635 réponses à ce sujet

[Neoleviathan]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Neoleviathan wrote...

The only thing that irks me lately is the way they're throwing LBGT issues in everyones face. I love that games arn't discluding LGBT and Bioware has done an awesome job. But EA keeps bringing it up, & especially when they're in a talk about why people dislike them. The way they talk about it, and when, makes it seem dishonest to me. And they talk about it as if their support for LGBT is the reason why people don't like them. Like they're making some white knight image of themselves. Better inclusion is something to be worked for and Bioware deserves its cred, but to me this coming from EA sounds like something their PR department planned.

Besides Peter Moore's latest blog entry, where is EA "throwing LBGT issues in everyone's face"? Where do they keep "bringing it up," "especially when they're in a talk about why people dislike them"? Can you provide links, because that doesn't sound to me like something they would do? Thanks.

Throwing it in everyone's face was probably too strong of an allusion & I take that back. And aside from Moore and a few mods now & then it really isn't "they" bringing it up. Mostly just noticing that the language seems to have changed past few weeks, in articles and on forums. Not specific to any article, just overall. Using it when in a discussion of why people dislike them goes back to this forum mostly. LGBT issues gets brought up allot here, so maybe thats not so strange. But I'd see language close to Mr. Moore's blog brought up, and that oddly seemed associated with those topics that burn themselves down eventually. I know some of the recent articles I read probably link straight back to Moore's and I'm sure that's true of any mod posts as well. I don't think Moore specifically was being dishonest. But overall, something about it made me feel like there might just be spin. Like I said, I only got these feelings over the last few weeks. Then Moore's thing showed up, and that generated some buzz. So its like why is this language showing up now, this sounds good but feels wrong... I'm glad if its not something they would do, I will take your word over whatever strange feelings I have. If EA is taking some kindof stand I welcome that, its not like the industry has been very good about the issue.

[Allan Schumacher]

Cyonan wrote...

On the topic of Moore's blog post about this the sentiment of "We can do better. We will do better" is nice to hear from them, but we do need to see them doing it at this point. It's going to be a very long road to get their reputation back up either way.

There are a few points that I don't think he's really hitting that well though:

> SimCity always online. I get that whoever put that system in place had this vision for an online multiplayer experience(and it could be an interesting idea if executed differently), and I get that DRM is a very bad word among gamers, but regardless of that it is still DRM. Even if that wasn't the first goal of the system, it is DRM, and trying to claim it is not is probably not helping you.

> 45 million registered Origin users. I'm one of them, but only because I had to be if I wanted to play Mass Effect 3. I didn't like it when Valve did it to me on Half-Life 2, and I didn't like it when EA did it for Mass Effect 3. It's not so much that we're proving the nay-sayers wrong as much as we're being forced to use the system if we want to play certain games.

I agree completely on the idea that there is room for Origin as a competitor to Steam however. One company holding that much of the market is never a good thing, even if they are Valve. Competition is a good thing for consumers.

I enjoy quite a few of their games, but ultimately what turns me off of a lot of the ones I'm interested in is the business practices that I'd rather not deal with. That is what happened with SimCity for me(the always on playing a fairly big part in this, as well as lying to us about it requiring the servers).

I just want to call out that I really appreciate a post like this.

I agree that talk only goes so far.  EA (and by extension BioWare, as our last showings weren't as well received as both fans and devs wanted it to be) will need to pony up.  There's a leadership change coming (and I guess an interim one now), and I think that that will have a longer term effect on how things play out.  I'm curious how things play out in the short term.  I know there's been some ripples felt within BioWare (I'd consider them positive ones - take that for what it will), but it's still small scale at this point and there's going to be some transition period which causes issues.


As for the Origin comment, you are right that it doesn't mean everyone is "yay origin."  But I do feel it's a point to be made that it's a non-trivial number, and similar to Steam that install base helps with the exposure and reach of Origin as a sales tool.  I find it interesting that evidently more than 50% of the sales of SimCity were digital and Origin purchasing was prevalent (I believe Amazon was the other).  And it exacerbated the server issues moreso.  Regardless of whether or not EA/Moore wants to feel SimCity's online aspect is a DRM or a service, in the end it's egg on the face and if you're going to do something like that you really need to deliver.  Especially at this current juncture where the idea still faces a lot of resistance.


Anyways, cheers for the post.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 avril 2013 - 07:37 .

[Allan Schumacher]

I know he is refering to the other entrants in the poll. But why did he have to chose the worst ones to prove his point?

Eh, it's probably just a case that it makes his point stronger.  Saying "It's not like we're Apple people!" would come across sounding much sillier IMO


It's probably similar to why, whenever a game studio does something bad, there will be inevitable comparisons to EA

[Cricketer15]

Lolrogin could be one of EA worse move ever.

[Kleli]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I know he is refering to the other entrants in the poll. But why did he have to chose the worst ones to prove his point?

Eh, it's probably just a case that it makes his point stronger.  Saying "It's not like we're Apple people!" would come across sounding much sillier IMO


It's probably similar to why, whenever a game studio does something bad, there will be inevitable comparisons to EA

What I wrote in my original post was this:

Kleli wrote...

That they even respond to something like this and have to use companies that have done really bad things that have damaged this planet is very telling.

You are kind of proving my point with your post. EA have to use companies like Exxon to prove their point because obviously most people don't consider Apple (or Google, Microsoft etc.) as bad as EA. Apple have the same opportunity to be considered bad but they have managed to avoid that. EA have not.

[Sajuro]

Isichar wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

Isichar wrote...

I wouldn't mind EA if they could effectively keep the business aspect out of the game. I like buying something and feeling like its actually mine. With EA your basically just buying the right to play their product, during which your constantly getting in-game advertisements. Plus lets not forget with micro transactions you can now pay for the ability to cheat...

EA has made decisions that I have personally been impressed with before, they have some genuinely great titles under their name but their stubbornness to key issues has long since gotten old, I certainly dont expect them to change their ways at this point (in particular if it is actually profitable (pretty much the only/main way EA measures consumer satisfaction I would imagine)) so I doubt peoples opinion of EA will change all that much.

I have not seen any in game advertisements in EA games, unless you mean sports games of course but that has always happened and 'realism' lol.

If you want an example then look no further then your avatar. Dragon Age Origins contained day 1 DLC that would be advertised incamp regardless of whether or not it was installed. If you did not have it installed it would minimilize the game and go to the store. And ME3's pre-EC ending message was less then ideal.

The kind of advertising you refrence in sports games makes sense, and that actually does not bother me.

Nearly forgot about that, I knew there was a reason I never talked to that ****

[Zanallen]

Sigh...Absolutely ridiculous.

[Allan Schumacher]

Kleli wrote...

You are kind of proving my point with your post. EA have to use companies like Exxon to prove their point because obviously most people don't consider Apple (or Google, Microsoft etc.) as bad as EA. Apple have the same opportunity to be considered bad but they have managed to avoid that. EA have not.

Eh, even if people felt generally felt Apple was worse than EA, if I was making the comparison I'd still pick the examples that best exemplified my point.  In other words, if I had a company (AllanCo) and it was generally considered superior to Valve (a highly regarded company by many), and AllanCo, Valve, and Bank of America were all in this competition, I'm not going to say "Well AllanCo is better than Valve."  I'm still going to say "How can AllanCo even compare to Bank of America!?"


I agree that Apple and Google aren't as vilifed as EA (In my world there's no way Google would even get a sniff at a list like this, though I'm no fan of Apple).  It seems like you're just kind of restating what has already been said, however.

I don't find the comparison to be "telling" at all, to be perfectly honest.  It's telling in that he's making comparisons to the other vilified companies that he's going up against.  Is it any more telling than EA winning the whole competition?  I don't think so.  But then, I also don't think that the competition has very much value in general.

[Isichar]

Zanallen wrote...

Sigh...Absolutely ridiculous.

Yeah its a bit hard to take seriously. But all in all it is kind of funny.

[Kleli]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Kleli wrote...

You are kind of proving my point with your post. EA have to use companies like Exxon to prove their point because obviously most people don't consider Apple (or Google, Microsoft etc.) as bad as EA. Apple have the same opportunity to be considered bad but they have managed to avoid that. EA have not.

Eh, even if people felt generally felt Apple was worse than EA, if I was making the comparison I'd still pick the examples that best exemplified my point.  In other words, if I had a company (AllanCo) and it was generally considered superior to Valve (a highly regarded company by many), and AllanCo, Valve, and Bank of America were all in this competition, I'm not going to say "Well AllanCo is better than Valve."  I'm still going to say "How can AllanCo even compare to Bank of America!?"


I agree that Apple and Google aren't as vilifed as EA (In my world there's no way Google would even get a sniff at a list like this, though I'm no fan of Apple).  It seems like you're just kind of restating what has already been said, however.

I don't find the comparison to be "telling" at all, to be perfectly honest.  It's telling in that he's making comparisons to the other vilified companies that he's going up against.  Is it any more telling than EA winning the whole competition?  I don't think so.  But then, I also don't think that the competition has very much value in general.

Okey, I see your point. When a company like EA is being compared agains Exxon and Bank of America I can understand that one gets upset. Because I agree that they are in different leagues. But blaming the costumers for it isn't the best way to make it stop.

Anyway even though EA is being voted worst company, despite there being other companies that deserve the title more, I hope that EA actually understands that they need to improve in the eyes of their costumers. The worst thing EA can do now is a reaction in the opposite direction just becuase they find the appointment silly (ie "We are not going to change becuase clearly the people that voted for us are stupid").

[Cyonan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I just want to call out that I really appreciate a post like this.

I agree that talk only goes so far. EA (and by extension BioWare, as our last showings weren't as well received as both fans and devs wanted it to be) will need to pony up. There's a leadership change coming (and I guess an interim one now), and I think that that will have a longer term effect on how things play out. I'm curious how things play out in the short term. I know there's been some ripples felt within BioWare (I'd consider them positive ones - take that for what it will), but it's still small scale at this point and there's going to be some transition period which causes issues.


As for the Origin comment, you are right that it doesn't mean everyone is "yay origin." But I do feel it's a point to be made that it's a non-trivial number, and similar to Steam that install base helps with the exposure and reach of Origin as a sales tool. I find it interesting that evidently more than 50% of the sales of SimCity were digital and Origin purchasing was prevalent (I believe Amazon was the other). And it exacerbated the server issues moreso. Regardless of whether or not EA/Moore wants to feel SimCity's online aspect is a DRM or a service, in the end it's egg on the face and if you're going to do something like that you really need to deliver. Especially at this current juncture where the idea still faces a lot of resistance.


Anyways, cheers for the post.

Always good to have constructive discussion.

I'll be interested to see how things play out in the future. Mass Effect would take the spot as my favourite series of all time(though Half-Life 1 would take individual game) and I love Dragon Age as well so I'll certainly be paying attention to what's coming from BioWare.

True, it's a solid number of users for where it is. Also worth noting is that not everybody was "yay steam" when that came out either, and now a lot of PC gamers love it. I myself was one of the people who had an account, but played Half-Life MP and mods on the old WON servers until the day they shut down, because I disliked Steam that much. These days I'm always logged into Steam and it's my preferred method of buying games.

I think much like Steam, after a while people will get used to the idea of Origin and a lot of the hate will go away as long as EA continues to improve it, which I imagine they're going to if they want to make it more competitive with Steam.

[kirvingtwo]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
As for the Origin comment, you are right that it doesn't mean everyone is "yay origin."  But I do feel it's a point to be made that it's a non-trivial number, and similar to Steam that install base helps with the exposure and reach of Origin as a sales tool. 

Except that the 45 million keeps getting used by EA out of context.  45 million Origin account holders does not make 45 million users of the Origin client.  If EA had any intention of changing their behaviour they would  make some effort to make their marketing and public relations have some basis in reality and stop using dubious figures.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Am I the only one who thinks that statement by Moore before the final vote really won that award for EA.

[Xewaka]

In Exile wrote...

Xewaka wrote...
Not only that, but due to abusive clauses on the mortages, you still owe the bank the loan money after they take your home away.

What abusive clause? Do Americans have special provisions can go beyond the usual right to make up collateral shortfalls?

I was talking about spanish mortages, actually. Which were denounced by the European Union due to its abusive nature. Essentially, giving the bank the house that the mortage covers does not cover the loan granted: having your home taken away only means you've covered the equivalent interests to the current (that is, devaluated) house value. The loan is still active and accumulating interest, which you still have to regularly pay.

[redBadger14]

slimgrin wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...


What EA has "done," i.e. "caused" ME3 fans to hate the ending, is pathetic and miniscule compared to what Monsanto is doing.

-EA had nothing to do with the ending. Do some homework.

-I'm pretty sure all the entitled people who voted for EA realize the difference between them and Monsanto. Good luck protesting against Monsanto.

*sigh* There's a reason I put quotes in that statement. I know EA had nothing to do with ME3's ending, I don't need to do homework I'm not stupid. Quotes, the way they're placed in the statement, indicate EA didn't have anything to do with it, but some people are dead-set on declaring that EA is the reason behind why ME3's ending was disappointing. Basically, many people are likely still voting for EA because of the ME3 ending, even though any reasonable person knows that it's not a good reason at all to vote for them.

I'm not sure they do know the difference, especially since Exxon didn't make it as far down as EA. I know by no means this poll isn't to be taken seriously, but it doesn't hurt for people to have perspective. That's all.

Modifié par redBadger14, 10 avril 2013 - 01:21 .

[AresKeith]

AresKeith wrote...

Things like this affect companies like EA lot more than companies like BoA and other that's part of the reason why they got voted worst company twice

As others already said

[Ziegrif]

Prolly been said more elegantly and more well put than what I'm about to write but weyhey!

The consumerist poll was open for everyone in the world.
Bank of America does not in visible ways affect Finland, I haven't checked if one of our banks has loaned money from them and neither do I know if the whole BoA even affects Finland or Europe in anyway, I'd have to research some budget figures for Finland see where the moneys coming from etc.

Thing is, EA pisses people off more directly. No need for me to go and research anything. EAs PR team, CEO and servers do that to me without me having to do a damn thing.

So I guess this poll only tells that EA has much more visible bad PR outside USAs borders than BoA. Sure as hell doesn't mean that EA is the worst company in the world. Just the most hated in the states and outside the states combined.

Cyonan wrote...
> 45 million registered Origin users. I'm one of them, but only because I had to be if I wanted to play Mass Effect 3. I didn't like it when Valve did it to me on Half-Life 2, and I didn't like it when EA did it for Mass Effect 3. It's not so much that we're proving the nay-sayers wrong as much as we're being forced to use the system if we want to play certain games.

I remember getting Fallout New Vegas and being extremely disappointed that I had to have Steam to play it, I still am. I want my games to be service free experiences gives me the feeling that I own this product and I can do whatever I want with it. Steam gives that a bit but you can still get your account banned which does limit you.
Steam did get my business though when they finally released Steam Wallet codes for sale in my local gamestop, now I can actually buy something from there... which is still iffy because I want that physical hardcopy, I love collecting them and I still always buy the games I want to play.

Origin might've gotten my business for at least the ME3 DLCs if they had buyable Origin point codes or something I could get off Gamestop or something. I will not put my Credit card, bank card, etc info on a system that can get hacked. I'm paranoid about it and I also refuse to pirate anything due to my morals.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 10 avril 2013 - 02:57 .

[addiction21]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

So unless you can readily distinguish John Epler's dialogues from Jon Epp's, I don't think a change in creative personnel will have quite the effect you think it will. Heck, do you even know what John Epler or Jon Epp do? Or how those dialogues would change if done by Johno Ebenger and Jonathan Perry instead? Or what would happen if John Campbell or John Winski got a hold of them? (Those are all real names, by the way.) I doubt anyone would be able to tell the difference.

I didn't know Epler wrote dialog.


I'd actually be curious to know who was writing what dialog. I'd find it interesting.

I am thinking Stan was referring more to the more visual side of the dialogue then the written. Like the camera angles, movements and characters movements and such.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I didn't know Epler wrote dialog.

I'd actually be curious to know who was writing what dialog. I'd find it interesting.

They do dialogues in that they both do cinematics for the dialogue lines.