Remind me why people don't like Electronic Arts

[clamum]

I actually like Dragon Age even post-EA; but I haven't bought Battlefield since BF3, haven't bought Battlefront. The dumbing down has just been too much. I don't suppose BF1 bucks the trend in any way?

I've played the Battlefield series (except Bad Company 1 and Hardline) since 1942 came out, and I do not see how Battlefield 1 has been "dumbed down" from Battlefield 1942 or Battlefield 2. Ok, it's been dumbed down from the latter because it doesn't have Commander mode (though it's got a LOT that BF 2 doesn't), but that's it.

 

[master_shake_]

Where are the NHL for PC games?

Origin is ok and slowly is getting better, but I still prefer Steam.

WTB NHL 17 on PC.

will pay money.

 

[desura]

I like EA games quite a bit. Star Wars Battlefront really impresses me just with the graphics and attention to detail. It is pretty awesome how they took the best game engine on the market and made Dragon Age in it.

But my complaint about EA is that it feels like all the games have this standardization to them. It's kinda like how carmakers used to have different platforms for their cars but now all are built on the same basic platform which largely handles the same with a few tweaks. EA is like the Toyota of game makers. Like, I myself missed a lot of the character that games like DA2, ME2, and Titanfall had, which were kind of lost in their sequels.

 

[Igo69]

They killed SimCity!

 

[Oyeve]

The only problem I have/had with EA was Westwood studios. I loved the Kyrandia series.

 

[Ackmed]

They absorbed tons of great studios for their IPs, thrashed the dev teams, and ran the IPs into the dirt?

Yep. I'm still bitter about them buying out the Desert Combat team who created the mod for the original Battlefield. Firing the devs and making Battlefield 2 based off their success. Yeah it's been a dozen years or so, still pisses me off.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

Yep. I'm still bitter about them buying out the Desert Combat team who created the mod for the original Battlefield. Firing the devs and making Battlefield 2 based off their success. Yeah it's been a dozen years or so, still pisses me off.

Same .

I LOVED the Desert Combat mod, and loved BF2 in turn (Made by the same devs). Pissed me off when I learned that DICE screwed them over when it came to BF2. Sucks that their next game Frontlines: Fuel of War never took off like they deserved it to.

As far as the Battlefield question: It has quickly regressed into a Hybrid Counterstrike/Call of Duty model/gunplay game. It really depends on what you consider "dumbed down" but as far as I'm concerned it definitely is.

Bah, I miss old Battlefield. The mods were amazing.

 

[local]

They took several awesome studios and wiped them out.

Killed studios:
Westwood Studios
Origin Systems
Mythic Entertainment
Maxis
Bullfrog Productions
DICE Canada

Bioware might as well be dead too.

The fact that they may be gone now even if EA had nothing to do with them is irrelevant. EA was over them when they died so EA gets the blame.

 

[Red Hawk]

I think people are too harsh on EA sometimes. Yes, they make some irritating business decisions, but I don't think they're some kind of monster oppressing their developers. One annoying thing they sometimes do is day-one DLC. However, they've been moving away from that, and Dragon Age Inquisition didn't have any DLC at launch.

Another thing people have an issue with is their Origin digital storefront and how they "pulled" their recent games from Steam a few years ago. People assume they're trying to compete with Steam and are being a greedy company that wants to maximize their profit, because...that's a bad thing for a company to want? However, that's not the full story. The way I heard it, it was more that Valve took EA's games off Steam because EA wouldn't comply when they changed Steam's terms of service to publishers. Valve wanted the DLC for any games sold on Steam to also be sold through Steam, so they could get a piece of those DLC sales. Up until that point EA had been selling DLC either inside the games or through their own game websites, retaining all the profits for themselves. And they didn't want to change that. Negotiations must have fallen through, and recent games subject to the new terms of service such as Dragon Age 2 and Crysis 2 were pulled from Steam, while older EA games like Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2 stayed up, presumably because they weren't subject to the new terms of service. It wasn't all simply because EA didn't want its games on Steam, or it would have likely pulled all of its games. Another sign that DLC was the point of contention between the companies was the release of Crysis 2: Maximum Edition on Steam a year later. Maximum Edition includes all of Crysis 2's DLC with its purchase, and no other DLC was made for the game. Since there was no separate DLC to purchase for the Maximum Edition, it apparently was able to go up on Steam no problem.

So, either way, yes it's annoying that recent EA games aren't on Steam and you have to use a separate service to play them. But it's just not because EA is deviously trying to undermine Steam or anything. As for the Origin service itself, it's had its problems, but they've actually made efforts towards being user friendly, incorporating a return policy before Steam came up with one. And they do have sales on their games -- both Titanfall 2 and Battlefield 1, recent games, were significantly discounted over Black Friday.

Bioware and Bullfrog. never forget.

Bioware might as well be dead too.

The fact that they may be gone now even if EA had nothing to do with them is irrelevant. EA was over them when they died so EA gets the blame.

I think there's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about EA's relationship with BioWare. When they acquired BioWare, the founders of BioWare -- Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka -- stayed largely in control of BioWare. They both left in the wake of the ME3 ending controversy, though. I remember reading that Muzyka's departure came as a shock to many, because they thought he was set on increasing his influence and position within EA. Much of the creative talent behind the post-EA games was the same as before. So blaming EA to me just seems like a scapegoat for some of the poor decisions those people made.

 

[Aikouka]

EA is a big business. Typically, large businesses don't get to become humongous juggernauts without realizing, "Hey... if we don't try and be a consumer-first business, we can make more money!" Hence, they'll make decisions that favor their bottom line and investor confidence more so than they would to keep their fans/customers happy. Is this wrong? No, it's technically just business, but when other companies "do it right" (or at least far better), it makes the business-minded companies look that much worse.

 

[local]

There is a lot more interaction between the consumer and creator in gaming than your typical product in my experience. That combined with the emotional investment of these games I think drives this industry to have a more personal connection. As a result failures both real and perceived have a larger impact than normal. Maybe it isn't true for younger gamers today but for those of us that started in the 80's and early 90's it was more about the developer than the name of the game. Today with the non-stop sequels it seems people care more about the IP whereas I still look at who is making it. So I see EA, a cold profit driven corporation that has disbanded so many of the old developers I trusted to provide a game I would enjoy and immediately reject them. Instead today I look to companies like Paradox, Firaxis, CD Projekt and several smaller indie devs to provide something I want to play.

 

[Yakk]

Origin software is ok, you can start playing without the game finish downloading, not a big deal but nice perk. EA have essentially the best game engine developers working on the best cross-platform game engine available and top notch artists. EA delivers premium AAA games, but their very high DLC pricing is probably my biggest issue with them nowadays.

I owned DA:I, but also picked up the GOTY edition during their sale cause that was a great price on an awesome game.

 

[BSim500]

You are leaving out that Bioware (aka Muzyka and Zeschuk) still had complete control of their creative decisions.

I think there's a lot of misinformation and misconceptions about EA's relationship with BioWare. When they acquired BioWare, the founders of BioWare -- Greg Zeschuk and Ray Muzyka -- stayed largely in control of BioWare.

As nice as it would be to believe that, when Bioware was genuinely in control of themselves, towards the end they spent 5 years on DAO and pulled off a Masterpiece. When EA acquired them near the end of DAO's dev cycle (and too late to screw anything of substance up), they gave Bioware 18 months for a cheap & nasty cash-in (DA2). "Retaining creative control" doesn't mean a thing when your new boss orders you to produce a sequel with 1/3rd of the money and time you spent on the previous one, then tries to play the "It's not our fault" card when people see the obvious end-result... The dumbing down buck absolutely stops with EA in exactly the same way Square Enix owns the steaming pile that's "Deus Ex: The Fall" when they made the "mobile / ARPG casual audience" target market decision and shaped the "bottom line" developer's allotted time & money constraints around that.

In any case, game dumbing-down / "Acquire Then Hollow Out" business model aside, cr*p like the following over the years also hasn't helped their image either:-

http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-by-consumerist/1100-6406640/
http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/20...ing-positive-dragon-age-2-metacritic-reviews/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ds-rating-system-filters-out-1-4-star-reviews
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ea-ba...in-without-offering-refunds-or-compensations/

 

[Rifter]

As nice as it would be to believe that, when Bioware was genuinely in control of themselves, towards the end they spent 5 years on DAO and pulled off a Masterpiece. When EA acquired them near the end of DAO's dev cycle (and too late to screw anything of substance up), they gave Bioware 18 months for a cheap & nasty cash-in (DA2). "Retaining creative control" doesn't mean a thing when your new boss orders you to produce a sequel with 1/3rd of the money and time you spent on the previous one, then tries to play the "It's not our fault" card when people see the obvious end-result... The dumbing down buck absolutely stops with EA in exactly the same way Square Enix owns the steaming pile that's "Deus Ex: The Fall" when they made the "mobile / ARPG casual audience" target market decision and shaped the "bottom line" developer's allotted time & money constraints around that.

In any case, game dumbing-down / "Acquire Then Hollow Out" business model aside, cr*p like the following over the years also hasn't helped their image either:-

http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-by-consumerist/1100-6406640/
http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/20...ing-positive-dragon-age-2-metacritic-reviews/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ds-rating-system-filters-out-1-4-star-reviews
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ea-ba...in-without-offering-refunds-or-compensations/

Like i needed one more nail in the coffin but damn EA banning a whole country from origin and not refunding them for their games is just insane. Thats straight up theft, plain and simple.

 

[jimrawr]

The only problem I have/had with EA was Westwood studios. I loved the Kyrandia series.

Same here man! Even more so loved Lands of Lore. Westwood was phenominal in the 90s

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

As nice as it would be to believe that, when Bioware was genuinely in control of themselves, towards the end they spent 5 years on DAO and pulled off a Masterpiece. When EA acquired them near the end of DAO's dev cycle (and too late to screw anything of substance up), they gave Bioware 18 months for a cheap & nasty cash-in (DA2). "Retaining creative control" doesn't mean a thing when your new boss orders you to produce a sequel with 1/3rd of the money and time you spent on the previous one, then tries to play the "It's not our fault" card when people see the obvious end-result... The dumbing down buck absolutely stops with EA in exactly the same way Square Enix owns the steaming pile that's "Deus Ex: The Fall" when they made the "mobile / ARPG casual audience" target market decision and shaped the "bottom line" developer's allotted time & money constraints around that.

In any case, game dumbing-down / "Acquire Then Hollow Out" business model aside, cr*p like the following over the years also hasn't helped their image either:-

http://ea-spouse.livejournal.com/274.html
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-by-consumerist/1100-6406640/
http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/20...ing-positive-dragon-age-2-metacritic-reviews/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...ds-rating-system-filters-out-1-4-star-reviews
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/ea-ba...in-without-offering-refunds-or-compensations/

I remember there was some thing EA posted about or issued a press release about, I don't remember the topic, but they had made public something like comments from people on it (comments favorable to EA), and they had names like Chad from Chad or John from Albania (and I remember a guy from Albania saying there are no Johns in Albania). Anyone remember the details on what I'm talking about?

Let me just say, I like Origin. Only problem for me with it is that it's not as streamlined as Steam. For example, there's no wishlist (unless I just haven't found how to use it) and also, they have product entries for DLC that are listed on the same level as full games are, which makes it tedious to sift through looking for base games....

As for dumbing down, I'm somewhat surprised to be reminded that BF2 came out on EA's watch. I guess it means they made the decision to truly commit to their policy of "lower the threshold" on games at some point after BF2 (or at least after BF2 was already committed to its design style)? Acquiring companies is a very common and valid business practice, and by itself is either negative nor positive for the consumers that buy the products of the acquired companies; but at some point EA obviously made it their goal to acquire studios, and mandate systematic changes to the intellectual properties of those studios, that emphasize gross revenue/unit sales by making it easier for everyone to play a game, but one of the costs has been that gameplay aspects that take more effort, practice or time investment fall away. A Battlefield example is that maps shrink so that players who won't run more than a couple of seconds between capture points, are not scared away. To be fair, that's an opinion based on BF3 from BF2, as I have not played BF1. I'm sure there are many examples in Dragon Age 2 from Origins, but I'm such a fanatic for Dragon Age anything that I'm blind to them. Well, even I can't miss noticing that DA2 reused environments SO much.....

Where else besides gaming can the company that provides your product be bought, resulting in a philosophically different product? I mean, for example, when the current corporate owners of KFC originally bought KFC, I personally don't see any difference in the recipe. I mean, they have ADDED new products, but if you buy original recipe chicken and mashed potatoes and gravy, it still tastes the same. You don't find KFC stores that don't stock original recipe just because they added the others.

 

[clok1966]

As Somebody said, its cause all the companies they killed "should have made it on their own". Most where coming of huge hits or strings of hits, and when EA was buying them most DEVS made games and partnered with a Distributor. This model was changing at that time, Video games where showing they could be BIG business and getting attention of money men. EA offered pretty much the same deal Distributors did, and then some. But it was a sell your SOUL deal (we do all the Distributors did, give you MORE money for development, but we own you and set the requirements/deadlines, but don't worry, we wont meddle much), which was proved out as successful company after company was bought, pumped for cash and died. Each of these dead companies has WIKI pages and they all pretty much universally say deadlines where rushed, futures where changed/added by management, not the dev team. Are all wiki pages correct? no.. but the same tune over and over has to have some ring of truth to it.

Ah but its just us Whinny old timers who loved those old companies.. er.. nope.. you don't win WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA 2 years in a row (that is a record too!) without everybody voting for you, young an old.
https://consumerist.com/2013/04/09/...-history-wins-title-for-second-year-in-a-row/ google it , not just one story, but several talking about this "WIN".

Us old timers may look at those old companies with Rose colored glasses (Westwood, Origin, etc) but anybody saying EA is OK is doing the same.

Are they improving, it seems so as they didn't go for a 3rd win (but have been in the top 10 worst since they won 2 years in a row). Thats not guesswork, its a FACT they won it and continue to be on the list.

I look at stuff like buying the RIGHTS to all NFL football games as shining example. Not making a product that is better then others , but just make it so nobody can compete. There was a golden age of NFL games right up to them buying the rights 100%.. You actually had to think long and hard as there where several good ones.. Now Madden just updates teams, and some graphic tweeks and puts a new "doomed" player on the cover and releases it. Then there is the "STEAM" devalues a product with sales, which ORIGIN has since ignored and copied.

Does EA make good games, I cant say, I haven't owned a new one since Mass Effect 2, but they did, and I hear many are pretty damn good now, I just wont buy them. Yep, I am really scaring them, hah, nope not even a blip, but you gotta take your stand where you can if you really feel it matters and to me it does.

 

[KMFJD]

WTB NHL 17 on PC.

will pay money.

NHL 17 and Madden 17 , why the hell don't they release them for the PC, they release FIFA 17 for PC and it sells well....

 

[TeknoBug]

It's all been covered in most of the replies here so I don't need to add anything, although I want to chime in at how much I dislike EA yet I still play NHL and Madden series because that's the only hockey and football games available.

I was a big Battlefield fan and played them all but stopped at Hardline and haven't bothered with Battlefield 1.

 

[IEC]

DLC all the things

 

[alcoholbob]

I'm butthurt with the direction/de-evolution of Dragon Age, the IP that was supposed to be the "spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate."

Origins was great...then EA happened. I guess it shouldnt be a surprise given the Exodus of former Baldurs Gate staff since DA: Origins though.

 

[shortylickens]

the Enhanced version of Baldurs Gate 2 has a new expansion pack, on Steam.

 

[alcoholbob]

the Enhanced version of Baldurs Gate 2 has a new expansion pack, on Steam.

Are you referring to Siege of Dragonspear? That should be an expansion to Baldurs Gate 1.

 

[shortylickens]

woops!!

Sorry, I was smoking crack at the time.

 

[WhiteNoise]

I'm not the biggest fan of Origin though I still use it. On the other hand I have always liked EA games.