298 réponses à ce sujet

[Aesieru]

Kristofer1 wrote...

remember goldeneye? great game. one of the best. when EA started making bond games, they were beyond terrible. i couldnt stand them. then ME2 came along and felt a little off. i love the game but some changes didnt make sense. then ME3, gets a delay, but still feels rushed. DA2, good game, but it felt rushed as well. DA:O took ages to create, years. many years. DA:2 felt like it was done very fast. why, EA.

even NHL games got bad overtime with EA. I stopped playing them in like 2002

Remember the NEW GOLDENEYE for the 360 / Wii?

Hahhaa
HHahahahahah

Guess what?

They're making a REMAKE OF THE REMAKE.

[Gatt9]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

Westwood - Forced to make Earth and Beyond,  Because EA's policy at that point was "MMO is the only way to go!",  then shuttered when it failed.

Origin - Ultima was changed from an deep RPG to an action-RPG hybrid,  and did poorly.  Folded because EA didn't want anyone to play any Ultima but Ultima Online.

Bullfrog - Folded after being forced to make a Populous 3 that bore little relation to the originals.

Maxis - Was forbidden to make The Sims,  because EA thought no one would play it.  Will Wright developed it secretly and dropped it on them,  and when it sold well,  EA forced them to make endless sequels and an MMO until Will Wright left.

In each case,  the common problem was EA and their dictating design,  and often dictating what games to make,  instead of letting them make great games.

[Aesieru]

Gatt9 wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

Westwood - Forced to make Earth and Beyond,  Because EA's policy at that point was "MMO is the only way to go!",  then shuttered when it failed.

--- Also forced to make C&C FPS Renegade [I actually liked Renegade though] and I believe Firestorm (and Firestorm was plotlore that made no sense and now is the focus of every other Tiberium game.)

Origin - Ultima was changed from an deep RPG to an action-RPG hybrid,  and did poorly.  Folded because EA didn't want anyone to play any Ultima but Ultima Online.

Bullfrog - Folded after being forced to make a Populous 3 that bore little relation to the originals.

Maxis - Was forbidden to make The Sims,  because EA thought no one would play it.  Will Wright developed it secretly and dropped it on them,  and when it sold well,  EA forced them to make endless sequels and an MMO until Will Wright left.

--- And now buying the entire series is required to actually play it with anyone, which costs 320 currently.

BioWare - Purchased so that EA could throw their designed intro-logo and label on Mass Effect for the 360 and for Dragon Age: Origins. Forced the cancellation of expected DLC-lineage for Mass Effect so to push out a Mass Effect 2 quicker, this was then put out with numerous DLC and then had the DLC cancelled and replaced by other DLC. Mass Effect 2 was also incidentally separate from the plot in all truth and didn't really have anything to do with ME1 outside of a few links. Forced out Dragon Age 2 quicker than expected with promotion and pre-order DLC galore in an entirely different style than DA:O, with budget restrictions. Oh and TOR pandering to MMO-genre instead of Story MMO-genre as promised (it really doesn't do much with story as they promised).

In each case,  the common problem was EA and their dictating design,  and often dictating what games to make,  instead of letting them make great games.

[Paulinius]

Also, EA's stock performance versus the market:

[Blackmind1]

Aesieru wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

Westwood - Forced to make Earth and Beyond,  Because EA's policy at that point was "MMO is the only way to go!",  then shuttered when it failed.

--- Also forced to make C&C FPS Renegade [I actually liked Renegade though] and I believe Firestorm (and Firestorm was plotlore that made no sense and now is the focus of every other Tiberium game.)

Origin - Ultima was changed from an deep RPG to an action-RPG hybrid,  and did poorly.  Folded because EA didn't want anyone to play any Ultima but Ultima Online.

Bullfrog - Folded after being forced to make a Populous 3 that bore little relation to the originals.

Maxis - Was forbidden to make The Sims,  because EA thought no one would play it.  Will Wright developed it secretly and dropped it on them,  and when it sold well,  EA forced them to make endless sequels and an MMO until Will Wright left.

--- And now buying the entire series is required to actually play it with anyone, which costs 320 currently.

BioWare - Purchased so that EA could throw their designed intro-logo and label on Mass Effect for the 360 and for Dragon Age: Origins. Forced the cancellation of expected DLC-lineage for Mass Effect so to push out a Mass Effect 2 quicker, this was then put out with numerous DLC and then had the DLC cancelled and replaced by other DLC. Mass Effect 2 was also incidentally separate from the plot in all truth and didn't really have anything to do with ME1 outside of a few links. Forced out Dragon Age 2 quicker than expected with promotion and pre-order DLC galore in an entirely different style than DA:O, with budget restrictions. Oh and TOR pandering to MMO-genre instead of Story MMO-genre as promised (it really doesn't do much with story as they promised).

In each case,  the common problem was EA and their dictating design,  and often dictating what games to make,  instead of letting them make great games.

You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"

If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.

Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 

Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

Modifié par Blackmind1, 25 mars 2012 - 06:09 .

[Abirn]

Paulinius wrote...

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

This is hugely misleading.  Look under gross profit, the cost of making games is only about half of what they sell for.  They are making a nice little profit on the stuff they sell.   The losses seem to come from internal administration stuff.  Which would be improved if they cut that back and keep their hands off the studios instead of forcing developer decisions on them.

You want to know why EA gets so much hate.  THe answer is Executive meddeling.  

Activision has been smart enough not to lay a hand on blizzard since aquiring them.  Which is probably the smartest thing activision has ever done.

[FedericoV]

mutermath wrote...

 People keep bashing EA on this site.
Can some please explain why?
I dont get it.
Some are saying the made bioware rush DA2 and now I see others saying ME3 too.

Because they do not care about the quality of their products, they do not respect their customers, they do not respect their workers and most of all because they destroy anything that's good about the company they control.

What they have done to Bioware on an ethical level could be compared to what the Reapers have done to earth in ME3.

Modifié par FedericoV, 25 mars 2012 - 06:20 .

[Turic]

Blackmind1 wrote...
You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"
If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.
Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 
Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

heh) you wait that that people can say "oh, yes, i was wrong"? all they could that "THEY ALL WERE WRONG, not me". its typical for those why can only buy, not create.

[Melca36]

I actually beta tested Sims Online and saw it for the piece of garbage that it was. They lost so much on that game. LOL

[ZtalkerRM]

Well wrote...

ZtalkerRM wrote...

BeefoTheBold wrote...
If you believe a word that comes out of Casey's mouth these days then you lack pattern recognition. Casey has been misleading, lying and spinning for years now. 

"Propagandist" is the nicest thing that I can call him. Just about anything else would get me removed from the forum.

I don't know if it's his mistake per se.
If you look at all the interviews that were posted along the development, he is speaking about stuff that isn't in the game and that has (possibly) been cut due to time constraints. Same is true for Dragon Age 2...the people in charge of both project are fighting an un-winnable war every day.
They know they need more time to create a good product (because they are all experience Bioware veterans who care about games) but there's possiblyy, or even quite probably, an EA executive that's pushing, pushing and pushing him every single day. Eventually, you give up.

I know one of the original dev's left Bioware saying "It's not Bioware anymore."
A link about that is around the forums here somwhere..

Could you post some links to this info.Thanks.

You're right to ask me for proof, since I ask for it myself too
Dragon Age 1 writer Brent Knowles is the guy.
He basically proofs that EA is shipping out incomplete games full of bugs and problems and that EA's PR machine is constantly watching them, even going as far as doing his hair for him for a photoshoot.

If you can't click the link in his name, here it is seperately:
http://blog.brentkno...08-summer-2009/

There you have it. 2008/2009. Fit's the picture perfectly.
Discuss!

Modifié par ZtalkerRM, 25 mars 2012 - 06:31 .

[MelfinaofOutlawStar]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

*sniff* Bullfrog...

[Aesieru]

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

Google Visceral and Dice.

Some of the younger one's in here just don't understand how a business works. If a studio is failing, it needs to be shut down. It's far nicer of EA to liquidate them into the company and allow them to keep their jobs and living than just sac them when their work is failing.

Don't forget that EA has killed numerous developers on their own, then liquidated them because they weren't working out with EA leadership as the boss.

Name me a few. The ones that EA "Killed" likely failed outright because the games they created were not selling anymore. A company doesn't purposefully kill a useful asset unless that asset is already failing. In which case, again, it's far better that EA allow them to keep their jobs, rather than sacking them and leaving them unemployed.

Westwood - Forced to make Earth and Beyond,  Because EA's policy at that point was "MMO is the only way to go!",  then shuttered when it failed.

--- Also forced to make C&C FPS Renegade [I actually liked Renegade though] and I believe Firestorm (and Firestorm was plotlore that made no sense and now is the focus of every other Tiberium game.)

Origin - Ultima was changed from an deep RPG to an action-RPG hybrid,  and did poorly.  Folded because EA didn't want anyone to play any Ultima but Ultima Online.

Bullfrog - Folded after being forced to make a Populous 3 that bore little relation to the originals.

Maxis - Was forbidden to make The Sims,  because EA thought no one would play it.  Will Wright developed it secretly and dropped it on them,  and when it sold well,  EA forced them to make endless sequels and an MMO until Will Wright left.

--- And now buying the entire series is required to actually play it with anyone, which costs 320 currently.

BioWare - Purchased so that EA could throw their designed intro-logo and label on Mass Effect for the 360 and for Dragon Age: Origins. Forced the cancellation of expected DLC-lineage for Mass Effect so to push out a Mass Effect 2 quicker, this was then put out with numerous DLC and then had the DLC cancelled and replaced by other DLC. Mass Effect 2 was also incidentally separate from the plot in all truth and didn't really have anything to do with ME1 outside of a few links. Forced out Dragon Age 2 quicker than expected with promotion and pre-order DLC galore in an entirely different style than DA:O, with budget restrictions. Oh and TOR pandering to MMO-genre instead of Story MMO-genre as promised (it really doesn't do much with story as they promised).

In each case,  the common problem was EA and their dictating design,  and often dictating what games to make,  instead of letting them make great games.

You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"

If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.

Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 

Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

Without being as immature, insulting, and arrogant as you, I must actually agree that it was a financial pit, but that wasn't because of Origins so much as them trying to keep multiple studios up with long development times for each of them as well as plans for a third series.

Also, EA can actually buy companies without their permission, there are a lot of legal laws that allow for it.

[Aesieru]

Turic wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...
You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"
If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.
Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 
Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

heh) you wait that that people can say "oh, yes, i was wrong"? all they could that "THEY ALL WERE WRONG, not me". its typical for those why can only buy, not create.

Stop talking out of your ass and insulting people you don't even know anything about, that's just ignorant.

[Aesieru]

Abirn wrote...

Paulinius wrote...

There's a reason EA is focusing on DLC, microtransactions, cutting budgets, and rushing development times:

This is hugely misleading.  Look under gross profit, the cost of making games is only about half of what they sell for.  They are making a nice little profit on the stuff they sell.   The losses seem to come from internal administration stuff.  Which would be improved if they cut that back and keep their hands off the studios instead of forcing developer decisions on them.

You want to know why EA gets so much hate.  THe answer is Executive meddeling.  

Activision has been smart enough not to lay a hand on blizzard since aquiring them.  Which is probably the smartest thing activision has ever done.

And StarCraft 2 got all plot-hole and retcon centric and trilogy-tastic on its own then?

I guess Blizzard could feasibly get greedy, sure.

Oh and Diablo 3... oh my.

[mutermath]

Thetri wrote...

I don't hate EA. I don't think I ever will, they gave me The Orange Box, Dragon Age, and Mass Effect on PS3. I never had a 360 or capable PC hardware at the time they brought them to PS3, I thank them for giving me a chance to play them. I do not however support their constant DLC pushing and online passes.

i think this is the reason i dont hate them too.

[Stealthy Cake]

Unfortunaly, after most of the companies EA touch eventually turns into crap after X amount of time, they havent been overly popular with fansbases.

[Turic]

Aesieru wrote...

Turic wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...
You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"
If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.
Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 
Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

heh) you wait that that people can say "oh, yes, i was wrong"? all they could that "THEY ALL WERE WRONG, not me". its typical for those why can only buy, not create.

Stop talking out of your ass and insulting people you don't even know anything about, that's just ignorant.

like i said) nothing interesting. thank to EA, they managed a lot of great games and will do it later. all you can do - is just complain "oh my god, oh my god, how all going bad".

or you can play at battlefield, mirrors edge, dead space and other. you always see all in dark colors, try see something bright

[Texansamurai]

EA is the wallstreet of video games. They outsource most of their labor, and they are known for the worst customer service in the industry. EA is also known to pushing out games faster than they should be released.

[Aesieru]

Turic wrote...

Aesieru wrote...

Turic wrote...

Blackmind1 wrote...
You do realise that Bioware would have had to consent to purchase, right? EA don't just come in and go "OH, HEY, I WANT THAT ONE, RIGHT THERE!"
If anything, blame Bioware. It's likely that the 6 year development time of DA:O put them in a financial pit. It has nothing to do with EA simply wanting the logo on the case. Stop thinking like children.
Bioware would have needed to look for a buyer, EA offered them what they were looking for. End of. 
Stop thinking that your precious Bioware can do no wrong. They're in it for the money just as much as EA.

heh) you wait that that people can say "oh, yes, i was wrong"? all they could that "THEY ALL WERE WRONG, not me". its typical for those why can only buy, not create.

Stop talking out of your ass and insulting people you don't even know anything about, that's just ignorant.

like i said) nothing interesting. thank to EA, they managed a lot of great games and will do it later. all you can do - is just complain "oh my god, oh my god, how all going bad".

or you can play at battlefield, mirrors edge, dead space and other. you always see all in dark colors, try see something bright

Do you know how terrible reception Mirror's Edge had? And how much funds it drained and wasted without even breaking even?

Battlefield? They just insulted the singleplayer campaign by acting like they had one and filling it with holes and insults and poor level design the whole way, GRANTED they had an "interesting" aircraft scene. Dead Space? Did you just realize that they just changed it, fired a lot of the designers, and made it a trilogy-tastic never ending series because of "lots of markers"?

BioWare was known BEFORE EA ever touched it, and the proof is in the pudding, EA has no good reputation by anyone if you actually look at their products and what they've done to companies.

And as for us "hating it", we've provided innumerable points to support us and prove we're correct, you have just insulted people.

[Supersomething]

EA is known for taking over successful Game Companies and proceeding to tarnish any game that said game company makes afterwards with copious amounts of DLC and whatever else they can think of.  They also have a nasty habit of Hollywoodizing.... yes that is now a word, many video games after they take over.  I like to think of them as the Michael Bay of the gaming community.  Occasionally they crap out a few golden nuggets that are actually pretty decent games but as a whole they're just interested in their bottom line more than anything else.

[Turic]

Aesieru wrote...
Do you know how terrible reception Mirror's Edge had? And how much funds it drained and wasted without even breaking even?

Battlefield? They just insulted the singleplayer campaign by acting like they had one and filling it with holes and insults and poor level design the whole way, GRANTED they had an "interesting" aircraft scene. Dead Space? Did you just realize that they just changed it, fired a lot of the designers, and made it a trilogy-tastic never ending series because of "lots of markers"?

BioWare was known BEFORE EA ever touched it, and the proof is in the pudding, EA has no good reputation by anyone if you actually look at their products and what they've done to companies.

And as for us "hating it", we've provided innumerable points to support us and prove we're correct, you have just insulted people.

"oh my god, oh my god, all going down"

mirrors edge is bad, battlefield is just bad design, dead space too...all bad, all terrible...thats why ea buy bioware?

ea - great company. it have some mistakes, like others. you hate is only hate, nothing else.

[Aesieru]

Turic wrote...

Aesieru wrote...
Do you know how terrible reception Mirror's Edge had? And how much funds it drained and wasted without even breaking even?

Battlefield? They just insulted the singleplayer campaign by acting like they had one and filling it with holes and insults and poor level design the whole way, GRANTED they had an "interesting" aircraft scene. Dead Space? Did you just realize that they just changed it, fired a lot of the designers, and made it a trilogy-tastic never ending series because of "lots of markers"?

BioWare was known BEFORE EA ever touched it, and the proof is in the pudding, EA has no good reputation by anyone if you actually look at their products and what they've done to companies.

And as for us "hating it", we've provided innumerable points to support us and prove we're correct, you have just insulted people.

"oh my god, oh my god, all going down"

mirrors edge is bad, battlefield is just bad design, dead space too...all bad, all terrible...thats why ea buy bioware?

ea - great company. it have some mistakes, like others. you hate is only hate, nothing else.

When you can provide irrefutable proof or support for your statements, we'll talk.

[twistedforsaken]

just look at bethesda and compaire them to EA, bethesda has always given me what i expected in said game while with EA its money for them with no regard with what happens to the game.

NO EA = instant better world

[Ruined Requiem]

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

^

EA has turned into a money hungry Tyrant.

[Nepp]

Ruined Requiem wrote...

Farbautisonn wrote...

Google "Westwood", "Bullfrog" and "Origin"

^

EA has turned into a money hungry Tyrant.

Yep.

It's tasteless they took the origin name for their useless malware packed "client" Origin. I always get rid of Origin so I can play the game without that spyware.