-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
EA sucks
- Thread starter Snuggles
- Start date
Gully State
Member
I'm with the OP on this one. The way I see it, EA is taking advantage of the gaming community's hatred of Activision so that they can fly under the radar with their bullshit practices.
Mutanthands
Member
bone_and_sinew said:
You've missed some great games over the years. You really don't give EA a damn thing if you buy used, and avoid Project $10. No need to cut your nose off to spite your face.
Nappuccino
Member
zoner said:
They drop the price of the games pretty quickly. I mean, Mass Effect 2 is 20 bucks on pc already. I'd like to see activision let the price of one of their blockbuster games drop by 2/3 within a year and 1/2 of its release
AppleSmack
Banned
hamchan said:
I haven't heard of a recent great studio that EA shut down. Can you source on that? The fact that EA were the kings of milking is entirely irrelevant. We live in the present not the previous gen past. EA's current activities are what we should consider not its past.
And yes, its unfortunate that EA doesn't provide more support for Steam but oh well. At least they make quality games and lets be honest here the only reason Activision is "pro Steam" is cause IWNet is a huge failure. I wouldn't really consider EA anti steam either. All their best games still make it on.
GraveRobberX
Platinum Trophy: Learned to Shit While Upright Again.
This shit was my breaking point:
Are fucking serious?, the fuck was you thinking?
Are fucking serious?, the fuck was you thinking?
AppleSmack
Banned
hamchan said:
Nah, Dragon Age 2 was going to be garbage from the beginning. It was the idiots at Bioware that wanted to make Dragon Effect 2.
Gully State
Member
AppleSmack said:
Gully State
Member
Nekrono said:I would be more eager to see the "Why CD Projekt is great and every dev/publisher should adopt their standards" thread thant the ones you mentioned
I'd rather someone start a "Why can't publishers be like Valve?" thread.
LizardKing
Member
I blame DLC on the consumer. Fellow gamers, you do not need DLC. PLEASE stop buying it so publishers stop making it. It's bad for consumers and bad for the industry. I know I'm not going to get my wish though.
jaundicejuice
Member
My stance is if they're willing to partition off various bits of or create specific content and dole those out to sundry brick n' mortar or digital retailers for pre-order bonuses, then that content likely isn't worth much, if anything, in the first place. Costumes and trinkets I don't care about and never use.
AppleSmack
Banned
Gully State said:
Meh, the last game i played from them was Mercs 1. It was decent enough but more recently they were pretty underwhelming in quality. I'm not surprised at their closure.
Secks4Food
Member
You take the good with the bad, EA has made some really enjoyable games this gen, many of which were new IP's, but in the spirit of the thread...
-The original Skate. was awesome. Fun game, new IP, first serious competition for Tony Hawk, very long campaign with nothing held back for DLC...but then Skate 2 comes along with a shorter campaign, shitty gameplay additions, overpriced DLC up the ass, and set a yearly sequel precedent (well year and a third, but still). Skate 3 basically did the same thing except to an even higher degree.
-They closed Pandemic right when they released the best game they ever made. But to EA's credit, someone like Activision would have closed them after Mercs 2, or if not, then definitely after LotR Conquest.
-Yeah, it's in the OP, but their online pass/preorder bullshit and Steam bias is out of hand, not to mention their support of the $60 AAA tax.
-The original Skate. was awesome. Fun game, new IP, first serious competition for Tony Hawk, very long campaign with nothing held back for DLC...but then Skate 2 comes along with a shorter campaign, shitty gameplay additions, overpriced DLC up the ass, and set a yearly sequel precedent (well year and a third, but still). Skate 3 basically did the same thing except to an even higher degree.
-They closed Pandemic right when they released the best game they ever made. But to EA's credit, someone like Activision would have closed them after Mercs 2, or if not, then definitely after LotR Conquest.
-Yeah, it's in the OP, but their online pass/preorder bullshit and Steam bias is out of hand, not to mention their support of the $60 AAA tax.
ShockingAlberto
Member
Then the only games we'd ever get would be generational launch titles!Gully State said:
Mutanthands
Member
Gully State said:
Pandemic brought it on themselves. They cost EA millions of dollars by not being able to deliver a Dark Knight video game.
That, and they really screwed up with Mercenaries 2.
GenericUser
Member
DDL at this density is a deal breaker for me. EA already established a feeling of only buying half of the game and then Download-Codean and DLC-an the rest. I dont think they estimate the psychological effects properly.
At this point, i already dont have the feeling that i buy a finished product. This reduces the felt value of the product and that opens the door for piracy.
At this point, i already dont have the feeling that i buy a finished product. This reduces the felt value of the product and that opens the door for piracy.
Fortinbras
Member
I stopped buying EA games thanks to the online pass. Never cared for Activision games. I've only bought the Bizarre titles.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I am surprised no one is mentioning refusing to let DICE make Mirror's Edge 2 while in the same breath using $100 million to advertise Battlefield 3 as the new Modern Warfare.
As if they didn't just try that with Medal of Honor and it did not exactly succeed.
As if they didn't just try that with Medal of Honor and it did not exactly succeed.
Gully State
Member
ShockingAlberto said:
I'm talking about Valve as a publisher and not a developer. Even then, Valve's been releasing about 1 game every year and change lately. That's pretty good for them as a dev.
Mutanthands
Member
Inorigo said:I'm completely against the sentiment, but clever analogy
Trust me, I'm not really big on video game boycotts. I just find it a shame when people take it to the point that they damage their enjoyment of the hobby.
spiderman123
Member
That's why I usually laugh when I hear a CEO of either company say, "it's all about the gamers..."
Power Glove
Member
While the op is poorly written, infantile, and sometimes clingy to old subjects that don't belong in a post about the current generation/state of EA, (all of these features made me write out long, ranting posts a couple times, delete, then write again!) I will have to agree because while EA has been putting out better games this generation compared to last, they also have been making great strides to squeeze exorbitant amounts of money out of consumers. I just can't champion the good because of all the evil they have wrought.
spiderman123
Member
Power Glove said:
John is that you?
I think a lot of the complaints are issues with the industry, not just EA.
As already mentioned, the NFL thing was not on EA. And to be fair, we lost the best baseball game in town when 2K scooped the MLB license and put out shit after shit every year with it.
Plus, I like how involved EA partners has been in the XBLA/PSN space. Shank, Deathspank, etc. And the sports line has vastly improved since Peter Moore came on board. FIFA has been great, NHL has been great, NCAA 11 is fantastic. They got rid of the idiots running madden after 09 and madden 10 and 11 we're huge leaps forward. Live 10 was their best b-ball game in ages and though they went backwards with 11, at least they admitted it and shelved it. Fight Night has been solid for years as well.
SSX, Dead Space, Burnout, Bioware, Mirrors Edge, etc -- all reasons I like EA.
As already mentioned, the NFL thing was not on EA. And to be fair, we lost the best baseball game in town when 2K scooped the MLB license and put out shit after shit every year with it.
Plus, I like how involved EA partners has been in the XBLA/PSN space. Shank, Deathspank, etc. And the sports line has vastly improved since Peter Moore came on board. FIFA has been great, NHL has been great, NCAA 11 is fantastic. They got rid of the idiots running madden after 09 and madden 10 and 11 we're huge leaps forward. Live 10 was their best b-ball game in ages and though they went backwards with 11, at least they admitted it and shelved it. Fight Night has been solid for years as well.
SSX, Dead Space, Burnout, Bioware, Mirrors Edge, etc -- all reasons I like EA.
NEOPARADIGM
Banned
I understand the vast majority of EA hate, but for the life of me I just can't hate a company whose logo is plastered on about 65% of my favorite games.
EnjoyIncubus
Member
EA does suck, but they've been putting out some good games these past few years and that's all that really matters.
IrishNinja
Member
the steam thing is pants-on-head retarded; they're obviously spiting them, presumably over seeing them as a threat. it's unwise.
the forum/game banning is atrocious, and the idea of building a community that exists with such is laughable. for me though, as smuggler mentioned, their refusal to support the dreamcast was really shitty, and it's not what killed the system (Sega had that in the works for years), but shitty nonetheless.
the forum/game banning is atrocious, and the idea of building a community that exists with such is laughable. for me though, as smuggler mentioned, their refusal to support the dreamcast was really shitty, and it's not what killed the system (Sega had that in the works for years), but shitty nonetheless.
ShockingAlberto
Member
I don't even find the "EA is putting out good games now" argument all that compelling.
They did. Circa 2008. They've also had a ton of misfires. Even when they do make good games, they fail to support them in any logical way and often their failure to support directly results in making them worse.
Dante's Inferno was ridiculously bad and stupidly conceived. EA's absolutely juvenile handling of the PR and marketing for that game (fake protests, bribing journalists, using the words "EA WANTS TO SEND GAMERS TO HELL" in every press release) made me think less of them as a corporation and I didn't even think that was possible.
They rushed Dragon Age 2 to market, resulting in a game that is almost mockingly incomplete. They didn't give Medal of Honor any time to bake, they made a basketball game so bad that it had to be recalled and dramatically fucked up the return of NBA Jam by destroying any sense of brand identity with all the ports, confusion, and further ports. They managed to confuse and muddy up the already genre-confused and muddied Need for Speed Shift, stealth-releasing the game and obscuring the brand as best as they could.
The ratio does not necessarily tip toward the "more good than bad" side here.
They did. Circa 2008. They've also had a ton of misfires. Even when they do make good games, they fail to support them in any logical way and often their failure to support directly results in making them worse.
Dante's Inferno was ridiculously bad and stupidly conceived. EA's absolutely juvenile handling of the PR and marketing for that game (fake protests, bribing journalists, using the words "EA WANTS TO SEND GAMERS TO HELL" in every press release) made me think less of them as a corporation and I didn't even think that was possible.
They rushed Dragon Age 2 to market, resulting in a game that is almost mockingly incomplete. They didn't give Medal of Honor any time to bake, they made a basketball game so bad that it had to be recalled and dramatically fucked up the return of NBA Jam by destroying any sense of brand identity with all the ports, confusion, and further ports. They managed to confuse and muddy up the already genre-confused and muddied Need for Speed Shift, stealth-releasing the game and obscuring the brand as best as they could.
The ratio does not necessarily tip toward the "more good than bad" side here.
twdnewh_k
Member
Other than the issues mention in the OP, EA product launches have always been a technical mess.
Fifa '11 was (still is) very buggy online and was completely broken during the first week after release.
MOH on PC would not allow me to join any servers for the first 2-3 weeks.
Crysis 2 mp beta had lots of login and connecion issues.
Bulletstorm had a bug where it would not launch GFWL when u start the game, and therefore couldnt play at all.
I understand that some of those games are only published by EA.
But it just feels like anything I buy with an EA logo is bound to have many issues, specially at first.
Fifa '11 was (still is) very buggy online and was completely broken during the first week after release.
MOH on PC would not allow me to join any servers for the first 2-3 weeks.
Crysis 2 mp beta had lots of login and connecion issues.
Bulletstorm had a bug where it would not launch GFWL when u start the game, and therefore couldnt play at all.
I understand that some of those games are only published by EA.
But it just feels like anything I buy with an EA logo is bound to have many issues, specially at first.
I remember a time when I really disliked EA. Their entire portfolio was full of yearly sports updates and not alot else that really inspired me to buy anything they published.
This was a time when Ubisoft couldn't do any wrong in my eyes and activision wasnt the souless entity it is now and THQ was keeping things interesting too.
Cue today, Ubisoft release maybe one good game a year, if your lucky, and fill up the rest of the retail space with shitty shovelware. Activision doesn't seem to care about giving their IP's time to breath and mature and flood the Market until an IP is drained of any appeal.
Whereas EA has been releasing gem after gem (alongside the yearly updates for other franchises) for the past couple of years and have became my favourite publisher for this gen. They seem to be taking chances with quite a few new IP's of recent - and long may it continue.
Online pass, doesn't affect me in anyway possible as I buy my games brand new. I think people just like to find things to complain about an this is the current 'poster
Boy' for things to complain about.
Pre-order bonuses is a trick every publisher uses and isn't something only EA indulges in. Again, doesn't bother me ultimately - shop specific dlc/bonuses pisses me off though, but that's another discussion.
However, I'm a fickle bastard/consumer (delete as appropriate) and it wouldn't take much for me to start preferring some other publisher if they where to do things better than EA.
So, tl:dr, at this juncture, EA are awesome in my eyes (tentatively).
This was a time when Ubisoft couldn't do any wrong in my eyes and activision wasnt the souless entity it is now and THQ was keeping things interesting too.
Cue today, Ubisoft release maybe one good game a year, if your lucky, and fill up the rest of the retail space with shitty shovelware. Activision doesn't seem to care about giving their IP's time to breath and mature and flood the Market until an IP is drained of any appeal.
Whereas EA has been releasing gem after gem (alongside the yearly updates for other franchises) for the past couple of years and have became my favourite publisher for this gen. They seem to be taking chances with quite a few new IP's of recent - and long may it continue.
Online pass, doesn't affect me in anyway possible as I buy my games brand new. I think people just like to find things to complain about an this is the current 'poster
Boy' for things to complain about.
Pre-order bonuses is a trick every publisher uses and isn't something only EA indulges in. Again, doesn't bother me ultimately - shop specific dlc/bonuses pisses me off though, but that's another discussion.
However, I'm a fickle bastard/consumer (delete as appropriate) and it wouldn't take much for me to start preferring some other publisher if they where to do things better than EA.
So, tl:dr, at this juncture, EA are awesome in my eyes (tentatively).
Power Glove
Member
spiderman123 said:
Yes, who is this?
caligula13
Gold Member
they suck since i bought need for speed hot pursuit to play in stereoscopic 3d and what happened? nothing!
If they want to get people to use their store, there would be a better reason than most new titles available on every other DD service and retail.charlequin said:
While I think EA has much better efforts(Heavily due to their Partners program), arguing which one is worse is pointless. Both damage the industry their in enough.Jax said:
Secks4Food
Member
ShockingAlberto said:
That $100 million is simply irresponsible. Even if they were making Mirror's Edge 2, that money could be put to much better use. Even if they were making money hand over fist, that would be putting too many eggs in one basket. Even if Battlefield 3 stood a chance of outdoing the new Call of Duty sales wise, marketing dollars can only do so much before you see diminishing returns.
But Mirror's Edge 2 isn't being actively developed, EA is consistently losing millions of dollars every year, and Call of Duty will reign supreme over every other FPS for the rest of the generation. That $100 million is at least two full fledged AAA quality games, modest marketing budget included. This isn't Kinect, you can't attract every non-gamer soccer mom on the planet with a fuckton of marketing and expect to make it all back and then some. You can't let it all ride on one game, even if it is your best shot at a super mega hit.
Basically, you can't gamble your business away with a double or nothing business strategy. Didn't Bad Company 2 do 5 million units? What the fuck was wrong with that? Most games would kill for such numbers, and BC2 didn't need $100 mil in ads. So what if that's not better than Call of Duty? Nobody cares! Just make good games at a profit ffs, don't try to take down Call of Duty with BF, or WoW with The Old Republic, for that matter.
Power Glove
Member
Jax said:
Yeah but we've been bashing Activision alot lately. It's become de facto that they are the evil king. This thread came at just the right time. Maybe it could have been written by someone better, but it was still needed. EA is still bad, and getting worse in some ways compared to last gen.
Jax said:
DS was a gamble, but I think his point was it was much less of a gamble than Mirror's Edge and possible Alice: Madness Returns (the game has yet to be released. It could be a runaway hit; we'll see).
DS barely sold half a million in the the holiday it was released and then moved some 2 million units in the long run, so it was an eventual success. DS2 was much less a gamble. By then they knew they had a million seller in the bag. In fact, DS2 is probably outperforming expectations.