EA is not evil.

[AzrealMaximillion]

There's a a few things you're overlooking however, such as the fact that EA, while a company interested in making money, seems to me to ONLY be interested in making money. It doesn't matter what they have to do, they'll do it, if a company has a suitably juicy IP, they'll do whatever they can to acquire them and then shut them down after a few million in the pocket. After that, then they threaten their base players that they'll cancel funding for an IP because they didn't sell 50 million copies, when they know it won't happen to begin with. Practices like that are why people call them evil. And they may not always be intentionally evil, but I'd say that ignorance is a far worse type of evil than intentional.

All they see is charts, money signs, and plummeting sales figures indicating them that it's time to cut with the money and run. Then more than a few stories of them blacklisting their employees that leave them with every other place they can get on the phone. Which forces them back into EA's pocket, right where they should be. Fine, you can argue that it's all just a business practice, but if you defend it, then you have lost all respect from me that you've garnered by expressing your opinions, even if I don't agree with them.

You do realize that as a corporation that is traded publicly they are legally obligated to make as much money as possible right? EA being only interested in money is their job. They don't get a choice as a corporation. Blame American market laws for that one. An incorporated video game company does things a lot differently than a non incorporated game. Any video game company with "Inc" or "Co" after its name is just as guilty of looking purely for the money. Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Take-Two, Activision, Sega, THQ, and Capcom have shut down almost as many of their studios as EA in the exact same fashion for the exact same reason.

To bolster @thebobmaster 's point, The hate that EA gets is kind of childish considering they don't even have the most defunct studio "kills" under their belt. That title goes to THQ.

 

[Yopaz]

You're built too low, that one flew right over you.

The point isn't how fast wikipedia corrects errors, the point is that using a mutable source like wikipedia OVER an immutable(to the general public, anyway) source like a dictionary, when debating the meaning of words(i.e. the reason that dictionaries exist), is asinine. If you're going to debate the philosophical meaning of something like evil, well, once again, wiki is pretty much terrible for that, when you have a whole internet at your fingers.

Yes, I use a source that gives a detailed description of the meaning of a word than a source that tries to define a word using as few words as possible rather than debate the origin, the use in fiction, religion and media.

I also use my text books that explain a subject when I study for exams rather than the dictionary.

So you make my statements invalid because I use a source that is based on numerous sources rather than a single source (one of them being Oxford University)?

The dictionary defines words Wikipedia explains it. We also established that errors get corrected so it doesn't lack credibility as you state which I believe was your point to begin with is that not so?

Honestly though, I am done here. EA is not evil, moving on, I don't care.

 

[Ledan]

Valid points. I still don't like them, because they are a massive corporation. There is a reason that they are often not well liked. Those reasons may be vital to them being corporations, but people don't like them anyways.
What you've proven is that EA is a corporation, and not an especially evil one. You haven't proven that corporations aren't evil, or that EA isn't an evil corporation.

 

[Thoric485]

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

Nuh-uh. There is not a shadow of a doubt that Pandemic was only sold to EA, and consequently dissolved just to line Riccitiello's pockets.

First off, the three titles Pandemic released under EA total 5 million sales (that's $125+ million in profits). Which is better than some years BioWare have had, and Pandemic were a quarter of their size.

Secondly, EA have stated themselves [www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701123/ea-says-pandemic-closed-because-it-was-too-expensive-not-bad-games/] the reason for the closure was not low sales, but the high costs of keeping a studio open in California (something you'd think as an owner of Pandemic, Riccitiello would know).

And thirdly, they didn't even wait to see the fucking sales before they cut them down. Their first office was closed mere weeks after LOTR: Conquest released, and their other one - before Saboteur even hit the fucking shelves.

They cannibalized a good studio, deprived over 200 people of their jobs, just so Riccitiello could get a bigger commission and EA could slap the BioWare name on a piece of shit Star Wars-themed WoW clone that went F2P in less than a year.

It's disguisting.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

Nuh-uh. There is not a shadow of a doubt that Pandemic was only sold to EA, and consequently dissolved just to line Riccitiello's pockets.

First off, the three titles Pandemic released under EA total 5 million sales (that's $125+ million in profits). Which is better than some years BioWare have had, and Pandemic were a quarter of their size.

Secondly, EA have stated themselves [www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/701123/ea-says-pandemic-closed-because-it-was-too-expensive-not-bad-games/] the reason for the closure was not low sales, but the high costs of keeping a studio open in California (something you'd think as an owner of Pandemic, Riccitiello would know).

And thirdly, they didn't even wait to see the fucking sales before they cut them down. Their first office was closed mere weeks after LOTR: Conquest released, and their other one - before Saboteur even hit the fucking shelves.

They cannibalized a good studio, deprived over 200 people of their jobs, just so Riccitiello could get a bigger commission and EA could slap the BioWare name on a piece of shit Star Wars-themed WoW clone that went F2P in less than a year.

It's disguisting.

Interesting. If it is true that the cost of the studio in California was too high, then it just shows a lack of foresight. If not...then a lawsuit for wrongful termination is in order. Thank you for educating me, and I'm not being sarcastic.

But again, I want to point out that the Bioware name has been "slapped on" more than just The Old Republic. That, and the game wasn't a "piece of shit". It lacks end-game content, which is why it failed, but the game itself is well made, and Bioware has been open that most of the story was taken from the planned (and cancelled) KOTOR III. So story issues? That's Bioware, yet EA gets blamed for it.

 

[Lunar Templar]

the 'studio closing thing' (most of which i'd barely heard of btw) doesn't bother me so much, and truthfully 'i don't hate them', mostly cause i don't buy there games. they almost never make something i like so i don't deal with they're bullshit.

however ...

when i hear something like 'we're gonna charge for ammo' or 'X game needs to sell some ridiculous number it has no chance of hitting to stay viable' or the latest stupid thing like 'all out games are gonna be online from now on', i find very little reason to like them. course that's not counting my natural disdain of Madden copy/pastes they have the nerve to charge full price for, or the copy/paste that is Call of Modern Battlefield 15.

also, Mc Donald's isn't evil, they just suck at making burgers

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

the 'studio closing thing' (most of which i'd barely heard of btw) doesn't bother me so much, and truthfully 'i don't hate them', mostly cause i don't buy there games. they almost never make something i like so i don't deal with they're bullshit.

however ...

when i hear something like 'we're gonna charge for ammo' or 'X game needs to sell some ridiculous number it has no chance of hitting to stay viable' or the latest stupid thing like 'all out games are gonna be online from now on', i find very little reason to like them. course that's not counting my natural disdain of Madden copy/pastes they have the nerve to charge full price for, or the copy/paste that is Call of Modern Battlefield 15.

also, Mc Donald's isn't evil, they just suck at making burgers

A lot of what gets said, however, is taken out of context by news articles. Take the "All our games are going to be online from now on." Yes, that is what was basically said. But the implication that there would no longer be any single player games was made by the press. The actual statement? "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365." That isn't saying there won't be single player games ever again. It's saying that EA's games have been, and will continue to, include online elements.

Their PR needs work, but it isn't easy when their words are being twisted or quotemined for maximum outrage effect.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I am getting really tired of your personal attack now. I am not dragging anyone one down

The Quote does NOT represent

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

It does not say any of these thing. You Drew this from
"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365"
He doesn't brag about never making single player games. You ran with that. Not only that you decided to force it into a setting to make it seem as dammign as possible.

I am tired off your bullshit about me dragging you down when you have used the last 3 posts insinuation either paranoid or a cooperate whiteknight. Now I have sat here and just accepted it while you went more and more for me when I try to point it back to this. It may be my fault for misunderstanding you, but I wont take fault for you swing left and right with the ad hominums. I am not the one dragging this down.

I know how you feel, I'm getting tired of being called a liar and talking about things that have nothing to do with me.

Uh, yea, that's exactly what the quote says. At least we're not talking about some article I didn't write, though. It is very obvious from the context of the post you quoted that I am making distinctions between what he literally said, what he intended to say, and what people are likely to interpret. Distinctions you have twisted all around to conform to this narrative where I'm a liar and other people lying has something to do with me. The other guy got it. Gibeau may not have intended it to come off that way, which is why I am calling it a gaffe. He said one thing and meant another and people interpreted yet another. I think that's the source of the contradiction you believe you have discovered, and why you feel the goalposts have moved.

Another way of saying "force it into a setting to make it seem as dammign as possible" is "consider context". So it's exactly like I said, what you're objecting to is my considering this quote within the context of EA's patterns of behavior.

You seem to have this big canned argument about how people and websites lie about EA. If that's not so then I don't know where it's all coming from or why you brought it up to me. You have thrown this argument at me, called me a liar, complained about things that have nothing to do with me, and attributed arguments to me which are not mine. I have not made ad hominems, that word doesn't just mean saying something dickish. You, on the other hand, have attempted to dismiss my argument on the basis that I don't like EA, so don't tell me about ad hominems. You have not sat back and accepted anything, you came out swinging right from the start. If you think you can call someone a liar and then go on the defensive I don't expect you and I to get along very well. But if you'd like to reset the aggression meter back to zero that would suit me fine.

I didn't mean you were dragging things down, as in, your arguments are just bad arguments. I mean you are dragging me into a fight that has nothing to do with me that I do not wish to participate in.

 

[Britisheagle]

I agree with this! And judging by some of the comments we are not alone.

The main point for me is the fact EA is a company and, as such, needs to be profitable. Sure some of their tactics are a bit harsh but they get the job done and have helped release some cracking titles in their time.

Also they seem to try and make DLC, an evil that seems to be consuming this generation, worth having and good value for money in terms of what you get especially compared to competitors.

 

[Agayek]

Don't worry, you're not the only person who just cannot get into KOTOR the way some folks seem to. I've tried, time and time again to play my way through both games and I...just...can't. They just don't grab me for some reason. I can't quite put my finger on it, but KOTOR just doesn't engage me as a player and I find myself gritting my teeth at the tedious business of running back and forth through the same corridors and elevator rides. At least the ME series, whilst retaining these aspects, managed to provide me with a more engaging story to follow.

Really, I can't quantify what exactly it was about KOTOR that put me off of it. It just seems to fall flat for me. It's just one of those things.

The worst part is, I adore KOTOR1. I had none of the same problems with the original, but for whatever reason I just can't get into the sequel. It makes no sense, even to me, but there you go.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Evil is such a strong word...
I'd go with despicable, deplorable, shady, narrow minded, stupid, heartless, soulless, money grubbing, and tyrannical.

But Evil only has 4 letters in it so it's easier to type in threads like this. and it's the broader umbrella description that covers all of the things that they are, so you can see why people make that generalization.

 

[ElPatron]

"They are not evil because they are after money" arguments? That's like saying "everyone" hated ME3's ending because the it was sad.

ITT: Apologists don't even know what EA is hated for, probably read IGN's article.

Valve is not sending all it's profits to Africa and they are loved by gamers. You get money by having a good product and nice business practices, not by being an asshole. The latter gives you quick buck, but no long term profit.

see Dead Space

Dead Space 3 "needs a broader audience". They don't want the risk associated with DS anymore.

Army of Two

A shooter. How adventurous.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs.

Call it re-coup costs. I call it something else.

I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin.

I don't either, but the Origin shenanigans really have to give EA a bad image since it's inception.

And calling people morons isn't actually that nice.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I proved where they cut the quote and who did it. Do I have to do that again? Do I have to link to a dictionary definition of quoteminging?

They did so in order to force the message you now still stand by with they full quote.

We have different reading comprehension. You insist that quote represent that point then we will never see eye to eye. It is pretty clear he isn't bragging about never making singleplayer games, because isn't what he is saying. I am sorry no. You are plain old wrong.

Again I never said you you wrote the articles (I also pointed that out already, but I dont want to quote you myself). I said you are carrying on with their message. Message they had to cut the quote in order to make it fit their narrative. I am getting tired of this.

Fact:
That quote was cut to fit a false narrative. In its full form the narrative doesn't fit. Your narrative doesn't fit. Get over it.

OH. MY. GOD. I DON'T CARE IF YOU PROVE THE ESCAPIST TOOK THE LINDBERGH BABY. I DON'T CARE, I DON'T CARE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

I am not wrong about anything. His statement was badly worded. If the escapist said the exact same thing about Gibeau as he said about himself in a similar context you would be screaming "bloody murder!" and "yellow journalism!" and you know it. It's badly worded in a way that makes EA and Gibeau look bad.

Plus, when you consider the context of EA's pattern of behavior... You see the literal meaning of a statement or even the writer's intentions for that statement don't always represent the entirety of it's significance. Get over that whydoncha.

Okay, so you brought up those articles to say I'm carrying on their message. It's actually kind of true, just not in the way you mean. But even if you're right, that's not an argument for anything. And I can't figure out why you keep bringing it up. I'm totally baffled. What do you want me to say in response? What do you expect me to say? I don't give a fuck if the escapist mined a quote to fit a false narrative. That's your battle, go fight it somewhere else. It's like you were expecting me to defend them, and when I didn't, you were totally confounded. So now you're just doing it over and over and over again. I DON'T CARE, I DON'T CARE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

RIP BioWare.

I think that is just wishful type thinking that comes from people that don't like EA and want something more to add to their complaints about EA.

BioWare is nowhere near dead. In fact, BioWare has only got stronger since EA acquired them.

But of course I'm one of the people that thinks that everything that came after DA: Origins is much better than DA: Origins and anything that came before DA:O except maybe KotOR, but KotOR, to me, hasn't aged well.

I love how BioWare, after DA:O, decided to actually somewhat change things up with each new game. The Mass Effect series would have been stale to me and I wouldn't have played them all the way through if they had all been exactly like the first ME game. I would have canceled my pre-order of DA2 if I had found out it was going be similar to DA:O.

The only reason I pre-ordered DA2 is because it looked awesome. Got DA:O just before hand to make sure I was familiar with the universe before DA2 came out, but was barely able to play much of DA:O(20 to 25 hours), before I had to just stop and hope DA2 was better(which to me it was far superior) because there where so many things I found problems with in DA:O, I just couldn't keep playing the first game because it felt unplayable with the problems.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Of course EA isn't evil, but they certainly aren't a very good publisher either.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood. This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help? They can't.

How does this change the fact that they destroy game studios for profit? Signing a deal with the Devil because you need help has the exact same outcome as signing one for kicks.

Why would a studio be willing to be bought out if they were successful on their own? They wouldn't.

Yes they would. OSI was an extremely profitable studio. To go by your examples the games OSI published right prior to being acquired by EA were the extremely profitable and acclaimed Ultima 7 and the extremely profitable and acclaimed Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss. The prior being the pinnacle of the Ultima series, the latter being listed as an inspiration for Bethesda, Valve and games such as Deus Ex and Bioshock(if wikipedia is to be believed.)

They signed on because they wanted to make the first MMO and it was on a scale they couldn't do alone. They were perfectly profitable on their own, but they had a very costly dream and so they sold themselves to EA on the stipulation that EA would make UO possible. 15 years later, Richard Garriot no longer works there, all their core employees quit, and Ultima now has Ninjas/Samurai and for some reason Blackthorne has a robotic arm.

:words: bullfrog :words:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/tube
Sounds like a random project a few of their programmers did in their spare time, they didn't even bother to release it as anything but freeware. Meanwhile a game they actually published that year is an expansion to Syndicate which is a game everyone loves and made good money for bullfrog.

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 94

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

Metacritic is basically a function of 'how much money do you give to game reviewers'+'how well known is your companies name.' You can't use it as an argument of quality.

Also that statement ignores EA's business MO. You can argue that they actually do some good before they go into destruction mode. But who cares, we're talking about why people don't like them.

Step 1: Wait for well known studio to either need financial help to survive or to accomplish their dreams of a greater product.
Step 2: Fund them tons of money and throw a giant ad campaign out there. Let them make a few extremely expensive but popular games that make moderate profits.
Step 3: Start firing/laying off people, reduce funding, leave advertisement money the same, and require faster release schedules.
Step 4: People continue to buy the next few games from the studio despite a heavily increasing decline in quality, because they still remember the studios reputation prior to being bought, and the few games they really loved right after being bought.
Step 5: After people catch on that they are purposefully producing hastily made garbage games they gut the studio because people stop buying the games.

This is a highly profitable business practice, but its destructive to the industry and to the hard working programmers and writers who get chewed up, overworked, underpaid and then fired. It is by no mean's EAs business practice alone, they simply do it better than everyone else.

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first. There was a very jarring change in direction, and not a good one.

Mass Effect 2 was far superior to Mass Effect 1. The graphics were improved. The cutscene interrupts were cool. The gameplay was changed from 'bland I want to strangle myself' to 'some of the best RPG gameplay around.' With a wide variety of play-styles and replayability. Inventory system was boiled down to what was important rather than just having a billion items so that I have to dig through them all to find the one that doesn't suck. Side missions were fleshed out and made unique rather than land on the same looking planet and proceed to the exact same prefab structure(which would actually be realistic for space travel, who wants to make a custom base each time on backwater planets, prefabs are way cheaper. But realistic does not fun equal.)

There are three things that ME did better and the benefits of ME2 outweigh them. 1) Cohesive central plot. ME 2 was more like a series of side missions, but who cares they were awesome side missions. And up until the reaper abortion scene the main plot wasn't that bad, just less cohesively bound together than ME1's. 2) During threatening cutscenes in ME1, biotics(who weren't Commander "I don't care that I have an assault rifle I'm drawing my pistol anyways" Shepard) would glow blue, which was kind of cool and added a bit of visible depth to the universe. 3) Skin tight light armor. It made more sense to me for biotics to wear a light skin-tight armor than for then to wear the bulky futuristic version of platemail. Also femsheps butt.

 

[Aeonknight]

here's something new, a thread defending EA.

So to counter a few of the arguements that were countering the OP's arguement, here we go:

"EA kills developers!"
OP mentioned that alot of these companies may not have been doing so well before the buyout. It's true in some situations, not necessarily in all of them. But you know what is true in all of them?

your favorite developer signed on the dotted line. Whether it was an offer that couldn't be refused or it was supposed to be a "hail mary" to try and stay afloat, it takes 2 to tango.

"EA ruins franchises!"
Opinion. Some people still like the games of franchises that have been "ruined". Just like some of us are still looking forward to Dead space 3, or how people actually enjoyed mass effect 3 despite the terribad ending. This is not an arguement, this is opinion.

"EA is killing the industry! We'd be better off without them!"
No. We would not. As much as you hate some of their business practices or PR department, that does not discredit the fact that for the most part: they make good games. I realise that is also my opinion and is therefore not an arguement, but I leave you with this thought:

You're trying to say that the industry as a whole would be better off without games like Battlefield or Dead Space? Even the endless sports games that have their own following of loyal gamers? Talk about narrow minded. Even if you dislike the games they've put out, they're still one of the main competitors for another juggernaut: Activision. And competition is always a good thing.

You think CoD is repetitive now? Imagine how dull/lifeless it would've been if EA wasn't around to even try. It could be soooo much worse than it is.

But more so than that, if EA's games that they've put aren't your taste and you don't buy them, why do they bother you? You don't buy the games, you don't deal with it.

"EA's business practices suck! Online Passes are the devil!"
I won't call you entitled for having to deal with online passes... no matter how much that word is on the tip of my tongue. But instead I'll take us on a trip down memory lane.

Remember back in the Super Nintendo days? Multiplayer wasn't even a "thing" at the time. It was simply called "2 player", reserved for playing a game with you and your sibling (if you have one).

Now look how far the technology has come. You can play with hundreds of people across the world seamlessly, something that 20 years ago would've been lumped together with the whole Flying Cars in the Future category.
Gaming has come a long way, but it isn't perfect. DRM and online passes are a trade off (you can thank piracy for that. It opened a nice Pandora's Box that will never be closed. companies are never going to stop trying to defend their property, even if it doesn't work. get used to it.) If I had to choose between going back to the 2 player way of things or dealing with registration codes... bring on them scrambled numbers and letters.

If multiplayer isn't your thing, fine. But some of us do enjoy it, enough to warrant dealing with the mountainous molehill that is online passes. So yea, this doesn't make EA evil, it's just a trade off for things as they are now. At least that's how I see it.