Why do people hate EA? Good read.

[duffmanth]

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2012/06/14/why-do-people-hate-ea This is good read from ign.com. Two reasons I can think of off the top of my head is EA buying the up exclusive rights for the NFL with Madden and requiring players to buy an online pass to play used games online.

[Edmond Dantes]

My question is, why is there a picture of Dogtanian in the article?

[Collector_Gaming]

Interesting point. But I feel as like I was reading in the comments the representative seemed to be walking around in circles to try and confuse us into believing that their profit margin is so thin.

My question for him would be this.. If your spending over a billion dollars a year in R&D ..... what exactly are you researching and developing that requires so much resources every year?
I mean every year a game comes out it seems only mildly different then the last game. You mean to tell me it costs a billion dollars to make Madden 2013 ZOMG better then 2012? please i wanna see the receipts for that one.

[Berserker]

People hate EA because they've positioned themselves as a monolithic gatekeeper with a total lack of respect for their customers and an overwhelming desire to control them.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

The acquirement of the exclusive NFL license essentially shut down competition in the football genre (RIP 2K series). Without a rival, they can continuously charge high prices and have little incentive to improve the series.

[Parodius Duh!]

and this is when people need to stop playing shitty sports games. Unfortunately theres to many college frat morons that ONLY play sports games, so itll never happen.

[kedawa]

EA sucks, but I really don't care.
I don't buy their products, I think football is dreadfully boring, and I have little sympathy for developers that sell out to them and then get gutted. It's 2012. They know what they signed up for.

[kupomogli]

EA is hated because they're a company that people love to hate. There doesn't have to be a legitimate reason behind it, and while they'll make some poor attempt to give you one, "they release the same game ever year," "they're a monopoly who buys up all the better developers then run them into the ground," etc, using logic, the same would read quite differently.

So they release Madden every year. They have a monopoly over the NFL. First off. Do you even play football games? So why should you care if they're doing what 100 other companies did through the years by releasing an updated roster every single year. EA hasn't done baseball for quite awhile and there hasn't been an NBA Live since '08. Just football and hockey.

People also like to say that if there was competition there'd be better football games than Madden. What about all the other companies who make sports games. Sony with MLB The Show, 2K games, and then the Japanese companies. Take a comparison between MLB The Show to MLB 2K. Despite MLB 2K remaining the same year after year, they still add new pitching and batting mechanics to The Show each year, and graphically, The Show '09 looks better than even the most recent MLB2K offering. I don't think it's competition, I just think it's one company putting more effort into developing a game than the other. 2K games is also losing money each year on the MLB license, so it's rumored that the series is cancelled altogether since it's not in this year release line up.

So what about EA buying up developers, running them into the ground, and then closing them down. If that was true it still wouldn't matter. Despite the fact that Origin, Bullfrog, or Pandemic might not be around any longer, the people may still work with EA under a different studio. If they're not working for EA they're probably working for another studio or may have even branched out and created another studio. The only thing that would have been shut down is the studio itself. It's not like EA took the employees themselves and actually killed them. If they're good developers, you can be sure they're more than likely making games on a different team or somewhere else. If the developers that were bought didn't want to sell, then they wouldn't have accepted EA's offer. Either they were hurting for money or EA may have offered them a large enough number, who knows, but regardless, they're the ones who accepted the deal.

You have to look at this. Pandemic's last game was The Saboteur. It was an amazing game that just didn't sell very well. In fact it barely sold anything at all. EA can either keep paying their salaries and continue bleeding out money, or they can lay off part of a group of people, close down a studio, and then restructure the remaining group into other development studios to keep the best people and take less losses on a studio that is not making them anything.

Then there's the online pass. Now with Alice 2, the online pass does lock out the original Alice, there's some DLC that's locked out without a voucher for Dragon Age Origins and Kingdom's of Amalur, and the most obvious, online. The first excuse people use is that if there's a family that shares games and each of them want to play online, then they're locked out. Now I don't know about 360 users, but PS3 users on the same console share all DLC between user names, including the online pass. Another thing is that on the PS3, the online pass can be downloaded from a deactivated PSN account and still work. I play Uncharted 3 on four different PS3s, two of which aren't activated, and it's allowed me to still download the online pass and go online. So online passes aren't limited to the two per account rule.

So with the online pass, the only people that are really going to have a legitimate reason to bitch are going to be the people who buy the game used. Here's the thing. You're not buying the game new, this is a way for them to fight used sales, so if you want to play online you're going to have to deal with it, otherwise buy new and support the developer.

So in my opinion, people don't look at the fact that EA pushes out quality title after quality title, they just follow everyone like sheep and board the hate train because like I said previously, EA is a company that people love to hate despite that they usually have no real reasons at disliking the company.

[Tupin]

People always flip flop between them and Activision, depending on who is making more money at the time. They're an easy target. The only way EA could even stumble is if they pull a Guitar Hero-type thing, and Activision doesn't seem to be that hurt from it.

Oh, and they have Origin. They don't want to be on Steam, run by the "gods" of gaming, Valve. Loving Valve and hating EA is pretty much an archetype.

[sheath]

I hate EA because next to Sony, and Nintendo in the 80s and 90s especially, they are one of the worst anti-competitive megacorps in the industry. What does that mean at the gamer level, the deliberate destruction of games and game companies for the sole purpose of eliminating any competition on the market. Electronic Arts and Sony embody this more than any other company in existence today, they bred the modern Activision and the top ten sales lists being stacked with mega-publishers.

The NFL deal was just one of the more obvious things that EA has done to the industry to pad their own bottom line.

[Tupin]

I'm honestly surprised EA hasn't left the ESA like Activision did. They're certainly big enough to do so.

How long do you think it will be before Bioware goes the way of Maxis, Bullfrog, and Pandemic?

EA's lack of support of the Dreamcast was one of the reasons it failed. Some people buy a new console just to play Madden and nothing else.

[BetaWolf47]

One quote from the article caught my attention.

So the question is valid. Why EA? Probably because EA makes games and people care about games in ways that they don't about gasoline or shopping bags or laptop accessories. Games are products, but they are also special.
My opinion on EA is that they're one of the worst things to happen to gaming, and that their influence is part of the reason I don't like video games as much as I used to. That aside, they're still not as bad as tobacco companies, cell phone companies, cable and satellite companies, supermarkets, and ISPs. Heck, people rant on EA for charging $5-10 for downloadable content. Cell phone carriers charge you $30/month to be able to send text messages that are only bytes in size. Their products are designed to funnel data into your account so that they can charge you overages. When it comes to video games, people over-dramatize.

Also, I hate to defend EA, but something here needs clarification: exclusive rights to the NFL license was not EA's idea. The NFL auctioned off exclusive rights, and EA was the highest bidder. If it weren't EA, we'd be getting the same Sega or 2K sports title each year. It's not EA who bullied the NFL into exclusivity.

[The 1 2 P]

EA is hated because they're a company that people love to hate. There doesn't have to be a legitimate reason behind it, and while they'll make some poor attempt to give you one, "they release the same game ever year," "they're a monopoly who buys up all the better developers then run them into the ground," etc, using logic, the same would read quite differently.

So they release Madden every year. They have a monopoly over the NFL. First off. Do you even play football games? So why should you care if they're doing what 100 other companies did through the years by releasing an updated roster every single year. EA hasn't done baseball for quite awhile and there hasn't been an NBA Live since '08. Just football and hockey.

People also like to say that if there was competition there'd be better football games than Madden. What about all the other companies who make sports games. Sony with MLB The Show, 2K games, and then the Japanese companies. Take a comparison between MLB The Show to MLB 2K. Despite MLB 2K remaining the same year after year, they still add new pitching and batting mechanics to The Show each year, and graphically, The Show '09 looks better than even the most recent MLB2K offering. I don't think it's competition, I just think it's one company putting more effort into developing a game than the other. 2K games is also losing money each year on the MLB license, so it's rumored that the series is cancelled altogether since it's not in this year release line up.

So what about EA buying up developers, running them into the ground, and then closing them down. If that was true it still wouldn't matter. Despite the fact that Origin, Bullfrog, or Pandemic might not be around any longer, the people may still work with EA under a different studio. If they're not working for EA they're probably working for another studio or may have even branched out and created another studio. The only thing that would have been shut down is the studio itself. It's not like EA took the employees themselves and actually killed them. If they're good developers, you can be sure they're more than likely making games on a different team or somewhere else. If the developers that were bought didn't want to sell, then they wouldn't have accepted EA's offer. Either they were hurting for money or EA may have offered them a large enough number, who knows, but regardless, they're the ones who accepted the deal.

You have to look at this. Pandemic's last game was The Saboteur. It was an amazing game that just didn't sell very well. In fact it barely sold anything at all. EA can either keep paying their salaries and continue bleeding out money, or they can lay off part of a group of people, close down a studio, and then restructure the remaining group into other development studios to keep the best people and take less losses on a studio that is not making them anything.

Then there's the online pass. Now with Alice 2, the online pass does lock out the original Alice, there's some DLC that's locked out without a voucher for Dragon Age Origins and Kingdom's of Amalur, and the most obvious, online. The first excuse people use is that if there's a family that shares games and each of them want to play online, then they're locked out. Now I don't know about 360 users, but PS3 users on the same console share all DLC between user names, including the online pass. Another thing is that on the PS3, the online pass can be downloaded from a deactivated PSN account and still work. I play Uncharted 3 on four different PS3s, two of which aren't activated, and it's allowed me to still download the online pass and go online. So online passes aren't limited to the two per account rule.

So with the online pass, the only people that are really going to have a legitimate reason to bitch are going to be the people who buy the game used. Here's the thing. You're not buying the game new, this is a way for them to fight used sales, so if you want to play online you're going to have to deal with it, otherwise buy new and support the developer.

So in my opinion, people don't look at the fact that EA pushes out quality title after quality title, they just follow everyone like sheep and board the hate train because like I said previously, EA is a company that people love to hate despite that they usually have no real reasons at disliking the company.

I actually agree with most of what you said kupo. However, one thing that I will fault EA for as far as the online pass goes is how they handled EA Sports MMA. Like most of their games from that year(2010) you had to buy an online pass if you got the game used. But they shut down their online servers for it once it had only been out a year and a half. Now I buy most of my games new so I'm not complaining for me. But imagine how the people who bought the game used in late 2011 or early 2012 and then bought an online pass felt when the servers for it got shut down a few months later. Yes they took a risk but thats another one of those situations where EA is just asking for bad PR.


Also, I hate to defend EA, but something here needs clarification: exclusive rights to the NFL license was not EA's idea. The NFL auctioned off exclusive rights, and EA was the highest bidder. If it weren't EA, we'd be getting the same Sega or 2K sports title each year. It's not EA who bullied the NFL into exclusivity.

You would be surprised how many gamers(including many people here on DP) are completely oblivious to this fact. They act like EA strong-armed the NFL by breaking into their headquarters and forced them by gunpoint to sign an exclusivity contract for NFL games. It was the NFL who only wanted one company to make their games, not EA.

Personally I don't feel like EA is the worst company out there. They all do things we don't like. While I was alittle worried about Bioware once they became purchased I figured that they would still be able to survive because of how talented they are and so far they are still alive.

[kupomogli]

That aside, they're still not as bad as tobacco companies, cell phone companies, cable and satellite companies, supermarkets, and ISPs.

I will chime in on this right here and say that cable and satellite providers are not as bad as people make them out to be either, atleast since you brought it up. The prices are expensive, but it's not the providers themselves, it's the stations, usually any broadcast station or a station that displays sports. Cable for example is required to include a set of local stations in every package and people assume that these channels are free because they can get some of them if they hook up a digital antenna. Cable companies and satellite companies have to do contracts with each local owner in each area, and it's usually in the millions, so not only is that local station owner getting millions in advertisements, but they're also getting millions in yearly contracts from cable and satellite providers. The major networks themselves spend millions on just a few football games, basketball games, etc, and then sell them to each local owner for high prices knowing that it doesn't matter how much they pay for the game, the cost will overall be paid by the cable and satellite providers.

So the high costs of cable providers, mostly, stems from high contract costs from many of the major networks, and channels you may get for free over the air, cable and satellite providers don't. Your cable or satellite provider can't really do anything but accept the high cost and pass it on to its customers. They could, but they'd lose a channel that many people probably watch not only for sports, but also their local news, etc, getting people to switch providers if they don't have it.

[skaar]

This topic is funny because kupo.

[Porksta]

I stopped reading when the author kept mentioning all the anti capitalism rhetoric.

"We are forced to accept the false claim that corporations are people" and such. Clearly the writer was slanted from the beginning.

[Gameguy]

My question is, why is there a picture of Dogtanian in the article?
Maybe because Dogtanian is awesome? Though the author pretty much insults dogs as a species before hand which is a bit annoying.

I dislike EA because you have to register PC games to an online account to play them, and you can't transfer them to anyone else. I was given a box full of somewhat recent PC games and I couldn't use the EA ones, they're just fit for the trash. I won't bother buying anything from EA because of that, also I haven't seen any recent games from them that look interesting.

As for liking Valve, I don't buy anything from Steam because I dislike the distribution and payment method but at least they make interesting games. There's several games from them I would buy but I don't want to bother with Steam so I just avoided them. I watch playthroughs on youtube which is good enough for me.

[j_factor]

Several years ago, it seemed like EA was improving, with games like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and Boom Blox. I guess those games didn't do as well as EA hoped. Right now I would struggle to even tell you the name of a recent EA game, apart from the obvious Madden and such. I "hate" them in the sense that they don't seem to be doing anything worth my time.

[Tupin]

Several years ago, it seemed like EA was improving, with games like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, and Boom Blox. I guess those games didn't do as well as EA hoped. Right now I would struggle to even tell you the name of a recent EA game, apart from the obvious Madden and such. I "hate" them in the sense that they don't seem to be doing anything worth my time.
Boom Blox did well enough to get a sequel, but other than that, EA didn't really put out much on the Wii. Mirror's Edge didn't do too well, I think.

[jonebone]

Also, I hate to defend EA, but something here needs clarification: exclusive rights to the NFL license was not EA's idea. The NFL auctioned off exclusive rights, and EA was the highest bidder. If it weren't EA, we'd be getting the same Sega or 2K sports title each year. It's not EA who bullied the NFL into exclusivity.

Source? As far as I'm aware, the details of the deal were never leaked publicly. Just rumors of it being roughly $300M for 10 years or something.

For those of you who do not play football games, allow me to fill you in. This is coming from someone who has bought a brand new football game EVERY SINGLE SEASON since Madden '94. Not always a Madden, but always a football game. No exceptions.

Madden used to be awesome. Very addictive. Then they got competition from the NFL series (NFL '95, NFL Primetime ft. Deion Sanders, etc.). Those games gave EA a run for their money, better graphics, more flashy, great games. I switched over from Madden to NFL for most of the Genesis, then got back into Madden on N64.

Kept playing Madden on consoles or PC for a few years, then was intrigued by the 2k Series. Then NFL 2k5 came out, which absolutely destroyed Madden that year. Many longtime Madden fans, including myself and various friends, completely converted. NFL2k5 was a superior game in almost every aspect, tackling animations, graphics, camera angles, a halftime show that showed highlights from the game (something brand new to football games at the time), etc. And to top it all off, NFL 2k5 was only $19.99 while Madden was $49.99!

So Madden was on the verge of losing to a better game and a more motivated development team. They bought the license and forced the monopoly, and plagued us to football games of mediocrity. I still buy it every year because I'm a football fan with no other option.

But one of the main reasons I hate EA, is because they ruined one of my favorite franchises, Command & Conquer. Played them all, including the Red Alerts, that were made by WestWood studios. When EA bought them out, I still bought C&C Generals, and it was a pretty good game surprisingly. But EA fell off quickly and C&C 3 / 4 were completely abysmal and I consider the franchise dead at this point.

I don't hate EA because it's "cool", I hate them because they find a way to ruin some of my favorite games.

[duffmanth]

Source? As far as I'm aware, the details of the deal were never leaked publicly. Just rumors of it being roughly $300M for 10 years or something.

For those of you who do not play football games, allow me to fill you in. This is coming from someone who has bought a brand new football game EVERY SINGLE SEASON since Madden '94. Not always a Madden, but always a football game. No exceptions.

Madden used to be awesome. Very addictive. Then they got competition from the NFL series (NFL '95, NFL Primetime ft. Deion Sanders, etc.). Those games gave EA a run for their money, better graphics, more flashy, great games. I switched over from Madden to NFL for most of the Genesis, then got back into Madden on N64.

Kept playing Madden on consoles or PC for a few years, then was intrigued by the 2k Series. Then NFL 2k5 came out, which absolutely destroyed Madden that year. Many longtime Madden fans, including myself and various friends, completely converted. NFL2k5 was a superior game in almost every aspect, tackling animations, graphics, camera angles, a halftime show that showed highlights from the game (something brand new to football games at the time), etc. And to top it all off, NFL 2k5 was only $19.99 while Madden was $49.99!

So Madden was on the verge of losing to a better game and a more motivated development team. They bought the license and forced the monopoly, and plagued us to football games of mediocrity. I still buy it every year because I'm a football fan with no other option.

But one of the main reasons I hate EA, is because they ruined one of my favorite franchises, Command & Conquer. Played them all, including the Red Alerts, that were made by WestWood studios. When EA bought them out, I still bought C&C Generals, and it was a pretty good game surprisingly. But EA fell off quickly and C&C 3 / 4 were completely abysmal and I consider the franchise dead at this point.

I don't hate EA because it's "cool", I hate them because they find a way to ruin some of my favorite games.

I remember playing the NFL 2K games, they were great games and for only $20! I also don't hate EA cuz it's cool, I hate them because they make dick moves like holding exclusive NFL publishing rights, punishing gamers for buying used games with this online pass bullshit, and buying up smaller development shops only to ruin them and close them down 2 years later, among many other fucked up moves they've made.

[Porksta]

Source? As far as I'm aware, the details of the deal were never leaked publicly. Just rumors of it being roughly $300M for 10 years or something.


http://www.gamespot.com/news/big-deal-ea-and-nfl-ink-exclusive-licensing-agreement-6114977

A few paragraphs down.

[kupomogli]

buying up smaller development shops only to ruin them and close them down 2 years later.

Would you rather the development studios close down themselves because no funding or due to EA giving them funding and allowing them to attempt to create more games. There are a few studios that EA has bought up that have become more successful than they were before EA. The thing is. If it doesn't pull a profit, then do you really expect EA to keep funding a studio that isn't making any money. Use common sense.

[Flashback2012]

I'm going off of memory here but I seem to remember part of the reason that the NFL went with the exclusive license with EA was because the NFL felt that the NFL2K5 price point supposedly undervalued the NFL brand name or something to that effect. The NFL wanted an official brand much like they have with sponsors such as Nike or Verizon and EA was their go-to choice on top of being the highest bidder.

I've never much cared for their competition buyout practices but then I've sparsely purchased anything from them in the last 20 years. They simply don't publish anything that I just HAVE to play. Even if they do have something I want to try, my tendency to be cheap overrides my desire to play and I try to wait for a massive price drop before I'll bite. Even then I'm not completely keen to buy ever since they implemented the whole Origin/Online Pass for used thing. I don't hate them per se, I simply can't be arsed to care enough about what they offer.

[Hep038]

and this is when people need to stop playing shitty sports games. Unfortunately theres to many college frat morons that ONLY play sports games, so itll never happen.



Yeah the fat ass living in his mom's basement playing Super Mario World for the 152,234 time is really contributing to the advancement of video games.

[Gameguy]

So Madden was on the verge of losing to a better game and a more motivated development team. They bought the license and forced the monopoly, and plagued us to football games of mediocrity. I still buy it every year because I'm a football fan with no other option.
Why would they bother making a better game when you'll just buy it anyway? They're the only one licensed to make an NFL game so there's no competition and as you said sports fans will just buy it anyway.

[j_factor]

Would you rather the development studios close down themselves because no funding or due to EA giving them funding and allowing them to attempt to create more games. There are a few studios that EA has bought up that have become more successful than they were before EA. The thing is. If it doesn't pull a profit, then do you really expect EA to keep funding a studio that isn't making any money. Use common sense.

That would be fine if EA was just letting their studios operate independently and simply pulling the plug if/when they don't bring in the cash. Origin in particular sure seemed like EA went out of their way to fuck them over. Maybe they might have pulled a profit, if EA had let them.

[kedawa]

EA's lack of support of the Dreamcast was one of the reasons it failed. Some people buy a new console just to play Madden and nothing else.

I'm glad those people didn't buy the Dreamcast. It may have been short-lived, but the DC is one of my all time favourite consoles because so many titles catered to arcade gamers instead of casual couch athletes. It could have used a decent golf game, though.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

Whether or not it was the NFL's fault, or EA's fault, it still hurts gaming when competition is destroyed. Maybe by complaining about it, it makes it less likely to happen. Bad press can cause a company to reverse decisions, sometimes.

[BetaWolf47]

Source? As far as I'm aware, the details of the deal were never leaked publicly. Just rumors of it being roughly $300M for 10 years or something.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/06/lawsuit-flags-ea-for-illegal-procedure-on-football-monopoly/
It cites a GameTap interview, which has a dead link. GameTap got rid of all of their old news articles and blog posts when Metaboli took over, by the way. So yeah, if EA hadn't been the highest bidder, we'd basically be whining about how 2K sports is releasing the same NFL game every year with an updated roster, and whining about how they stiff-armed the NFL into an exclusive deal. Which wouldn't be true either, by the way.

I still hate EA though.


You would be surprised how many gamers(including many people here on DP) are completely oblivious to this fact. They act like EA strong-armed the NFL by breaking into their headquarters and forced them by gunpoint to sign an exclusivity contract for NFL games. It was the NFL who only wanted one company to make their games, not EA.
Meh, I only found this out last week myself. Not really anyone's fault that it wasn't made clear enough to begin with.

[Gameguy]

Other companies can still make football games, they just can't use the team names or names of the players. Not sure why no other companies are trying, make another game like Mutant League Football or something else creative.

[BetaWolf47]

Other companies can still make football games, they just can't use the team names or names of the players. Not sure why no other companies are trying, make another game like Mutant League Football or something else creative.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz:_The_League_II
And you saw what happened to Midway.

[Flashback2012]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz:_The_League_II
And you saw what happened to Midway.

There was also All-Pro Football 2K8. Tecmo released a couple of games on DS and Wii though I don't know how good they were. I think the problem with Blitz was it tried too hard to focus on the negative aspects of the game instead of building a solid football title. I guess they realized there was no pulling the Madden zombies away without the help of a NFL license so they turned everything on it's ear and went all out with the shock & awe. At this point it might be fair to say that everyone has resigned themselves to the idea that Madden is the only game in town (no pun intended) and don't feel its worth the time/effort to develop a competing title.

[kupomogli]

You've also got what happened with Blood Bowl. It gets announced. Everyone immediately thinks a next gen version of Mutant League Football. Then what happens? It's a TRPG game based on football. WTF? If it was a regular football game with fake names based on real teams and real players Mutant League Football style, the game probably would have sold for that reason alone. But they had to screw what everyone who saw the game thought would be a cool throwback title.

While EA might not develop the very best football games, you also have to think of the worst football games out there, or like Blood Bowl, the most stupid ideas out there. The EA football games nowdays are atleast good games to football fans. There was some real crap back on the SNES and Genesis. Super Play Action Football anyone(I only mention SPAF because it's probably the worst football game I've ever played?)

[Swamperon]

Meh, they ruined Bullfrog. That alone warrants my distaste for them.

[Porksta]

You've also got what happened with Blood Bowl. It gets announced. Everyone immediately thinks a next gen version of Mutant League Football. Then what happens? It's a TRPG game based on football. WTF? If it was a regular football game with fake names based on real teams and real players Mutant League Football style, the game probably would have sold for that reason alone. But they had to screw what everyone who saw the game thought would be a cool throwback title.

While EA might not develop the very best football games, you also have to think of the worst football games out there, or like Blood Bowl, the most stupid ideas out there. The EA football games nowdays are atleast good games to football fans. There was some real crap back on the SNES and Genesis. Super Play Action Football anyone(I only mention SPAF because it's probably the worst football game I've ever played?)

Blood Bowl was based off of the table top game of the same name. Only people not in the know would have thought it would be in the same vein as MLF.

[Greg2600]

I don't hate EA. They've definitely ruined a number of game franchises they bought up, but that was kind of to be expected since they no longer had the original people. It's not EA's fault that companies like Origin couldn't keep their financial house in order. I've enjoyed their Bond games and NFS games in the past. Just not much else original coming from them.

[Overbite]

Why do people hate EA? Let's ask EA instead of the people who hate EA.

[BHvrd]

Overcharging for DLC/excessive and not giving players what they are used to having or want.

Battlefield 3 example of missing features:

1. MOD tools
2. Battlerecorder
3. new/additional game modes (i.e. gungame, moh-style, titan, etc.)
4. voice chat
5. ping filter in server browser
6. off-line bots
7. epic maps from previous BF titles
8. Special forces kits (i.e. zip lines, grappling/rappelling hook, etc.)


Kinda the same ballgame with recent companies like Blizzard and Diablo 3, no mods, no LAN?? Fuck them...

They forget where they came from and why people liked them in the first place, that's why people hate on EA largely.

Also, where the fuck is Star Flight.....yeah, fuck EA for just those exact things listed, to be "specific". ;)

[substantial_snake]

^^Battlefield 3 has become more and more a disapointment as time goes on and the excuses for why those things aren't implemented are so frustrating that I've pretty much stopped playing.

EA's buying out of, excessive meddling in, and eventually gutting of Westwood still hurts to this day.

I don't hate EA and I understand they are a business but those past actions will always paint a black mark that they can't really redeem.

[Porksta]

You can't talk with your own team in BF3? Whaaaaat?

[duffmanth]

I don't hate EA. They've definitely ruined a number of game franchises they bought up, but that was kind of to be expected since they no longer had the original people. It's not EA's fault that companies like Origin couldn't keep their financial house in order. I've enjoyed their Bond games and NFS games in the past. Just not much else original coming from them.

One of the reasons I don't like EA much anymore is that the quality of their games is so inconsistent. Ten years ago franchises like Madden, Need for Speed and Medal of Honor were among the greatest games around, now they're among the shittiest, least cutting edge games around. EA has come out with some great games in the last few years like Battlefield, Burnout, Mass Effect etc, but it just seems like their games are so hit or miss because they have so many games on the go at the same time.

[eggwolio]

there hasn't been an NBA Live since '08. Just football and hockey.

There have, however, been a couple of NBA Jam titles and they've been awesome.

[Rob2600]

What ever happened to the NBA Street series?

[Griking]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/big-deal-ea-and-nfl-ink-exclusive-licensing-agreement-6114977

A few paragraphs down.


This link pretty much says that EA fought for the right to have an exclusive license and not that the NFL only wanted to work with one company.



Electronic Arts has signed the biggest sports free agent on the market. In a devastating blow to competitors--and in a deal sure to reshape sports gaming--the software giant signed an exclusive agreement with the National Football League and the NFL Players Inc., a subsidiary of the NFL Players Association.

The deal, one EA admits to having lobbied for over the past few years...

[duffmanth]

This link pretty much says that EA fought for the right to have an exclusive license and not that the NFL only wanted to work with one company.

It's exactly reasons like this why myself and many others don't have much use for EA. I do however, miss NBA street!

[duffmanth]

There have, however, been a couple of NBA Jam titles and they've been awesome.

NBA 2K has always been a much better game than NBA Live, so I don't really miss Live. I do miss NBA Street.

[Robocop2]

They cpuld have a perinnial contract with every spots agency n creation and i would not care one iota. I don't care about sports games and EA gave me Dead Space amongst numerous other games that I've loved over the last 20 years so, I dont hate them at all personally. Sure they do some rather irritating things like the online pass thing and that does piss me off but I can still laud the positive things too.