149 réponses à ce sujet

[redBadger14]

Arcian wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

I'm with Alex on this one. Anyone who personally knows John Riccitello knew that he was a CEO who was a gamer himself, concerned with making decisions that improved games, not necessarily for the best financial interests at times.

His stepping down sort of scares me.

Please tell me you're not being serious.

That's one interview. Good try though, really overwhelming evidence there portraying JR as a heartless CEO concerned only with profit.

Regardless, that interview was in bad context, and obviously what JR said then was idiotic, but it was more of him drawing a really bad example. I don't believe for one second he thinks having us pay $1 to reload is in any way a good, or profitable, idea.

I also said at times, not all the time. Reading comprehension, use it.

You can also remember, while your on your trek of presenting shoddy "evidence," that EA was WORSE before John stepped in as CEO; anyone with half a brain is saying that JR's stepping down is very bad for the company. I would also highly doubt you actually know better than people who personally know the damn guy and have said exactly what you bolded in my previous post. 

But please, do continue.

I don't have to, you just dragged your credibility into the street and popped a cap in its head.

Lack of credibility or you just deflecting the post entirely? I think the latter.

[Megaton_Hope]

Frankly, that the idea of refilling your clip costing you real world money occurred to him at all is rather telling. That's the really despicable end of "microtransactions," where you can buy something consumable with no permanent results. Perhaps more evident in another EA title:

http://www.penny-arc...ed-by-eas-greed

[Allan Schumacher]

Arcian and RedBadger, let this tangent die please.

[Bleachrude]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

I vote Wal*Mart, personally, they traffic in necessities, slave labor and lies. EA is still just producing a luxury product and doing it in a sketchy way.

EA shouldn't have even been in the running last time...

You mean to tell me, EA's business practise selling a luxury item is WORSE than Walmart or Wells Fargo

What the hell is wrong with people?

EDIT
Seriously, does anyone here actually UNDERSTAND why we have day one DLC because apparently it doesn't look like it.

Modifié par Bleachrude, 19 mars 2013 - 10:54 .

[Megaton_Hope]

Day one DLC makes a lot of sense, I think, because there's the most buzz for a game right after it comes out. I think that what people object to is that the game is also most expensive at launch, and they're investing all this time and developer attention to things that could be included in the main game. (Or in the case of Dragon Age Origins, things that basically are part of the main game, but only for somebody who buys a new copy.)

I don't mind Day One DLC, personally, as long as it's optional content, not basically integral to enjoying the game. With ME2 I felt like it was treading a wire there, because enjoyable but not crucial additions like the Cerberus Network and Zaeed are no big deal, but many of the weapons in-game are very difficult to use, and there were a number of DLC-only weapons which are more manageable.

[LPPrince]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Frankly, that the idea of refilling your clip costing you real world money occurred to him at all is rather telling. That's the really despicable end of "microtransactions," where you can buy something consumable with no permanent results. Perhaps more evident in another EA title:

http://www.penny-arc...ed-by-eas-greed

This is why I dislike the way Bioware does some DLCs. Weapon packs, armor packs, releasing little things like that(sometimes not even completing sets of appearance packs like the ME team did two games in a row).

The DA team hasn't done anything super intrusive to the experience like the link tells me about RR3, but even still, I'd rather the DA team take time on creating expansion packs that are meaty- New areas, stories, weapon packs, armor packs, etc etc all the bells and whistles TOGETHER, instead of releasing them all individually piece meal.

I'd rather Bethesda's DLC model was picked up- wait some time, release some big DLCs when ready, and unlike Bethesda make sure they come out for everyone at the same time, hahaha.

[Lux]

The last day one DLC from BW was pretty integral to the story. They had a pretty aggressive selling campaign with ME3 which went over the line, IMO. If EA is even more desperate for revenue and the new CEO continues in that line, I'm afraid two things will happen.

1) Me not buying BW games anymore, similar to what I already do to every other game published by EA. That is, if they come up with more decisions aimed at cutting corners and scraping every last bit of money from consumers, in detriment of resources spent in actual single player gameplay and storytelling (which is why I used to love BW games in the first place).

2) BioWare ceasing to exist due to not being considered profitable anymore.

EA is a sinking ship atm. I do hope they'll get revenue back with a new CEO and with pro-consumer improvements. But the opposite seems to be more likely.

[billy the squid]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Day one DLC makes a lot of sense, I think, because there's the most buzz for a game right after it comes out. I think that what people object to is that the game is also most expensive at launch, and they're investing all this time and developer attention to things that could be included in the main game. (Or in the case of Dragon Age Origins, things that basically are part of the main game, but only for somebody who buys a new copy.)

I don't mind Day One DLC, personally, as long as it's optional content, not basically integral to enjoying the game. With ME2 I felt like it was treading a wire there, because enjoyable but not crucial additions like the Cerberus Network and Zaeed are no big deal, but many of the weapons in-game are very difficult to use, and there were a number of DLC-only weapons which are more manageable.

My issue with day one DLC, is not if you buy a new copy only then do you get it. I'm okay with that. I'll accept it as the price of doing business and getting something for £40 or less when the value after real inflation would be far higher. What I don't accept is the Ashes DLC which was only for the collectors edition initially and then paying £12 later. For a Bloody Prothean, which was a big deal, however much devs have tried to down play it.

You see that doesn't fly with me, they can cram it up their arse. It's a gouging method, however much it was denied. There's a line you don't cross, as it comes back to bite you in the arse. 

I sympathise to an extent with John R. He presided over Mirror's edge and Dead space 1. 2 games given EA's current drive would never have seen the light of day, especially as Mirror's edge wasn't successful. He did a lot to bring back EA's credibility and the damage to it's reputation  in the early 2000's but with declining profit margins, the bloated size of EA's operating costs and the economic stagnation. He had to find money somewhere. 

The guy was between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and be voted out immediately as EA's earnings crash and the company slides towards insolvency or find ways to open up a new revenue stream and squeeze it. Not much of a choice is it?

[Gatt9]

billy the squid wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Day one DLC makes a lot of sense, I think, because there's the most buzz for a game right after it comes out. I think that what people object to is that the game is also most expensive at launch, and they're investing all this time and developer attention to things that could be included in the main game. (Or in the case of Dragon Age Origins, things that basically are part of the main game, but only for somebody who buys a new copy.)

I don't mind Day One DLC, personally, as long as it's optional content, not basically integral to enjoying the game. With ME2 I felt like it was treading a wire there, because enjoyable but not crucial additions like the Cerberus Network and Zaeed are no big deal, but many of the weapons in-game are very difficult to use, and there were a number of DLC-only weapons which are more manageable.

My issue with day one DLC, is not if you buy a new copy only then do you get it. I'm okay with that. I'll accept it as the price of doing business and getting something for £40 or less when the value after real inflation would be far higher. What I don't accept is the Ashes DLC which was only for the collectors edition initially and then paying £12 later. For a Bloody Prothean, which was a big deal, however much devs have tried to down play it.

You see that doesn't fly with me, they can cram it up their arse. It's a gouging method, however much it was denied. There's a line you don't cross, as it comes back to bite you in the arse. 

I sympathise to an extent with John R. He presided over Mirror's edge and Dead space 1. 2 games given EA's current drive would never have seen the light of day, especially as Mirror's edge wasn't successful. He did a lot to bring back EA's credibility and the damage to it's reputation  in the early 2000's but with declining profit margins, the bloated size of EA's operating costs and the economic stagnation. He had to find money somewhere. 

The guy was between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and be voted out immediately as EA's earnings crash and the company slides towards insolvency or find ways to open up a new revenue stream and squeeze it. Not much of a choice is it?

There were other choices,  like actually making good games people want to play,  or episodic games,  or even having a realistic business plan.

Instead,  he decided to treat every game as if it'll sell blockbuster numbers,  emphasized marketing mediocre games over developing good ones,  and trying to find a way to nickle-dime consumers at every turn.

He had many other options,  he just chose not to take them.

As far as doing alot to bring back EA's credibility and those games go,  it seems to me that was the first stages of his plan.  Buy studios with quality games,  buy Bioware and put it's name on everything to prevent people from seeing the disliked EA label,  and once people calmed down,  implement "Revenue initiatives".

If you go back and read his press,  he frequently refered to the "Ongoing 3 year (5 year?) plan".

I really don't think he ever had the Gamer's best interests at heart and was stuck in a position to do bad things,  I think this was always the plan.

Plus,  honestly,  it's highly likely his decisions did lead EA to insolvency.  There's a very real chance they're not going to recover,  they can lose hundreds of millions in a quarter easily,  and have done so before.  I'm not convinced anything in their lineup for the next year other than EA Sports is going to sell well.  It's entirely possible that they won't survive past mid-2014.

Whoever takes over has one chance,  and once chance only.  He needs to make certain DA3,  ME4,  and BF4 are quality games,  because if they aren't,  I think EA won't survive the losses over the next year.

[daecath]

Gatt9 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Day one DLC makes a lot of sense, I think, because there's the most buzz for a game right after it comes out. I think that what people object to is that the game is also most expensive at launch, and they're investing all this time and developer attention to things that could be included in the main game. (Or in the case of Dragon Age Origins, things that basically are part of the main game, but only for somebody who buys a new copy.)

I don't mind Day One DLC, personally, as long as it's optional content, not basically integral to enjoying the game. With ME2 I felt like it was treading a wire there, because enjoyable but not crucial additions like the Cerberus Network and Zaeed are no big deal, but many of the weapons in-game are very difficult to use, and there were a number of DLC-only weapons which are more manageable.

My issue with day one DLC, is not if you buy a new copy only then do you get it. I'm okay with that. I'll accept it as the price of doing business and getting something for £40 or less when the value after real inflation would be far higher. What I don't accept is the Ashes DLC which was only for the collectors edition initially and then paying £12 later. For a Bloody Prothean, which was a big deal, however much devs have tried to down play it.

You see that doesn't fly with me, they can cram it up their arse. It's a gouging method, however much it was denied. There's a line you don't cross, as it comes back to bite you in the arse. 

I sympathise to an extent with John R. He presided over Mirror's edge and Dead space 1. 2 games given EA's current drive would never have seen the light of day, especially as Mirror's edge wasn't successful. He did a lot to bring back EA's credibility and the damage to it's reputation  in the early 2000's but with declining profit margins, the bloated size of EA's operating costs and the economic stagnation. He had to find money somewhere. 

The guy was between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and be voted out immediately as EA's earnings crash and the company slides towards insolvency or find ways to open up a new revenue stream and squeeze it. Not much of a choice is it?

There were other choices,  like actually making good games people want to play,  or episodic games,  or even having a realistic business plan.

Instead,  he decided to treat every game as if it'll sell blockbuster numbers,  emphasized marketing mediocre games over developing good ones,  and trying to find a way to nickle-dime consumers at every turn.

He had many other options,  he just chose not to take them.

As far as doing alot to bring back EA's credibility and those games go,  it seems to me that was the first stages of his plan.  Buy studios with quality games,  buy Bioware and put it's name on everything to prevent people from seeing the disliked EA label,  and once people calmed down,  implement "Revenue initiatives".

If you go back and read his press,  he frequently refered to the "Ongoing 3 year (5 year?) plan".

I really don't think he ever had the Gamer's best interests at heart and was stuck in a position to do bad things,  I think this was always the plan.

Plus,  honestly,  it's highly likely his decisions did lead EA to insolvency.  There's a very real chance they're not going to recover,  they can lose hundreds of millions in a quarter easily,  and have done so before.  I'm not convinced anything in their lineup for the next year other than EA Sports is going to sell well.  It's entirely possible that they won't survive past mid-2014.

Whoever takes over has one chance,  and once chance only.  He needs to make certain DA3,  ME4,  and BF4 are quality games,  because if they aren't,  I think EA won't survive the losses over the next year.

I for one am overjoyed that he is gone. I don't know whether or not the next person they bring in will make a difference, but at least one of the main people responsible for the travesty that was ME3 is gone, so there's a little vindication.

As far as the question of whether or not he was responsible for the mess that EA is, it doesn't matter if they were his ideas or if he was just a yes-man for the shareholders. The job of the leader is to lead. A strong leader would have said "Look, you hired me to do a job because I know what I'm doing and frankly you don't. So shut up and let me do my job, or hire someone else to kiss your **** because I'm not going to." If he actually did care about making quality games, he would have done so, instead of resorting to cheap gimmicks to try and monetize every possible thing he could think of; shoving in components in games that they don't belong in just to make a buck, to the detriment of the core game and the core fans; and rushing out half-finished products to make a quick buck. His prior experience before becoming CEO of EA was in a soda and snack food company. Hardly the experience necessary to know how to make good games.

[v TricKy v]

Gatt9 wrote...

Whoever takes over has one chance,  and once chance only.  He needs to make certain DA3,  ME4,  and BF4 are quality games,  because if they aren't,  I think EA won't survive the losses over the next year.

Funny thing is that if these three games are remotely like the last games and not the real successors to BF2, DA:O and ME1-2 I wont buy them. I loved these games all for a reason and that reason got eradicated in all of them in the last games. I wonder if they will ever learn that good gameplay, story, characters etc are more important than flashy and cool stuff. DA2 is the worst offender of this with its ridiculous combat system.

They should look at the phrase "Never change a winning system" and improve their games and not throw everything over board and replace it.
Pretty much every recent EA game was a trainwreck and in the news for some reason. If they dont start to finally change that, they are gone and rightly so I might add.

I think we as customers and gamers just want to play and enjoy good games and not be blocked from playing(SimCity), get punched in the face with bad story and gameplay(Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3), see their favorite games become generic and mediocre shooters(Battlefield 3, Dead Space 3), generic and mediocre racers(Need for Speed series) or see their favorite franchise completely destroyed and in shambles(Command and Conquer, Medal of Honor)

End rant

Modifié par v TricKy v, 20 mars 2013 - 09:38 .

[Kronner]

[billy the squid]

Gatt9 wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Day one DLC makes a lot of sense, I think, because there's the most buzz for a game right after it comes out. I think that what people object to is that the game is also most expensive at launch, and they're investing all this time and developer attention to things that could be included in the main game. (Or in the case of Dragon Age Origins, things that basically are part of the main game, but only for somebody who buys a new copy.)

I don't mind Day One DLC, personally, as long as it's optional content, not basically integral to enjoying the game. With ME2 I felt like it was treading a wire there, because enjoyable but not crucial additions like the Cerberus Network and Zaeed are no big deal, but many of the weapons in-game are very difficult to use, and there were a number of DLC-only weapons which are more manageable.

My issue with day one DLC, is not if you buy a new copy only then do you get it. I'm okay with that. I'll accept it as the price of doing business and getting something for £40 or less when the value after real inflation would be far higher. What I don't accept is the Ashes DLC which was only for the collectors edition initially and then paying £12 later. For a Bloody Prothean, which was a big deal, however much devs have tried to down play it.

You see that doesn't fly with me, they can cram it up their arse. It's a gouging method, however much it was denied. There's a line you don't cross, as it comes back to bite you in the arse. 

I sympathise to an extent with John R. He presided over Mirror's edge and Dead space 1. 2 games given EA's current drive would never have seen the light of day, especially as Mirror's edge wasn't successful. He did a lot to bring back EA's credibility and the damage to it's reputation  in the early 2000's but with declining profit margins, the bloated size of EA's operating costs and the economic stagnation. He had to find money somewhere. 

The guy was between a rock and a hard place. Do nothing and be voted out immediately as EA's earnings crash and the company slides towards insolvency or find ways to open up a new revenue stream and squeeze it. Not much of a choice is it?

There were other choices,  like actually making good games people want to play,  or episodic games,  or even having a realistic business plan.

Instead,  he decided to treat every game as if it'll sell blockbuster numbers,  emphasized marketing mediocre games over developing good ones,  and trying to find a way to nickle-dime consumers at every turn.

He had many other options,  he just chose not to take them.

As far as doing alot to bring back EA's credibility and those games go,  it seems to me that was the first stages of his plan.  Buy studios with quality games,  buy Bioware and put it's name on everything to prevent people from seeing the disliked EA label,  and once people calmed down,  implement "Revenue initiatives".

If you go back and read his press,  he frequently refered to the "Ongoing 3 year (5 year?) plan".

I really don't think he ever had the Gamer's best interests at heart and was stuck in a position to do bad things,  I think this was always the plan.

Plus,  honestly,  it's highly likely his decisions did lead EA to insolvency.  There's a very real chance they're not going to recover,  they can lose hundreds of millions in a quarter easily,  and have done so before.  I'm not convinced anything in their lineup for the next year other than EA Sports is going to sell well.  It's entirely possible that they won't survive past mid-2014.

Whoever takes over has one chance,  and once chance only.  He needs to make certain DA3,  ME4,  and BF4 are quality games,  because if they aren't,  I think EA won't survive the losses over the next year.

That was the realistic business plan. EA is sitting on several hundred million dollars of debt at the moment and that debt has to be serviced, pile on top of that dividend payments, operating costs, overheads, diminishing revenue, development costs and "lets spend extra money on making a really good game that fans want" when their market research says it's not going to fly off the shelf tends to lose it's appeal. It's the opportunity cost. 

If it's not going to sell and your costs are far outstripping your revenue, which they are. You are not going to spend your capital on a product which is going to appeal to the artistic integrity of a player base, you're going to go for the largest segment of the market.To think anything else is niave. I don't think he was doing whats best for gamers, he was doing things to bring EA back to profitability.

You do realise Bioware put itself up for sale, when it sold itself and EA simply snatched it up right? And that EA was buying developers for the IPs and the shutting them down long before John R. became CEO. He also had to deal with EA bloated operating and marketing costs, hence the rise of origin. Nor is EA insolvent.

And given that his interim replacement is the chap who has a track record of swallowing up devs for IPs I wouldn't hold my breath that EA will get better, rather it will get worse. ME4 won't save EA nor will BF4 or DA3, if their aim is a niche market, then they're going to fail hard. With the exception of BF4. ME4 and DA3 I'd expect more of their predecessors, but actually learning form the issues that cause problems in their mechanics rather than any attempt to fundamentally change course in terms of microtransactions, DLC and MP. Those things are here to stay. 

What gamers want and what a publisher can and will do are very different things and largely not practical outside the realms of Bethesda, Valve and CDPR etc. all of which are private companies.

[bEVEsthda]

There are a good deal of posters here who seem to think J.R. was personally responsible for the things many gamers dislike about EA.

You should have one fact in your mind: You don't know **** of what happens inside EA:
And you should think one thought: What if it is all wrong? Like 180 deg wrong?

Could he not just as well have been a guy with good intentions and a desire to reform EA, who was caught between the old black, many-tentacled monster that lives inside EA, and the increasingly desperate need to start making money? A need erupting in the wake of a sequence of game disasters which he may not have helped to shape.

It's always nice with scapegoats, isn't it?
Now go back in history and check on EA, before J.R.

[bEVEsthda]

v TricKy v wrote...

Gatt9 wrote...

Whoever takes over has one chance,  and once chance only.  He needs to make certain DA3,  ME4,  and BF4 are quality games,  because if they aren't,  I think EA won't survive the losses over the next year.

Funny thing is that if these three games are remotely like the last games and not the real successors to BF2, DA:O and ME1-2 I wont buy them. I loved these games all for a reason and that reason got eradicated in all of them in the last games. I wonder if they will ever learn that good gameplay, story, characters etc are more important than flashy and cool stuff. DA2 is the worst offender ...

I think this hits the ball.
The source of all EA's recent disaters is the mysterious insistence on changing the games to something else. And you could add a couple of other games to this list, Spore and Sim City.

[Megaton_Hope]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Could he not just as well have been a guy with good intentions and a desire to reform EA, who was caught between the old black, many-tentacled monster that lives inside EA, and the increasingly desperate need to start making money? A need erupting in the wake of a sequence of game disasters which he may not have helped to shape.

Reckon it's much more likely that he's a stuffed shirt with an MBA, who likes to imagine himself that way, just like everybody else likes to see themselves as heroic and noble in a fallen world.

But scapegoat is definitely the right word. He's being released live into the desert, that is, as a sin offering by EA. The people most directly responsible for the current state of the company and its products (the shareholders and board of directors) stick around. Nothing has particularly changed but the face the company wears for its corporate image.

[Korusus]

Bleachrude wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

I vote Wal*Mart, personally, they traffic in necessities, slave labor and lies. EA is still just producing a luxury product and doing it in a sketchy way.

EA shouldn't have even been in the running last time...

You mean to tell me, EA's business practise selling a luxury item is WORSE than Walmart or Wells Fargo

What the hell is wrong with people?

EDIT
Seriously, does anyone here actually UNDERSTAND why we have day one DLC because apparently it doesn't look like it.

Oh please, EA's crimes against consumer interests goes way beyond Day 1 DLC and some stupid ME3 ending.   EA would never be off of that list if I had my way. 

There is not a single more anti-consumer company in the videogame industry, and that doesn't even get into how they treat their own employees.

[Splinter Cell 108]

bEVEsthda wrote...

There are a good deal of posters here who seem to think J.R. was personally responsible for the things many gamers dislike about EA.

You should have one fact in your mind: You don't know **** of what happens inside EA:
And you should think one thought: What if it is all wrong? Like 180 deg wrong?

Could he not just as well have been a guy with good intentions and a desire to reform EA, who was caught between the old black, many-tentacled monster that lives inside EA, and the increasingly desperate need to start making money? A need erupting in the wake of a sequence of game disasters which he may not have helped to shape.

It's always nice with scapegoats, isn't it?
Now go back in history and check on EA, before J.R.

How could he be responsible for ALL of it? After all he is just one man and even if he was the CEO. It is the shareholders who determined EA's course, nevertheless he's the face of the company, people are going to point fingers at him more than to a bunch of unknown shareholders. 

I wish we really knew the truth about it all, and not just some bits of what was really going on. 

[Urk]

Beerfish wrote...
If anything this is bad news for BioWare if you ask me. Riccitiello was one of their big supporters and boosters. I can see things going even more main stream than before. We shall see.

I honestly couldn't care less. The Bio I once loved and championed died a LONG time ago. If Bio went down in flames tomorrow (and I still fully expect it's only a matter of time before EA finishes milking the brand and padlocks the doors), or if EA itself vanished in a puff of mediocrity, the only thing I'd miss is this community. 

Modifié par Urk, 21 mars 2013 - 01:38 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

The Doctors were smart and left while they could. Still, they built a business, sold it when it was worth a lot and made out well. Successful careers for them...and probably unexpected. Because they made a good product.

[TheBlackBaron]

Korusus wrote...

Oh please, EA's crimes against consumer interests goes way beyond Day 1 DLC and some stupid ME3 ending.   EA would never be off of that list if I had my way. 

There is not a single more anti-consumer company in the videogame industry, and that doesn't even get into how they treat their own employees.

Yes, because providing a luxury product in a manner you don't like is much worse than taking hundreds of billions taxpayer dollars to cover your own failed business practices. 

Modifié par TheBlackBaron, 21 mars 2013 - 02:14 .

[Obadiah]

Public companies' endless quest to raise stock prices (as opposed to produce quality goods) is just a waste of resources.

[Allan Schumacher]

There is not a single more anti-consumer company in the videogame industry, and that doesn't even get into how they treat their own employees.

Just how do they treat their employees?

(Rhetorical question, since you couldn't possibly know. It's also leading to this thread being closed).

Let it be known that people coming onto an EA message board to tell me how poorly EA treats me as an employee is starting to wear very thin. I will start enacting punishments if I continue to see it happen.


As for how awful EA treats me:

Here's what happened when I had a concussion playing sports and was out for 2 weeks and on 2 weeks half days with serious post concussion symptoms: "Don't worry about finances or anything. Just focus on getting better and don't come in to work until you're ready. Keep us posted and get better."

EA offers a gaming rebate their employees. I used my gaming rebate to pay for my Kickstarter contributions. So EA reimbursed me for giving money to competing developers that have eschewed the publisher model (Obsidian and inXile).

I'm very comfortably compensated, even for a "lowly" QA worker.

My boss has sent me home because he felt I was working too much (voluntary) overtime, because he wanted to make sure I didn't burn myself out. My boss' boss has also done the same thing.

As a "lowly" QA, I routinely interact with my project's executive producer and creative director because I may see something interesting on the forums here, or just have an idea. I have been able to do this since my first days as a contract employee.

I could go on and on with the benefits that I receive that aren't typically a part of standard benefits packages because my employer encourages me to stay fit and healthy, and acknowledges that playing any and all types of video games helps make me a better game developer.

Oh please, EA's crimes against consumer interests goes way beyond Day 1 DLC and some stupid ME3 ending. EA would never be off of that list if I had my way.

If a video game company is the worst company in America for you, life must be pretty good for you. First world problems and all I guess. On the plus side, for all the crimes against consumers we commit, any one of you can stop buying our products cold turkey and have your lives pretty much unaffected by it, so I guess there's that.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 21 mars 2013 - 05:29 .