EA loses the plot even further

dogmanstaruk said:
It is always the same on forums whenever EA are mentioned. People just never listen.

I came to the decision a while back of **** them. If they miss out on genuinely enjoyable games due to a logo on the box then more fool them.

The funny thing is that only video games generates this ridiculous notion. Never do I read about film enthusiasts avoiding a film due to the studio, or distributor. That notion would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...

EA are scum, but to avoid a game because its EA branded is crazy indeed, I loved Mirror's Edge, Dragon Age Origins, Dead Space and Mass Effect but mostly Mirror's Edge. They have a lot of fantastic games under their belt, shame they have a horrible platform within Origin and refuse to use Steam anymore, oh well, nothing but lost sales for them. If Mirror's Edge 2 is Origin I'lll... well I don't even know what I'll do, probably install Origin on a flash drive. :cool:

I avoid films based on the directors, Paul Anderson and Uwe Boll come to mind. Eurgh.
 
Last edited:
dogmanstaruk said:
It is always the same on forums whenever EA are mentioned. People just never listen.

I came to the decision a while back of **** them. If they miss out on genuinely enjoyable games due to a logo on the box then more fool them.

The funny thing is that only video games generates this ridiculous notion. Never do I read about film enthusiasts avoiding a film due to the studio, or distributor. That notion would be ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Funny how you stopped before you got to 'avoiding films from a particular Director' which does happen. EA have a significant effect on how a game turns out (unless everyone at Bioware died and got replaced by drooling idiots) so how is it any surprise people avoid them?
 
Evilsod said:
No matter how you read it it is still pretty obvious that it boils down to 'How can we ensure we make extra money on all our games after the initial sale' and you can be damn sure it won't be in the customers best interest.
Click to expand...

*NEWS FLASH* That is called business!! Sustaining an income.

All organisations want to make bank. How do they achieve that? By selling products and services. EA are no different from any other organisation fighting to secure an income.

Only naivety would make anyone think that a business is there to benefit their current and potential customers. I can't think of any.
 
dogmanstaruk said:
*NEWS FLASH* That is called business!! Sustaining an income.

All organisations want to make bank. How do they achieve that? By selling products and services. EA are no different from any other organisation fighting to secure an income.

Only naivety would make anyone think that a business is there to benefit their current and potential customers. I can't think of any.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I'm being naive? Did I, in that quote, say that the money isn't important? No I didn't. But I'm pretty sure customer satisfaction is important in most industries. Sadly the gaming industry is that accessible that as already said, mindless crap is lapped up by mindless drones which gives them there bottom line but I'd be surprised if any of them actually cared about the dev or publisher behind it.
 
Evilsod said:
Funny how you stopped before you got to 'avoiding films from a particular Director' which does happen. EA have a significant effect on how a game turns out (unless everyone at Bioware died and got replaced by drooling idiots) so how is it any surprise people avoid them?
Click to expand...

No, because a director is different from a publisher which EA is. In film terms the equivalent of the publisher is the studio. Studios also interfere and mould film production too, yet people wouldn't automatically write off all their distributed films.
 
dogmanstaruk said:
No, because a director is different from a publisher which EA is. In film terms the equivalent of the publisher is the studio. Studios also interfere and mould film production too, yet people wouldn't automatically write off all their distributed films.
Click to expand...

And yet, it isn't considered is it. Was Dragon Age 2 the fault of Bioware for producing a **** game or was it pressure from EA that rushed out a **** game. Films aren't considered in that respect so that comparison doesn't apply. If the Dark Knight Rises was a crap film would you blame Christopher Nolan or Warner Brothers or DC Comics? Clearly you'd blame Nolan.
 
Last edited:
What the EA guy actually means is "we don't want to release a game that people can then lend/give to their friends without the friend paying us some money to get the full experience".
 
People who have a balanced opinion are generally those subject to flaming, while those wildly on either side believe whole heartedly everyone else is wrong.

I love forums.
 
Evilsod said:
Sorry, I'm being naive? Did I, in that quote, say that the money isn't important? No I didn't. But I'm pretty sure customer satisfaction is important in most industries. Sadly the gaming industry is that accessible that as already said, mindless crap is lapped up by mindless drones which gives them there bottom line but I'd be surprised if any of them actually cared about the dev or publisher behind it.
Click to expand...

In economic terms customer satisfaction is secondary to turning profit. Good customer service is important in developing brand recognition, and supporting the selling of your product. However it has nothing to do with developing new revenue streams. It is there to support that process and help sustain it.
 
Evilsod said:
And yet, it isn't considered is it. Was Dragon Age 2 the fault of Bioware for producing a **** game or was it pressure from EA that rushed out a **** game. Films aren't considered in that respect so that comparison doesn't apply. If the Dark Knight Rises was a crap film would you blame Christopher Nolan or Warner Brothers or DC Comics? Clearly you'd blame Nolan.
Click to expand...

Ok. Before I answer your point. I am wondering what makes you feel that your subjective opinion of Dragon Age 2 being a **** game has any standing. Also while you are at it pop a copy of the confirmation that whatever design flaws which were present in the game were due to "pressure from EA". Obviously since you are quite happy to state that as a fact you are able to provide the proof.

I dunno a memo, an email, an interview anything will do. If you can't, then please stop posting fairy tales as fact.

As for Dark Knight, well yes if the movie was poorly directed then of course I would blame Nolan. He is The Director. His credit in the film kinda gives that away. If he came out and stated pubically that changes were made as a result of studio pressure or interference due to their focus groups then well then the buck would stop with the Studio.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
People who have a balanced opinion are generally those subject to flaming, while those wildly on either side believe whole heartedly everyone else is wrong.

I love forums.
Click to expand...


haha yeah.

I never understand the rabid ranting over EA or any anonymous worldwide organisation. They make good calls, they make bad calls. It really is that simple.

People are perfectly within their rights to like or dislike a game, but that is just a subjective opinion. If does **** me off a bit when a conspiracy theory is posted as fact though, but that just boils down to a lack of having anything concrete to back up a statement.
 
dogmanstaruk said:
No, because a director is different from a publisher which EA is. In film terms the equivalent of the publisher is the studio. Studios also interfere and mould film production too, yet people wouldn't automatically write off all their distributed films.
Click to expand...

They might if you couldn't buy the blueray 2nd hand as it cuts off halfway through until you buy a pass.
 
can someone clarify to me, why the **** Developers keep using EA to push their games to the market? why not use a different company... or directly release it..
 
Muzy said:
can someone clarify to me, why the **** Developers keep using EA to push their games to the market? why not use a different company... or directly release it..
Click to expand...

Money and market presence, no doubt. They're huge, have presence all over the world and can throw massive amounts of money into advertising and marketing in order to sell a product.
 
Omaeka said:
They are basically saying they don't want to create any games that are a dead release, i.e get released and maybe patched and that's it. EA might be turning themselves around slowly.
Click to expand...

"dead releases" are fine with me; in the old days a game would come out and if it was any good and sold well chances are you'd get a sequel or maybe an offline expansion pack rather than a bunch of micro-updates.

I think having DLC support as a 'requirement' probably covers off most games these days anyway, so it seems a bit of a nothing statement.

As for the whole "need to have a social experience where you're part of a large community" he's come out with, what a load of cobblers. I have 0 friends on Origin and always log in as invisible. On Steam, I have 3 friends but that is only because of some gift transfers with forum members. Community overlay, notifications bla bla etc is of course disabled in both.
 
Just greed, plain and simple. He can't handle the fact that someone can hand over their cash for a game and that he will see no more money for that game. Greed, greed I am sick of it, that's why I buy more indie games than big publisher games.

I blame Call of Duty and its army of mindless drones that buy every single rehash every year and every DLC that is thrown at them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom