EA is not evil.

Recommended Videos

trouble_gum

Senior Member
May 8, 2011
130
0
21
Agayek said:
I don't actually know, to be honest. It's my primary gaming shame that I simply can't get past the opening segment of KOTOR 2. The whole mining platform thing just bores me to tears. I've tried to play it at least 3 separate times, get probably about 3/4 of the way through the mining station before I just can't take anymore and give up.
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.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Draech said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
Draech 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 am sorry I find fault not with the guy saying it, but with the people who want to perpetuate the reputation that you are saying right here. Journalism at its worst. Mob news tell them what they want to hear. There is a reason the quote is cut of at "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience." In the article. Quotemining in order to to rile up the masses.
The escapist article did not cut off the quote.

I don't deny that sort of thing happens, but the quote you just posted is a gaffe. It's badly worded. If the escapist put that quote in an article describing EA you would say it is intentionally inflammatory. The reputation I'm describing is well deserved. And it's not only about the exact meaning of the text. It's what the quote means in the grand scheme of things. It's indicative of an attitude that a lot of people don't like, so they are raging about the issues they associate with that attitude.
Escapist downright missrepresented the quote by running the headline

EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

And off course Eurogamer who ran with the headline of

EA's Gibeau: "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience

No. the fault doesn't fall with him for being quotemined in an attempt to stir up shit.
But he's sooo quoteminable lol. You're the one who posted the quote I said was a gaffe. If that's quotemining blame yourself. I really don't care if they are trying to make the guy look bad. I'm more concerned with how the quote should be interpreted and I've said my piece about that.

I mean we're talking about EA, right?
 

thesilentman

What this
Jun 14, 2012
4,513
0
0
Judgment90 said:
yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?
That's one way of looking at it; EA is so greedy and incompetent that they really have no fucking clue what they're doing. So, no, I hate the business practices of EA, but not EA itself.

EDIT- For word choice. Thank God for the SATs.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
poiumty said:
Draech said:
Ah yes and that brings it back to my stance. While Profit can be the motive for wrongdoing, it is in it self not evidence of wrongdoing.
And saying that a company just does things for profit is not excusing it from being called evil. Stop trying to drag me into a discussion I have no interest in.

Yopaz said:
No conspiracy theories here. My problem was with how you expressed your argument and that's all.
As for unethical [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unethical], since we're going by definitions, one of them is "wrong". That itself can qualify as deliberate wrongdoing. Point is, you called whoever thinks EA is evil ignorant. Is it truly ignorant to assume that an unethical company is evil, as long as evil's definition is inherently flexible?
For the first time you actually look up a definition. It did not mention deliberate wrongdoing, nor did it say evil. Are you trying to make a point or are you just unwilling to give up. We aren't discussing unethical business practice here. We are discussing evil. Well, I am discussing evil at least, you are just throwing out conspiracy theories having nothing to show for that EA is actually evil.

Again I am not defending EA's choices, I am simply not using evil about anything I don't agree with.

Edit: Also you complaining about someone dragging you into a discussion you don't have interest in. At least you've got the definition of irony right.
 

Judgment90

New member
Sep 4, 2012
210
0
0
thesilentman said:
Judgment90 said:
yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?
That's one way of looking at it; EA is so greedy and incompetent that they really have no fucking clue what they're doing. So, no, I hate the business practices of EA, but not EA itself.

EDIT- For word choice. Thank God for the SATs.
That's exactly what I think. EA can produce some decent stuff, DA series (hell, I'll even admit I kinda liked DA2), ME series, etc.

but what they do corporate-wise is nothing short of being a complete dickhole.
 

Yopaz

Sarcastic overlord
Jun 3, 2009
6,092
0
0
poiumty said:
Yopaz said:
I see no connection between deliberate wrongdoing and being unethical even if unethical means wrong
K, bro. This is getting ridiculous. Remind me to call people out and just leave it at that next time, too much of a hassle trying to explain when they can just hide behind their finger and pretend they're not there.
Not even daring to use my actual post I see. I guess I can understand you. Here are the definitions you referred to:
Definition said:
Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behaviorunethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
ethical - conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"- Omar N. Bradley
My original definition of evil stated deliberate harm, not wrongdoing as you translated it to. you have misquoted me every step of the way trying to make a point here and now you actually edit what I said because that's the only way you can get a grasp on this.

Bold out either the word evil, harm or deliberate from your personal definition here. This time I dare you to actually quote my post rather than reply to it or most recently obscure it. You accused me of hiding things I pretend isn't there behind my fingers. That is exactly what you did with this post.

As I said, the only definition you seem to master is the one for irony.
 

mrhateful

True Gamer
Apr 8, 2010
428
0
0
They aren't evil they are just incredible short sighted that's what makes me the most sad, of cause I can understand that a corporation needs to generate growth but every move they make is only for the benefit of the immediate future and not for the contingency of their corporation's long term prosperity. For instance they want people to use Origin but the way they go about it is having prices as high as any store and removing their wares from other on-line stores such as steam. Now this might in the short run work since their product is new and thus people still have an attachment to the products they monopolized. However this won't last and it's only end in sight is the downfall of the entire company and this is why I despise EA. Because they ruin everything in their way and nothing will come of it in the end.
 

PhiMed

New member
Nov 26, 2008
1,483
0
0
Hero in a half shell said:
thebobmaster said:
Second point: Closing down studios.

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.
Ok, first thing: There is another reason companies merge: because they realise they will be stronger if they combine their assets. Look at Activision Blizzard, the result of a merger between two successful companies and five years later they're both doing fantastic. Some of EA's buyouts didn't last two years!
This is an important point, because some of the companies merged into EA did so to take advantage of working within a larger company, and found themselves suffocated.

So, let's take an adventure into the seedy underworld of EA's corporate buyouts!

I'm using hidden text to centre this gif!


We'll start with exhibit A, otherwise known as Origin Systems: Founded by now well-respected game designer Richard Gariott. one of the first EA buyouts, and one of the worst. You are right in saying that they did end up in financial difficulty, and had to either sell to EA or go bankrupt, but what you may not know is that EA put them there. With frivolous lawsuits and corporate bullying they wore them down until they were in debt, and had to settle. Then EA bought them out, and the founder of EA when asked about the tactics they used to aquire it said "This is just business. This is the way we're going to win."

Let's move on to exhibit B, Westwood Studios.

Westwood had 7% of the videogame market share at the time they were bought out, EA had 11%. They were not a floundering company, they were highly successful and doing very very well. In fact they were halfway through the next C&C game. The reason for the buyout lies in money. $122.5 million in cash to be exact, which was what the owners of Westwood were paid by EA for their company. It was a quick money grab, and many of Westwood's employees registered their personal feelings about being betrayed by the owners, and most of them quit their jobs in protest.
What happened to the "awesome C&C" game they were in the middle of developing after EA bought them?
Electronic Arts, who had acquired Westwood Studios in 1998 and published Tiberian Sun, and had no direct part in its development, pushed for Tiberian Sun's release ahead of schedule, resulting in a number of engine and gameplay features being omitted from the game, some of which were later included in Firestorm expansion pack.
Rushed deadlines and putting features meant for the main game in an expensive extra content pack? Start as you mean to go on, I suppose.

And now for Exhibit C, I refer, Your Honour, to the joint acquisition of Bioware/Pandemic, and this juicy tale of corruption runs right the way to the top of the house!

Pandemic were partnered with Bioware, due to them being owned by the same private equity fund (V.G Holdings). By the way, this is another perfect example of two companies merging not because one is on deaths door, but because they realise they can do better together, and it worked really well! Until...

A certain man by the name of John Riccitiello became CEO of EA. He had a very impressive C.V., including working in Haagen Dazs, several previous upper management positions in EA, and co-founding a company called Elevation Partners.

Hold on to your ass, because things are about to get corporate.

Elevation Partners was a large Investment firm, meaning it held a lot of private businesses. Among these businesses was a certain "V.G Holdings". Yes, the same V.G. Holdings that ran Bioware/Pandemic. One of the first acts John made when he became CEO of EA was to buy VG Holdings for $620 million. This gave EA two top quality companies that were just exploding onto the videogame scene.
However, John still held a huge personal interest in Elevation Partners, and so he personally pocketed a $5 million personal bonus by Elevation Partners through his official role there for the merger.

What happened after EA had bought the two companies? Bioware did well... for a while. Now the team that made fantastic singleplayer RPGs are stuck perpetually maintaining a failing MMO loosely based on one of their most successful IPs. Pandemic are... dead. Because EA didn't really have a plan for them.
They lasted one year and a month. How does a company get canned so quickly, especially one that creates such a long term product as a videogame? The Duke Nukem Forever developers lasted ten times as long and they weren't even doing any work!
It's because EA never had a plan for Pandemic, they never had any games reserved for them to make, and they didn't bother to use their talents or name. They didn't factor into EA's business plan, and were canned at the first excuse.
The reason for the merger was John Riccitiello's 5 million dollar handshake, and you know what? For that amount of money you can't really blame him.
This is an excellent retort to the OP.
The OP makes several mistakes, but the biggest is the statement that the only reason a company would be bought out is because they were seeking help.
The world of hostile takeovers, capital mergers, and big payoffs would beg to differ. In fact, this is probably the least common reason for a company's acquisition by another. This post demonstrates that expertly.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
All of this aside, I feel that several of the Escapists themselves have elaborated before on why EA is evil. It has nothing to do with either or your primary arguments. Yes, companies need to make money, but EA doesn't really care about you as a consumer. They care about their income. That isn't how business should work.

Day one DLC
On-Disc DLC
DRM
Online Passes
Hashed-In Multiplayer

The list goes on. These are not only things that EA is constantly including in their games, but openly states that is needed otherwise their game will suck. "A necessary evil of gaming." No it isn't EA, because you're the one who put it there. We didn't ask for it.

If you still believe that these are acceptable practices and that we should be ok with it, I would advise you to go compare Battlefield 3's sales and reception v.s. Skyrim's sales and reception. In a fair argument, Skyrim had considerably higher development costs, and was a much more massive success than Battlefield 3. Not to mention, Skyrim did not have a single one of these awful practices in it. Not one.

Tell me again how EA is not a money-grubbing pool of evil that doesn't understand how our industry really works.
 

Rooster Cogburn

New member
May 24, 2008
1,637
0
0
Draech said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
Draech said:
Rooster Cogburn said:
Draech 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 am sorry I find fault not with the guy saying it, but with the people who want to perpetuate the reputation that you are saying right here. Journalism at its worst. Mob news tell them what they want to hear. There is a reason the quote is cut of at "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience." In the article. Quotemining in order to to rile up the masses.
The escapist article did not cut off the quote.

I don't deny that sort of thing happens, but the quote you just posted is a gaffe. It's badly worded. If the escapist put that quote in an article describing EA you would say it is intentionally inflammatory. The reputation I'm describing is well deserved. And it's not only about the exact meaning of the text. It's what the quote means in the grand scheme of things. It's indicative of an attitude that a lot of people don't like, so they are raging about the issues they associate with that attitude.
Escapist downright missrepresented the quote by running the headline

EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

And off course Eurogamer who ran with the headline of

EA's Gibeau: "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience

No. the fault doesn't fall with him for being quotemined in an attempt to stir up shit.
But he's sooo quoteminable lol. You're the one who posted the quote I said was a gaffe. If that's quotemining blame yourself. I really don't care if they are trying to make the guy look bad. I'm more concerned with how the quote should be interpreted and I've said my piece about that.

I mean we're talking about EA, right?
And that is the very issue I have.
Actions will talk for themselves. PR bullshit has both crippled what can be said and what I can believe.

My problem is more or less you right now.

You are more or going "It EA. Who cares we made this up about them. We know they are bad" and that is where I have a problem. And it is not an uncommon thing to see. It is what allowed this story to run like this in the first place. It is intellectually dishonest.

I will judge actions on a base of their actions. Not on "I mean we are talking EA". It was not a gaffe. It was a pretty strait forward quote that were deliberately taken out of its context in order to generate outrage. It shouldn't have happened. If Ea is supposed to have this reputation then you can find evidence that isn't made up to support it.
And you're a corporate stooge who explains away obvious gaffes with explanations about "blah people". I don't really believe that, I just want you to see how annoying it is. I know you have a problem with news outlets that make EA look bad but I wish you would leave me the fuck out of it. I did find non-made-up evidence. You posted it. Why the fuck you are accusing me of dishonesty for headlines posted by popular websites whose content I have no input on, I have no idea. Unless you're going to tell me you made up the quote you posted by Frank Gibeau, I have not made anything up or said anything dishonest. I hope you will feel welcome to stop associating me with things other people have done that you object to.

If you want to talk about the validity, honesty or merit of something I said or did, not some website, I'm more than open to that discussion. Everything I have said on this issue so far, I stand behind. You're trying to smear people as dishonest for doing no more than reading between the lines and considering EA's words in the context of their pattern of behavior. It's not what I'm doing that's the problem here, it's how it reflects on EA that has you hurling these ridiculous accusations.
 

th3_aVengeR

New member
Apr 11, 2012
6
0
0
So, at the end of the day we managed to discover that EA is greedy, not evil. Isn't it bad is a company is too greedy? And the excuse "EA, as a corporation, needs to make money" is not really a good one. If a serial killer needs to kill to stop the voices in his head, should we just let them go cause you know, the voices. EA doesn't need to be as greedy as it is. A reasonable company wouldn't try and buy out IP's if they already held a large amount of the gaming market, instead they should have simply created sequels every now and then instead of rushing the final product (see mass effect 3). I am not as well informed as most people are, but i still hate EA because i was a huge Battlezone fan both one and two.
EA has no faith in it's devs and yet they forcefully rush them and blame them. EA's most recent stance, saying how they haven't greenlighted a single player game puts restrictions on the dev's ability to create good games. You can make the game, what ever you want, but it must have multiplayer despite the fact LoL and CoD are currently dominating the multiplayer market and if you can't you get canned.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
TL;DR: I will simply let Jim take it from here.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5946-Why-Do-People-Hate-EA

Thank god for Jim.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
EA are successful company, and there is a reason for that. We might not like some of the things they do, but then EA's main concern is their shareholders, not us. Plus, all these people who moan, how do we know that ME3 was rushed? For all we know they made a contract as to when it would be released, and Bioware fucked it up. EA spend money buying a company to make games, if those games dont sell then off course EA should shut them down or sell them. Why would they keep a money losing franchise going? If i run a game business i would do the same thing.