The Monster That Is EA

[-Samurai-]

EA isn't giving away server access for free. They run the servers, they pay the bills and the people to keep the servers running. $10 is the price to access something they pay to keep running. You pay the price, or you don't get the service.

 

[Podunk]

Oh noes! They're going to hurt GAMESTOP!? That's targic.

Really though, I do agree that it is a flawed system. It would suck if my roommates had to pay ten bucks to play Left 4 Dead with me back when that was all the rage.

 

[razer17]

The developer DOES NOT benefit from retailer sales, besides the fact that the retailer might have to order more! Once the retailer buys from EA, the profit is solely THEIRS, NO ONE ELSE'S! The idea that the developer deserves profit from someone else's sales is just fucking ridiculous.

Okay, a retailer will pay EA X amount of money per copy of the game they want to purchase. However, they end up selling far fewer copies than they thought they would. Next time EA releases a game, retailer thinks "Wait, I'll order a lot fewer, because it's not going to sell". So yes, when I go into a shop and buy a game, the retailer doesn't go "Right, £15 for us, £20 for the publisher, and £5 to the taxman". It does impact it indirectly though, because the retailers will purchase more copies of games that will sell.

Secondly, the developer isn't profiting from someone elses sales. Not that they don't deserve to, because they do. They did the hard work of creating the game. What they are charging for is the ability to access extra content. They want something in return for providing the opportunity to play others using their incredibly expensive to run servers.

The plothole in this capitalistic way of thinking is that if your product suck, no matter how much you pubblish it, on the long run I will not buy it. And as for the "only purpose of a company being..." think at the videogame as a book or as a film. If Ea would be doing the same thing on those, would you buy it?

Well, the only people who care about online passes are the people buying used. And EA doesn't, and shouldn't, give a crap about those people, because they have no duty to them. They haven't had any money from them, so why should they give you the time of day.

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

 

[Enrathi]

Their product are my hobbies. And latelly, the object of my hobbies suck.

Holy crap, maybe EA should just get on their knees and drop the middle man, since clearly their only purpose is to please you. I mean, it's not like they are a COMPANY, and that the sole purpose of a company is the gaining of profits.

The plothole in this capitalistic way of thinking is that if your product suck, no matter how much you pubblish it, on the long run I will not buy it. And as for the "only purpose of a company being..." think at the videogame as a book or as a film. If Ea would be doing the same thing on those, would you buy it?

Last I checked, I didn't need to go online and have them pay for my bandwidth with a book or movie. On the other hand, I also think EA should take their crappy servers out of the picture and let XBL, PSN, or private servers do the hosting for their online. Which would solve the project $10 debate, at least.

But in all honesty, I don't see it as an issue. Maybe because I buy my games new and don't really buy online-focused games, I'm much more into the single player or local multiplayer experience myself.

 

[Gametek]

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

(That's kind of the most stupid thing ever done)

Edit added done at the end of sentence.

 

[Enrathi]

So? Why does it moral to buy second hand copies just because its called retail? I know countries which there are legal to download games but does that make it moral?.

Why should the developer allow people to buy second hand copies and then still except it to work as new? while they get no money from it so if you believe one download is one lost sale then I would argue that one second hand sold is a lost sale for the developer.


Since I do not use my xbox 360 I do not understand what you mean with "We have two separate Live accounts, and they work fine on a single HDD"

Im guessing your dlc is saved on your live account? And if its so why do you not just share the same account?

It's moral because the buyer is now the rightful owner, and should be able to pass the full experience down to the next buyer. The whole argument that "you can't expect it to be as good when you buy used" is completely irrelevant to the online pass argument. It won't be as good because it's worn out, it's lost value. Not because a HUGE chunk of the experience has disappeared for no more reason then the original seller didn't want others making money.

I still have no idea where your hard drive comments are going, let's just forget that.

My comments about the HDD is that you seems to argue that its immoral of EA to try to make a small profit of Second hand buying and you're problem with that seems to be mostly cause you and your brother uses 2x hdds or two different live account and therefor you need to buy the dlc for one account considering you only get one code for one account?

No, when you download the DLC, it's saved on your hard drive and all accounts have access to it, whereas online passes have to be purchased for every account. This is the bane of living with multiple Live customers, because even though DLC affects you all, EA is still to stingy to do the same.

And therefor I ask again why do you not simply share a hdd with your brother and everything should be fine?

We do, that's what I'm saying. DLC isn't the problem, because all the profiles on an HDD get it. But it doesn't work for online passes. They aren't shared between everybody, meaning only one profile gets to play online, while the others have to fork over $10.

I agree. Online pass should both be tied to the console like DLC is. Or if they're really that worried about it, limit it to 3-5 accounts per console. But a single account is just stupid.

 

[razer17]

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

(That's kind of the most stupid thing ever)

In what possible way? If you'd like to point out how a similar Online activation code can be used in films or books, then that would be great.

Certainly that would be better than making an insulting statement without any sort of back up. If anything, I would propose that you jumping straight to insults actually makes you seem like a person who isn't intelligent enough to be judging others.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

 

[kemosabi4]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

First of all, you're implying that EA Sports is in no way connected to EA as far as development goes. I don't even have to comment. Second, Visceral games used to be an EA company.

Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

 

[Gametek]

AS for your book or film analogy, how would that even work? Maybe in films paying extra for bonus content? That happens already, which is why "extended edition" DVD's exist.

(That's kind of the most stupid thing ever)

In what possible way? If you'd like to point out how a similar Online activation code can be used in films or books, then that would be great.

Certainly that would be better than making an insulting statement without any sort of back up. If anything, I would propose that you jumping straight to insults actually makes you seem like a person who isn't intelligent enough to be judging others.

Too late. Well, i miss type the "done" at the end of sentence.

The point is, Online multiplayers code are only one thing: annoying. For the renter? Don't know. To me yes, as i buy them. And as I alredy posted:

But if it isn't a second hand copy then they won't charge you, the charge will only apply if you're buying games second hand.

I think that the whole point is if you trust Ea or not. You believe that they won't try to charge extra money on any one? I don't think so. Not from a company that paid folk to protest against one of his game.
And how they will understand that the game is second hand? DRM check? Not day one copy? It's gonna end bad, believe me.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

First of all, you're implying that EA Sports is in no way connected to EA as far as development goes. I don't even have to comment. Second, Visceral games used to be an EA company.

Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

*Sigh* I'll give you one more chance before I declare you troll.

EA Sports is obviously owned by EA, but that does not entail that EA develops it. EA is full of executives who decide which games they give the green light for development and which don't. Second, Visceral is, yes, owned by EA. But saying that the people from that team who went over to Activision is a lie. EA didn't develop the game, it's teams did. It's like saying because Capcom published God Hand, Shinji Mikami should be given no credit for it.

Just saying, you're trying to argue against a publisher. If you don't want to get called out quickly, say say games they published and talk about how they market them or which games they green light and which games they don't. Honestly, that's about all the publisher does besides create teams. Because, yes, their teams are internal studios. This is A LOT different than the publisher developing the game.

If a publisher developers a game, it's generally an independent developer.

 

[babinro]

"it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community."

While the above quote is corporate BS...the practice of charging people for online access to games to ensure the developer continues to make the profits they deserve is an excellent practice that I hope becomes industry standard.

 

[kemosabi4]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

First of all, you're implying that EA Sports is in no way connected to EA as far as development goes. I don't even have to comment. Second, Visceral games used to be an EA company.

Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

*Sigh* I'll give you one more chance before I declare you troll.

EA Sports is obviously owned by EA, but that does not entail that EA develops it. EA is full of executives who decide which games they give the green light for development and which don't. Second, Visceral is, yes, owned by EA. But saying that the people from that team who went over to Activision is a lie. EA didn't develop the game, it's teams did. It's like saying because Capcom published God Hand, Shinji Mikami should be given no credit for it.

Just saying, you're trying to argue against a publisher. If you don't want to get called out quickly, say say games they published and talk about how they market them or which games they green light and which games they don't. Honestly, that's about all the publisher does besides create teams. Because, yes, their teams are internal studios. This is A LOT different than the publisher developing the game.

If a publisher developers a game, it's generally an independent developer.

My point is that these people are EMPLOYED BY EA. They are paid to develop games for EA, and many are extremely close to EA itself. EA SPORTS HAS EA IN THE NAME. Many developers are completely independent, but EA Sports is nothing more than a division of EA, therefore, EA is responsible for the quality of the game.

 

[kemosabi4]

"it allows us to accelerate our commitment to enhance premium online services to the entire robust EA SPORTS online community."

While the above quote is corporate BS...the practice of charging people for online access to games to ensure the developer continues to make the profits they deserve is an excellent practice that I hope becomes industry standard.

I will never understand why the customer is actually ENCOURAGING being charged extra money for a product that they shouldn't have to be.

 

[DigitalAtlas]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

First of all, you're implying that EA Sports is in no way connected to EA as far as development goes. I don't even have to comment. Second, Visceral games used to be an EA company.

Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

*Sigh* I'll give you one more chance before I declare you troll.

EA Sports is obviously owned by EA, but that does not entail that EA develops it. EA is full of executives who decide which games they give the green light for development and which don't. Second, Visceral is, yes, owned by EA. But saying that the people from that team who went over to Activision is a lie. EA didn't develop the game, it's teams did. It's like saying because Capcom published God Hand, Shinji Mikami should be given no credit for it.

Just saying, you're trying to argue against a publisher. If you don't want to get called out quickly, say say games they published and talk about how they market them or which games they green light and which games they don't. Honestly, that's about all the publisher does besides create teams. Because, yes, their teams are internal studios. This is A LOT different than the publisher developing the game.

If a publisher developers a game, it's generally an independent developer.

My point is that these people are EMPLOYED BY EA. They are paid to develop games for EA, and many are extremely close to EA itself. EA SPORTS HAS EA IN THE NAME. Many developers are completely independent, but EA Sports is nothing more than a division of EA, therefore, EA is responsible for the quality of the game.

EA is responsible for the quality of the game only because people like you put it on them. That's like saying it's Bethesda's fault Brink sucked. Yet, a few pages ago you blamed Splash Damage. Yes, EA is in the name, but EA still just gives the green light to the dev. Obviously a game like Madden has it easier than Bulletstorm.

If you want to ***** about EA's online services, I concur. If you want to ***** about their $10 policy, I concur. But game quality? No. That's not their fault, it's developers. EA published Bulletstorm, going to blame them for the short campaign? You cannot.

Once for everyone here: Publishers. Don't. Develop. Games.

 

[kemosabi4]

You do realize EA is not a developer, right?

They're a publisher. They don't make games.

But yeah, they don't care at all. Still, I'm fine because I don't like sports games anyway.
Or EA.

They develop several of the games they publish. For example, they developed the original Dead Space and nearly all (if not all) of their sports games, sports games being the primary examples of their belligerence.

No, EA Sports makes the sports games and Dead Space was developed by Visceral Games. Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

Activision, EA, Capcom, etc, do not develop games. They publish them and, generally, own the teams that make each title.

First of all, you're implying that EA Sports is in no way connected to EA as far as development goes. I don't even have to comment. Second, Visceral games used to be an EA company.

Simple google search could clear that up, bro.

*Sigh* I'll give you one more chance before I declare you troll.

EA Sports is obviously owned by EA, but that does not entail that EA develops it. EA is full of executives who decide which games they give the green light for development and which don't. Second, Visceral is, yes, owned by EA. But saying that the people from that team who went over to Activision is a lie. EA didn't develop the game, it's teams did. It's like saying because Capcom published God Hand, Shinji Mikami should be given no credit for it.

Just saying, you're trying to argue against a publisher. If you don't want to get called out quickly, say say games they published and talk about how they market them or which games they green light and which games they don't. Honestly, that's about all the publisher does besides create teams. Because, yes, their teams are internal studios. This is A LOT different than the publisher developing the game.

If a publisher developers a game, it's generally an independent developer.

My point is that these people are EMPLOYED BY EA. They are paid to develop games for EA, and many are extremely close to EA itself. EA SPORTS HAS EA IN THE NAME. Many developers are completely independent, but EA Sports is nothing more than a division of EA, therefore, EA is responsible for the quality of the game.

EA is responsible for the quality of the game only because people like you put it on them. That's like saying it's Bethesda's fault Brink sucked. Yet, a few pages ago you blamed Splash Damage. Yes, EA is in the name, but EA still just gives the green light to the dev. Obviously a game like Madden has it easier than Bulletstorm.

If you want to ***** about EA's online services, I concur. If you want to ***** about their $10 policy, I concur. But game quality? No. That's not their fault, it's developers. EA published Bulletstorm, going to blame them for the short campaign? You cannot.

Once for everyone here: Publishers. Don't. Develop. Games.

I wasn't arguing about game quality. In fact, games published/developed by EA are consistently amazing. Their customer support and care are the issues here.

 

[Frostbite3789]

I feel having a boycott on EA games in unnecessary because they still make some good games. But there comes a point were I as a consumer have to stop taking this abuse. I find that time coming very soon.

The abuse of having to pay $10 more for buying used? WHEN WILL THE TORTURE END?! WE WON'T STAND FOR THIS EA!

 

[Sporky111]

I used to give them some credit. I liked the way EA treated BioWare after they bought the developer. They gave BioWare the money and pretty much said "You know what you're doing, make some good games". And they made Mass Effect and Dragon Age: Origins.

But now with Dragon Age 2 you can clearly see that EA is putting the squeeze on them for more money. And I fear for Mass Effect 3, because there's conflicting news on it. Some say it'll be more of an RPG like the first, while others say it'll take the greater action focus of the second and take it even further. Mass Effect isn't just another shooter game, and they shouldn't be trying to make it into one.