EA is NOT a bad company

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

I often see people hate on EA (well on the internet at least, take that for what it is) and I don't understand why. I do disagree with a couple of their business practices, such as online passes and Day 1 DLC, but overall they do far more positive things for the industry. For instance they brought Mass Effect over to the PS3, without EA we PS3 guys wouldn't have gotten such an awesome series to play. And they continue to publish quality games, the "hate" they receive makes no sense.

So what is the rational behind the EA haters? I'm glad they exist and as long as they keep making great games they get my money. Also for the record: Dragon Age 2 was a lot better than Dragon Age Origins.

#2 Posted by clyde46 (47268 posts) -
EA is a bad company.
#3 Posted by psymon100 (6835 posts) -

There is an ancient Mesapotanien saying which may be relevant:

[spoiler]

Haters are going to hate. 

[/spoiler]

#4 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

EA is a bad company.clyde46

Why? You just can't say that without explaining.

A bad company is something like AIG that screws people over in investments. EA doesn't hurt anyone and they publish a great product. That makes them good in my book.

#5 Posted by GD1551 (9645 posts) -

I think they have a number of questionable practices, but overall they are ok, every major publisher is just as bad in some regard. I think the always online in SimCity sucks though.

#6 Posted by mems_1224 (48145 posts) -
EA is a bad company.clyde46
this
#7 Posted by quebec946 (1378 posts) -

lol a shadowmoses thread.

#8 Posted by lx_theo (6211 posts) -

I certainly wouldn't put them on the top of my morality obeying company list... But the way they are treated here is almost as bad as people here claim EA treats them (which are all hyperbole, by the way).

#9 Posted by mems_1224 (48145 posts) -
Also for the record: Dragon Age 2 was a lot better than Dragon Age Origins.ShadowMoses900
you're trying way too hard to troll bro.
#10 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

I think that font changes are cool in a thread and not at all annoying.  Also, EA sucks so deal with it.

#11 Posted by NEWMAHAY (3797 posts) -
I really don't understand the hate with Origin and ME3 ending. And I assume that's were the majority of hate originated from.
#12 Posted by MonsieurX (31389 posts) -
Still trying too hard
#13 Posted by Blue_Nishin (87 posts) -

I disagree with a lot of EA's business ethics.

#14 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

I think they have a number of questionable practices, but overall they are ok, every major publisher is just as bad in some regard. I think the always online in SimCity sucks though.

GD1551

Yeah I heard about that, I think that sucks and I hope that doesn't carry over to next gen. But at least their games work and are fun, in fact if I was going to consider a gaming company to be "bad" it would be Bethesda for not being able to program correctly for other systems and then knowingly releasing a broken product (which later got fixed but not the point). Maybe "bad" isn't the right word, more like "unprofessional".

#15 Posted by Zeviander (9503 posts) -
They are a great business and are great at making money. As a consumer, I have the right to spend my money on products I feel are worth paying for. I do not feel EA products are, largely, worth paying for so I refrain from buying and playing them whenever possible.
#16 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"] Also for the record: Dragon Age 2 was a lot better than Dragon Age Origins.mems_1224
you're trying way too hard to troll bro.

A different opinion counts as trolling? Only in SW....

Dragon Age 2 was a huge improvemnet, the combat was actually fun and it had a more solid story line. Dragon Age Origins was just boring.

#17 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (26096 posts) -

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

#18 Posted by Shielder7 (5171 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]EA is a bad company.ShadowMoses900

Why? You just can't say that without explaining.

A bad company is something like AIG that screws people over in investments. EA doesn't hurt anyone and they publish a great product. That makes them good in my book.

 

Well  for starters they buy up profitable companies, leach off them until they're bone dry and than shut them down. do we really need to take a walk down to EAs graveyard again?

qSLZg.jpg

 


Yes they are a bad company and they don't make good products.  They buy up developers that make good products and than Runin them.

#19 Posted by Fizzman (9884 posts) -

EA is a wasteland for talented developers.  

They are like a blackhole.  They destroy everything in their path.  

#20 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

LegatoSkyheart

No offense but I don't understand this line of thinking. Multiplayer is there as an option, it's there for people who like it, if you don't want to play it simply ignore it. Also Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is actually quite good, I like unlocking the different races and trying to survive against waves of enemies. Very strategic and great with friends.

Battlefield has never had a good single player, but it's still important to be in there. I hate games without single player modes.

#21 Posted by Shielder7 (5171 posts) -
[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"] Dragon Age 2 was a huge improvemnet, the combat was actually fun and it had a more solid story line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FopyRHHlt3M
#22 Posted by JohnF111 (14107 posts) -

EA are a good COMPANY. However their practices are not about making gamers happy, they're about making money.

/thread.

Also before the on disc DLC nonsense starts cropping up, Microsoft do the same thing, Windows Starter disk contains all the features of Windows Ultimate but you don't get to use them. Wah wah wah go and learn what a software license is.

#23 Posted by MozartXVI (319 posts) -

Still trying too hardMonsieurX

Shadowmoses trying to repair his "Internet Rep". Lol.

#24 Posted by drinkerofjuice (3308 posts) -

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

LegatoSkyheart

Mass Effect 3 had a surprisingly enjoyable multiplayer component that tied with your single player progress. I don't see how that constitutes as "unneeded"

On topic, while EA isn't without some shadiness (like most big publishers), they're pretty good at what they set out to do. They also have some fine IPs under their belt.

#25 Posted by Gue1 (11025 posts) -

Capcom are worse.

#26 Posted by MonsieurX (31389 posts) -

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Still trying too hardMozartXVI

Shadowmoses trying to repair his "Internet Rep". Lol.

Never worked ,so far
#27 Posted by 1080pOnly (1986 posts) -

No offense but I don't understand this line of thinking.

ShadowMoses900

This is not surprising.

#28 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="clyde46"]EA is a bad company.Shielder7

Why? You just can't say that without explaining.

A bad company is something like AIG that screws people over in investments. EA doesn't hurt anyone and they publish a great product. That makes them good in my book.

 

Well  for starters they buy up profitable companies, leach off them until they're bone dry and than shut them down. do we really need to take a walk down to EAs graveyard again?

qSLZg.jpg

 


Yes they are a bad company

Plenty of devs have died underneath other publishers before. I don't see why EA get's the blame for it, why did they die? Was it EA's fault? Or were the devs simply not making games that were doing well on the market?

#29 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

EA are a good COMPANY. However their practices are not about making gamers happy, they're about making money.

/thread.

Also before the on disc DLC nonsense starts cropping up, Microsoft do the same thing, Windows Starter disk contains all the features of Windows Ultimate but you don't get to use them. Wah wah wah go and learn what a software license is.

JohnF111

I don't see what's wrong with them making a profit. They are a business, I support the right for people to make as much money as they want. That's what makes capitalism....capitalism. I do disagree with some of their practices, but they have every right to make money just like anyone else.

#30 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (26096 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

ShadowMoses900

No offense but I don't understand this line of thinking. Multiplayer is there as an option, it's there for people who like it, if you don't want to play it simply ignore it. Also Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is actually quite good, I like unlocking the different races and trying to survive against waves of enemies. Very strategic and great with friends.

Battlefield has never had a good single player, but it's still important to be in there. I hate games without single player modes.

The Main Line of Battlefield games were and for most Online Multiplayer games, or what not, Lan Parties can be had with Battlefield 1942 or whatever.

For some reason, EA thought it would be a good idea to put Single Player in Battlefield 3. For what purpose? Who knows, For Benchmarking? Maybe, but no one buys Battlefield for Single Player.

Mass Effect, you're right, Multiplayer is an option, but for what purpose was Multiplayer for in Mass Effect 3? Just like Battlefield, No one bought Mass Effect 3 for the Multiplayer.

#31 Posted by MozartXVI (319 posts) -

[QUOTE="MozartXVI"]

[QUOTE="MonsieurX"]Still trying too hardMonsieurX

Shadowmoses trying to repair his "Internet Rep". Lol.

Never worked ,so far

I really wonder about his life. It's hard to imagine someone so obsessed with his reputation on the Internet.

#32 Posted by RoccoHout (1006 posts) -

I find Activision way worse. Why do they get away while EA gets all the heat?

#33 Posted by drinkerofjuice (3308 posts) -

Mass Effect, you're right, Multiplayer is an option, but for what purpose was Multiplayer for in Mass Effect 3? Just like Battlefield, No one bought Mass Effect 3 for the Multiplayer.

LegatoSkyheart

It ties with your single player progress. Is that hard to understand?

#34 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (26096 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

drinkerofjuice

Mass Effect 3 had a surprisingly enjoyable multiplayer component that tied with your single player progress. I don't see how that constitutes as "unneeded"

Again, WHO BOUGHT MASS EFFECT 3 FOR THE MULTIPLAYER?

I guess I'm in the huge minority where I really didn't care for the Multiplayer.

It was good, because I played Gears of War, Gears of War was good, Mass Effect is not Gears of War. Multiplayer for Mass Effect is pretty much a watered down Gears of War.

Got very bored of the Multiplayer, turned it off and went right back to Gears 3.

#35 Posted by Riadon2 (1598 posts) -

ShadowMoses is NOT a good troll

#36 Posted by KungfuKitten (21367 posts) -

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Mass Effect, you're right, Multiplayer is an option, but for what purpose was Multiplayer for in Mass Effect 3? Just like Battlefield, No one bought Mass Effect 3 for the Multiplayer.

drinkerofjuice

It ties with your single player progress. Is that hard to understand?

What he means is it would have been nice if they would have just focussed on the single player component.
#37 Posted by JohnF111 (14107 posts) -

[QUOTE="JohnF111"]

EA are a good COMPANY. However their practices are not about making gamers happy, they're about making money.

/thread.

Also before the on disc DLC nonsense starts cropping up, Microsoft do the same thing, Windows Starter disk contains all the features of Windows Ultimate but you don't get to use them. Wah wah wah go and learn what a software license is.

ShadowMoses900

I don't see what's wrong with them making a profit. They are a business, I support the right for people to make as much money as they want. That's what makes capitalism....capitalism. I do disagree with some of their practices, but they have every right to make money just like anyone else.

Yeah exactly, I like most of EA games, Need for Speed is a good franchise, Battlefield is good, Bad Company is good, Sims is good, Sim City is good, not a fan of sports but doesn't make them bad. Out of all their games I probably like 80% of them and will continue to like them since I play games and not publishers. Half the people on these boards play "Video Publishers" instead of "video Games" which is sad.
#38 Posted by wis3boi (31835 posts) -

lol a shadowmoses thread.

quebec946

#39 Posted by QuebecNationale (146 posts) -

No, EA IS a bad company and deserves all of the hate they get. They continuously try to find ways to screw over their customers with DRM, micro transactions, pay to win games and let's not forget EA killed Westwood, Bioware, Visceral Games and others.

#40 Posted by KungfuKitten (21367 posts) -

Sim City is a new EA atrocity though. Like online only saves, you don't own half the game, ton of DLC day 1 that would have probably been part of the game, elevated price.
Activision is a **** company too though. Sadly they get so much money that they even consider themselves important. If you look at their library it's a miracle that THQ went down and not Activision.

#41 Posted by WithoutGraceXII (1797 posts) -
Their evil was eclipsed by activision's years ago, and since then they've dialed back on the sucking and have published a lot of great games.
Also for the record: Dragon Age 2 was a lot better than Dragon Age Origins.ShadowMoses900
But no to this (though I suspect you included it for trolling purposes). DA:O was bioware's last really great game imo.
#42 Posted by MonsieurX (31389 posts) -

 

#43 Posted by lx_theo (6211 posts) -

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

LegatoSkyheart
From my understanding, EA requires all games to have some sort of online/multiplayer component. This can be done however the developer wants to. For example, something as simple as uploading your created character as an avatar for Bioware's forums in Dragon Age 2 was enough to satisfy that requirement.
#44 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

[QUOTE="LegatoSkyheart"]

Yeah! I like getting games with unneeded Multiplayer or Singleplayer! (Mass Effect was the last game to get Multiplayer and Battlefield 3 did not need a Single Player.)

LegatoSkyheart

No offense but I don't understand this line of thinking. Multiplayer is there as an option, it's there for people who like it, if you don't want to play it simply ignore it. Also Mass Effect 3's multiplayer is actually quite good, I like unlocking the different races and trying to survive against waves of enemies. Very strategic and great with friends.

Battlefield has never had a good single player, but it's still important to be in there. I hate games without single player modes.

The Main Line of Battlefield games were and for most Online Multiplayer games, or what not, Lan Parties can be had with Battlefield 1942 or whatever.

For some reason, EA thought it would be a good idea to put Single Player in Battlefield 3. For what purpose? Who knows, For Benchmarking? Maybe, but no one buys Battlefield for Single Player.

Mass Effect, you're right, Multiplayer is an option, but for what purpose was Multiplayer for in Mass Effect 3? Just like Battlefield, No one bought Mass Effect 3 for the Multiplayer.

Single player is a necessary component to games, especially console games. Without it there is no reason to buy the game in my book. EA knows what the market wants and it gives it, that's how you make money. People demand it, so you supply it. I don't see what's wrong with that.

The purpose for the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 was simply to offer an option to players that want to try it, it also does effect some aspects of the story as you need to complete multiplayer levels to get your support readiness past 50% for the final mission.

You are right that no one bought the game for the multiplayer, but what's wrong with having it as an option? No one buys Halo or COD for the single player, it's there as an option.

#45 Posted by drinkerofjuice (3308 posts) -

What he means is it would have been nice if they would have just focussed on the single player component.KungfuKitten

The SP focus in ME3 is arguably just as prominent as it is in the first two games. Hell, the MP itself is very similar to the N7 side missions you do in the single-player. They didn't shoehorn modes like TDM and CTF. They were simple survival missions that just felt like skirmishes in the single-player.

Nothing is lost, something is gained. I couldn't care less if nobody bought ME3 for the multiplayer. If it's an engaging aspect, I see no reason to b1tch.

#46 Posted by wis3boi (31835 posts) -

 No one buys Halo or COD for the single player

ShadowMoses900

laugh-gif.gif

#47 Posted by Shielder7 (5171 posts) -

Plenty of devs have died underneath other publishers before. I don't see why EA get's the blame for it, why did they die? Was it EA's fault? Or were the devs simply not making games that were doing well on the market?ShadowMoses900


Because when it comes to buying up other developers and shutting them down along with every other dirty business practice known to man EA is the King.  Sure Microsoft gutted Rare but can you honestly name one other publisher that has bought up ruined and shut down as many developers as EA?

I love the way you try and blame all these developers especially when they were doing fine before EA.

 To get a better understanding of why people hate EA watch this it explains it better than I can.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWV1NooRX4

 

#48 Posted by crimsonman1245 (4253 posts) -

1.EA is notorious for thier horrible treatments of devs, their philosophy is something like this. "Why pay this veteran developer 40,000 dollars a year, when we can hire two kids right out of college, pay them 20,000 dollars a year, and treat them however we want?"

2.EA is one of the worst at DLC

3.They require some kind of tacked on multiplayer for all their games.

4.They utilize online passes

5.They are turning everything into bro shooters (Mass Effect, Dead Space, etc )

6.They are very anti-used games.

 

#49 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (17081 posts) -

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"] Plenty of devs have died underneath other publishers before. I don't see why EA get's the blame for it, why did they die? Was it EA's fault? Or were the devs simply not making games that were doing well on the market?Shielder7



Because when it comes to buying up other developers and shutting them down along with every other dirty business practice known to man EA is the King.  Sure Microsoft gutted Rare but can you honestly name one other publisher that has bought up ruined and shut down as many developers as EA?

I love the way you try and blame all these developers especially when they were doing fine before EA.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnWV1NooRX4

You know what's funny? The only place I see EA haters is the internet. I don't ever see them in real life, when I go the stores I never hear anyone say "EA sucks", they simply buy their games and that's that.

I think it's just a small group of people who are made more vocal on the internet.

#50 Posted by funsohng (28819 posts) -
Now that you have denied it is a bad company, it most definitely is confirmed to be a bad company. And what's the rationale behind EA hate? Oh, I don't know let's start with this: Westwood: bought, franchise ruined, dismembered. Bullfrog: bought, franchise ruined, dismembered. Origin: bought, franchise ruined, dismembered. Bioware: from Baldur's Gate 2 to rushed-ass f*ck known as Dragon Age 2. Medal of Honour: from Allied Assault to lameass CoD-wannabe Warfighter. C&C: C&C4 DOES NOT EXIST Sim City: always-on DRM that mostly certainly will be enforced throughout considering their reputation. Syndicate: one of the best strategy games of all time to one of the most insignificant FPS of all time. And many more reasons.