Why does EA still exist?
 

Seriously, how do you fuck up SimCity?

Because sports

Consumers. For-profit interests. Creed. Gamer stupidity. Short-sighted gains. All of that amounts to the SimCity situation.

But that wouldn't kill EA outright.

They do have some pretty rad games under their label, admittedly.

Need For Speed and Battlefield are alright from what I see and play. Don't care for many of their other IPs but they're mostly legit. EA is just retarded when it comes to PR and they should probably ban representatives from speaking publicly. It would also help to assign community managers across each major franchise so they could have an ear 'on the street' as it were, because they do have little idea of 'gamer pulse'.

They make money in spite of their stupidity.

It's almost impossible for them not to, by virtue of how they operate. They just buy out good developers then force them to run their IP to the ground so long as its profitable. I "get" that it's smart business, but it still fucking sucks.

Also, any time a game is released with day-1 DLC a baby kitten masturbates on an angel, or whatever that saying is

They could probably survive off madden alone.

Day-1 DLC sales very successfully. Your issue is not with EA, there.

My issue is entirely with EA there, what the fuck are you talking about? Just because Bioware is retarded doesn't mean EA isn't.

EA exists because people still buy its games. People are too stupid to stand up and say no to all the bullshit.

One reason EA managed to mess up SimCity is because of them being cheapskates when it comes to servers. Either they own just the bare minimum available which is why they have to cancel online for games after 2 years or don't want to spend money on new servers unless a big screw up occurs.

EA's massive size means they can survive a lot of screw ups and problems before seeing any real negative effects.

FIFA is the only game I tend to buy.

It's rather foolish to peg them as stupid. Gamers have demonstrated they will buy day one despite the shit EA pulls. It'd almost be stupid not to do what they do.

As VC said it is in fact a case to take up with consumers. Day-1 DLC sales like hotcakes, better than hotcakes even. So now everybody wants to do it (in some cases need to). So yeah, hollar at your peoples.

And I'm not sure where the fuck Bioware came from, I didn't mention them at all.

I'm largely opposed to the online-only requirement they've imposed on SimCity because they have a history of simply shutting down game servers after the game is no longer profitable. For a game like SimCity where a large portion of the 'hardcore' base spends months on cities, this is a huge detriment to the experience.

Plus the instability issues. In their defense, launches for games are always horrible (D3 anyone?), but it's still a pain in the ass to have to deal with server maintenance bullshit for a game that is largely single-player. I understand their desire to make it a sociable thing, sharing your region with others etc etc. And that's fine. Offer that service and have at it. But forcing it? Especially when SC players have historically been the type to tinker with their own creations and not like when others fuss with them.

Oh yes it's 100% a problem with a retarded consumer base. And it is indeed stupid to fault with EA for making sound business moves, no matter how heartless and dickehaded they are. I just wish the cunts would stop ruining franchises that are actually good. Can't they just be satisfied with releasing a new CoD game every 6 months and leave good developers alone?

Of course they can't, they don't even publish CoD :p

I have no issue with DLC in of itself. It's when a $60 game is shipped and it's blatantly obvious that they're milking it with an additional $20 worth of DLC that in all honesty should have been included in the core game. I mean, compare it to a game like Skyrim where, with no additional fee, can get you 80+ hours out of the box easily. Do you think EA would ever release a game of Skyrim's scope and size with no DLC?

As for Bioware, I was referring to the Mass Effect 3 debacle. But I suppose that still ties into EA being a bunch of money grubbing tools anyway since it was probably their decision.

Oh yeah, I forgot that EA and Activision aren't actually the same company trying to ruin gaming.

Activision is SLIGHTLY better than EA. They don't use online passes, don't kill off game servers a year after a game comes out, and most important, Activision didn't ruin Command & Conquer.

What?

Yes it's very obvious in most cases, we're lock step here.

We're talking two different business models here, adhering to two different kinds of gamers. Then there's the subjectivity of it all based on gamer perspective. For instance; Skyrim is shit ("imo"), and I got well over 80hrs of entertainment on any Battlefield game. Some could say the same phrase and add Need For Speed, Madden, fucking Sims.

I get what you're saying but you're saying it in a vacuum where all games are out to do the same thing and must adhere to some universal standard. It's just not like that.

Since what was their decision? I hear ME3 was alright and their DLC sales embolden them. A better example would be Dead Space 3.

Don't get me wrong; fuck EA, but let's not make a Saturday morning villain out of them. I really hate that response from gamers. Balance that shit.

agreed. Except the CoD bit, which someone already covered. I just mention it specifically because of STD calling them stupid.

And most other publishers do the same shit. People lament THQ going out of business, but they had the same practices.

So while it's dumb to blame EA, it's also dumb to blame them almost exclusively on the publisher end.

Also bear in mind it's not like EA and Activision swallows up these studios in a hostile takeover (not saying it never happens). But like how consumers make their bed, a lot of these guys sign the dotted line with free will.

There was a great episode of Ghost in the Shell that slightly dealt with the risk/reward of being funded for work that is ultimately not yours in the end. It's also why Bungie made the deal it did with Activision, who made a wise move to get on Bungie's good side.

THQ left us with the innovation of the $10 Online Pass. Didn't work out for them but their legacy lives on somewhat.

If only Maxis could go all Walter White on them and blow up half their face, I'd be content.

The CoD thing was supposed to be a somewhat subtle joke, alluding to the fact that they're both essentially the same type of monster

So long as you recognize fellow gamers being a part of the cancer.

And there was no talk of gamers owing something to companies. It's give and take, usually.

I say fuck EA in the same breath I say fuck that 'Gamestop Gamer' who pre-ordered DmC over a slick trailer.

Yeah, and at this point it's not like they don't know what the outcome is.


What I always find amusing is that people didn't seem to bitch much when THQ did it. EA tended to be more honest, too. Saw a lot of THQ games that did not advertise their online pass. Saw a lot of EA games that did.

I guess the moral of the story is...Lie if you want to be the good guy.

EA will cause the great industry crash of "insert year here".

EA will send out T-800s to ATMs to empty our bank accounts.

Actually, what the hell am I talking about, they can already do that with this guy...

They'd better hop to it. Fuckwits have been claiming that for over a decade now, and nothing's happened.

Industry crash my ass.

I wish more people would clarify that the AAA gaming model alone will likely implode leaving a gaping hole for other types of game production to flourish.

The only people calling for an industry wide crash are clowns who think all games are made and sold the exact same way.

this

in addition to their already popular sports franchises, they are now gonna start doing the UFC games due to THQ going bankrupt

At this point, even a "AAA" crash is unlikely.

EA makes the best games im playing crysis 3 and battlefield 3 right now. Also I like Origin more than steam

*looks at CoD sales*

Yeah, you're right.

Given the fact that SimCity, a delisted game with issues where everyone's supposedly boycotting it and shit, is still Amazon's top selling PC game, I think we have worse problems than Activision's map pack business.

Never had beef with map packs, even if they release a month later. What I hope for is a system that keeps DLC maps in separate hoppers or at least a way for the game to recognize who did and didn't get the DLC to prevent boots. So far most modern shooters did a good job here. Microtransactions that are cosmetic are benign, so long as the metagame and balance is protected.

Something merely being on the market doesn't grind my gears like so many kiddies out there. It's like going to the supermarket, seeing a box of rice for $4.99, and complaining to the cashier, manager, your twitter, and online blog about the injustice of the rice being on the shelf when you already got noodles. Fucking ridiculous.

I was referring to annual releases as "map packs" as a way of mocking yearly updates.

Which, ultimately, I have few problems with. But the point is more that there's a bigger sign of the safety of the market than CoD.

"Should be" isn't the same as reality, however. That explains Bethesda to a T. They got shit all over for a poor man's Team Fortress that they marketed as a cross between CoD and Mirror's Edge (and wasn't anywhere as near as good as any of the three) and WET (a game I personally loved, but it was really an unfinished firesale aquisiton from Sierra they just packaged up and pushed out the door AS IS), but they got Fallout and Elder Scrolls money to bail them out of such errs.

EA has a more ironclad, global licence to print money in FIFA and Madden. Gone are the days where they were the little company trying to make games better than the big boys. They've grown up in to the big boys what want to make as much profit from games while doing as little as possible to said games. I really think this is why they went after the sports exclusivity with such fervor... 2K was eating into their Madden cash cow, AND forcing them to do something besides update the roster annually.

With companies like this, "messing up" a franchise like SimCity isn't sink or swim, so they have nothing invested in it exept the potiential for another hot commodity. If it doesn't work out, "oh well". They can try again with another property.

The evidence is out there. EA have ruined so many game series, and just shovel out shit nowadays.

It costs way too much to make new innovative AAA's now, so companies won't risk it.

Hence why indie games are a success.

Like Kalyx said, there won't be a 'crash' to the level of the 80's. But AAA titles won't be around much longer....

Or atleast they'll become one or two a year.

I'm trying not to hate on EA, especially since there's a chance i'll be working for them in a year or so, but they've fucked up so much...

And even then, someone should hold their nuts to the fire for all the game-breaking glitches and shit therein.

lol innovation.

Yes. Literally. Fix what is obviously a problem with the engine itself, since it's the same freezing/crashing/people falling out of the world shit that has persisted since being dropped into the Elder Scrolls chasis.

Though, to be somewhat fair, Fallout, as a whole, has always been an overambitious, buggy affair. Only, when Interplay did it, it was innovative and charming. And I say that as a huge fan.

Of course, people will still buy them. Admittedly, I own Skyrim, but only because it was a free download when I replaced my XBox. I suppose I still could choose not to play it, but it seemed that they'd gotten my support anyway.

I sort of feel the same way about Gearbox and Volition. I finished up my SRTT downloads from the Season Pass, but opted not to support them for anything I hadn't bought into already. And Gearbox has a new character coming out for Borderlands 2, but given the combo of shit they pulled on us AND Sega with AVP, I'm not sure I can support them financially, either. But, as I have a season pass for the game, I will continue to download whatever remains (I think there's one DLC left). Perhaps I'm just rationalising, but I have already paid and can't get that money back. So I take it as a lesson learned.

Especially with how frustrating save eating in Bethesda games can be.

I've never crashed driving home drunk.

It's not a console thing: even with heavy modding you still see PC issues.

Crossrine.

To put perhaps a finer point on it, there are people out there right now claiming they've never had a problem with SimCity.

Sales of Fifa 13 was 12 million as of Jan 31.

12,000,000 x 60 = 720,000,000

That's right, nearly three fourths of a billion dollars from one game.

That's why they do what they do, because they know they can and pissing off hardcore gamers is going to do nothing to the casual ones playing this.

Unfortunately, EA doesn't see most of that and even then there's the issue of income v profit. That would, of course, require knowing what you're talking about, however.

To play Devil's Advocate, they may have legitimately felt it was enough of a threat to their brand that they needed to sue. Trademark law is a "use it or lose it" deal.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10797_3-57...iello-resigns/

EA CEO John Riccitiello resigns
John Riccitiello to leave FIFA, Battlefield publisher March 30 after six years as top executive; search for replacement to consider internal and external candidates.

by Eddie Makuch March 18, 2013 1:40 PM PDT
John Riccitiello
(Credit: EA)
Electronic Arts Chief Executive Officer John Riccitiello will resign from his position at the FIFA and Battlefield publisher after six years effective March 30, the company announced today. In addition, he will no longer be a member of the game publisher's board of directors.
The EA board of directors has appointed longtime EA executive Larry Probst as executive chairman of the company while a search is conducted for Riccitiello's permanent replacement. Probst has been in a leadership position at EA since 1991 and was CEO from 1991 to 2007. The board will consider internal and external candidates, the company said, with the help of a "leading executive search firm."
"We thank John for his contributions to EA since he was appointed CEO in 2007, especially the passion, dedication, and energy he brought to the company every single day," Probst said in a statement. "John has worked hard to lead the company through challenging transitions in our industry, and was instrumental in driving our very significant growth in digital revenues. We appreciate John's leadership and the many important strategic initiatives he has driven for the company. We have mutually agreed that this is the right time for a leadership transition."
Riccitiello offered his own comments on his decision to leave EA. He praised the game publisher and its employees and said he is optimistic about the company's future with next-generation consoles on the horizon.

This doesn't really fit with anything here it just makes my heart a little warm is all.
crossrine

Just so long as you know he's pretty much the reason Dead Space, Mirror's Edge, and anything from Bioware in the last generation was because of him. Also note that most of EA's really 'evil' decisions were pushed by the guy who will most likely take his place.

This isn't the removal of EA's Emperor, it's possibly an Anakin getting promoted to Darth Vader.

Riccitiello was responsible more for the digital side of bad stuff (ex. micro-transactions push, "bad" DLC policies, etc) and studio shutdowns. Also for the current "bad blood" between EA-Nintendo, EA-Valve, and a bunch of other companies.

The one in charge now is just for the interim period since the board wants someone new to take them in a new direction.

I don't know. I think Count Dushku was more of a threat than Rikki Tikki Tavi. This is more like Jar Jar losing his senate seat.

I'd wait for a bit on that one.

In the meanwhile, don't expect any real change in direction from this, regardless of who ends up in charge.