EA is not evil.

[Psychedelic Spartan]

I agree with you that EA is not completely evil. In my book they are half evil because of the online passes bullshit. I got a used copy of Madden 11 and found out that I needed an online pass, but amazingly, they gave me one without any hassle... So they're not 100% evil.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

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.

Now you are a liar trying to pidgeonhole. If the actual Quote was there and not a damm attempt to make it into your messed up narrative.

Okay, I don't actually have a crystal ball, I was lying about that. But I was only supposing what you might say in a particular circumstance. Call that a lie if you like, I guess. The actual quote was there, unless you are denying that Frank Gibeau said: "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"

I made distinctions between what he literally said, what he probably intended to mean, what he should have expected to be interpreted as meaning, what he actually was interpreted as meaning, and finally what his statement should be interpreted to mean. You have broken down those distinctions and thrown it all into a big, confusing pile so you can call "liar!" to anything you like. I can't even defend myself because I literally don't know what you are calling me a "liar" for.

Basically your argument is that inferring anything from the written word that the author did not intend you to infer is dishonest. That's a politician's wet dream. That's the kind of argument that sounds great on the internet because it is convenient, but you could never put it into practice and you certainly couldn't live your life by it. Even if you could, it would be pointless to try.

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.

Dont tell me this has nothing to do with you when you are deliberately twisting it to something that is factually false. I am done with you. You dont argue any points. Just ad hominum followed pidgeonholing. I am tired of your dishonesty and your bullshit.

I don't argue points because you don't raise any. You just call me a liar, don't even tell me why, and talk about some article that has nothing to do with me. What is it with the fucking article? It's pretty ironic that you're quotemining me now.

I know what I said, you don't have to keep posting it. It's not my fault if you interpret the text I wrote badly and not in accordance with my intentions, intentions which the context of that post make very, very clear. I say in that same post I know perfectly well what he was trying to say. I don't know why we are having this conversation in the first place. I have been fair and even-handed about the quote. Ironically, you are quotemining me to make it look like I think Gibeau gleefully refuses to make single player games, even though the context makes it obvious that's not what I'm saying because I explicitly denied that exact thing in the very post you quoted. I think you will agree quotemining is not a very honest thing to do. At least you didn't think so when the escapist did it.

You call me dishonest for two reasons. First, because I don't agree with you. Second, because I criticize EA. I stand by everything I have said in total good faith.

Fact remains:
The man was purposely missquoted in order to cater to a demographic.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT? WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE? I DON'T CARE. I DON'T CARE. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME. I DON'T CARE. I DON'T CARE. I DON'T CARE.

You are part of that demographic and now use the quote to further that narrative.

I have seen people project this hard before, but I have never seen someone describe their own projection fantasy this explicitly before. This is quite possibly the most insulting thing that has ever been directed at me on the escapist forums. It all makes sense now. You think you are so far above the ignorant masses that you cannot even consider the possibility that I may have formed an opinion that wasn't not only influenced, but directly informed by a specific bad and misleading article. That's why you keep bringing up the article. You think I'm so dumb that my opinion is based on pure blind faith, and if you can only discredit the article, the illusion will be shattered. This is the most outrageous expression of hubris and condescension I have seen in a long time, and that's saying something.

Well, just forget it. You can't disprove the theory of gravity by disproving god. And I'm an atheist.

Go be dishonest at someone else. Liars are not worth my damm time.

Fuck you pal. But thanks for dropping the act, you have been abusive from the start.

My older post you quote here isn't the only post of mine you have twisted and mangled until unrecognizable, often saying it means the opposite of what was originally written. You started off with a narrative, namely that I am a liar and a dullard. And this whole conversation has been nothing but your attempt to cram the facts into that narrative even if you have to break them in two to do it. That's why you keep calling me a liar and then just letting it hang with no explanation. That's why all your arguments have nothing to do with me. This isn't about me at all. It's pure projection, all of it, the whole load of horseshit.

 

[minimacker]

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layoffs.

Valve is a corporation too. They offer free content, free updates, free games, free modding tools and monthly sales that can usually go down to a 75% off.

Yet... they're making a bejesus amount of money. With the recent addition of the new Steam Greenlight service, I'm surprised EA even has customers.

 

[Ryan Hughes]

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layoffs.

First off, no. They are not evil. BP is evil, willingly running an offshore oil rig into the ground because they thought they could get away with it, resulting in 12 deaths and the one of the worst environmental disasters in history. UBS is evil, they are accused of knowingly laundering money for drug cartels, and thus helping to finance the current violence in Mexico and much crime in America and around the world.

So, yeah, you are right, lets save the "evil" designation for companies that really, truly are evil.

They are still a bad company, though. The most inane argument commonly rallied in defense of corporations that have bad practices is quoted above, i.e. that they are companies and they have to make money. This is false. Corporations used to have to demonstrate how their actions would benefit the public interest before they could operate. And I think it is a shame that they no longer have to do so.

Also, no one is asking EA to lose money, just to cut the excessive costs of their development as well as their executive pay in order to re-adjust their business model away from flashy games with only minor original content and loads of DLC.

Every system, including all businesses, must be based on moral and ethical premises. Adam Smith, James Madison, and others responsible for setting up our current economic system understood this, which is why Smith published two books on moral philosophy before he published "Wealth of Nations." He realized that systems lacking moral thinking and ethical restraint would eventually collapse in onto themselves, regardless of which economic theories they adhered to. In short, EA itself -by ignoring its moral duty to the well being of its customers- is actually on a path to self-disintegration, and thus complete loss of the company and its employees.

 

[lacktheknack]

You see, I don't dislike them because they want to make money.

I dislike them for HOW they try to make money.

Big difference.

CD Projekt wants to make money, and I throw gallons and gallons of it at them as hard as I can. EA wants to make money, but they get token purchases from me on rare occasion. Why? Compare gog.com to Origin + DLC and I think you'll figure it out.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

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.

An argument that other people suck as well, is not an argument that EA doesn't.

"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.

A majority opinion means it's essentially a truth for all purposes. If I publish a really shitty game with terrible gameplay and pathetic writing, and everyone goes wow that games is shitty. Saying WELL THAT'S JUST ALL YOUR OPINIONS. Doesn't make the game suck any less hard.

You're trying to say that the industry as a whole would be better off without games like Battlefield

Battlefield 1942 was published before EA acquired DICE. So this is factually inaccurate. Do you think that after making Battlefield 1942 they would have just randomly stopped making battlefield games if they didn't sell to EA?

Also I haven't bothered to play any of the versions published by EA, except one time at one of those gaming LAN places. A friend had a 'bring a friend for free coupon' and he wanted to see how good I was at videogames. So we played some battlefield 2. I was unimpressed with it.

or Dead Space?

I certainly wouldn't care. Never bothered to play it as it looked pretty bland, the reviews made it sound uninteresting and the main character looks kind of stupid.

Even the endless sports games that have their own following of loyal gamers?

Yes, because they had exclusive rights to make NFL games. If they didn't violate monopoly rights there would be plenty more 'endless sports games' from other devs.

Talk about narrow minded.

Yes because the non-narrow minded point of view is that if EA disappeared no studios would fill the void at all. And there would just be a dirth of gaming where people would go, well EA doesn't exist anymore so I guess lets just not make any games. And all the developers and writers would just go work at Starbucks.

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.

EA's attempts to beat CoD are to copy everything Activision-Blizard does, and then add jet planes and tanks. It's exactly as repetitive and unimaginative. I'm not saying it isn't good, but its definitely not a statement for gaming content diversity.

"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.

Things were worse before is not an argument for things being good now. Please note: this is me pointing out that arguments about other things are not arguments about the subject at hand. I personally have no idea what online passes even are.

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).

Multiplayer was a thing at the time for us PC gaming ubermensches.

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.

Unless of course you count the fact that 2012 minus 20 is 1992 and the internet was already fully functioning in it's modern infrastructure by 1990. And before that there was what amounted to multiple functioning Internets dating back to the early 70s such as ARPANET and NSFNET that merely had different protocols and systems. Which were then standardized into the unified system that we have now.

Or the fact that flying cars already exist and are merely impractical and extremely expensive and thus haven't caught on.

Gaming has come a long way, but it isn't perfect

Again, things were bad before, isn't the same as things are good now, or as good as they easily could be. Let me tell you a story to illustrate that:

I have a friend who is from Russia. Her father had surgery in a hospital in Russia in the past decade. The surgeons didn't stitch him up correctly and then released him from the hospital. That weekend the stiches straight up broke open and his guts spilled all over his bed. He wasn't able to get to a phone and he died.

Russia doesn't get to say 'our medical system is adequate because 400 years ago, spraining your leg meant you died, and ever-bodies solution to medical problems was slap some leeches on it.' They have to compare themselves to other modern countries of comparable GDPs. They have to compare themselves to the US, Canada, Europe. And see that holy shit what they are doing is not even close to where it should be.

DRM... ...[is] a trade off (you can thank piracy for that.

DRM is completely ineffective at stopping piracy. This isn't an argument for anything. There are almost always day one releases of pirated products. There are often releases before the product is even released to the general public. And I don't think I've ever seen a pirated release take longer than 3 days. DRM is the videogame equivalent of airport security, it stops no one(an investigative reporter bipassed security by walking in through an exit door.) Anyone who wants to bypass it can. The only people it hurts are the people who legitimately buy the product. As Gabe Newell and many others have pointed out: true piracy is a service problem. If you make your service superior to what pirates can provide, then people will give you money.

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.)

Other companies do it, isn't an argument for it not being really fucking stupid.

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.

Yes, because those are totally the only two choices. Just like how in Soviet Era Russia they should never have complained because they could either deal with backbreaking work and starvation in collectivized farms or they could go back to a tyrannical Tsarist regime that shoots unarmed protestors. Because there are only ever two options right?

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

They keep buying off companies whose games i like then using practices that ends up rushing things, and or DLCS. Its the one company I hate more than sega with the repetive sonic games.

 

[Lt._nefarious]

I wouldn't say I "like" EA what with there "fuck single player games" and online passes but I don't hate the company or think they're evil, they're just dicks...

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

The point wasn't whether you think these games are good or not. The point is that this is a publishing company that seems to be OK with taking some risk with new IPs (something the gaming industry desperately needs).

I put this list in a previous thread but for fun, here it is again:

Crysis
Spore
Skate
Army of Two
Dead Space
Dragon Age
Mirror's Edge
Dantes Inferno

These are all (or all the notable ones; there were a few that I didn't recognize so I assume they are shovel-ware) the original IPs that EA has either developed or published in the last five years. Eight brand new IPs. While not all of them are the most risky of endeavors, a new IP on it's own is ALWAYS a risky endeavor. There may be a handful of companies that I'm not aware of but I don't believe there are many other groups that can claim to have popped out so many.

Lastly, I stand by my "morons believe all EA sport games are just roster updates" comment. Well, I suppose they might not be morons and just ignorant.

I don't expect you to like EA (if the business practices of Project Ten, Origin, or "fill in blank" bugs you I can respect that); I'm merely giving my reason for why I like EA. They give me games that I greatly enjoy.

 

[Xanadu84]

"Evil" is hyperbole to make a point. What they are is a shitty company that holds the industry back. Maybe they arn't evil, because "As terrible as they can be in the realm of entertainment" can not quite reach actual, "Evil" status.

The common thread in devils advocate positions for EA is that they are a company, and they need to make money. This argument does not hold up for 2 reason The obvious one is that you can be terrible as a company and still squeeze money out of people. But that's not the major reason. EA is shitty because it is BAD at making money. When they put out a heavy handed DRM scam to stop piracy, they increase piracy and inconvienience customers AND LOSE MONEY. They lose a little from that game, and they lose a lot more down the road from lack of trust. Inconvenient monetization scams may have the intent of making more money, but if it is handled poorly, it will lose the company money in the long run. When a game has a way of making money besides the initial sale, there needs to be a sense of fairness. That way, people feel like engaging in the game, and have a motivation to spend more money. If it feels like a rip off, people don't buy it, and don't buy the base game in the first place, which is money down the drain. When you jam a heavy handed marketing ploy down our throats, the consumers resent it, and you waste advertising dollars. And when you fail to innovate, and get pidgeonholed into a small number of genres, there is less excitement about buying a large number of games. Which loses money. What EA does does not support a sustainable business on there end. It is short sighted in the extreme. So thats why EA is terrible, in a way that even a cold blooded economist would have to agree with: They are bad at making money.

Of course, if my theory were right, we would be seeing EA having serious problems, with rapidly dropping stock prices. Oh wait.

Actually you better take a second look at EA's stock prices. They've been steadily recovering over the last few months.

Now, how well do you think there stocks would be doing if they were managed by people with even a tiny amount of competence when it comes to understanding the video game market? If they knew what they were doing, they could be rolling in the dough. The fact that they have managed to reach the point of tenuous recovery is like an 18 year old bragging about getting a B-, except it's in a 5th grade class. By comparison, Valve has DOUBLED in size every year. EA can talk about the limitations that come along with not being a private company all they want, but something tells me that their investors would be plenty happy with doubling the companies earnings every year.

 

[ElPatron]

The point wasn't whether you think these games are good or not.

I never said they were bad, either.

I put this list in a previous thread but for fun, here it is again:

Crysis shooter, made by the creators of Far Cry
Spore Will Wright
Skate Fills the market that Activision owned with Tony Hawk
Army of Two shooter
Dead Space they took the risk, now it has to sell more than 1 and 2 together
Dragon Age BioWare
Mirror's Edge DICE
Dantes Inferno God of War much?

I'd love to say that they actually took the risk for this industry to grow, but from that list I think the only considerable risk was Mirror's Edge. They aren't dying for our sins and their business practices are not justifiable.

 

[verdant monkai]

Not saying you are wrong but go and watch a few of Jim Sterling's videos. He will put you on the right track.

Thank God for him

 

[SnowBurst]

EA arnt evil theyre just annoying, origin etc and making pretty good games battlefield and medal of honor to name two but enforcing strict deadlines n the like that if they gave the devs some freedom they would be games that would be 10 times better most likely but EA like all other businesses are around to make money so its hardly unsurprising. If anything ubisoft are the worst because of the awkward way they make games like far cry 2 it took half a year to figure out that you have to use the damn keypad to enter the numbers for the online serial key

 

[Something Amyss]

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layoffs.

First counterpoint: I don't think there's a single person who has ever actually said that EA shouldn't make money. As such, this comes off as a strawman, as it seems to be the crux of many arguments, but does not actually go after the root cause. Instead, it attacks this distorted world where companies are supposed to be charities and hamburgers eat people.

Here's where I'ma get dicey.

What does this mean, exactly? Well, they can't take very many risks in games they make.

Actually, with EA's profits rising at a record rate, they're in the best position to take risks.

In fact, they have taken a lot of risks: Project Ten dollar, DRM, on-disc DLC, Day 1 DLC, increased cost to the PC market, Origin. Most of thee could have cost them greatly.

It's easy to tell them to make unique games like Double Fine does, but look at it from a monetary standpoint. What would make the most sense, using a tried-and-true formula until it doesn't work before changing it up, or changing things up every time and risk losing money?

False dichotomy. EA and Double Fine are pretty much opposite ends of a spectrum. You can't honestly believe there is no middle ground.

when your company relies on shareholders, one flop could equal 1,000 shareholders jumping ship, which would be bad for employees.

Actually, this is very unlikely. I'd suggest you see what loses stockholders; this is not generally one of them.

But by your logic, EA has been doing bad by the stockholders; their stock prices are

WAY THE FUCK

down. This is a trend that's been going on for years, now, and doesn't seem to be abated by safe games and closing studios and dicking the customers.

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

Popcap wasn't successful? Then why did EA want to pay a billion for them?

Sounds like a bad business deal, man.

Pandemic Studios: Another favorite of the "EA sucks" crowd. Here's the thing. In the year before they were acquired, they made two games, "Full Spectrum Warrior: Ten Hammers" and "Destroy All Humans 2", the latter of which was somewhat successful, and the first of which was received as an average game by critics. And true, the first game they made after EA bought them was was "Mercenaries 2", which was a mess. But their last two games were original games, and one of those was in a new universe. So while EA did shut them down, and they had a lot of success before EA, they were going downhill before EA bought them.

I think you're missing one of the key points here: Pandemic, like many others, was shut down despite being fairly successful. You can argue that they were "going downhill" beforehand, but they weren't exactly saved by EA and ended up put on things like a Dark Knight movie tie-in. They enjoyed no more success, really, under EA's thumb.

In short, EA is in it for the money, but so is every corporation.

Of course, different companies conduct themselves differently. Some directly involve slave labour in Asian sweatshops, while others might not at all, while still more might only involve said labour indirectly. Some companies may shut down successful studios, while others may actually support them. It's not cool to play false equivalence, fella.

Saying EA is evil is like saying McDonald's is evil, but Burger King is all right.

If, of course, Mcdonalds was putting its franchises out of business while Burger King wasn't, cutting out part of their burgers and charging extra for the remainder while Burger King wasn't, redefining the concept of ownership of said burger while Burger King wasn't, and refusing to deal with customers after the fact while Burger King wasn't.

Yes, it's such hypocrisy to call them on individual acts that others aren't involved in. They're both corporations, so it is unfair to compare relative business practices because they are both in it for the money. I feel like that last statement needs a "lulz" next to it.

As for "ruining" companies, if you take off the rose-tinted goggles and use a combination of research and common sense, you will realize that, until EA bought them, those companies were in trouble without any help from EA.

Of course, that's the result of specious reasoning and a failure to actually do research. Perhaps you should take off your shiny red specs before insisting your neighbour do the same.

Practice what you preach. Understand the complaint and understand the environment before you start weighing in.

 

[Durgiun]

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first.

I disagree, Mass Effect 1 was a boring exercise in going through the BioWare storytelling motions, whereas Mass Effect 2 was more charcter centered allowing for a story where characters were leading the plot, not the other way around as was the case with ME1.

The lack of RPG mechanics that were present in the first can be used as a legitimate point of complaining, but if that's the case, why isn't ME1 considered a watered down piece of crap like ME2 since the RPGness in 1 wasn't all that deep to begin with.

Mass Effect was my first Bioware game, so the difference in perspective might have something to do with it. But that's not the only reason I thought the story in Mass Effect 2 was terrible. None of the big set-pieces made sense or fit well into the plot. Everything you accomplished in the first game was just kind of ignored so we could go through the same motions all over again. I thought there was a big shift in atmosphere from creepy, spine-tingling science fiction to action music and explosions. I didn't think the characters were very likable or believable. The RPG mechanics in the first game were not done terribly well, it's true. But I was interested in Mass Effect as an action-RPG, not as an action game. And as an action game, I didn't think the second installment held up terribly well.

True, 2 did go through the motions of 1 (you must visit X ammount of places and gather X ammount of basic personality templates) but that's more of a staple of BioWare games than a failing of a sequel in my opinion.

ME1 had action music AND explosions, and I think that 2 still held the creepy sci-fi atmos what with the Collectors and the various antagonists in the game.

Eh, fair enough, some people like certain personalities others don't, neither is wrong or right.

I think it did. The combat had more of a weight to it, so to speak, since in the first the weapons all sounded and acted very light like there was no real recoil or power behind them, and thanks to the heat-sink clips (crazy an invention as they are) they added more of a challenge as one had to make shots count before one had to reload or ran out of clips. Whereas in the first there was only the danger of overheating and nothing more.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

First point: EA, as a corporation, needs to make money. Why? They are a publicly owned company, with shareholders. If they start losing a lot of money, shareholders will abandon the company, resulting in layoffs.

Valve is a corporation too. They offer free content, free updates, free games, free modding tools and monthly sales that can usually go down to a 75% off.

Yet... they're making a bejesus amount of money. With the recent addition of the new Steam Greenlight service, I'm surprised EA even has customers.

And how much of the free content, free games, free modding tools, and monthly sales are for Valve games? Not many, with the exception of a couple Left 4 Dead sales, a couple Portal sales, and the fact that Team Fortress 2 went F2P about 4 years after it came out. You have a point with the free updates for TF2, though.

There are differences between Valve and EA, though. First, Valve is not a publicly owned corporation, with shareholders. Secondly, no matter what they do, gamers love them, while EA can't say a word without gamers twisting them. I'm not saying that EA is better than Valve, but as you said, they are both corporations. Valve just has better PR.

Let's look at it this way. What would the general reaction be if it took 5+ years to make Dragon Age III? Telling EA to hurry it up, or talking about how it is a sign that EA has killed off Bioware once and for all, and really doesn't care about the fans. With Half-Life 3, it's been basically turned into "Oh, you!" at Valve, with a laugh track.

 

[Thoric485]

Here's a fresh batch of rage for anyone who looked forward to Insomniac's new IP - Overstrike.

It went from this:


To this:


Of course that is entirely Insomniac's doing. The publisher which brought out Vin Diesel and Blade cutouts when they were being pitched Timesplitters, would surely never force someone to rebrand a stylized, humorous game into some generic grimdark pulp.

Surely.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Yes, one could attempt to forgive them for buying out talented developers before they knuckled under.

But it wasn't their acquisition of good developers that pissed me off, but how they managed them after acquiring them.

Stupid managerial mandates like...

-6 month development time for Ultima 8, and a year for Ultima 9, the series' conclusion.
The latter of which was rebooted mid-development to use a 3D engine because the old engine looked "too outdated"
(for reference, around the same time, Baldur's Gate 1+2 kind of proved that you didn't need 3D graphics to create a fantastic game)

-Spore. Three installs. 70 bucks. Horrific DRM. Did not end well for them.

-C&C Red Alert 2: Yuri's Revenge. Rush-job coding disaster. Runs fine on Windows 98 out of the box.
Needs technical sorcery and several odd switches to get running in any OS after that because EA pulled patch support way too soon after release, failing to address compatibility issues with Windows XP until finally launching the C&C box sets (so, they basically waited 6-7 years to fix issues that should have been addressed within the first year, if not launch).

Horribly unbalanced gameplay with two painfully short, tactless campaigns.

-Pushing the release schedule for Hellgate: London ahead 6 months to meet a stupid gimmicky Halloween release date, and I suspect that game needed another year in development, at least.
The game looks and plays half-finished even from a mechanical perspective.

And numerous other rush jobs. All of which eventually landed EA in court with their own employees over labor violations.

Ignoring exploitation, I don't get why you would buy out these developers, fund games for them, and then put them on a timetable that no mere mortal could meet to produce a quality product.