What is EA actually doing wrong as a developer?

[Pumpkin_Eater]

There are a number of beefs I have with EA.

1. They beat franchises to death. The volume of MoH and Battlefield franchises are both good examples of this.
2. They've stunted the growth of several genres. Sports games have been stuck in a rut ever since the first exclusivity deal that was reached between the NFL and EA Sports essentially made the genre a collection of forced monopolies since few people will buy a sports game that doesn't feature their favorite teams. http://www.cracked.com/article_16330_5-innovative-ways-gaming-industry-screwing-you.html
3. Good projects and franchises taken over by EA generally turn to crap; look at what's happened to Command and Conquer.
4. They're content to release mediocre products. This is the big thing here, it's not the bad titles that get under my skin it's the sheer volume of lackluster ones (read: most of what they produce). EA is big on sequels and big on shovelware (ie Harry Potter) because you can sell those games with the title alone. They also use anti-competitive tactics like buying up smaller developers and paying for positive reviews to stack the field in their favor.

 

[Tech Team FTW!]

Edit: Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[hopeneverdies]

According to an article from the other day, EA only makes games that they know will sell well.

 

[Ace of Spades]

EA is a fine developer. My only gripe with them is when I was still a PC gamer and they announced that Mirror's Edge would be coming to consoles on the day it was supposed to but you get to eat shit PC gamers!

 

[Anachronism]

Is there actually anything wrong wih wringing a franchise until it last drop of preciuos money oozes from it broken carcass?

Yes. Yes there is, because the key word in that sentence was "broken". By the time you've done that, you've usually completely ruined what may once have been a great franchise.

Although, to be fair to EA, I agree that they are definitely improving. Activision are worse now.

 

[PhoenixFlame]

EA isn't doing anything wrong, they made some terrible mistakes in the past; now they are getting much better, the problem is people won't give them a chance.
it's all a case of reverse-loyalty.

This is pretty much my opinion. While I acknowledge the great "evil" EA stuff of the past, to be honest, to some people their hands will never be clean (case in point, some comments in this thread, or any thread with the words EA in it). Well, that's all fine and dandy for people who want to purchase games based purely on publisher reputation, but meanwhile, I'll just be patronizing the products that are fun and interesting to me to play regardless of who made them. It's their loss.

Handling DRM, the Westwood stuff, the workload, and the premature release of titles - these are mistakes EA has made. Several statements by Ritticello regarding their game quality and practices, a decent uptick in games that have been out just this past year, and of course, the franchises which will probably always be breadwinners (Madden only sells because people keep buying Madden, you know, even if it's the same game) - these are all signs EA is improving.

Hating EA is fine - to a point. There's a point after which it becomes irrational, misinformed, and conclusion-jumping before the fact, and it's easily seen when someone mentions EA and the first immediate response of someone is, in essence, "ZOMG EA IS TEH DEVILZZZ" without bothering to see what's being done or said. I implore the people who react this way to the letters E and A together one after the other to try to approach things from a more objective eye.

That being said - what are they doing wrong? I'd say, pushing developers to release games prior to being ready for prime time. EA clearly pushed Mythic to release Warhammer Online before it was ready to money grab people on the fence between it and WoW, and paid for it. Mirror's Edge was also a bit buggy and Red Alert 3, while fun, was riddled with little imbalances that could have been erased with a couple more months polished. In this sense, they could take a page out of Activision Blizzard's book - who don't make particularly innovative games but polish them to a mirror sheen so as to make the same everyman, dull gameplay seem like an incredibly fun and new experience. And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[Christemo]

everything. including remaking their shitty sport-games EVERY FUCKING YEAR. and my brother falls for that trick with FIFA. hes done so for 4 years now. just because a few updates and soccer-player migrations.

 

[Pyro Paul]

We're talking about journalists here. When they review a game, they have standards to follow. How does the control works, Are the graphics presentable, Is it fun, what's new, how does the story progress and etc etc.

They base their scores on that.

we are a talking about game critics here... they are far from the unbias source of information which we should depend on. mainly because some times their paychecks Are out of the cofers of the games they review. the Kane and Lynch scandle should of taught you that lesson.

the only critics i listen to are ones that don't give an arbitrary number score which ultimatly means nothing.

 

[Terramax]

They're not Japanese. Discussion closed.