IGN: Why Do People 'Hate' EA? - Seriously? What is that all about? We asked EA.

[Slew Foot]

Because EA takes awesome deep and thoughtful PC games and turns them into an ADD addled console nightmare clickfest.

 

[wuliheron]

What a load of crap. The average AAA video game today costs 40-50 million dollars to develop and games like COD routinely rake in over a billion dollars. That's the kind of profits most people can only dream of and a blockbuster by even Hollywood standards. The idea that publishers like EA are struggling to satisfy their stockholders and make ends meet is a joke in bad taste. They are laughing all the way to the bank while biting the hand that feeds them and attempting to monopolize the market.

 

[shortylickens]

What a load of crap. The average AAA video game today costs 40-50 million dollars to develop and games like COD routinely rake in over a billion dollars. That's the kind of profits most people can only dream of and a blockbuster by even Hollywood standards. The idea that publishers like EA are struggling to satisfy their stockholders and make ends meet is a joke in bad taste. They are laughing all the way to the bank while biting the hand that feeds them and attempting to monopolize the market.

Pretty much. Something I learned with Quixstar is fucking over your customers is perfectly acceptable so long as they dont stop buying.
Let them complain like assholes. They vote with their dollars.

 

[Zenoth]

In the meantime you have games like Minecraft, Super Meat Boy and Angry Birds.

It's a world of extremes and I'm shaking my head sometimes. We have mega corporations investing tens of millions to make ONE game, and sometimes the development team is laid off before they can even patch the damn thing once properly, because "it didn't sell enough". On the other hand we have "development teams" consisting of anywhere between ONE guy to perhaps four or five people ending up millionaires because "they made a good game". I'm not sure what to think anymore.

It happened before of course, it's nothing new, the original Mortal Kombat was developed by four guys, see where the franchise is today? Was EA anywhere in the portrait? No. And back then when MK was new we had much bigger names and popularity out there... you know, "things that sell" like Mario Brothers and Sonic the Hedgehog (or if you want to go the combat style games route, Street Fighter II). Or, another example, the original Command & Conquer made it to the Guinness book of records for selling 10 million copies, that was back in the mid 1990's. Then what happened? It attracted attention from a bigger fish. The original C&C was released in 1995, and no later than in summer 1998 there's those guys called "EA" coming in and buying them. Is "buying them" by itself bad? No... or maybe it is. But anyhow what happened after that is what made it bad. First, as a result of the "acquirement" you have people from the original team leaving, which means you lose part of the original "raw talent" that gave birth to what made the original C&C what it was to start with (which was also the very reason of the acquirement).

Then, later on "after the dust fell" you have rushed games, cancelled games and "re-purposes" of titles such as Red Alert 2 having barely anything to do with the original (and don't tell me RA2 was better than the original, please, PLEASE don't). That's of course because sometimes you lose part of the original development team. If those team remained intact in composition and their games' quality was allowed to exist thanks to better longer schedules, then EA wouldn't be bashed on and people would be happy, not to mention that gamers wouldn't care about EA buying smaller companies since in the end it wouldn't affect the game's quality anyway. That would have been the Utopian scenario (and why does it have to remain a Utopia is a real mystery). So, what happens? What happens, sometimes, is when EA buys companies they take for granted that they buy a guaranteed future success, they buy a "label" rather than the people who made that label possible. The "original team", the people, are expendable in their corporate mind. What's important is not the quality in "comparison to the original", what's important is whatever the number following the title of the game happens to be, that it sells a lot.

EA does not care if the story of ME2 or ME3 has changed so much "in comparison" to the original, nor EA would feasibly care about the original writer leaving, oh yeah? Bid deal, just bring in a new guy who can "write something for this so we can proceed with the release as scheduled". They couldn't just cancel ME2 because Drew left, right? Right, so let's just make sure that "ME2" is released, EA's chairman isn't the guy who's going to end up PLAYING the damn thing on his couch when he gets back home from work anyway, and he's not the guy who's going to be disappointed about a game's quality or story, or whatever, and ending up the next morning at the office actually speaking about his disappointments as a gamer to the development team and asking them to rectify it.

---
(obvious mockery attempt)

Original team + good ideas = good game
Said good game makes heads turn at EA
EA offers money, expects team's silent nodding
Original team partly accepts, some leave
EA, indifferent, wants sequel
Part of original team unsure how to continue, continues nonetheless
Sequel released as scheduled, rushed, people complain, less quality
EA looks at charts, game sold, mission accomplished
EA wants sequel of the sequel
Team confused, cannot find logic in continuity
EA, indifferent, pays employees, expects results
Team re-routes, reconstruct original game lore, allows "new sequel" to exist
Game released, "fan base" confused, complains, less quality, "bland"
Team feels bad, but proud of new vision, accepted EA challenge feasible after all
EA looks at charts, game sells, happy panda
EA wants sequel of the sequel that was a sequel of the original sequel
Team warns EA of vicious cycle
EA, indifferent, wants game sold, *frowns* points at monitor, "keep working you monkey"
Catalyst kid pops, offers a solution

(/obvious mockery attempt)
---

Anyways, in the end, it's all about money.

The actual individuals whom happen to have a real passion for the video gaming development field are the ones we should feel the real pity for. The guys who are working on a game all night at work because they love doing it, rather than because it needs to be released as scheduled. There's a clear distinction to me between a guy working "at it" and despite the tiredness telling himself "man I need more time, I must polish this, screw the bed for tonight, this is important" (and sure he can end up in bed because he can't physically endure the tiredness anymore, but he still THOUGHT about keeping on working anyway exactly because he LOVES working on that), and a guy working at it and dozing off at the monitor thinking "holy shit I'd give anything right now to not have to work on this crap and get home" (and ending up home and being happy to be as far away as possible from the current game that he "has to" work on as a that mere "project #11").

I'm not sure if it's of EA's concern or even their responsibility to employ people whom actually care about their games, or if it's actually up to the employees alone to care about EA's release schedules while remaining silent and just doing their job. I do honestly wonder if EA "asks" specific teams or individually to this or that guy, things like "would you be interested in that specific project?", "would that project be your cup?", "would you like to work on that one?", or do they just tell teams or individuals "here, that's the one you're going to work on next", even though the team or the individual him/herself can't give a rat's ass about such a game genre or such a game's context or perhaps even such a scripting language.

In the end, I know this clearly enough (speaking for myself here). I liked C&C and Red Alert 1, "in comparison" to them Tiberian Sun and RA2 were not "as good", and certainly not better, although "decent" nonetheless on their own. I liked DA Origins and even Awakening to some extent, but DA2 sucked "in comparison", although on its own was rather decent at times, but usually mediocre mostly due to the obvious re-use of levels due in itself to the lack of time they disposed of to work on the damn thing to start with, so they "had to" cut corners to meet the schedule (explainable, but not excusable, in my book). Not to mention that DA2's story is bad anyway, short working schedule concerned or not (and that part of the game's development I believe is certainly not related to the time they disposed of to come up with something as bad as a conflict between Mages and Templars focused mostly inside ONE city for the whole game's duration). I liked Mass Effect 1, it's on the top ten list of my favorite video games of all time, but again "in comparison" I thought that ME2 was decent at times, usually bad and the story is abysmal, let's just not even talk about ME3.

I could keep going about this but I'll stop before I say something stupid which might have already happened.

 

[wuliheron]

Pretty much. Something I learned with Quixstar is fucking over your customers is perfectly acceptable so long as they dont stop buying.
Let them complain like assholes. They vote with their dollars.

Some dogs behave with just a stern "NO!", while others require more extreme measures. EA I would take to the pound and have put to sleep.

 

[shortylickens]

Some dogs behave with just a stern "NO!", while others require more extreme measures. EA I would take to the pound and have put to sleep.

So long as they sell off their IP's, fine. I want another Wing Commander and Dungeon Keeper.

 

[exdeath]

I could keep going about this but I'll stop before I say something stupid which might have already happened.

No, sounds about right.

I started hating EA years ago when C&C Generals and Zero Hour were abandoned and the game cannot be played multiplayer to this day without severe lag and desyncs.

Buy the franchise, rush it to make their dollar for the holiday season. Doesn't meet their self entitled sales goals, so they drop it like a bad habit, discontinue support for it, and squat on and lock up the IP in a dungeon somewhere never to see the light of day or be done justice by another developer.

Ah well who cares, we got our buck.

 

[ImpulsE69]

but but..guys!!! are you against making money??

/sarcasm

 

[exdeath]

but but..guys!!! are you against making money??

/sarcasm

Heh.

They made money just fine a decade ago. Obviously they had to in order to be as big as they are today.

They didn't need a billion dollars an hour to barely stay afloat back then, why now?

I'd love to see the percentage of "administrative overhead" creep on their current budget compared to 2000.

Just a bunch of cigar smoking fat cats attracted to the explosive commercialization of the video game market the last decade, that came and stuck their fingers in the pie, and now have absolutely no idea why it doesn't taste as good as it used to.

 

[stevty2889]

1. EA customer support-I never had a problem with them, until I had to deal with their terrible support. Back and forth one useless support rep followed by another, and they never resolved the issue, which they created in the first place. Just to be sure I never have to deal with that again, I won't buy their games anymore.

2. Origin-I don't mind using it for buying games, that's fine. But I don't like being forced to be logged in to it, and have to use it to launch games. Not because I have a problem with that type of setup, but because the first game where I was forced to use it, stopped being able to launch. The steam version of the same game, did not have the problem, which points to Origin being the entire problem. This refers back to problem 1, had to deal with EA support, and they were terrible.

3. Bullfrog-I, and many others would have loved a Dungeon Keeper 3. But because EA has the IP, it will never happen. There is a market for nostalgic games. Look at the support Wasteland 2 got on Kickstarter. We have a new X-Com coming, Shadowrunner, etc. If EA had any of that IP, it wouldn't happen, because they are a big IP black hole, and don't bother to listen to what their customers want.

 

[reallyscrued]

EA does not care if the story of ME2 or ME3 has changed so much "in comparison" to the original, nor EA would feasibly care about the original writer leaving, oh yeah? Bid deal, just bring in a new guy who can "write something for this so we can proceed with the release as scheduled". They couldn't just cancel ME2 because Drew left, right? Right, so let's just make sure that "ME2" is released, EA's chairman isn't the guy who's going to end up PLAYING the damn thing on his couch when he gets back from work anyway, and he's not the guy who's going to be disappointed about a game's quality or story or whatever and ending up the next morning at the office actually speaking about his disappointments as a gamer to the development team and asking them to rectify it.

This.

I've always thought this but was never able to articulate it. Thank you for putting it into words.

Can someone please call up EA's higher-ups and ask them if they buy and play their own games to the end?

What possible say would they even have on the quality of their product(s)?




"EA Games, Challenge Eeeeeeverything

...except our business model. "

 

[exdeath]

If EA had any of that IP, it wouldn't happen, because they are a big IP black hole

This x 9999999999999999999^99999999999999999999.

Yeah I could just not support or buy EA games if I don't like them.

That's perfectly fine by me.

Except other games I DO like and DO want to play, if they make so much as a dollar, conglomerates like EA and Activision raise an eyebrow, snatch up their would be competition, dumb it down for the masses and non gamers and ruin it, and when it doesn't instantly grant 3 wishes for billions of dollars, the IP gets buried and squatted on and never seen again.

And of course they won't sell the IP to a small company that would put their hearts into reviving it without getting the same billions of dollars they didn't get in game sales. Somewhere they decided to set the market price themselves that it's worth billions of dollars in game sales, and if they don't make it in game sales, then they want billions of dollars for the IP. It's the same mentality of "if I can't have you no one can" bullshit. They didn't make money on it, and they are scared their competition might make money off it if they don't squat on the IP.

It's not EA or Activision just making terrible games that we can avoid, it's that they are locusts devouring everything in their path and taking the entire industry down with them all for another short term dollar.

I'm a programmer myself, and a vocal supporter of capitalism. I like getting paid for my work, and I like supporting other's for their awesome work.

But EA and Activision best familiarize themselves with the tale of the The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs, and I don't mean by buying the IP and trying to make a Call of Duty out of it.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Is this a rhetorical question???

 

[wuliheron]

So long as they sell off their IP's, fine. I want another Wing Commander and Dungeon Keeper.

EA is a publisher, not a developer. They might as well be used car salesmen for all they actually contribute to video games.

 

[shortylickens]

EA is a publisher, not a developer. They might as well be used car salesmen for all they actually contribute to video games.

Thats nice and has nothing to do with what I said.
The guy before me said he hopes they go out of business. I said fine but I want the IP's transferred to people who will continue to make games with IP's currently held in limbo.

Did you mean to quote me?

 

[busydude]

EA is a publisher, not a developer.

What?

 

[wuliheron]

Thats nice and has nothing to do with what I said.
The guy before me said he hopes they go out of business. I said fine but I want the IP's transferred to people who will continue to make games with IP's currently held in limbo.

Did you mean to quote me?

I would hope their IPs survive as well, but EA has gone so far down into the gutter that at this point almost any sacrifice is worth it to be rid of them.

 

[wuliheron]

What?

What am I? Dictionary.com? If you don't know the distinction between a publisher and the people who actually make the crap look it up.

 

[KaOTiK]

What am I? Dictionary.com? If you don't know the distinction between a publisher and the people who actually make the crap look it up.

The thing is, EA is a publisher and developer. That is why he was like what?

 

[shortylickens]

I would hope their IPs survive as well, but EA has gone so far down into the gutter that at this point almost any sacrifice is worth it to be rid of them.

Fair enough.

 

[wuliheron]

The thing is, EA is a publisher and developer. That is why he was like what?

EA is the octopus that eat New York, but calling them a developer is like calling Shirley Temple a singer. Get real people.

 

[KaOTiK]

EA is the octopus that eat New York, but calling them a developer is like calling Shirley Temple a singer. Get real people.

Lets see, besides the developers that straight up bought out and now own and develop games for, they have all their EA studios they have made over the years. They develop games, a ton of games actually and publish all of their own games. You need to get real.

 

[CuriousMike]

What a load of crap. The average AAA video game today costs 40-50 million dollars to develop and games like COD routinely rake in over a billion dollars.

No.
You've quoted COD, far and away the biggest console game.

You can name a couple dozen truly profitable big games each year, backed by 2-3 times that number that break even or lose money.

Why do you think Activision creates COD after COD after COD and not mess with the recipe?
Because they've hit on "it" and will milk it until it's dead.

Companies can create Triple AAA titles that everyone says is awesome yet they still don't sell. Resident Evil IV anyone? Investing in a Triple AAA title is a risk and a big one at that.

 

[sandorski]

My strong dislike for EA began with BF1942 and their constant release of Expansions for a Price that began to affect my ability to play. At the same time, Epic was providing the same type of improvements at no additional Cost. That type of thing has now become standard procedure across the industry, so I suppose it's difficult to blame them too much for it anymore.

Their simply dropping of support for older titles rather sucks though. No WinXP patches for NFS games(Porsche Unleashed in particular), their premature killing off Servers with no Server patch for end-users for Motor City Online, no NHL games on PC for many years now, and Day 1 DLC of story elements everyone would want is just too much to bare.

That said, I won't stop buying the occasional EA game if I really want it, ME2 and 3 are the last couple I have bought.

 

[wuliheron]

No.
You've quoted COD, far and away the biggest console game.

You can name a couple dozen truly profitable big games each year, backed by 2-3 times that number that break even or lose money.

Why do you think Activision creates COD after COD after COD and not mess with the recipe?
Because they've hit on "it" and will milk it until it's dead.

Companies can create Triple AAA titles that everyone says is awesome yet they still don't sell. Resident Evil IV anyone? Investing in a Triple AAA title is a risk and a big one at that.

"On July 27, 2011, EA reported fiscal first-quarter profits had more than doubled on brisk sales of "highly-anticipated sports and shooter games". EA earned $221 million, or 66 cents a share, in the three months that ended June 30. "That's up from earnings of $96 million, or 29 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 23 percent to $999 million from $815 million."" Wikipedia

Risky my butt. These guys are complaining about Steam cutting into their profits because they are out to gouge customers at every opportunity for as much money as they can squeeze.