"At least they aren't Activision"- Says my friend about EA

Recommended Videos

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
llubtoille said:
For me EA comes across as a more 'human' company, they do some silly stuff in the name of making a quick buck but generally seem to have good intentions, they're also quite a bit more vocal and responsive to the gaming public.
Yeah they do...even when they flat out lie to the world in their responses to the public (read: their statements leading up to and around the launch of SimCity 13'). Of course, I knew folks who were fucked over by EA's inhuman scheduling and cruel management, so to me they will never, ever seem all that "human". More like ruthless machines obsessed with efficiency.

Once you see the cold gears and steel beneath the skin, you can never quite look at them the same way again.

Whereas Activision is shamelessly ans self-stated to be a no-fun money making machine, their goal is profits pure and simple, though they seem to calculate on a mid-term level (ie - the impacts of public image ) and generally keep their mouth shut when it comes to controversy.
Ahh...I remember when they let Bobby Kotick run his mouth.
Amusing times.

They learned just how bad it was to be bluntly honest with their customers, giving us a taste of the real line of thinking that runs these companies.

And some people wonder why some gamers don't trust these companies like they used to.
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Yeah, there's really no right or wrong answer here. Both Activision and EA are huge, soulless corporations. They both have released faulty products, driven once popular/beloved series into the ground through serialization and/or misplaced attempts at 'broader appeal', and have both tried to dick over their customers with DRM and DLC in various forms over the years. Really all you can do with them is cherry-pick the franchises you still enjoy, don't buy into DLC or DRM that intentionally tries to screw you over, and just try to enjoy what you can.

On the bright side, at least neither of them are Capcom or Konami, right guys? :p I'd argue that in terms of actual game-making, those two are far bigger train-wrecks than EA or Activision. Square-Enix is pretty up there too.
 

J Tyran

New member
Dec 15, 2011
2,407
0
0
EA are far from the worst really, Activision are greedier, Ubisoft are worse for DRM and always online, Capcom are the DLC rip off master and the worst for homogenising franchises. They all harvest up, gut and then close developers, the problem with EA is they do a bit of everything so they piss more people off. People often ignore or put up with corporate bullshit but when a company uses every single nasty trick in the industry repertoire its a lot harder to ignore.
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
The problem if you directly compare one publisher to another is that, while they might be better in one certain aspect, they are equally terrible. Consider that Activision for its part is essentially the one publisher that has started and maintained its "run franchise into ground" mentality, yet comparatively they are less "evil". You cant really judge publishers by what they do, since they all to some degree do the same stuff, its really a question of who started it and who ran with the idea till it eventually broke.

For example those online passes, that was THQ. Always-On DRM was Ubisoft. Sequelitis or Annual Sequels was Activision. Im not sure who started DLC first, but Capcom ran that one into the ground with glee, although EA is equally terrible at it. The problem with publishers is therefore that they basicly all revolve around a copy-scheme, they copy each other and run with the latest trend until one of them breaks it. Activision showed what happens when you release essentially the same game too often when they killed guitar hero. Capcom showed what happens when you stretch the definition of DLC to its extreme. EA showed what happens if always-online goes wrong and also how to overcharge for DLC.

So really, who is the worst of them? Answer is, all of them. I have very little love for publishers, any publisher. I used to love Capcom, back when they made really awesome games like Breath of Fire 3, but now i havent touched a game of theirs in years with the sole exception of Resident Evil Revelations which i bought when it was on sale and actually liked it. Square Enix also so far hasnt burned me, they might not be benevolent, but at least they arent complete dicks. Ubisoft though, with their "PC Users are all pirates" and general disdain for their customers means i refuse to buy their product on sheer principle, no matter how good a game they release might be. On the other hand EA has also done shitty stuff but i am much more specific about my "dislike" there, which comes from Origin. If they make a great game that doesnt require Origin, i'd buy it, but since they are so adamant about forcing their shit onto me that i do not need nor want, im not buying a game which requires it.

So in terms of the actual OP: Activision is the least evil aside from Square Enix, because they are not inherently evil, they are not malevolent. At most they are incompetent and a little bit dumb, but they at least mean well. They are the lesser evil to the rest.

Captcha: Which one is the biggest?

Oddly specific..except China was the answer.
 

Sansha

There's a principle in business
Nov 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
EA... I don't know. Their policy seems to be to rush games to get them on the shelves and selling copies as quickly as possible. It's a pretty obvious 'keep company afloat' tactic, and given their stock price, I'm not surprised. Their shitty business practices should have bankrupted them years ago but they just keep going.

As I've posted before, [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.831673-My-experience-with-EA-customer-service#20306281] sometimes EA isn't entirely evil. They're just going about business in the shittiest way possible. I've personally never had issue with Activision (or Ubisoft for that matter), but then I've not played any CoD past World at War except a playthrough of Modern Warfare, which is garbage.

shrekfan246 said:
And lastly, for some odd reason people always seem to be required to "pick sides". So if somebody is a big Battlefield buff, they have to hate Call of Duty because of competition, or vice versa, or else face accusations about how they're everything wrong with gaming somehow.
This is something that's always bugged me. CoD and BF4 are equally rotten, as far as their current installations go, and I don't understand the fervor of love and hate for their own and other game, respectively.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
No one is as bad as or worse than EA.

Sure, Activision seems to be sitting on the Crash Bandicoot IP. But think about how the IP went through half a dozen hands before it ended up in Activision's possession, so any lack of recent entries from an age old Naughty Dog IP isn't exactly something to write home about. Also, consider digging up all the undying IPs resting in the portfolios of any global player, publisher, developer or other assorted strange owners and owning entities.

I sure would like to learn how your friend came to the conclusion that Activision is worse than EA.

How many games with an active user base have they shut down lately?

How many thriving and promising dev studios have they bought up, lied to, dissolved, ruined and shuttered?

How many IPs have they sucked dry and ruined?

How many broken promises can you list from the top of your head?

Did they feck up Sim City? I'm pretty sure they did not.

Please ask your friend to add some substance to his hatred for Activision. Maybe I'm missing something.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Activision stays off my radar. I don't care about most of their games, so it's hard to equate them. Maybe that means I'm sometimes unfair to EA, I don't know.
 

Not Lord Atkin

I'm dead inside.
Oct 25, 2008
648
0
0
I actually don't mind EA all that much. To me, they don't seem particularly evil, just clueless. It's like watching a self-destructive child eat glue. EA's worst problem is their ignorance of the market they work in. The fact that they keep aping terrible practices of other publishers without as much as a fleeting thought (like that always-on thing that they thought they would get away with even after Ubisoft and Blizzard didn't); The fact that they keep misjudging the market and acting thoughtlessly without considering the possible consequences (and making horrible financial decision in the process - like pumping obscene amounts of money into a new graphics engine for a game that can't possibly sell well enough to justify the costs, then not making any returns and closing one studio after another to even out the losses)... all these little things that no sensible person would have done, no matter how evil.
No, EA isn't evil. They're just really, really, REALLY dumb. Most of their problems can be (and indeed some already have been) solved by reading a newspaper once in a while.

In fact, EA has been showing signs of improvement lately. They KNOW they fucked up. And they are now trying to fix their PR. I haven't heard a truly outrageous statement from them since Ricitello resigned. Plus they got rid of that whole online pass thing, they've been working to improve origin, they fixed SOME of their pricing and their E3 presentation a few months back was surprisingly solid, with some of the announcements being sequels to cult hits that fans have been going on about for a while now.

They have been keeping quiet lately so I can't really tell what's going on with them. Now I'm not trying to defend EA. They have treated their customers like shit in the past and I am not going to forget that quite so soon. But I have seen effort on their part to improve their customer relations and I think that's commendable, if nothing else. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

Activision, on the other hand, are proper bastards. Unlike EA, they know very well what they are doing. In a way, I have to respect their talent for business. They keep pushing the line of what they can get away with but they never go over it. They keep a tight leash on both the consumers and the developers, function like a well-oiled machine, sticking to deadlines and never going over budget.

Activision is the epitome of the soulless production-line approach to game making. They do not care for the creative or artistic value of their games. They do not care if the games they are selling are good or not. All that matters is that they make money. And while I do appreciate that unlike EA, Activision is an amazing business and an investor's wet dream, this approach is bad news for both the customer and the devs. Activision shovels out one mediocre game after another but manage to sell them anyway because they can do wonders with brands and licences. When they get their hands on a profitable brand, they will just start producing games based on that brand as quickly as they can, leaving the developer no creative freedom, sticking to their guns as if with industrial adhesive. They will proceed to milk this brand until it's no longer profitable, then discard it and move onto another one. They kill off one franchise after another, and they ALWAYS keep the IP. They will not let anyone touch their franchises on the off chance some of them ever become profitable again. They will take an IP away from a developer who created it and either give it to another studio or simply bin it with no intention to ever use it again. They will refuse to sell the IP back to the dev.

That Crash Bandicoot incidents springs to mind. Activision was never going to use it again. Crash is in their backlog of misused and discarded IPs that they don't care about but are not willing to part with. They do not want Sony to have an IP which could potentially turn out to be profitable again - instead, they see that people are excited about the idea of a new crash bandicoot game and immediatelly go 'nope, we're keeping the IP and are probably going to spit out a few mediocre and rushed CB games now that you're all nice and excited and willing to pay for them.'
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Fireaxe said:
SWTOR wasn't an objectively bad game, as far as an MMORPG (read: Grindfest) goes it was actually fairly good.
It was fundamentally broken on release and some of the known bugs at release persist to this day. So excuse me if I don't agree with you.

ME3 was a third game in a trilogy, and was generally considered good (ending aside), which isn't a poor showing given how trilogies usually end up.
Being the third game has nothing to do with anything. It was homogenized into a third person knee high wall shooter. It was confirmed anonymously from sources at Bioware that EA directed the company to change the ending and then that statement was redacted when Bioware started taking the blame for it. And don't even try to tell me this was Bioware's idea...

And did you continently forget to mention SimShitty because Bioware didn't make it or because it proves my point implicitly?
 

Elijin

Elite Muppet
Legacy
Feb 15, 2009
2,095
1,086
118
I always thought Ubisoft was the original evil as far as this kind of thing goes.

From my memory, Ubisoft pushed cripplingly broken DRM long before EA picked up the ball and ran with it. EA just makes a million more games than Ubisoft, so overshadowed them once they were full pelt.

And while EA does plenty of terrible things, they also publish a wide range of games, some of which are great fun. And ultimately with that many titles out in the wild, its likely there are more people having fun with an EA game, than frothing at the mouth with rage over one. But this is an internet forum, so I doubt anyone will be prepared to concede that point.
 

Fireaxe

New member
Sep 30, 2013
300
0
0
Sarge034 said:
It was fundamentally broken on release and some of the known bugs at release persist to this day. So excuse me if I don't agree with you.
An MMO being broken on release is far from news (even the juggernaut that is WoW was totally fucking unplayable for the first month or so), and unfixed bugs (unless they're game breaking) aren't a big deal to me.


Sarge034 said:
Being the third game has nothing to do with anything. It was homogenized into a third person knee high wall shooter. It was confirmed anonymously from sources at Bioware that EA directed the company to change the ending and then that statement was redacted when Bioware started taking the blame for it. And don't even try to tell me this was Bioware's idea.
All ME games were third person cover shooters. They had other trimmings, most of which were badly implemented anyway.


Sarge034 said:
And did you continently forget to mention SimShitty because Bioware didn't make it or because it proves my point implicitly?
A) Because BioWare didn't make it.
B) Because Sim City hasn't been good since the SNES port, therefore, I don't give a shit if it sucks.
 

Sarge034

New member
Feb 24, 2011
1,623
0
0
Fireaxe said:
An MMO being broken on release is far from news (even the juggernaut that is WoW was totally fucking unplayable for the first month or so), and unfixed bugs (unless they're game breaking) aren't a big deal to me.
If it was just broken you might have a leg to stand on , but that shit was literally unplayable.


All ME games were third person cover shooters. They had other trimmings, most of which were badly implemented anyway.
All ME games were third person, yes. In ME 1 I never glued myself to cover, it progressed into ME3 where you could not survive if you weren't glued to cover. The RPG customization of weapons and in depth customization of class skill trees were phased out in favor of a more homogenized "shoot 'em up" system.


A) Because BioWare didn't make it.
But it does show that EA does rush shit out, does it not?

But if that is your reasoning then comment on EA forcing a rushed ending and making a DLC pitch at the end of the game in ME3.

B) Because Sim City hasn't been good since the SNES port, therefore, I don't give a shit if it sucks.
This seems to be a driving factor in your argument. If you don't care about something it is obviously not a problem for anyone else.
 

Joccaren

Elite Member
Mar 29, 2011
2,601
3
43
On the topic of Activision, there was a lot of hate when they merged with Blizzard. There was an entire sub forum somewhere I saw dedicated to how Blizzard changed after the merger. SC2 split into 3 installments. WoW having increased Microtransactions. I'd take a good guess at the whole Diablo III mess up being added to that now too.

Basically, Activision-Blizzard is far from good. EA and them are on the same level for me. They both have some decent games that I don't mind, but majority of their stuff is crap, and their just shit. Lets also not forget Bobby Kotick, who may actually beat Riccitello in terms of avarice.

Haven't bought anything from either of them in ages, and don't seem likely to either. If there were to release something decent, without shitty DRM and such, then I'd be happy. But... Hopefully in the future.
 

Rob Robson

New member
Feb 21, 2013
182
0
0
DustyLion said:
This actually got me thinking. Outside of annualizing its series and its love of paid DLC (something the other major publishers are also guilty of) what has Activision done that even remotely compares to EA?

I was arguing with my friend over the state of Battlefield 4 and EA track record with releases and post launch support but I just couldn't get it through to him. EA releases knowningly glitchy and some times unplayable games, they insist on the worst possible DRM they think they can get away with, they're customer support makes the DMV look down right friendly, and they're just as guilty if not more of running franchises into the ground like Activision is.

So how exactly, can one say Activision is worse? I've never met an EA fanboy till this guy, he blissfully ignores everything wrong with Battlefield 4 and gets upset when people start talking about its numerous problems. Then again I guess if you shell out 120 bucks for a game day 1 you better damn well love it.
Both EA and Activision are small time compared to actually-pretty-damned-evil-and-loathsome Ubisoft.

Though I have hated all three at times, Ubisoft takes the cake for most consistent and longest-running hatred. Thank god they don't publish good games, or I would actually have a dilemma.
 

jackpipsam

SEGA fanboy
Jun 2, 2009
830
0
0
I like EA more.
EA has tried out more new games than Activision, more diverse games than Activision and EA supports LGBT along with that amazing Humble Bundle they did recently.
 

Schmeiser

New member
Nov 21, 2011
147
0
0
EA doesn't concern me that much since i don't play their games so activision will always be the more evil in my eyes. They pretty much destroyed my favourite dev of all time, so fuck you bobby
 

Fireaxe

New member
Sep 30, 2013
300
0
0
Sarge034 said:
If it was just broken you might have a leg to stand on , but that shit was literally unplayable.
An MMO being unplayable at release is neither news or a surprise to anyone, this has happened to several games before and will happen to more.


Sarge034 said:
All ME games were third person, yes. In ME 1 I never glued myself to cover, it progressed into ME3 where you could not survive if you weren't glued to cover. The RPG customization of weapons and in depth customization of class skill trees were phased out in favor of a more homogenized "shoot 'em up" system.
For all we know, BioWare decided to do that themselves, ME2 (which few complained about) was published by EA too, so I can't see how you would blame EA for any drop off in quality between ME2 and ME3.

Bottom line is the third game of three in close progression is usually the least interesting because it's generally a cash in. I cannot think of a game where 2 sequels have been pumped out within 5 years of the original release and all three were good games, I'm sure one exists, but it's the exception rather than the rule.


Sarge034 said:
But it does show that EA does rush shit out, does it not?

But if that is your reasoning then comment on EA forcing a rushed ending and making a DLC pitch at the end of the game in ME3.
Every publisher anywhere ever pushes to get games out out. But I've seen no real evidence EA forced BioWare to rush ME3, I'm sure they pushed for it to be done but that's part of their job as a publisher.


Sarge034 said:
This seems to be a driving factor in your argument. If you don't care about something it is obviously not a problem for anyone else.
My point was Maxis hasn't put out a good SimCity since the SNES one, can hardly attribute that to EA, the Sims basically ended SimCity as a quality series.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
The best think Activision could do was keep his CEO's mouth shut. Every time Kotick talked, it was like he was just teasing the entire gaming community. Compared to that, Ricchitello was a cool guy. Activision haven't changed their practices, but at least they don't make them as public as before.

I believe EA is a lot better than Activision (at least they tried to create new things this generation with Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Alice, Crysis, Brutal Legend, etc...), but people have little memory, so last week evil is the biggest evil ever.