Why you should really, really stop buying from EA

[Gatx]

I've always had an easy time launching Steam in Offline mode, I don't get people's issues are...

I'm willing to give them a second chance if only because they went back on their online pass thing after listening to customer complaints (years of them). Also they are now the only source of Star Wars games (NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!).

You clearly haven't used Origin. I can play offline just fine with it, and all it is to me is Steam with a different skin.

And strangely enough, Steam had more than a few issues of its own when it first launched...

That's different though because Steam was one of the pioneers of the thing, they were allowed to have bugs not just because they were new but there wasn't a standard for it yet. Now Steam has set the bar pretty high, and anyone wanting to jump into the PC digital distribution arena better have their shit together from the get go in order to have any HOPE of being taken seriously. If it wasn't for the fact that Origin became the only place to get EA games I doubt anyone would've used it (except maybe a ludicrous amount of sales).

 

[IHateEA]

I just want to be the third person to point out that your point about Origin is wrong, OP. It functions perfectly fine offline

But I never said Origin doesn't work. I said it didn't work when it was first forced on players, and it was a beta service. There are still problems with it, but I'll admit they're far more minor. Please read the post before you comment.

S: We just stop giving a flying fuck about what other people do and just do our own thing.

Paragraph 3.

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a sneaking suspicion this is MS fanboy/employee trying to rekindle the flame of EA hatred so MS will not be the primary target anymore?

Oh, damn! You got me. I'm actually the CEO of Microsoft. Sorry to tell you, but we're also scanning your brain using the new Kinect. Good thing you're already wearing your tinfoil hat.

That's called competent tech support. You don't make it a first option to call someone when things can be handled over the internet just as well.

You're meant to read the explanation, not just the subheading. Their internet customer service is useless. Most people who have had to deal with it would agree. It's just EA's way of dismissing the issue and pretending to try to fix it.

This is called good time management. Most of the development staff doesn't do much for the last several weeks of development and this is their chance to work on bits that had to be cut from the final version because of time constraints. the fact that they know in advance what these parts are going to be shows a more refined degree of time management on their part.

For art DLC made when the art team have already finished their role. But the programmers will generally be working until release, with some games not even being finished, and yet those resources are put into making extra stuff they can sell for extra money. This is the same as taking content out of the game and selling it for extra.

If someone wants to pay extra to save themselves a bit of time in a game, then who are you or I to disagree with their choice? The games aren't forcing you to and it being in the game doesn't effect your game enjoyment in the least unless they shove a message saying "BUY THIS TO KEEP PLAYING!" in your face at every pause screen.

I explained this already. A game is about winning, getting to the end. The player takes the fastest route there, that's how a game works. When microtransactions are there and they help you to the end, if you don't take them, you'll feel like you're doing it wrong. There's psychological pressure to take that option, and if you don't, it'll nag at you and ruin your enjoyment. It's no different to how, after you find out the cheatcodes for a game, you can't enjoy the game the way you previously did.

See, that's the crux of PC gaming: if you protect your software you inconvenience your customers by making them take an extra 20 seconds of installation to enter a code in order to slow pirates down, but if you don't protect it at all then people will pirate the ever living @#$% out of it(regardless of the games price, by it 1 cent or $60).

For a start, piracy isn't as much of a problem it's made out to be. And DRM isn't the solution it's made out to be. BF3, ME3, every other game running through Origin was cracked within a few days except SimCity - and that was only because SimCity relied on online components for a lot of the game.

So DRM doesn't stop piracy. It just inconveniences customers. It also tends to be more of an inconvenience than 'an extra 20 seconds of installation'.

That said, they are making a move away from some of it since they decided to move away from the online passes.

There's speculation regarding that, actually. They removed online passes when both consoles were expected to prevent used game sales. Sony turned out not to do that. EA is now supporting Microsoft with early DLC. Think about what that implies.

All MMO's have that issue. The initial server load is rarely something a company can anticipate, and even if they do they are loath to have enough servers to manage a load that is only going to last a day or so, mostly because both the servers and the backbone to support them is very expensive to maintain. As you put it, they are a business and they made a business decision to go with a normalized server estimate instead of spending a fortune on enough servers to handle the initial rush , but are then going to go mostly unused afterwards. May not be the best PR choice, but from both a business and an IT standpoint it makes perfect sense.

It's not even just a server issue. The game itself was filled with huge gamebreaking bugs that remained for a month at least. They're one of the biggest publishers around. They have the time, the experience and the money to do better than that.

 

[Maeshone]

For art DLC made when the art team have already finished their role. But the programmers will generally be working until release, with some games not even being finished, and yet those resources are put into making extra stuff they can sell for extra money. This is the same as taking content out of the game and selling it for extra.

Nope. Ever heard the term content complete? That's the point where the developers are simply not allowed to add more stuff to the game, because they need to send it off to verification and printing. This usually happens quite a bit in advance to the release. That means the programmers have nothing to do either, so why shouldn't they work on DLC?

I explained this already. A game is about winning, getting to the end. The player takes the fastest route there, that's how a game works. When microtransactions are there and they help you to the end, if you don't take them, you'll feel like you're doing it wrong. There's psychological pressure to take that option, and if you don't, it'll nag at you and ruin your enjoyment. It's no different to how, after you find out the cheatcodes for a game, you can't enjoy the game the way you previously did.

Uhh... If a game is just about winning to you then that's an issue that you have, not the gamer community. Unless you can cite specific proof that the majority of gamers feel that they're playing a game wrong if they don't play as efficiently as possible, then this point is quite simply a load of bull.

For a start, piracy isn't as much of a problem it's made out to be. And DRM isn't the solution it's made out to be. BF3, ME3, every other game running through Origin was cracked within a few days except SimCity - and that was only because SimCity relied on online components for a lot of the game.

So DRM doesn't stop piracy. It just inconveniences customers. It also tends to be more of an inconvenience than 'an extra 20 seconds of installation'.

Fully agreed. DRM is a load of crap and really just inconveniences paying customers. EA are not the worst in this regard though.

There's speculation regarding that, actually. They removed online passes when both consoles were expected to prevent used game sales. Sony turned out not to do that. EA is now supporting Microsoft with early DLC. Think about what that implies.

You mean just like Activision and Bethesda? Guess they are pissed about the no online pass thing as well. Oh wait, neither of those developers/publishers ever used them... Microsoft paid out their nose for timed exclusivity on DLC, it's got nothing to do with EA and Microsoft being in bed together.

 

[LiquidGrape]

What I don't understand is why EA has become the face of Evil Publishing when Activision is decidedly more nefarious in their practices, not to mention that both industry and consumers alike are complicit in the current climate.
I don't think one should hesitate to aim criticism if warranted, but this kind of uninformed and clearly biased propaganda really don't help anyone.

For example:

2. Day-one DLC
This is a practice becoming more widespread in the industry, and it's terrible. Developers are working on DLC while they work on the game; this generally means that they take away resources from developing the game and put them into developing the DLC. [...] This is a nasty concept. It's effectively taking away a chunk of the game's content - it was ready for release, so it could have been included in the game - and selling it separately, purely to make more money. The gamer pays for the game, with that content missing, and then pays for the content.

That's not how DLC works. The developer isn't told to attribute x amount of zots from their budget to the development of downloadable content at the expense of the standalone product. The budget is designed from the very start to take those expenses into account, meaning no resources are sacrificed. Quite the contrary, DLC is often developed by a dedicated team with a dedicated budget.

 

[Tom_green_day]

Shall I point out the OP's name? Their (probably) first post on this forum, under the name 'IhateEA' was about how they hate EA. Do you by any chance work for Ubisoft or Activision or any other publisher?
Personally, I really like EA. Their games are great, the micro transactions do not get in the way of gameplay at all (I don't like them therefore I don't use them) Day 1 DLC is good because when I finish a game and want to play it more, I can just download the DLC instead of waiting a few months for it. I have never played a game of theirs with DRM, I only knew of Sim City that had it. And I haven't played a broken game of theirs either, they all play perfectly well.
That said, I haven't played Sim City.

 

[DrunkOnEstus]

I dunno man, I'm giving them a chance. They booted the CEO who reigned over much bullshit, announced Battlefront to the people who were dying for it, they're putting money into a new Mirror's Edge even though the numbers should say that it's an incredibly risky and reckless move, they're actually giving Bioware the time to make sure that Dragon Age 3 is done right instead of shoving whatever crap is half finished out the door again, and they got rid of the online pass system and made the old games that had them free.

All of that doesn't necessarily mean that an angel has taken over and righted all the wrongs, but I see some humility about being "worst company in America" twice in a row, and a transparent effort to listen to and provide what the gamers have been screaming at them about. Now the ball's in our court. If we don't buy Battlefront, and we don't buy Mirror's Edge and so on, we only prove that their fucking charts and focus groups were actually worth going by.

They're not going to stop pumping out the sports games and chasing COD with Battlefield, but one doesn't have to buy any of that if they don't want it. They're games that generate the funds to take risks, and they're taking a few of them for our sake right now. It's up to us to put our wallets where our mouth is.

 

[00slash00]

im sorry for being part of the problem, but my policy is that i will buy a game if it interests me. day one dlc, microtransactions, all that shit doesnt bother me. if you find evidence that EA is donating a portion of their money to the westboro baptist church or to limit womens or glbt rights, then i will happily join your protest of EA. until then, i will continue looking forward to dragon age 3, mirrors edge 2, and mass effect: mordin's karaoke jam

 

[TG MLPDashie]

1. EA's customer support is notoriously bad. It reflects how little they care about their customers.
In my own experience, and the experience of a lot of other gamers that I've heard of, EA's customer service is terrible. Before you can contact them at all, you need to fill in a form on their website. This form determines how 'important' your problem is, and then gives you options of how to contact EA. Their phone number isn't openly available - they'll only tell you it if this form deems YOUR problem important enough to require phoning them. Otherwise they'll either send you to live chat or, even worse, only allow you to email them.

Their live chat is abhorrent. The representatives are often very hard to understand due to (and I mean them no offence, but it's true and a valid problem) their lack of English skill, and they generally have little to no knowledge of the games that they're providing support for. They also don't seem to care. On a lot of occasions (you can find examples online) they outright ignore the problem and give an automated message along the lines of "Is there anything else I can help you with?". They often don't give a solution, but since the automated form decides how you can contact EA, you can't get further help.

The forum support is equally bad. There are multiple instance of widespread problems with games, even so much that the game just doesn't work, and the forum support simply stops replying. They offer no fix, no way to give feedback. They just stop replying.

EA also don't offer refunds. Even in the case of SimCity, which is notorious for massive, huge gamebreaking bugs at launch (and for at least a month after, with even some features of the game being turned off to ease server load) such as saving issues which caused rollbacks/deletions and even server problems which stopped people playing, EA refused to give refunds. The only option for a lot of people was to initiate a chargeback with their credit card companies, which would most likely result in a ban from Origin - making people unable to play ANY of their EA games on PC.

I've used EA's customer support many times, all experiences have left me waiting around 1-2- hours for a chat with one while sending an email has left me waiting roughly 3 business days. this is quite typical as they are a big company and need to find someone to adress your specific issue, not to mention there are many other people trying to contact them. As for your comment on their English skills, they are quite formal and technical with they way they type, this is because they are required to be like this when representing the company. you comment on being banned for Origin for a chargeback also seems a bit ridiculous, unless you have personal proof and a screenshot i highly doubt that would happen without them contacting you prior to the ban.

2. Day-one DLC
This is a practice becoming more widespread in the industry, and it's terrible. Developers are working on DLC while they work on the game; this generally means that they take away resources from developing the game and put them into developing the DLC. Considering how many games have been released broken or unfinished (consider SimCity as broken, or Mass Effect 3's ending as unfinished), this is a huge problem - instead of finishing or fixing the game for release, they spend their resources on making more content that they can sell on top of the game.

This is a nasty concept. It's effectively taking away a chunk of the game's content - it was ready for release, so it could have been included in the game - and selling it separately, purely to make more money. The gamer pays for the game, with that content missing, and then pays for the content.

There have already been DLCs announced for Battlefield 4. Not one DLC, but two. The console hasn't even been released, let alone the game. How many resources did they use on that DLC?

This is as you said, widespread within the industry, this just seem like another reason for you to target EA. I didn't buy SimCity so i can't give an answer to that but regarding the Mass Effect 3 ending I can safely say that's your personal issue with the game, many people hated the ending Bioware delivered but it was not an issue relating to "Day One DLC". They even made DLC specifically to calm the audience and make things right with you all.

3. Greedy micro-transactions
For those who don't know, micro-transactions are in-game items bought for real money. They are commonly used in free-to-play games as a business model, which is fair enough: the developers need to make money somehow. But EA includes them in their games. Charging players for items in a game they've paid full-price for? In my eyes, that's not acceptable.

It was stated that micro-transactions are optional: they're there for players that want them, but there's no pressure. That simply isn't true. Players will always take the easiest route to winning a game - that's how games work. So when given the option to pay real money to get in-game benefits, there is pressure to take it. Not taking that option means a disadvantage.

Why should people who have paid for a full game be milked for more money whilst they play? Do you want to spend your time while you play games thinking and worrying about all the extra money you're spending, or the advantage you're missing out on?

Yes EA has included micro-transactions in a few games, but this is not a game breaking mechanic. In all their titles with this feature you can earn the same items in-game just by playing. It is not Pay-to-Win. You do not need to buy them. You earn no disadvantage except earning it while you play.

4. Digital rights management: controlling when and how you play games
Origin was an attempt at enforcing DRM on PC players: they'd always need to be online, running their games through the Origin platform, so that the games could less easily be pirated. It'd save EA money, but it's a massive inconvenience to the players.

Origin had a lot of problems when it was launched. It was beta software, and yet players had no choice but to run their games through it. Some people couldn't play games at all due to Origin problems.

It also meant that players were forced to be permanently online to play any games - even single-player. This is a massive inconvenience to the player. If your internet service provider has problems, you can't play your games. If EA's servers go down, you can't play your games. The sole reason for this is to protect EA's sales, but it takes away consumers' rights to the products they paid for.

Ironically, it's far more convenient to pirate games due to Origin. [/b]

I will agree with most of this... but may I add that you require steam to play games you buy from their store, Same concept and principles, different titles, ownership, and pricing. EA did goof up with Origin.

5. It's okay you release games unplayable. We can fix them in a few months.
As I mentioned earlier, SimCity literally couldn't be played on release. Even still, 3 months on, it has some major bugs. There was a beta. So why didn't they find these bugs? It's simple: it wasn't really a beta. It was a glorified demo to generate hype. The beta was restricted to one hour of play mostly consisting of a tutorial, with a lot of features blocked. They didn't give people a chance to test the game at all.

Still, they must have known the bugs were there. Some of them were glaringly obvious and very common, so it can be assumed that quality assurance testers would have noticed. The game was released as it was, however. Over the course of months, patches were released, each time fixing some of these problems. The game still isn't completely fixed. And even while the game was broken, EA were still producing DLC: the Nissan Leaf is one of a few examples of product placement DLC. Yes, if you download a Nissan Leaf (advertisement for Nissan, which EA gets paid for) and use it in your game, you get gameplay advantages. No downsides. So it's essential DLC.

The game was ruined for people who bought it at release. Do you really want to buy games in the future, after getting excited about them, to find yourself unable to play them because they were released broken and unfinished?

Again you are mostly correct, bugs in games will always be present and popping up. Each patch that fixes some bugs creates some more, that's gaming for you. EA should have seen most of these bugs and did screw up with SimCity. Your comment "The game was ruined for people who bought it at release. Do you really want to buy games in the future, after getting excited about them, to find yourself unable to play them because they were released broken and unfinished?" does annoy me, I've bought games that have been aweful at release, Yes i will buy games in the future though, even after I was ecstatic about their release only to find out their utter tripe. That's gaming, always will be, some titles just never take off while some are applauded out of the gate only to slip over at the first hurdle and hang themselves on the bar.

I do hope this list shows you why EA is bad and why, even if these problems don't affect you, you should stop buying from them until they change their ways. Maybe if we get the message across now they won't ruin the new Star Wars Battlefront.

IHateEA, I take it you're not happy with EA? Just a hunch...

 

[A Shadows Age]

A: How are micro-transactions greedy? Specifically if they're optional.

B: Origin has issues, just like steam does. But from what I see its perfectly serviceable. Many of my friends have used it to play Battlefield 3.

C: So Bethesda should be burned at the stake along side EA then?

SooPYYY! DEFENDER OF THE REALM! SMELLER OF FLOWERS!

 

[Racecarlock]

Sorry bro, I love NFS way too much to stop buying it. And the latest ones from criterion have not changed my mind on that.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Is it just me, or does anyone else get a sneaking suspicion this is MS fanboy/employee trying to rekindle the flame of EA hatred so MS will not be the primary target anymore?

That really wouldn't make any sense, because while it would make Microsoft not the absolute target, but it would make them an equal and still receive as much hate as EA.

Think about it, one of EA's core money makers is sports games, and Microsoft is in bed with them on this. Along with TV, Xbox One is about sports, sports, and more sports, they even have a contract of sorts with EA that will make at least four of the typical EA sports titles exclusive to the Xbox One, for at least several months.

Microsoft and EA are bros, so this can't be a ploy to move hate, because this would be like Microsoft moving and pouring buckets of water on the other side of their sinking boat, the side that EA is sitting on, and of course the water will flow right back to Microsoft.

 

[Colt47]

My thoughts are to keep an eye on EA and see what they do for their next couple of releases. They just had a change in leadership and we really don't know what kind of changes they have in the works. Given they dropped the ten dollar pass to get online play with used games they may be on an upswing back to not being absolutely evil and derivative with their games.

Now if this is about Origin...

Yeah I'm not installing it on my computer.

 

[Uriain]

6. Their games are terrible. Okay that's just my opinion, but it's still my main reason for not buying anything from them. The second would be a lot of their games are unplayable, but you already covered that.

Just to clarify, when you say "their games are terrible" you know that they control a significant amount of the market, so that is a significant numbers of games which you consider to be "terrible"? I can understand if don't like styles of games (maybe you don't play sports games for example) but the quality of the games is, for the most part, pretty good and on par with other publishers products (minus games like Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, etc).

To the issue at large;

Origin works, if the company's name wasn't EA people would tout it was a pretty good alternative to Steam (if you needed an alternative that is), but because its "EA" Origin the world rallies against it like some sort of invasion. Is it perfect - no, does it screw up - yes, is the company still doing shady stuff in general - Yep, they do. Its not a all the time thing though.

There is such persecution for EA that companies like Activision, Capcom, Bethesda, Ubisoft and Blizzard get a free "internet wrath" pass which is utter crap. Bethesda continuely puts out half built games then languishes in the fact that modders will fix it for them. Capcom and Activision pull REDICULOUS DLC prices for their games, and Activisions powerhouse title hasn't changed significantly in 6 years (great, I can see dust and mud better.. whoppity-do basil).

I don't pray at the Alter of EA, because they do dumb crap as well but its not a "lone man on the mountian" problem, its a King of the Hill game on Beaver Creek (Halo 2) with rockets, some good stuff, some bad stuff, and just some general "wtf" moments.....like every other publisher.

 

[RJ 17]

"IHateEA"...4 posts...all in this topic. Uhhhh-huhhhh....

Snip.

I do hope this list shows you why EA is bad and why, even if these problems don't affect you, you should stop buying from them until they change their ways. Maybe if we get the message across now they won't ruin the new Star Wars Battlefront.

1. They have a new CEO. I'm going to give him 1 chance; Starwars Battlefront 3. If that's fucked up, EA is dead to me.
2. Us not buying from them isn't going to make them change their ways. Its going to make them shut down the studios that make the games that we don't buy, and keep the studios that make EA sports titles and Battlefield making EA sports and Battlefield for guaranteed profits. Boycotting the good games because of bad practices just leaves bad games and bad practices.
3. Boycotting is rather stupid in any case. You buy the games you will enjoy, you don't buy the ones you won't. If the DRM ties into that, that's fine. If the Day-One DLC ties into that, fine. If you're fine with all that stuff, and just don't buy the game, which turns out to be great, because you don't like EA... You're part of the problem, not the solution, and you've just missed out on a good game for no reason, with no gain - seeing as millions of others bought it anyway.
EA have done bad in the past. They seem to be changing. We will see. If they have learned, power to us. If not, then complain. Putting a blanket of "Don't buy EA" out though? Nah, that's a bit much really.

While I liked all the points you made, I particularly liked your conclusion here. But the best part about your post is that the OP did a massive response post to numerous people on the 2nd page...yet interestingly enough didn't touch on anything that you brought up.

I hate EA, but I will still probably get Battlefront and possibly even the new DA title if Bioware didn't completely and totally botch it again. I am an evil, evil man >

In the end, that's about where I sit with them. BF and DA will be the bars by which I measure EA, and I'm going to keep an eye on them in general. Maybe I'm a hopeless optimist, but I want to see how things play out now that they've gotten rid of online passes.

 

[waj9876]

Eh, I can kind of see where you're coming from with this...but...yeah, sorry. I'm not gonna sacrifice my Elder Scrolls fix, even if it means harming EA.

 

[faefrost]

I'll agree with the OP's list and at least understand his sentiments. However I will give EA a little bit more benefit of a skeptical second look these days. The sudden and much needed departure of John Riccitiello and the fact that the current interim management seem to be starting to slowly and tentatively address some issues of corporate culture and some of the public complaints may win them some benefit of the doubt at least for the short term. At the very least I am willing to take a measured and careful look at what they now do going forward, rather than what they have been doing up to the point SimCity crashed and burned. Improvements in their CS will go a long way in this regard. Although to be completely honest I had to call Bioware's support regarding problems reactivating my SWTOR account 2 or 3 weeks ago, and the experience was quite astonishingly good. The wait time was reasonable. The CS rep I got was pleasant, knowledgeable, and went out of his way to insure that my problem was actually solved. It blew my mind. I had to double check that I was calling an EA company. So maybe there is some hope somewhere. I know I know I'm being way too optimistic.

 

[TehCookie]

6. Their games are terrible. Okay that's just my opinion, but it's still my main reason for not buying anything from them. The second would be a lot of their games are unplayable, but you already covered that.

Just to clarify, when you say "their games are terrible" you know that they control a significant amount of the market, so that is a significant numbers of games which you consider to be "terrible"? I can understand if don't like styles of games (maybe you don't play sports games for example) but the quality of the games is, for the most part, pretty good and on par with other publishers products (minus games like Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite, etc).

I haven't bought a game that has been touched by EA since The Sims 2. That is including games published by them. By saying that it's my opinion I thought I made it clear that I was speaking subjectively. Most of the games I enjoy are AA or niche games. Objectively they are less quality than AAA games, but more creative and fun so I enjoy them more. I have a different taste in games than most people.

 

[ultrabiome]

out of all of the game companies, i generally avoid EA releases more than most of the others. however, when a game has intrigued me enough, i'll break down and buy it, through ebay if possible, and for cheap (~$20). i did this with Dead Space and SSX for PS3. and i've been wanting to play Mass Effect for a long time, so i waited until ME Trilogy was eventually released and dropped to $40, and bought it new for PC, but through an amazon private seller. i installed origin for the first time, and haven't had any issues so far. and mass effect has been so awesome that i bought all of the story DLC (in the middle of 2 right now), even at their ridiculous costs and haven't regretted it.

the games were all excellent. but i'm not really interested in the direction Dead Space 2 went, so i haven't picked it up - i prefer the Doom-esque feel. and i'll still scrutinize any EA release i might want and do my best to not pay them directly for their content - because i still don't like them as a publisher.

 

[irok]

A: How are micro-transactions greedy? Specifically if they're optional.

B: Origin has issues, just like steam does. But from what I see its perfectly serviceable. Many of my friends have used it to play Battlefield 3.

C: So Bethesda should be burned at the stake along side EA then?

Origin has some issues? really? I get like 12kbs download from them , I go on steam and get a full 4 mbs, that's some issues and f2p companies use micro transactions to stay alive, EA uses them to take money off of people for things that they should have gotten in game anyway

 

[CardinalPiggles]

But, but... Mirror's Edge!

Mirror's freaking Edge man.

EA really do suck sometimes I'll agree. But boycotting every single game they ever publish because they made some bad decisions with some of their IP is arrogant.

Pick your games carefully, that's all you need to do. If Mirror's Edge 2 turns out to be orientated towards gun combat and stupid explosions and action then I'll not buy it. If it's always online required then I'll not buy it. But I won't avoid a game I probably will like just because the people throwing money at it can be jerks sometimes.