Matt666 (User)

  • Trainee
  • 5 bubbles
  • 5 in CRank
  • Score: 17580
"The problem with N4g, that there a lot of kids on here who don't know what an opinion is."

Why all the hate towards EA?!

Matt666 | 447d ago
User blog

Lately I seen a lot of articles that has put a lot of hate towards EA, but really I want to know why?

I believe that there are a lot worse companies out there and in this article I will be naming some companies and listing some games.

The biggest game out there is the Call Of Duty series, (yes I have played them) and from my point of view it's just the same rubbish every year, the multiplayer is broken, the whole game is just a copy & paste theme and there noting really new or exciting in there.

It's not just the Call Of Duty games that have I have issues with.

The walking dead survival instinct is another game, it's buggy as hell and the combat is weak and its had so much hype it's just well crap. (I know this because I have experienced the game first hand and I did not enjoy it.)

Their customer support isn't any better either, when you go onto Activision support and explain you got a problem with the game or some sort of other issue as soon you done explaining to them, they decide to mark your case as resolved (even though it clearly hasn't. I had plenty of cases of this.)

Furthermore they have hardly improved there graphics or physics engine for years now (as you can see from there games.)

That’s not the only company what has screwed up in some way just look at Capcom and look at some of their recent games for example DMC remake and RE both was ruined in various ways.

RE was ruined by the franchise becoming an action game when it started out as a brilliant horror survival (the last decent survival horror in my opinion being RE:CVX.) The DMC remake was just a poor effort it didn't feel like I was playing DMC anymore but instead just a cheap copy.

konami has also had it fair share of fuck ups with games for example Silent Hill homecoming was yet again more action instead of survival horror and Metal Gear Solid Rising was over the top, it took away the element of stealth and it became more like Ninja Gaiden.

For my final example look at Dead Island Riptide (made by Techland) and how little things have changed from the first one, the combat is still sluggish, the missions are still boring and repetitive and it does not feel like a survival horror.

I not saying EA is the best but it’s not the worst, yes I understand they made some bad choices so have other companies. I also understand that EA have ruined some of their own game franchises like when Need For Speed went from illegal street racing to track racing, or dead space 3 being too much action.

I just saying just think about all the other game companies out there what have done bad ideas to their games and haven't fixed it and don't judge EA so radically.

DragonKnight  +   447d ago
Ok, first of all this isn't really long enough to be in the blog section. It reads like something that should be in the forum section.

As for the content, this just sounds like you had a CoD problem that Activision didn't solve to your satisfaction and so now you hate them. EA is a FAR worse company. Activision may release the same crap every year, but given that that garbage sells around 12 million units every time and has become a billion dollar franchise, that's just good business sense.

Activision haven't used online passes, for any of their games. EA are among the biggest users of it. EA also LOVE day 1 DLC. EA buys out smaller dev companies and ruins them. EA's influence ruins sequels and potentially franchises by making developers go the "accessibility" route (Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2&3 are considered worse than the original games).

EA are incredibly anti-consumer. They push microtransactions (yes, even the kind that are Pay-to-Win microtransactions), and they neglected to learn the lesson that Ubisoft had to learn the hard way that always-online DRM (and no matter what Peter Moore says, it is DRM) is wrong, is not something anyone wants, and will be fought (at least by those who can fight it) until it's removed.

EA are arrogant and believe none of their anti-consumer practices are wrong because they make millions off of casuals who don't know any better. They state outright that, because of these millions, obviously they are doing something people love and want to support knowing full well what kind of people they are talking about.

There is a reason EA earned the "Worst Company in America" title from The Consumerist twice, and it's not because they are a better company than Activision. They may not have DESERVED that title (there are many more deserving companies), but they certainly did everything they could that people felt was anti-consumer enough to EARN that title.
Matt666  +   446d ago
Thank you for the comment I have made some changes to the article and as for mass effect 2&3 I enjoyed them but Dead space 3 was bit too much action compared to 1&2. The main point I was trying to get across was that people should look at a wider range of games and companies before listing a company "being the worst"
MikeMyers  +   446d ago
I guess DragonKnight thinks Sony are also anti-consumer since they too adopted online passes for their own games. Funny how he once again purposely leaves that out.
Matt666  +   446d ago
I have both a 360 & ps3 and I don't mind using online passes as long as the game is worth it's money I paid for and I keep getting months of use out of it
Blacktric  +   444d ago
Giving people online multiplayer for free in most of their games and their console and PS Plus sure tells us how Anti-Consumer they are...

/s
dedicatedtogamers  +   445d ago
I find this question very similar to someone asking "Why all the hate for Microsoft?"

Sure, if you haven't been gaming for very long, it is perhaps difficult to see why someone might hate some of these well-established companies. However, certain companies (EA being one of them) has a long and well-documented history of being horrible, and that's why some people hate them.
Matt666  +   445d ago
I have been gaming for 17 years and I think some of there games are great but on the flip side they are ruined some of there own games, and to be fair so have other companies I think as long as you enjoy the game then it shouldn't matter who it was made by but it takes one bad decision to ruin that company for years
coolbeans  +   444d ago
"EA's influence ruins sequels and potentially franchises by making developers go the "accessibility" route (Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2&3 are considered worse than the original games)."

Didn't the Bioware co-founders refute the notion of EA taking away their autonomy?
#1.4 (Edited 444d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
DragonKnight  +   444d ago
Are they really going to come forward, risking a lot of legal issues, and say "Oh geez, EA just took control of everything. Every bad decision is completely their fault. If you wanna know why the game sucks, look at them. We wanted to make a good game and all they wanted was accessibility and a sure thing no matter how watered down it was."
coolbeans  +   444d ago
Given that they've had ample opportunity to say those things--legality wouldn't be an issue after they left--and haven't, it's more rational to assume Bioware's foul direction (according to most fans) is solely Bioware's fault.
DragonKnight  +   444d ago
Do you think EA wouldn't pursue legal action for any kind of slanderous or libellous statements? Plus, it doesn't make them look good either way. Either they admit they sucked, or they admit EA forced them to suck and damage EA's reputation to the point EA would definitely sue them.
coolbeans  +   444d ago
Who said their admittance that EA impinged on their development process/ethos/etc., without saying whether it was for the better or worse, would be grounds for that sort of lawsuit? Or are we honestly considering your greatly-exaggerated quote above as the only way they can go about saying it?

Whether it looks bad for EA, Bioware, or both doesn't matter. I'm just picking at that quoted portion which seems to be a fallacious statement considered fact just because it's stated so often on websites.
#1.4.4 (Edited 444d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
DragonKnight  +   444d ago
"Who said their admittance that EA impinged on their development process/ethos/etc., without saying whether it was for the better or worse, would be grounds for that sort of lawsuit?"

Be real here. Try and find an instance where a large (relatively speaking of course) corporation's lawyers wouldn't jump on the chance to go after anyone discrediting the company they represent in even the smallest way. Hell, Sega went after every Youtube video that even mentioned Shining Force in passing just because they said it "diminishes" the series somehow.

It also doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and observe the fundamental shifts in design choices when a developer joins EA. There are moments in life where a direct statement isn't necessary to clearly observe truth.
coolbeans  +   444d ago
"Try and find an instance where a large (relatively speaking of course) corporation's lawyers wouldn't jump on the chance to go after anyone discrediting the company they represent in even the smallest way."

Since we're talking about former EA employees, this is rather moot. Even more disadvantageous to your point is Zeschuk went out of his way to explain EA's non-involvement, which was made after having left the company last year.

"It also doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and observe the fundamental shifts in design choices when a developer joins EA. There are moments in life where a direct statement isn't necessary to clearly observe truth."

One certainly doesn't need a microscope to notice these shifts after EA's purchase, but one does to determine whether it was by EA's grimy hands or a change in Bioware's focus. There are quotes by the Bioware leads, during and after they fell under EA's support, which suggest the truth you've gathered is actually fiction.

If all you can present is speculation to my initial question then why are you stilling responding?
#1.4.6 (Edited 444d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report
DragonKnight  +   444d ago
"Since we're talking about former EA employees, this is rather moot. Even more disadvantageous to your point is Zeschuk went out of his way to explain EA's non-involvement, which was made after having left the company last year."

You keep coming back to the same thing. "Why wouldn't he tell the truth after having left the company." For the same reason people who DO tell the truth about working conditions in their former place of employment then either have the worst chances of getting a job, or never have people wanting to work with them again. I don't understand how this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. You act as though leaving the company would mean there could be no ramifications for saying even the smallest negative thing about whom you previously worked for. Just because they left the company doesn't automatically mean they can get away with saying anything bad about EA.

"One certainly doesn't need a microscope to notice these shifts after EA's purchase, but one does to determine whether it was by EA's grimy hands or a change in Bioware's focus. There are quotes by the Bioware leads, during and after they fell under EA's support, which suggest the truth you've gathered is actually fiction."

See, now you're just trying to remove basic sense. If a developer made a game with certain design choices that were nearly universally praised and caused the game to be immensely successful, why else would they jeopardize future success by making huge changes to those same design choices if not for the influence of the one footing the bills? Call of Duty is a perfect example of publishers and developers wanting to stick with a formula that works when it is immensely successful so how can anyone think otherwise of a series like Mass Effect after Bioware was acquired by EA. Take a look a general public opinion about the Mass Effect series and most will tell you that the first game was the best. Why? Because Mass Effect 2 and 3 continued to deviate from what made the first game so well received and well liked. When you look at the other 2 games, you see streamlining and deviation from design choices that were loved of the first game. And you would take the position that Bioware would knowingly risk backlash and possible failure ON THEIR OWN when every other indicator of how business is done in gaming today states "Go with what has worked before?"

And you honestly expect that the word of these developers while employed by EA would be anything but positive? Do you think they would have wanted to be fired? And then, to say anything negative about their former company after they left would make not only them look bad, but also their former colleagues and EA for acquiring a development studio that would knowingly make bad design choices.

"If all you can present is speculation to my initial question then why are you stilling responding?"

Oh let me just call one, or both, of them up so they can make a written declaration for you because I'm certain they'd love to throw EA under the bus or make themselves look bad. Because you know, one can't trust basic common sense and easily connected variables. No, we need a concrete, absolute, declarative statement of either one of them saying "EA is the reason we made these bad choices" for it to be even remotely true.
coolbeans  +   444d ago
"I don't understand how this is such a difficult concept for you to grasp. You act as though leaving the company would mean there could be no ramifications for saying even the smallest negative thing about whom you previously worked for."

That's a terrible misinterpretation. I'm not suggesting those types of ramifications are present in these situations, only that I don't see how they're analogous to this situation since they don't have to make an admittance of EA's involvement in a negative light, and in turn avoiding litigation (notice the 'for better or worse' part from earlier?).

"... why else would they jeopardize future success by making huge changes to those same design choices if not for the influence of the one footing the bills?"

As they've previously stated, to experiment and take risks on those proven formulas. Aren't we always quick to question the lack of that taken by developers? It would be fair to question if those actually were "risks," but there's (currently) no reason to suggest those ideas were anything other than Bioware's.

The rest of your stuff after above quote is once again boring speculation (or 'basic common sense,' as you may call it) that only provides connect-the-dots bunkum after EA's acquirement to say they were the culprits behind the series' changes.

"Because you know, one can't trust basic common sense and easily connected variables."

Correction: one can't trust what you define as basic common sense. Regardless of how easily connected the variables are, correlation doesn't imply causation. No one here can assuredly say whether it was a developer's fan-angering choices or the publisher's ideas except when those behind the development provide insight. If you have none of said insight to provide then allow me:

http://www.ign.com/articles...
#1.4.8 (Edited 444d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
chrichton649  +   445d ago
Simcity.
It's an example of what EA stands for.
Spending a lot of money for nothing.

Other publishers are also heading into a direction that they are forcing gamers to spend on things they don't want.If the product is fine people will buy.But to leave out choice only aggravates.And from what I can see EA is king of aggravating people.
Matt666  +   445d ago
I never played simcity so I not sure whats it like, with the sims 2 you could look inside the shops etc and the base game came with a lot of items, then with the sims 3 they removed the ability to look inside the shop and there was less choice of items in the base game which to be fair pissed me off but its not a bad game its just disappointing its not as good as the previous game
DragonKnight  +   444d ago
SimCity has always-online DRM. You can't play SimCity offline even though it's a single player game. Now EA will say it's a design choice due to some multiplayer aspects (other people can build cities in your region) as well as some B.S. that their servers do calculations (proven to be false) and that the always-online requirement is NOT DRM, but if it WEREN'T DRM then it WOULDN'T be a requirement.

It's easy enough to have an offline mode and still let other players build cities in your region if EA hosts the regions on their servers so that when the player logs in, changes made to the region will then apply. EA can easily make that an option, they just don't want to.
GodsPerfectK7ng  +   444d ago
Disappointment in a game will start this snowball of feelings effect and then we get the hate. quoting yoda "fear is the path to the darkside." "fear leads to anger." "anger leads to Hate." Hate leads to suffering." and so you have manifested hate by feeling it and speaking about your hate of EA. I love EA for the great games they make and a amazing company it is!!! :)
andron666  +   444d ago
Because they don't care about their customers. Case in point, I decided to upgrade my BF3 to the premium and got it cheap online. Only trouble the code doesn't work. Good job EA...
da_2pacalypse  +   444d ago
The problem with EA is that they never lead. As the biggest company in the industry, you would think that they would try and lead the industry. They do not do this. They follow the most recent trend and try and steal sales from a game that already exists. Look at how many military shooters they've published in the last few years to try and compete with COD. Look at how many MMO's they've published to try and compete with WOW. Look at how many games they've shoved too much action into that clearly didn't need it (DA2, ME3, Dead Space 3).

That's the problem with EA. They have so many great IPs, but they ruin them by trying to appeal to an audience that doesn't care about that IP. You can't make a Dead Space game that's not a survival horror to try and appeal to an action genre.

Create your own creations, make them successful.

That's the problem with EA.
FreshRevenge  +   444d ago
The problem with EA, is that they are the bully. They flash their big bucks toward good companies like Bioware and once they front the money to their developers. They think they have a right to how the game should end.

Take Mass Effect 3 ending. It was the worst way to end a franchise. It sucked balls. It had a petition and fund raising to have them change the ending. Not many games I know have had their games get such a reaction. Yet EA pushed them to write that crappy ending and it pissed me off and a lot of other fans. EA doesn't have a good working relationship with the people they promote. They think they can control how the game should be. So there is no freedom for the developer to make the game they want without having EA step in and change things. Deadspace isn't that great either.

EA just laid off a bunch of their employees because they only care about MONEY. They don't care about the individuals that make the games. EA is a blood thirsty Corporate Evil Monster that should choke and die!
Matt666  +   444d ago
to be fair I think a lot of companies are going like that these days just look at certain companies and how lazy they get with there games for example COD, yet I don't understand why people keep buying it, hen its just the same as last years copy

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember