Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: IS this EA?

  1. #1
    The floppy drive is no longer obsolete. AmEv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Idaho, USA
    Posts
    3,052

    Default IS this EA?

    I know it's a video, but I thought it related more to gaming, so...
    Two years. They were great. Let's make the next ones even better!

    Tri.fecta

  2. #2
    Mentally Underclocked mDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    I'm not sure if these videos are satire or the creators are unknowingly the stupid, mindless people they are making fun of. I can't see any legitimate reason to continuously whine about any game publisher. This all boils down to 'bashing on the big guy.' Whether it's Microsoft, The Big 3, Sony, or EA, being too successful draws out the critics. And calling any corporation a greedy money machine is like calling a fish wet. Origin isn't some zany conspiracy to take over the world...it's meant to compete with Steam, which is stupidly successful and likely represents the future of media distribution.

    I liked the first Crysis, hated the absolute linearity of the second. Loved BF2 when it came out, didn't play the others, and then enjoyed BF3 until it was overrun with hackers. Once BF3 gets its act together it will be fun again. I can't think of any other EA games I've bought in the last few years...which is why I don't have any reason to complain.
    I'll procrastinate tomorrow.

  3. #3
    The floppy drive is no longer obsolete. AmEv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Idaho, USA
    Posts
    3,052

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Probably satirical.

    But, they do have a point in EA's advertising schemes.

    And that they buy indie game developers, and the once-awesome games go south quick.

    And that they make so many pay-for DRMs for features that should have already been included.
    Two years. They were great. Let's make the next ones even better!

    Tri.fecta

  4. #4
    ATX Mental Case CrazyTeaPot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    People who defend EA are weirdly ill-thought-out or just clearly blind. Regardless, there's a reason why people hate things. It's not just for any silly reason, that's idiotic at best. Hatred starts somewhere, it's not just some random occurrence that happens because it's a fundamental law of the universe that says it must.

    Now bandwagons that only exist because of said hatred and for no other intelligible reason, now that's dumb. Many people like to hop on the wagon just because everyone else is doing it. And that's where EA "supporters" or "defenders" come from. They see that it's clearly unfair and entirely ridiculous, which it is, and they run in the opposite direction with that. Human beings are like rubber bands. We stretch one way and then we snap back into the other direction. Eventually, we'll come to rest in the middle. But that's pretty much what's happening now with the EA "debate". Many people are going too far in one direction, so other people go too far in the other direction because of it.

    There's no reason for EA to exist. They exist purely as a company looking to make money. They don't have the gamer at mind or at heart, nor are they run by such people. It's just another company trying to make money in a business where there's money to be made. And there's nothing wrong with that. How they often go about it is the problem.

    Take Spore for example. Huge hype. So instead of taking the time to really polish it up and make due on what it was supposed to be, they hit the iron when it was at it's hottest and released a game that was only similar to what it was supposed to be. That's EA. That's always been EA. They've been around for YEARS now. I refuse to believe people are so absent minded and easily distracted that you simply can't remember how bad EA has been during this entire time, after they had become successful anyways. Spore is just one example. How many others can you think of? None? Then congratulations, you have the memory of a goldfish, or, you just don't care either way. Either possibility is equally bad.

    EA continuously does things that are in the opposite direction of what is best for gamers. They only care about one thing, which is money. That's a problem only because of the aforementioned sentence. They're kind of like Fox, who cancelled a profitable and popular show, because they felt that selling it could bring in more money than letting it continue on would have done.

    You still don't think EA is ran by a guy who only cares about money, in opposition of what's best for gamers? Enjoy...



    I'm sure people will find a reason to justify it and everything else EA has ever done, if they can even remember half of it, because there are two bandwagons. One hates EA while the other defends them. How about we stop jumping on Bandwagons and just intelligently analyze the GD facts for a change? Ah, that's right, people aren't intelligent. So that's kind of impossible.

    Walking a fine line is what EA does and will continue to do. So long as that happens, people will never care. People don't even care about Tyranny, until it hits absolute rock bottom. Why should they care about video games? I can't say that I blame them, really. But at the same time.... I like video games. And I just want the best product possible, which you'll rarely get with EA involved. (Thank god they only bought out ME3 and not HL3 as well. There can't possibly be a reason why they weren't able to get their hands on HL3...)

  5. #5
    The floppy drive is no longer obsolete. AmEv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Idaho, USA
    Posts
    3,052

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    I still remember what happened to Westwood.....

    C&C:RA2, where EA was in the process of buying them? Instant classic.
    C&C4, where EA was at the max of the dollar signs in eyes? Utter garbage.
    Two years. They were great. Let's make the next ones even better!

    Tri.fecta

  6. #6
    Mentally Underclocked mDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Quote Originally Posted by AmEv View Post
    Probably satirical.

    But, they do have a point in EA's advertising schemes.

    And that they buy indie game developers, and the once-awesome games go south quick.

    And that they make so many pay-for DRMs for features that should have already been included.
    Meh. Sounds like their advertising is successful to me.

    Copyrights and patents are bought up by corporations all the time. If an intellectual property is needed and not for sale, the smaller company is often assimilated. If the smaller company had other successful IPs that the parent company isn't interested in, they are nixed. It's a side effect of business and not endemic to only EA. I'm too lazy to list examples but they exist in every industry.

    That's an unfortunate but successful business model. Micro-transactions are likely to be part of every game in the future due to the enormous and consistent revenue it generates. Someone has to pay to keep the lights on in the tech support and server rooms over the years. People complained about monthly subscriptions the same way but that doesn't stop millions from playing WoW, Star Wars:whatever the hell, or any multiplayer 360 game. It's just new to mainstream titles. We'll all get used to it.
    I'll procrastinate tomorrow.

  7. #7
    Mentally Underclocked mDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    People who defend EA are weirdly ill-thought-out or just clearly blind.
    People who alienate, polarize, or attack those they disagree with are weirdly ill-thought-out or just clearly blind.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Regardless, there's a reason why people hate things.
    Correct, but it's usually due to lack of understanding or limited perspective.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Now bandwagons that only exist because of said hatred and for no other intelligible reason, now that's dumb. Many people like to hop on the wagon just because everyone else is doing it. And that's where EA "supporters" or "defenders" come from.
    People like to feel as though they are part of a group of like minded individuals. It reinforces their beliefs; makes them feel as if they are 'correct' whether or not it's true. e.g. sports fans, cults, etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    There's no reason for EA to exist. They exist purely as a company looking to make money. They don't have the gamer at mind or at heart, nor are they run by such people. It's just another company trying to make money in a business where there's money to be made. And there's nothing wrong with that. How they often go about it is the problem.
    There's no reason for you, I or anything else to exist either. Every single company in all of history has set out to make money in exchange for goods/services. Even not-for-profits have to make enough money to sustain themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Take Spore for example. Huge hype. So instead of taking the time to really polish it up and make due on what it was supposed to be, they hit the iron when it was at it's hottest and released a game that was only similar to what it was supposed to be. That's EA. That's always been EA. They've been around for YEARS now. I refuse to believe people are so absent minded and easily distracted that you simply can't remember how bad EA has been during this entire time, after they had become successful anyways. Spore is just one example. How many others can you think of? None? Then congratulations, you have the memory of a goldfish, or, you just don't care either way. Either possibility is equally bad.
    EA is a publisher, not a developer. Maxis was responsible for development of spore. EA published what Maxis created. There is always going to be massive hype about any product, if someone believes every bit of marketing, then it's their own gullible fault. Also, please refresh my goldfish memory.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    EA continuously does things that are in the opposite direction of what is best for gamers. They only care about one thing, which is money. That's a problem only because of the aforementioned sentence. They're kind of like Fox, who cancelled a profitable and popular show, because they felt that selling it could bring in more money than letting it continue on would have done.
    Profit is the ultimate goal of every corporation. If they don't meet their goals then shareholders lose interest and sell their stake, which devalues the company, which is then liquidated by its creditors/shareholders. It's do or die in the corporate world. The CEO can't tell the board of directors "we lost $100M on game X, but don't worry, we made it really, really good!"
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    You still don't think EA is ran by a guy who only cares about money, in opposition of what's best for gamers? Enjoy...

    I'm sure people will find a reason to justify it and everything else EA has ever done, if they can even remember half of it, because there are two bandwagons.
    I apologize for justifying 'it' in my previous post before watching the video.
    The CEO of any corporation is there to steer the company, not to develop its products. Even if EA is guilty of whatever they are being charged with here, you're blaming the wrong guy.
    A game publisher cannot sell a multiplayer game for $60 upfront and then support that game indefinitely. The development, network, support, and internal costs are too great. But when the company runs out of money and the servers shut off they will be labeled thieves because people can't play the game they paid for. Micro-transactions will keep the servers well funded.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    One hates EA while the other defends them. How about we stop jumping on Bandwagons and just intelligently analyze the GD facts for a change? Ah, that's right, people aren't intelligent. So that's kind of impossible.
    That's awfully black and white. Who in particular is on which bandwagon here? Instead of logical fallacy after fallacy, how about we do analyze the facts...religiously damned or not.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Walking a fine line is what EA does and will continue to do. So long as that happens, people will never care. People don't even care about Tyranny, until it hits absolute rock bottom. Why should they care about video games? I can't say that I blame them, really. But at the same time.... I like video games. And I just want the best product possible, which you'll rarely get with EA involved. (Thank god they only bought out ME3 and not HL3 as well. There can't possibly be a reason why they weren't able to get their hands on HL3...)
    Is EA tyrannical? Really? Are they actively oppressing their customers? Are they cruelly torturing them? If they are, then stop being their customer; simple as that.
    I'll procrastinate tomorrow.

  8. #8
    ATX Mental Case CrazyTeaPot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    188

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Quote Originally Posted by mDust View Post
    People who alienate, polarize, or attack those they disagree with are weirdly ill-thought-out or just clearly blind.

    It's not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". If you don't know that EA sucks, then you're clueless. The evidence is everywhere.

    Correct, but it's usually due to lack of understanding or limited perspective.

    Not always. And I'm only commenting on that which is clearly obvious.

    People like to feel as though they are part of a group of like minded individuals. It reinforces their beliefs; makes them feel as if they are 'correct' whether or not it's true. e.g. sports fans, cults, etc.

    Definition of a bandwagon, which is why I used the term.

    There's no reason for you, I or anything else to exist either. Every single company in all of history has set out to make money in exchange for goods/services. Even not-for-profits have to make enough money to sustain themselves.

    I actually specifically said that there's nothing wrong with making money, so I don't understand your point here.

    EA is a publisher, not a developer. Maxis was responsible for development of spore. EA published what Maxis created. There is always going to be massive hype about any product, if someone believes every bit of marketing, then it's their own gullible fault. Also, please refresh my goldfish memory.

    I also said that they're a publisher as well, so no need to point that out. Maxis is the developer, yes. But the Publisher (EA) pushed them to finish the product sooner than it should have been. Go watch the videos of Spore before EA acquired them. Yeah, see that there? That's what Maxis was working on before EA got involved. Weird how the game is only marginally similar to what they were working on before EA, huh?? What was it you said? "...but it's usually due to lack of understanding or limited perspective." Yep. I very much agree with that statement.

    Profit is the ultimate goal of every corporation. If they don't meet their goals then shareholders lose interest and sell their stake, which devalues the company, which is then liquidated by its creditors/shareholders. It's do or die in the corporate world. The CEO can't tell the board of directors "we lost $100M on game X, but don't worry, we made it really, really good!"

    What's your point? This is something which everyone knows and understands. Again, I never said that there is anything wrong with making money. And last I checked... yeah... you can make good games while also being profitable. EA wants to be THE MOST profitable, which is the problem. They're profiteers. That's why ME3 isn't as good as the first two and Spore is nothing compared to what it was before EA. Etc etc etc. That's the problem I'm commenting on. It's not like I'm making this up as I go, you know. Even the video I posted shows evidence that they're ONLY out to make money. It's a problem. EA buys everyone and pushes them to release a half assed product, which hurts the gamers. Which is clear if you've been paying attention to the decade that EA has been around for now, because they constantly do it. They walk a fine line, to be sure, but that shouldn't be "acceptable".

    I apologize for justifying 'it' in my previous post before watching the video.
    The CEO of any corporation is there to steer the company, not to develop its products. Even if EA is guilty of whatever they are being charged with here, you're blaming the wrong guy.
    A game publisher cannot sell a multiplayer game for $60 upfront and then support that game indefinitely. The development, network, support, and internal costs are too great. But when the company runs out of money and the servers shut off they will be labeled thieves because people can't play the game they paid for. Micro-transactions will keep the servers well funded.

    Yeah... nothing wrong with micro-transactions, actually. Unless you implement them wrong. How much do you trust EA to do it right? Just the way he describes the idea behind micro-transactions is a huge red flag for anyone with half a brain. He could have referenced something more like how League of Legends functions, or any other numerous possibility aside from an example that screams "screwing over gamers".

    That's awfully black and white. Who in particular is on which bandwagon here? Instead of logical fallacy after fallacy, how about we do analyze the facts...religiously damned or not.

    I am only analyzing the facts. It's not like I'm making things up here. I'm only commenting on what is and what isn't.

    Is EA tyrannical? Really? Are they actively oppressing their customers? Are they cruelly torturing them? If they are, then stop being their customer; simple as that.
    I didn't mean to imply that EA is tyrannical, though I see how it could be taken that way. I was only giving an example on human behavior, not on the behavior of EA as a company.

    Though one might say that EA is pretty tyrannical in their own way. They do buy out a lot of up-start companies, take what's useful, and ditch the remains. They are a publisher after-all, it's kind of what they do. People agree to let EA publish them, which is huge because EA is huge, then EA comes in and puts the pressure on to release the game ASAP, which is why titles often suffer when published by EA, whereas before they didn't. Just like Spore and ME3. You can't seriously blame developers when EA is involved as the publisher. It's illogical at this point, if only because of the given evidence. Again, it's not like I'm just making this up. I've just taken enough interest on the topic to actually know what I'm talking about. Perhaps anyone who might disagree with me, should do the same. Though understandably, it's hard to dig up evidence when you don't know where to start digging. It's much easier when you've been paying attention the entire time. I've remember being a teenager and people, including myself, being disappointed by EA even back then. None of this is new by any means. EA has always walked a fine line.

  9. #9
    Mentally Underclocked mDust's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,639

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    It's not a matter of "I agree" or "I disagree". If you don't know that EA sucks, then you're clueless. The evidence is everywhere.
    'EA sucks' is an opinion, not a fact. Please learn the difference and limit the use of ad hominem this time around.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I actually specifically said that there's nothing wrong with making money, so I don't understand your point here.
    I responded the way I did because you openly criticized a company for wanting to make money and then claimed wanting to make money is OK and justified. I wasn't and still am not sure where the criticism stemmed from.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I also said that they're a publisher as well, so no need to point that out. Maxis is the developer, yes. But the Publisher (EA) pushed them to finish the product sooner than it should have been. Go watch the videos of Spore before EA acquired them. Yeah, see that there? That's what Maxis was working on before EA got involved. Weird how the game is only marginally similar to what they were working on before EA, huh??
    Developers and publishers are like night and day. The developer always wants to make the best damn game possible and set lofty, often unachievable goals. Duke Nukem Forever is the best example of this. The publisher has profit in mind as they are the financier. They need the game to be completed on time to turn a profit. Time is literally money for them. The games cannot stay in development more than 2-3 years and still be profitable. If publisher X let developer Y work on a game for 5 years, and they made the best (by popular opinion), most polished game but had to charge $120US to cover development costs, would you buy it?..or lambaste them for being money-grubbing crooks? What if publisher X wasn't EA?
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    What was it you said? "...but it's usually due to lack of understanding or limited perspective." Yep. I very much agree with that statement.
    Ironic. Doubly so since my degree (unfinished, admittedly) was Digital Animation and Game Design. I know quite a bit about how the game industry functions.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    What's your point?...EA wants to be THE MOST profitable, which is the problem. They're profiteers.
    My point is all corporations focus on profits first. Without profit, there would be no games for gamers to incessantly whine about in the first place.
    Is EA making unfair amounts of profit? Are they dabbling in black markets or illegal trades? I don't think 'profiteer' is befitting. Would you cap their profits? What else should be regulated?
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    That's why ME3 isn't as good as the first two and Spore is nothing compared to what it was before EA. Etc etc etc. That's the problem I'm commenting on. It's not like I'm making this up as I go, you know.
    A product being 'good' is a judgment call...an opinion. EA also published ME2, so I guess they did a good job there. Spore/SimEverything might very well still be in development if its scope wasn't narrowed by the publisher, EA or not. SimEverything was a noble idea but impractical in reality. I'm not sure what examples 'Etc etc etc' represent.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Even the video I posted shows evidence that they're ONLY out to make money.
    Is that what it shows? I swore it was an out of context explanation of how micro-transactions work. Perhaps you linked the wrong video?
    EA isn't going to literally charge $1 to reload your weapon in BF4. $5-10 to unlock a weapon the player hasn't earned is more likely.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    EA buys everyone and pushes them to release a half assed product, which hurts the gamers. Which is clear if you've been paying attention to the decade that EA has been around for now, because they constantly do it. They walk a fine line, to be sure, but that shouldn't be "acceptable".
    No publisher wants to push developers to release half assed products. They simply want games completed by the agreed upon deadline. Delays cause major cost overruns that destroy the publishers profit margin. They often cut features that the developer didn't finish implementing e.g. THQ nixed the drivable vehicles and advanced AI from Stalker that I was looking forward to. Again, would you be willing to pay substantially more for your games to cover extra development costs? The market already gripes about $60 a title even though that has been an average price-point for 2 decades.
    Also, what is the fine line EA are walking? Failure? Delivering an empty box after stealing every last dollar from the customer? Becoming evil incarnate? I'm not even sure what is implied.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Yeah... nothing wrong with micro-transactions, actually. Unless you implement them wrong. How much do you trust EA to do it right? Just the way he describes the idea behind micro-transactions is a huge red flag for anyone with half a brain. He could have referenced something more like how League of Legends functions, or any other numerous possibility aside from an example that screams "screwing over gamers".
    I don't distrust EA more than any other publisher. Are you really going to attempt to demonize a company with a minute long, out of context, sound bite?
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I am only analyzing the facts. It's not like I'm making things up here. I'm only commenting on what is and what isn't.
    The analyzed facts are circumstantial at best and conjecture at worst...extremely sensationalist all around.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I was only giving an example on human behavior, not on the behavior of EA as a company.
    Then I can agree with this. Though further discussion or examples would result in a locked thread.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    Though one might say that EA is pretty tyrannical in their own way. They do buy out a lot of up-start companies, take what's useful, and ditch the remains. They are a publisher after-all, it's kind of what they do. People agree to let EA publish them, which is huge because EA is huge, then EA comes in and puts the pressure on to release the game ASAP, which is why titles often suffer when published by EA, whereas before they didn't. Just like Spore and ME3. You can't seriously blame developers when EA is involved as the publisher.
    Tyrannical? No. A typical corporation? Yes. It's not just EA, and not just game publishers.
    Why are developers not at all responsible for game quality when contracted with EA?
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I've just taken enough interest on the topic to actually know what I'm talking about. Perhaps anyone who might disagree with me, should do the same. Though understandably, it's hard to dig up evidence when you don't know where to start digging. It's much easier when you've been paying attention the entire time.
    I didn't know I was conversing with an EA expert.
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyTeaPot View Post
    I've remember being a teenager and people, including myself, being disappointed by EA even back then. None of this is new by any means. EA has always walked a fine line.
    I've been disappointed by EA several times:
    • C&C:Generals wasn't all that great.
    • I thought Spore would be multiplayer...it wasn't.
    • BF:2142 was a terrible spinoff
    • Crysis 2 was extremely linear and predictable.
    • BF:3 has been overrun by hackers.


    But these are my opinions, not facts. I don't hate EA because I didn't like some of their games, though I'm not a huge fan of them either. Liking/disliking is based on the subjective tastes and desires of the consumer, not the perceived shortcomings of the companies that produced the product. If someone didn't like EAs game(s), then they probably weren't in the target market it was designed for...or they're a biased, nitpicking whiner like the people that made the OP video.
    I'll procrastinate tomorrow.

  10. #10
    The floppy drive is no longer obsolete. AmEv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Idaho, USA
    Posts
    3,052

    Default Re: IS this EA?

    Great discussion. It hasn't devolved into a flame war. Or "You're wrong" or "You're stupid", with bashing at each other. It's been one opinion against another.
    Much like a debate should be.

    I really can't say much about EA, as I can't afford to buy very many games. Last game I bought was Minecraft when Notch got married. And I'm not an eyepatch-wearing kind of guy.

    I've only heard about C&C4 and the "Always online" mode required about it. And a bit about the "online ranking" to "upgrade" so you can build more stuff. With it ending up having the pre-beta players group up against the "just joined" guys, making unfair fights.
    And (audio) chat permanently being enabled in single player, thus enabling immature teens to spam the chat.

    If I'm wrong about a C&C4 aspect, please correct me.

    As for generals? I watched my brother play it. Didn't seem at all like any of the previous C&Cs. I was like "Eh", and so was my brother.
    Two years. They were great. Let's make the next ones even better!

    Tri.fecta

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •