[Jeeooorghhhbbb]

Being an older gamer, I remember EA, or Electronic Arts as they called themselves back then, as being pretty much the most innovative publisher there was. They were extremely instrumental in the success of the Amiga and the Sega Mega Drive (Deluxe Paint, Populous on the Amiga plus Desert Strike, Road Rash, John Madden Football, James Pond, FIFA, etc. and )

The problem nowadays is that they are so massive and are pretty much the one major publisher on all platforms. But despite the criticism levelled towards them, imagine what gaming would be like without them? They still produce an awful lot of fantastic games and I'm sure most console and PC owners own and enjoy a number of EA games, I think EA's problem isn't their games, but their marketing department who seem to spend their whole time coming up with different ways of screwing money out of people.The perception of EA today is of a greedy corporate comgloberate. They need to get back to their roots as a passionate developer of video games. Although it's always been about making money, they need to make it not so obvious.

[seanf]

I dont get this its trendy to hate ea shit. I dont care about ea but i do like a lot of their games. I have been a big fan of battle field since battle field vietnam. And have battle field 3 premium £30 for 5 map packs each pack has 4 maps I dont think that is bad at all.

[NorfolkBoy1]

It's because certain corners of the internet have a massively inflated sense of their own importance.

EA are a company who make games, some of them are good, some of them are great, some fo them are bad.
EA charge money for them.
Sometimes they need patching.
Sometimes EA want money for on-disc DLC.
Sometimes they will use online pass codes to prevent loss of revenue from second-hand game sales.
Sometimes the servers for an online game will strugle with the initial high-demand at release.

None of the above are issues exclusive to EA, but as they are the biggest they are therefore the most 'evil'. Also as they are the biggest they are the easiest to hit, no matter how tiny the stick is with which you are attempting to hit them.

[iHelix]

I've seen quite a bit of negativity towards Battlefield Premium but I don't really understand why. It's basically a season pass with a few added extras, none of which are going to give you a significant advantage over anybody else. You're really only going to be buying it if you're interested in the DLC and I don't see the issue with that.

[The_Shuffle]

Originally Posted by NorfolkBoy1

It's because certain corners of the internet have a massively inflated sense of their own importance.

EA are a company who make games, some of them are good, some of them are great, some fo them are bad.
EA charge money for them.
Sometimes they need patching.
Sometimes EA want money for on-disc DLC.
Sometimes they will use online pass codes to prevent loss of revenue from second-hand game sales.
Sometimes the servers for an online game will strugle with the initial high-demand at release.

None of the above are issues exclusive to EA, but as they are the biggest they are therefore the most 'evil'. Also as they are the biggest they are the easiest to hit, no matter how tiny the stick is with which you are attempting to hit them.

Yeah, it's all because of the ego of the gamer rather than EA.

It's true to an extent, but really only a small extent. The fact that a lot of people jump on the bandwagon of hate doesn't mean that EA are amazing and those that criticise are from certain corners (I know that's not exactly what you said, but it was sort of implied).

If you look at the list you put, a lot can be taken off. Nobody complains because EA charge money for games and nobody expects every game to be a hit. There will always be poor games, it's the nature of the beast when you make so many. However, patches are an issue. It's not specific to EA, but why are so many games released in almost unplayable condition? For EA, when certain games have a tendency to be the same but with a different number at the end, it's a massive issue.

I agree about the on-disc DLC, that's an issue with gaming in general, not EA. The online passes don't bother me but with their poor customer service it gives the impression that they're stingy. Servers are an issue. Something as big as EA should know when a game is going to be huge and require better server load. It's easy to have too many and then close some than have too few and try to add more during the complaining. I also resent EA insisting that there is nothing wrong with their servers, telling me it's all my configuration despite the fact I play fine on any other game and can only use EA ones if I'm in the DMZ (even then with issues).

The main problem is customer service and the perception with their decisions that they are all about money, but other issues are just as valid and it's not logical to label complainers as having inflated opinions of their own self importance.

[tysonstorm]

Originally Posted by Jeeooorghhhbbb

Being an older gamer, I remember EA, or Electronic Arts as they called themselves back then, as being pretty much the most innovative publisher there was. They were extremely instrumental in the success of the Amiga and the Sega Mega Drive (Deluxe Paint, Populous on the Amiga plus Desert Strike, Road Rash, John Madden Football, James Pond, FIFA, etc. and )

The problem nowadays is that they are so massive and are pretty much the one major publisher on all platforms. But despite the criticism levelled towards them, imagine what gaming would be like without them? They still produce an awful lot of fantastic games and I'm sure most console and PC owners own and enjoy a number of EA games, I think EA's problem isn't their games, but their marketing department who seem to spend their whole time coming up with different ways of screwing money out of people.The perception of EA today is of a greedy corporate comgloberate. They need to get back to their roots as a passionate developer of video games. Although it's always been about making money, they need to make it not so obvious.

Same with Activision, like yourself as an older gamer I can remember their back catalogue and the quality of their games back then, nowadays I think because they've gotten so big and have so much contempt for gamers these days they just churn out any old crap and expect people to rush out and buy their products (which in most cases people do).

[steven1977]

They screwed up the WCW wrestling franchise when they had it.

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by steven1977

They screwed up the WCW wrestling franchise when they had it.

I don't know many game franchises that actually improved when EA got their hands on it.

[steven1977]

Originally Posted by Speedloafer

I don't know many game franchises that actually improved when EA got their hands on it.

Its not so much they screwed it up. They made a fairly decent game in Mayhem. But then they ditched Mayhem 2 and made a rubbish backstage assault that everyone hated.

Cant wait to see how bad EA turns the UFC francise into.

[Soppyfan]

For me, I think EA started to show their negative side when they screwed up the Command & Conquer franchise.

Although Generals was fantastically made, the rest of the games that followed weren't what Westwood use to do and Tiberium Twilight was a "nail in a coffin", so to speak.

[steven1977]

Id have more respect for EA if they wernt out to rip fans off and charge for a online code. Plenty of game companies wont do this.

[thomas2400]

Originally Posted by steven1977

Id have more respect for EA if they wernt out to rip fans off and charge for a online code. Plenty of game companies wont do this.

You can't just hate EA because of this

1. many companies do it so you must hate them as much

2. EA didn't start the online pass system a little research before you start hating a company next time...

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by thomas2400

You can't just hate EA because of this

1. many companies do it so you must hate them as much

2. EA didn't start the online pass system a little research before you start hating a company next time...

They are the only company I know of that you can improve your online team/character in multilayer by spending real money. Making it the person will to spend the most money will always have the best available stats.

[Conroy]

Originally Posted by Speedloafer

They are the only company I know of that you can improve your online team/character in multilayer by spending real money. Making it the person will to spend the most money will always have the best available stats.

Erm... what? What game are you talking about?

[willowfan]

The Tiger Woods games for one...

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by Conroy

Erm... what? What game are you talking about?

FIFA, Tiger Woods, Madden, NHL to name a few

[Conroy]

Originally Posted by Speedloafer

FIFA, Tiger Woods, Madden, NHL to name a few

I don't play EA Sports titles but is spending real money the only way to obtain those higher stats or can they be unlocked through player progression?

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by Conroy

I don't play EA Sports titles but is spending real money the only way to obtain those higher stats or can they be unlocked through player progression?

Not the only way but, If you wanted to build an ultimate team of the best players (Messi, Ronaldo, etc) you would be looking at least 3 years playing. And that is if you are actually good enough to win some tournaments.

[Hotbird]

From my experience on BFBC2 which allows you to buy weapons and gear aimed at high level players from the start the only people that buy these things are poor players who need all the help they can get, even with the advantage of having better weaponry available they still cant hold their own against a good player with a low level weapon.

I have never played the EA Sport titles so dont really know how it works out in those games.

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by Hotbird

From my experience on BFBC2 which allows you to buy weapons and gear aimed at high level players from the start the only people that buy these things are poor players who need all the help they can get, even with the advantage of having better weaponry available they still cant hold their own against a good player with a low level weapon.

I have never played the EA Sport titles so dont really know how it works out in those games.

I have never played BFBC2 but I would say its safe to assume that if you have 2 players of equal skill, and one decides he is going to spend some money on better weapons and gear and the other player does not because he simply cannot afford it, then its fair to say that the player who spent the real money would have the significant advantage If they met up in the game. Which is the same with FIFA, Madden, Tiger Woods etc etc. This simply cannot be defended. Everybody should start out the same in an online game.

[Conroy]

Originally Posted by Speedloafer

I have never played BFBC2 but I would say its safe to assume that if you have 2 players of equal skill, and one decides he is going to spend some money on better weapons and gear and the other player does not because he simply cannot afford it, then its fair to say that the player who spent the real money would have the significant advantage If they met up in the game. Which is the same with FIFA, Madden, Tiger Woods etc etc. This simply cannot be defended. Everybody should start out the same in an online game.

They usually do, but about 6 months after launch, EA release an unlock pack (they've done the same for BF3, NFS etc), so those people new to the game can get access to some of the better stuff that people who've been playing it since launch would have already unlocked.

You may see it as unfair that a new player can get access to better equipment that might have taken you or someone else a long time to unlock, but you shouldn't overlook the new player who may get disheartened (it's a common complaint) when they see how many hours they would need to put in to get some half decent gear, let alone the top level stuff and EA are not the only companies who do this. Other developers/publishers might call them booster packs but the concept is something that has been happening for many, many years.

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by Conroy

They usually do, but about 6 months after launch, EA release an unlock pack (they've done the same for BF3, NFS etc), so those people new to the game can get access to some of the better stuff that people who've been playing it since launch would have already unlocked.

You may see it as unfair that a new player can get access to better equipment that might have taken you or someone else a long time to unlock, but you shouldn't overlook the new player who may get disheartened (it's a common complaint) when they see how many hours they would need to put in to get some half decent gear, let alone the top level stuff and EA are not the only companies who do this. Other developers/publishers might call them booster packs but the concept is something that has been happening for many, many years.

ok but that doesn't explain Fifa, Tiger Woods, NHL etc real money from the start sets you way ahead of the non spenders.

[thomas2400]

Originally Posted by Speedloafer

I have never played BFBC2 but I would say its safe to assume that if you have 2 players of equal skill, and one decides he is going to spend some money on better weapons and gear and the other player does not because he simply cannot afford it, then its fair to say that the player who spent the real money would have the significant advantage If they met up in the game. Which is the same with FIFA, Madden, Tiger Woods etc etc. This simply cannot be defended. Everybody should start out the same in an online game.

I think it can be defended, in what should possibly be a whole different thread, we need to remember that gaming is not a right its a priviledge, just because some players can't afford the same advantages as other players it doesn't mean that including them is wrong

[Gormond]

I hate them because they buy over perfectly good companies and then mess with them. There are to many to name here but have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s#Acquisitions

[Speedloafer]

Originally Posted by thomas2400

I think it can be defended, in what should possibly be a whole different thread, we need to remember that gaming is not a right its a priviledge, just because some players can't afford the same advantages as other players it doesn't mean that including them is wrong

A privilege? We buy for the console, xbox live, the game and internet access. That isn't enough for you? Want the shirt of my back? and I can donate some blood too. Privilege my arse.