Why EA? Just why?
- Thread starter Vanbael
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Perhaps, or maybe I'm more aware of what goes on behind the scenes, and it's no different from other publishers, so why single any one out for something they're all doing?SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
And face it, I do know a lot more about the dev side of things and it's hardly an "EA Spouse" environment anymore. That was over 5 years ago, things have changed but that's not stopping people from constantly bringing it up even though it's no longer true.
Point is, hate them for what happened in the past, sure. I'm not saying anyone should just fall in love with them based on my posts (And FYI, I don't hold any particular loyalty either). After all, some practices I still don't like.
But to continue to hate instead of looking at it objectively? I mean, this is how blood feuds start, you start forget why you hated them when the current generation has no ties to a decade ago.
well they have developed some big names in gaming:boag said:
-Skate or die (first one developed by EA in 1987)
-Need for speed (earliest version developed by EA in 1994, ea has developed a large majority of the titles since)
-Army of Two (2008, not the greatest game but far from the worst.
-Mirrors edge (2009, I enjoyed it although the reviews weren't easy on it)
-Madden/Fifa/NHL/NBA (believe it or not, there are people who enjoy playing sports games)
I suppose you could say that wasn't significant enough of a contribution to the gaming industry but I'm not even going to mention the number of games EA has footed the bill for. Games are expensive to make, and just like movies someone has to take a big risk every time one is created, you don't have to respect the publishers role but at least understand the value in it.
So howmuch do they pay to have their name cleared these days?
This must be the 6th thread with people trying to make EA look good, not to mention the entire Bioware defense force.
This must be the 6th thread with people trying to make EA look good, not to mention the entire Bioware defense force.
And way to miss that I view things differently than most people in this thread do, since I've been on the "other side", so there's no real point in addressing anything individually. I might not like some things, but at least I understand them from a business perspective (even though I've stated I don't like some). Most in here just think they're doing it to milk the customer, or are evil and just want to buy and shut studios down like some evil overlord or something just because.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
But fine, I'll bite about your milking via DLC stuff, and point out that people complain about DLC and microtransactions, but seem to gloss over that the system changes every year! The whole market is still in its infancy and publishers and studios are still experimenting with what is and isn't acceptable for its price and delivery by the gamer audience.
Case in point, the NPC in Dragon Age: Origins advertising the Keep DLC, lots of outrage, so its not done anymore. Yet meanwhile you see lots of DLC skin packs for Dawn of War II - because the players ask for them. They're responding to market demands, you just have to be more aware of it.
From 12 years of observations, I figure that their business model goes something like this:
"If our in-house can't compete with it, initiate a hostile-take-over to acquire it. If we can't do that either, just try to clone it and hope it sticks. If we *can* acquire the original, then we milk them until they collapse, recouping our investment on their first series of games. Once we're done with them, we fire the developer BUT (important) keep their IP so they can't rebuild on anything but their reputation."
There's a laundry list of developers who were taken apart by mismanagement and the inhumane timetables. To the point where they were SUED BY THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES OVER IT. This isn't idle speculation, this shit went to court.
So yeah, I might have just a WEE bit of a reason to dislike their practices.
I can cite examples. Such as immediate and noticeable changes in agenda within a developer or sharp drops in quality upon being acquired; and I'm not inclined to believe that this happened by magic nor were they ALL coincidences.
The only developer who had what could be called a "noble death" was Maxis, but even there EA's insane mismanagement had more to do with Maxis' failure than Maxis (Remember Spore? I bet you're now thinking of either the DRM or the ridiculous pricing more than the game itself.)
Food for Thought: You know who else maintained similar business practices and still became inexplicably powerful within their market, despite being nearly-universally hated (and rightly so)?
Microsoft (Bill Gates era)
"If our in-house can't compete with it, initiate a hostile-take-over to acquire it. If we can't do that either, just try to clone it and hope it sticks. If we *can* acquire the original, then we milk them until they collapse, recouping our investment on their first series of games. Once we're done with them, we fire the developer BUT (important) keep their IP so they can't rebuild on anything but their reputation."
There's a laundry list of developers who were taken apart by mismanagement and the inhumane timetables. To the point where they were SUED BY THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES OVER IT. This isn't idle speculation, this shit went to court.
So yeah, I might have just a WEE bit of a reason to dislike their practices.
I can cite examples. Such as immediate and noticeable changes in agenda within a developer or sharp drops in quality upon being acquired; and I'm not inclined to believe that this happened by magic nor were they ALL coincidences.
The only developer who had what could be called a "noble death" was Maxis, but even there EA's insane mismanagement had more to do with Maxis' failure than Maxis (Remember Spore? I bet you're now thinking of either the DRM or the ridiculous pricing more than the game itself.)
Food for Thought: You know who else maintained similar business practices and still became inexplicably powerful within their market, despite being nearly-universally hated (and rightly so)?
Microsoft (Bill Gates era)
Er, you know your business model is bad when you are doing every possible thing to money grub and you are still failing.
People are tired of their favourite devs being eaten up and/or abused, not just by EA but by all publishers. EA is just the focus point because of ME3.
People are tired of their favourite devs being eaten up and/or abused, not just by EA but by all publishers. EA is just the focus point because of ME3.
I believe there was an episode of the Jimquisition that touched on that. Not to say that it's therefore the one and true truth but it did make a fair bit of sense.SmashLovesTitanQuest said:
It's been a while since I saw it, but I believe it was along the lines of: DRM is used so that shareholders who know very little of what goes on ask executives "What are you doing to stop piracy?" so the execs can say "Oh, we have this fabulous DRM that means you have to be logged in with a legal copy to play our game" so they get their bonuses and funding from said shareholders and so on.
Edit 1: Of course I'm not sure if I make sense comparing shareholders to retailers. Probably not.
Edit 2: Oh, the DRM episode may have been about used games and not piracy.
I hope someone has already said this, but...boag said:
Minecraft. A game made (at least started) by a lone developer with zero funding, self-published, and frankly, even if you hate it, the idea of digital Legos is pretty damn innovative. Especially when even the ACTUAL Lego games don't let you build things.
And I don't want you to back off and accept anyone's claim as valid, but I do wish you'd concede the point that, without EA, we'd somehow be worse off. Westwood was turning a profit AND good games before the EA buyout. I know. Tiberian Sun is head and shoulders better than Red Alert 2. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Right now, my copy of Tiberian Sun is running fine on Windows 7, and Red Alert 2 dies on launch. The fact that older game on the same engine runs while the one EA had a hand in dies is very practical proof that EA messed up a game. The same basic ideas can be said for EVERY studio EA has bought. The games got more flashy, more expensive, more movie-like, but the mechanics, and even the rate of bugs, have gone downhill drastically in every game EA has a major hand in. Personally? I'd rather have a game with solid mechanics, no bugs, and 2002-era isometric 2.5D graphics than the cutscenes-in-a-can EA sells now and calls games. Sure, sometimes I want a spectacle. Guess what? That's when I load up Unreal Tournament 3 - better graphics, same solid gameplay. EA has no analog to this.
But this makes sense anyway. EA has never been about producing video games. They produce interactive stories. They produce movies that require you to rapidly tap the fucking A button to keep watching them. Nobody at EA cares if the game has solid mechanics - as long as it can render something gorgeous for 30 seconds for marketing to place in a TV ad, they think it's a RTM-grade game. And this is why we hate EA - because it's Electronic Arts, not Electronic Games. We don't mind spectacle. We enjoy it too. But Spectacle should be IN ADDITION TO good gameplay, not a REPLACEMENT for it.
