking wrong, I didn't make an ad hominem. I insulted whiny people who complain about tiny issues in games they still love so much that they push the game's and its sequel's sales through the roof.

I repeat: Get. Off. The. Cross.