Forums
 

Why do people 'hate' EA?


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-07-2012, 17:37   #101
Scott_P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 2,282
I think Valve have got the right approach, I've bought loads of games from Steam for a couple of quid, that i wouldn't have bothered with, I've even bought games on Steam that I already own on disc, again for a couple of quid, purely for the convenience of Steam's delivery method.

I wouldn't have made so many random purchases at a tenner a go.

Pretty sure the developer is better off getting a percentage of a sale with a 60% discount than a sale that doesn't happen with 0% discount.
Scott_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-07-2012, 17:46   #102
Hotbird
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 6,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomas2400 View Post
And...
They release too many version too quickly. I am still on BFBC2 and still don't feel the need to buy BF3 yet. That's the issue really with these online games, you hardly get time to get into one before another is out.
Hotbird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2012, 18:38   #103
thomas2400
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotbird View Post
They release too many version too quickly. I am still on BFBC2 and still don't feel the need to buy BF3 yet. That's the issue really with these online games, you hardly get time to get into one before another is out.
As has been said one every two years is not to often
thomas2400 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2012, 19:56   #104
whoever,hey
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Services: A hoover or some other generic vacuum cleaning machine.
Posts: 27,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hotbird View Post
They release too many version too quickly. I am still on BFBC2 and still don't feel the need to buy BF3 yet. That's the issue really with these online games, you hardly get time to get into one before another is out.
BF3 is a sequel to BF2, not a naff bad company. BF3 is proper mass 64 player chaos.
whoever,hey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2012, 20:12   #105
Scott_P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoever,hey View Post
BF3 is a sequel to BF2, not a naff bad company. BF3 is proper mass 64 player chaos.
BF3 has more in common with BC2 than BF2.

They should've called it Battlefield: Bad Company 2: With Jets And 64 Players.

(not that that's a bad thing, I just think BF3 owes BC2 a lot...)
Scott_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2012, 20:41   #106
Conroy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: cs_office
Services: PS3 (w/BC & 1TB HDD), Vita, Intel Core i7 975 EE, Quad SLI, Virgin 100MB
Posts: 2,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott_P View Post
BF3 has more in common with BC2 than BF2.

They should've called it Battlefield: Bad Company 2: With Jets And 64 Players.

(not that that's a bad thing, I just think BF3 owes BC2 a lot...)
The only thing BF3 owes Bad Company is the creation of Rush Mode, and it's a huge improvement over (Gold) Rush from both Bad Company titles.

Bad Company was about the bungling squad of 4 from "B" Company who somehow get themselves into the thick of the action and escape. If the campaign doesn't feature Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard or Redford, it can't be Bad Company. Seeing as BF3 has its own campaign structure which is very far removed from the comical antics of Bad Company, it deserves to stand on its own when the rest of the main BF games. I imagine BF4 will follow the same structure as BF3.
Conroy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-07-2012, 20:57   #107
Scott_P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Wakefield, West Yorkshire
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conroy View Post
The only thing BF3 owes Bad Company is the creation of Rush Mode, and it's a huge improvement over (Gold) Rush from both Bad Company titles.

Bad Company was about the bungling squad of 4 from "B" Company who somehow get themselves into the thick of the action and escape. If the campaign doesn't feature Marlowe, Sweetwater, Haggard or Redford, it can't be Bad Company. Seeing as BF3 has its own campaign structure which is very far removed from the comical antics of Bad Company, it deserves to stand on its own when the rest of the main BF games. I imagine BF4 will follow the same structure as BF3.
>implying anyone gave a crap about the single player mode of BC2?

BF3 borrows heavily from BC2, the infantry combat style, the weapon add ons, faster ranking up, destruction, gadgets, ballistic modelling, phsyics etc etc

(on the negative side it also inherited BC2's smaller squad sizes and weird class structure / equipment...imo the BF2 classes made more sense)

BF3 is essentially BC2 with bigger maps and the a bigger variety of vehicles, which is fine by me, as I loved BC2 and BF2.
Scott_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21-07-2012, 19:01   #108
Magnamundian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Stoke-on-Trent
Posts: 1,795
For me, their early DRM attempts is what made them the "big evil". Buying Sims3 and spending more time trying to make the game work than actually playing it is just plain wrong.

The way they buy up other studios and start churning out generic expansions was part of it to.

However these days with Origin (and I know many people hate it) I find that the games work much more often to a point where the occasional issue is tolerable.

For me, Sony Online Entertainment is now my new "big evil" for off-selling their european customers to a german company with even less reputation for quality and security than SoE (you wouldn't think it possible but ...)

EA is now in the "brief reprieve" category.
Magnamundian is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:10.