This is more based on the fact that new ideas for games are now coming so few and far between, that you could almost say the market is "stale"
Besides Portal 1/2 and original DA Origins in the past many years I have yet to see a game that has redefined some areas in a Genre. They all just keep going to a similar formula.
Do we need a 100th+ FPS shooter this console Gen?
Or how about another action hack/slash mindless button smashing game?
Personally I have nothing against EA, I judge each game on its own and I have found enough games I enjoy from EA to satisfy me.
So if I told you that your primary concern at your job was to provide services and/or products, and if you make enough money to buy food, that's just secondary, you'd be alright with that?
Metacritic score for BF3 breakdown
Critics: 61 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative
Users: 966 positive, 82 neutral, 251 negative
One critic's review reads "For a single player game that's short and painfully linear, you can only admire the atmosphere and visuals. [edit by me: Precisely, the ONLY thing to admire...] MP maps are too small for 64 players..." and gives a 92 score. In other words, who cares about the actual gameplay when it's looks gorgeous! So please, spare me the "EA makes critically acclaimed" BS. The gamers that decry EA know enough to look past critics that are little more than industry shills.
The good news is that sheep are good for the gaming economy. Buying all these games and accessories means consoles can be sold at a loss. If left up to hardcore gamers, the Xbox 360 would be $700 (random number). Actually that is what game consoles in the cost were worth. If you scale for 20 years of inflation, a game system in 1992 is hella expensive.EA are just very good at feeding on the sheep, it's sad that gaming has dropped to this level honestly, but where there are sheep there will be wolves so in some way I expect to see the "EA's" of the world, they're an inevitability.
No they wont for look how many sheep bought Crysis 2 and BF3 even after EA told Steam to fuck right off and pulled there games from the Steam catalog. Origins is just one step closer to people unwittingly giving/signing away there rights to anonymity and to personal securities.EA will get their ass handed to them if they think they can just sell games with out any sales.
How much did IGN get paid to write that article?
Origins is just one step closer to people unwittingly giving/signing away there rights to anonymity and to personal securities.
Edit "Its as legit an article as asking Obama how the war is going..."Must have been a lot. Its as legit an article as asking the Iraqi Information Minister how the war is going...
Pejorative distinctions are usually branded upon ones forehead to stifle concern and frighten other detractors but you my friend are a blind sheep wake up and read some facts./tinfoil hat?
Because so many people are unaware to how the world works and more so how Corporate America and more specific to this topic at hand how "Marketing" works EA has the upper hand for they are a big fish in a small pond of unwitting consumers.Because people have a emotional attachment to games and having a 'bad guy' gives them someone to blame and something to talk about. Now that the ball's rolling it's uncool to form any sort of objective opinion so everything they do, good or bad, is portrayed negatively.
Because people have a emotional attachment to games and having a 'bad guy' gives them someone to blame and something to talk about. Now that the ball's rolling it's uncool to form any sort of objective opinion so everything they do, good or bad, is portrayed negatively.
The sad thing about EA is that they are not doing that great either in the business side of things. Companies like MSFT or APPL could ignore all criticism (for the foreseeable future) and still swim in their pile of cash that will get bigger each quarter.
EA, on the other hand, has not been well.
According to the financials data I got Google Finance, their annual net income is :
(in million of dollars)
2008: -1088
2009: -686
2010: -312
2011: 76
Their stock price used to hover around 55-65 dollar range back in 2003-2008 but it has now plummeted to 12.67 dollar.
Such a bad rep from gamers is just the icing on the cake. If they are not careful, they could turn into the Blackberry of gaming publisher.
On January 9, 2006, GameSpot reported that Electronic Arts had renewed its trademark protection on the System Shock name,[66] leading to speculation that System Shock 3 might be under development.[67] Three days later, Computer and Video Games reported a reliable source had come forward and confirmed the title's production. Electronic Arts UK made no comment when confronted with the information.[68] PC Gamer UK expanded these rumors further, stating the team behind The Godfather was charged with its creation.[69] Ken Levine, when asked whether he would helm a third installment, replied "that question is completely out of my hands."[70] He expressed optimism at the prospect of System Shock 3,[71] but was also very critical of Electronic Arts' attitude towards development of the game.[72][73] As of June 2012, nothing conclusive has been reported regarding the status of the purported project.[74] EA also quashed effort to remake System Shock 2 by community.
Atari still has that honor. Doesn't sound all that different from today when you read it.ea has done more damage to the gaming industry then anyone else combined.
EA is so bad that $9 was too much for Dragon 1&2 WITH Origin.