• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

What does EA actually do?

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
Alright, besides EA being the thorn in my side the same way Hillary Clinton is... I feel that I am kind of lost as to what EA actually does.

Prior to Crytek w/Crysis + Valve with Half Life Series + Westwood with C&C Series, I thought of EA as an evil empire buying out a lot of companys.

But say for example: Crysis, what can EA change that Crytek created? What sway do they have on the product that Crytek created?
 

aCynic2

Senior member
Apr 28, 2007
710
0
0
Likely, EA is fronting a good portion of the production costs: artists, music, sound bytes, etc, on top of actual funding.

If they pull it...
 

ArmchairAthlete

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2002
3,763
0
0
Everything. Developing, publishing, distributing, marketing...

With some games they only play some of these roles. They're a distributor for Orange Box for example.
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
EA is a game publisher. They take code from good companies, make sure it doesn't work properly on any system, then sell it.

They're sort of like Sony in the music industry or Fox in the movie industry. Give a budget to some group of people so they can make a product, then sell that product. What makes EA different is that they insist on the lowest quality possible, and it seems to be against company policy to patch the games they've created.
 

Stas

Senior member
Dec 31, 2004
664
0
71
Their main priority is to fvck the customer. Besides that they major in cheap quality BS advertised so called games. Granted, people that develop the game might have a great idea in mind, and they may also have the patience and perseverance to create AAA class product that most gamers will enjoy playing. Unfortunately, EA comes in and says, "We got the money. You're my bitch. So make FIFA2007. And don't you dare spend money on new features! Just change a few things around, make sure the menu has "2007" in BIG DIGITS and release it." Developers might argue in response, "But, sir, we already made 10 soccer games that look and play exactly the same!" Those people will be punished or, just like their QA department, fired.
Go EA!
 

FallenHero

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2006
5,659
0
0
Originally posted by: Stas
Their main priority is to fvck the customer. Besides that they major in cheap quality BS advertised so called games. Granted, people that develop the game might have a great idea in mind, and they may also have the patience and perseverance to create AAA class product that most gamers will enjoy playing. Unfortunately, EA comes in and says, "We got the money. You're my bitch. So make FIFA2007. And don't you dare spend money on new features! Just change a few things around, make sure the menu has "2007" in BIG DIGITS and release it." Developers might argue in response, "But, sir, we already made 10 soccer games that look and play exactly the same!" Those people will be punished or, just like their QA department, fired.
Go EA!
I see a disappointed fan of the FIFA series. I have recently joined the ranks myself.
 

Stas

Senior member
Dec 31, 2004
664
0
71
If only FIFA... NHL, NBA, Need For Speed, Medal of Honor, Battlefield 2... I can keep going :)

BTW, their website is down atm. Probably retaliation of the free world :)
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Developers say 24 months
EA says 18 months

Developers say no way that can be done
EA says 12 months

Dvelopers say ok, 12 months are up here is what we could do with the time we had, needs alot of patching and feature addons later
EA says cool, lets sell it and make money

Developers say we need 3 months for the first patch
EA says, no way, you are supposed to be making a sequel and not patching a product already sold
 

msi1337

Diamond Member
Apr 16, 2003
7,810
60
101
Originally posted by: Czar
Developers say 24 months
EA says 18 months

Developers say no way that can be done
EA says 12 months

Dvelopers say ok, 12 months are up here is what we could do with the time we had, needs alot of patching and feature addons later
EA says cool, lets sell it and make money

Developers say we need 3 months for the first patch
EA says, no way, you are supposed to be making a sequel and not patching a product already sold
QFT!!
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
So in essence, a company can hire EA JUST for distribution? The programmers at Valve are geniouses, I'd hate to have some 2nd rate company come in and distroy their work.


EA may be a good reason as to why the PC market isn't selling as many as they used to.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
A company can use EA just for distribution IF they are in a position to finance their own game, and if EA agree to it.
Valve had it easy, they had a million-selling series that EA would be mad to pass up. It was a sure-fire money maker.
Other developers don't always have the same luck. People like Valve/Epic/id are in strong positions, other developers, even if they can fund their own games, aren't.

EA when they also pay for games make demands about things like release schedules, game content (features etc) and dictate aspects of the game.
One independent developer who ended up publishing via Steam and through a series of local distributors worldwide said no to deals with the big companies (EA/Ubi type people) because those companies demanded that in exchange for development aid, the game was changed to suit what they thought customers wanted. The game was a realistic shooter, and the big guys wanted things like crosshairs added, and a reduced focus on realism. The developers didn't want to go down that route, and instead found local publishers, and also made use of Steam so they could have control over their product.
 

Schadenfroh

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2003
38,416
4
0
1. Kill originality and creativity in the gaming industry by buying developers and forcing them to produce only sequels to existing franchises.
2. Force games to ship early when they have not been properly debugged.
3. Slap Sony's SecuROM pseudoRootKit on game titles to ensure that they do not work properly on the end user's system.
4. Force developers to focus only on timescales and good graphics, screw gameplay.
5. Get the games into retail channels, advertise them, and manufacture them.



EA killed Origin Systems, WestWood, and Bullfrog. They are about to kill Bioware now that they own them. They have destroyed nearly all of my favorite developers. What is next, go back in time and kill Black Isle Studios at birth? I guess they could always buy Obsidian, I think that EA might actually be an improvement for them over Atari (EA's minime).
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
79,546
12,362
126
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
EA is a game publisher. They take code from good companies, make sure it doesn't work properly on any system, then sell it.

They're sort of like Sony in the music industry or Fox in the movie industry. Give a budget to some group of people so they can make a product, then sell that product. What makes EA different is that they insist on the lowest quality possible, and it seems to be against company policy to patch the games they've created.
I would make that my sig if it wouldnt piss me off every time I saw it.

Its funny until I realize they are rapidly destroying my number one and highly cherished form of entertainment: The Computer Game.
I got into PC gaming back in the Glory days of Doom, Duke Nukem, Myst, Full Throttle and others.
I also recall those wonderful days when 3D accelerators started popping up BUT we still had the quality of game play from the olden days.

Long gone now and it seems the only purpose most companies have is to milk large amounts of cash from the consumers.

======= EDIT =======
= MY PERSONAL FANTASY =

EA buys Atari and they collapse on themselves like an oversized star.
PC gaming starts fresh. Preferably from groups of 3-6 guys working out of their basements, like it was meant to be.
 

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,235
114
116
They support my friends drinking and partying lifestyle by employing him as a game tester. :p

It's funny because there was a time when I used to love everything they did and actually looked forward to EA releases, but that was a long time ago, now I see the EA logo as a black mark.

KT
 

Golgatha

Lifer
Jul 18, 2003
12,009
272
126
Originally posted by: KeithTalent
It's funny because there was a time when I used to love everything they did and actually looked forward to EA releases, but that was a long time ago, now I see the EA logo as a black mark.

KT
They buy companies that make good games, bastardize a good franchise until there are at least 10 sequels with multiple add-on mods at $20 a pop and no recollection of what made the original game fun in the first place, add in-game ads, add draconian DRM schemes, eliminate competition by buying off professional sports licenses, and sell off any of their purchased companies once their AAA franchise gets out of the top ten selling games for more than a month.

Edit: They also think the world of games hasn't moved past 4:3 aspect ratios for displays and that Gamespy is the service every gamer loves for Online matchmaking.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
EA is a game publisher. They take code from good companies, make sure it doesn't work properly on any system, then sell it.

They're sort of like Sony in the music industry or Fox in the movie industry. Give a budget to some group of people so they can make a product, then sell that product. What makes EA different is that they insist on the lowest quality possible, and it seems to be against company policy to patch the games they've created.
lol
 

ShawnD1

Lifer
May 24, 2003
15,987
2
81
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
The programmers at Valve are geniouses, I'd hate to have some 2nd rate company come in and distroy their work.
I wouldn't worry about this. Right now Valve is its own distributor in a sense that they own and control the Steam network. IIRC, Steam was created because of some problem with Sierra (Valve's distributor for Half-Life), but don't quote me on that.

Please remember to pick your games carefully. Try your best not to get games published by shit companies, because that only encourages this kind of behavior. If people stopped buying things that said EA, they might actually get the hint and stop making terrible games.

Distribution companies can have a huge impact on the quality of games, and sometimes they'll force a developer to release a bunch of games that causes a split in the community. As an example of how this works, there have been 4 Battlefield games released since 2002 (or was it 2003?). Each of those games is completely incompatible with the others. A community of let's say 100k people is split into 4 groups of 25k people that you can play with at any given time. That's what happens when the distributor sucks (EA).
Contrast that with Half-Life. HL has been active for maybe 10 years, is still getting regular updates, and is still more popular than HL2. Check the Steam stats if you don't believe me. Everybody you know has a copy of Half-Life, every one of those people has the Counter-Strike mod, and every one of them can play on the same servers. This is how a good game should be when there isn't some pushy publisher like EA trying to fvck it all up.

The distributor can even affect what kinds of games are released. EA, for example, releases full games every year. Valve releases a base game, then adopts mods as their own and sells those as standalone. Huh? Ok well say you have BF Vietnam and I have BF1942. For us to play together, one of us needs to buy another $50 game (price at time of release). What if, instead, you were playing Counter-Strike and I was playing DOD? Both of those games are mods for HL1 that are free to download, if you already own a copy of HL1, so it costs both of us nothing (relative to what we already paid for, HL1). But maybe you're playing CS and I don't own a copy of HL. How much does CS cost? According to Steam's game list, Counter-Strike is only $10. What about CS Source? That's $20. What about TF2? That game is $30. CS, DOD, and TF2 are arguably half a game each, but they're still half the price and that's why people buy them
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,806
44
91
Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
The programmers at Valve are geniouses, I'd hate to have some 2nd rate company come in and distroy their work.
I wouldn't worry about this. Right now Valve is its own distributor in a sense that they own and control the Steam network. IIRC, Steam was created because of some problem with Sierra (Valve's distributor for Half-Life), but don't quote me on that.

Please remember to pick your games carefully. Try your best not to get games published by shit companies, because that only encourages this kind of behavior. If people stopped buying things that said EA, they might actually get the hint and stop making terrible games.

Distribution companies can have a huge impact on the quality of games, and sometimes they'll force a developer to release a bunch of games that causes a split in the community. As an example of how this works, there have been 4 Battlefield games released since 2002 (or was it 2003?). Each of those games is completely incompatible with the others. A community of let's say 100k people is split into 4 groups of 25k people that you can play with at any given time. That's what happens when the distributor sucks (EA).
Contrast that with Half-Life. HL has been active for maybe 10 years, is still getting regular updates, and is still more popular than HL2. Check the Steam stats if you don't believe me. Everybody you know has a copy of Half-Life, every one of those people has the Counter-Strike mod, and every one of them can play on the same servers. This is how a good game should be when there isn't some pushy publisher like EA trying to fvck it all up.

The distributor can even affect what kinds of games are released. EA, for example, releases full games every year. Valve releases a base game, then adopts mods as their own and sells those as standalone. Huh? Ok well say you have BF Vietnam and I have BF1942. For us to play together, one of us needs to buy another $50 game (price at time of release). What if, instead, you were playing Counter-Strike and I was playing DOD? Both of those games are mods for HL1 that are free to download, if you already own a copy of HL1, so it costs both of us nothing (relative to what we already paid for, HL1). But maybe you're playing CS and I don't own a copy of HL. How much does CS cost? According to Steam's game list, Counter-Strike is only $10. What about CS Source? That's $20. What about TF2? That game is $30. CS, DOD, and TF2 are arguably half a game each, but they're still half the price and that's why people buy them
the bf games are mainly multiplayer only. they do have sinle player modes but its not a story driven mode, its just the same old bf, but offline with bots.
 

MmmSkyscraper

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2004
9,475
0
76
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
EA killed Origin Systems, WestWood, and Bullfrog.
I'm still pissed off that they bought Bullfrog and nuked all of their franchises in one go :|
 

PingSpike

Lifer
Feb 25, 2004
21,594
449
126
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
EA killed Origin Systems, WestWood, and Bullfrog.
I'm still pissed off that they bought Bullfrog and nuked all of their franchises in one go :|
Thats the piece that sticks in my craw as well. I wish EA were a man so that I could punch him in the balls.

EA is a giant vampire that sucks the lifeblood out of young vibrant games, then defecates on their tortured corpse. EA doesn't just ruin gaming...it defiles its cherished memory!
 

Dethfrumbelo

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2004
1,499
0
0
Originally posted by: MmmSkyscraper
Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
EA killed Origin Systems, WestWood, and Bullfrog.
I'm still pissed off that they bought Bullfrog and nuked all of their franchises in one go :|
In Ultima 7, the main antagonist, the Guardian, was supposedly a representation of EA. They even used EA's logo in-game, where you had to destroy three blackrock generators to complete the game - a cube, sphere, and pyramid (which was EA's logo back in the early 90's and earlier). The two central agents (besides Batlin) for the Guardian were Elizabeth and Abraham (E and A).

Garriot and Spector did see it coming, but in the end there was nothing they could do about it.




 

Dethfrumbelo

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2004
1,499
0
0
In all honesty, I think the point of EA is to centralize control over gaming/entertainment media, wiping out independents in the process. This is the same concept as WalMart - destroy small business owners and centralize control through one corporation. Since the really big money is behind these corporations, it's unlikely that they'll ever fail on their own (the "Federal" Reserve would just pump more cash into them), barring an economic collapse of catastrophic proportions.
 

jmmtn4aj

Senior member
Aug 13, 2006
314
1
81
Originally posted by: Czar
Developers say 24 months
EA says 18 months

Developers say no way that can be done
EA says 12 months

Dvelopers say ok, 12 months are up here is what we could do with the time we had, needs alot of patching and feature addons later
EA says cool, lets sell it and make money

Developers say we need 3 months for the first patch
EA says, no way, you are supposed to be making a sequel and not patching a product already sold
LOL.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY