EA is just the big bad right now. Easy for people to jump on the hate bandwagon. In a few years time it will shift again when it becomes popular to hate someone else
Unfortunately, Bioware was one of my favorite companies. I've played almost every single one of their games, from Baldur's Gate to Mass Effect 3. I loved all of them it seems until EA became involved (not including Mass Effect 2). I can only help but point my finger at them. I personally don't hate them because it's cool to hate them, I hate them because I feel like they limited the creativity of Bioware. I feel like such a hipster, but I hate "blockbuster games" as much as most blockbuster movies. I just don't like the concept of it.
"How good do you have to be to be considered a 'good person'?"
Originally Posted by retronym
However, I have some feeling that they were involved somewhat in butchering Spore to the lacking form it was on release. They've also butchered The Sims 3 to the point of it seemingly like a pay-to-play MMO (the box cost of the game) and tact on micro-transactions just for the purpose of the $$$.
Oh and I also remembered this quote someone said about EA:
EA Games: Charge for everything! This was back when EA had the "Challenge everything" slogan.
If however, a game is released and a key part of the game is being sold as DLC on top of the price of the base game, that I do take issue with.
Besides, selling a few aesthetic mounts is nothing. They add no advantage to the people who buy them nor do they progress the game for those players. A player can give Blizzard nothing more than the monthly sub and get all the main content and have no disadvantage next to someone who buys things from the blizz store.
Last edited by Adam Jensen; 2012-05-29 at 03:26 AM.
If a video game developer removed tumors from players, they'd whine about nerfing their loss in weight and access to radiation powers. -Cracked.com
Thing is, as soon as we talk big publishers and a game is bad, it's the publisher's fault and the developer has been pushed too hard etc. When a game is good it is good despite the publisher and the developer must be a god to be able to thrive under such circumstances.
I'm not saying that the above is wrong, it certainly fits some cases better than others, but just an observation. If publishers were all bad developers wouldn't want them backing them after all.
EA sports, It's in the game.................for $10,- extra that is
Seriously, just because something may have been good in the past, does not give it a saving grace for it being a huge pile of steaming crap later. All its past achievements mean nothing when purely evaluating their current situation.
companies like EA and Activision are needed unfortunately, they have the money, they can spend a couple million dollars on a project which a developing studio doesn't have.
they got access to distribution networks, they can provide advertising , they can make sure your ambitious game project even gets completed.
without those publishing companies games would have been much smaller and less advanced.
on the other side, I am also not a fan of DLC and microtransactions. I don't want to pay for items or extra content (especially if it turns out the DLC was printed on the Dvd and shipped with the game)
unfortunately because publishers have the money they also have the power, they can kill projects and studios as they seem fit, they can force a developer to do certain things.
And they take most of the money you pay for your game because they need their investment back.
Small studios are in the publishers grasp and won't be able to escape it.
It's true..EA have become more and more greedy over the years, sacrificing integrity for profit...but tbh they've brought us some lovely games over the years so I can't hate them completely.
I never liked EA in general. Their sports games alone have stinked of greed for decades. They update the rosters and rarely anything else.
Companies like EA and Activision do little more than stifle creativity while pushing for increasing production values. Apparently it's all good if it looks great, even if it's a buggy broken mess. I recently read a maganzine article (PC Gamer I believe) where a developer sent in a peice they wrote where they described the industry as a contest of "who could spend more" not who could make the better game.
DLC I can go either way with. Expansions to games down the road can give extra gameplay cheaply, but then it's a balance of wether it should be there in the game in the first place.
I think you have to take DLCs on a case by case basis. Some seem worthwhile (like the old expansions to games like NWN, Diablo etc)... others,,,maybe not so much (especially if packaged with the orginial game like ME3 for example).
---------- Post added 2012-05-29 at 01:44 PM ----------
They have gobbled up the studios that have pushed and innovated their respective genres. But rest assured, that once EA has purchased them, the quality of those franchises slow go down hill until they are an empty husk of their former self and the studios themselves are shut down.
EA is a publisher who's main goal is to make as much return on their initial investment as they possible can.
Last edited by Jarlathe; 2012-05-29 at 12:56 PM.
Don't be mistaken, making a game these days requires a lot more people, money and work than 10-15 years ago.
and I can't blame publishers for preferring 'safe' titles, they are after all investing maybe over 10 million dollars in your project including developing, advertising and distribution, something new may not sell while a new Call of Duty with little innovation will absolutely sell.
Those companies they 'gobble up' are simply looking for financial security. by becoming part of EA they make sure they got their income secured. And if they were still independent but just publishing with EA they'd still have to get their project approved, not only at the start but also during development so EA knows they won't lose money on funding the project.
it's not like the big fat car comes rolling up your parking lot and you suddenly are enslaved by the devil, the publisher see a way to make money and the developer see a way to ensure survival and work, they both benefit from the deal from a business point of view.
the restrictions that come with it are something I doubt many developers are happy with but they prefer it over going bankrupt.
I have enough of EA ruining great franchises and studios, forcing DRM and Origin on their games, releasing incomplete games only to sell day-1 DLCs or spill dozens of DLCs, and then saying it, and microtransactions, is what players want, as well as deflecting complaints with cheap PR tricks.
I'm not going to buy any game by EA as long as they continue those practices.
Horses for Courses and all that... nothing wrong or right about it as such, just personal taste. Me personally, I like a big dumb blockbuster now and then, but also sometimes on a small scale.