285 réponses à ce sujet

[Akrabra]

Voting EA the worst company seems quite stupid, its videogames and not the end of the world. Aren't there corporations that take part in war? or uses child labour in 3rd world countries to save money and earn even more money, or just foreclose on houses leaving people on the street with nowhere to go. Yeah the vote seems justified!

[Valdez_ua]

Everything to wash out any creativity and originality from studios they take over. 

[Remix-General Aetius]

People simply voted for EA because A. They believe EA actually cares and B. Non Americans can vote in that poll and BoA is not an international company like EA is.

 

No video game developer actually deserves that award over ones like Bank of America which have legitimately ruined people's lives. Anybody who thinks so has some really messed up priorities.

 

Videogames are sometimes more than that. You know the effect it can have on people's lives. It has helped many anti-social people come out of their shell and has improved their lives. WWE's Xavier Woods is an example of that.

[Guanxii]

What can you actually blame EA for?

 

Pulling the plug on failed franchises and studios? Would you love EA if they swallowed those losses and kept pumping money into bad investments? If EA pulls the plug on BioWare; BioWare will have brought it on themselves.

[SolNebula]

The only positive thing about EA I can think is that they gave the funds to BW to create their games. I know for sure that if BW wasn't an EA division, I would have never purchased an EA game (I don't like FPS, sport or mobile games).

[Cyonan]

Videogames are sometimes more than that. You know the effect it can have on people's lives. It has helped many anti-social people come out of their shell and has improved their lives. WWE's Xavier Woods is an example of that.

 

Right, but that's a positive thing that good games do. Not a negative thing that bad games do.

 

A company making a bad video game that you do not have to buy is nowhere near as bad as a bank that leaves people homeless.

[Remix-General Aetius]

Right, but that's a positive thing that good games do. Not a negative thing that bad games do.

 

A company making a bad video game that you do not have to buy is nowhere near as bad as a bank that leaves people homeless.

 

I don't live in America so I wouldn't know about that. But I've seen plenty of EA.

[Messi Kossmann]

Videogames are sometimes more than that. You know the effect it can have on people's lives. It has helped many anti-social people come out of their shell and has improved their lives. WWE's Xavier Woods is an example of that.

 

Voting EA the worst company seems quite stupid, its videogames and not the end of the world. Aren't there corporations that take part in war? or uses child labour in 3rd world countries to save money and earn even more, or just foreclose on houses leaving people on the street with nowhere to go. Yeah the vote seems justified!

If you still think that EA deserved that, i think you'll need a psychologist...

[Cyonan]

I don't live in America so I wouldn't know about that. But I've seen plenty of EA.

 

Which was one of my original points. I'm not American either, and a lot of people who aren't don't know about a lot of the stuff that American only companies do. EA however is not only an international company but one with a target market of gamers, who tend to spend a lot of time on the internet where the voting for this award happened.

 

So EA ended up winning it despite the fact that they aren't legitimately the worst company in America, or even really anywhere close to it. No video game developer is anywhere close.

[Gotholhorakh]

If you still think that EA deserved that, i think you'll need a psychologist...

 

Morally I would plump for the company that kills toddlers over EA, whatever I thought of EA, but you know BSN is probably not the place to tell one poster they need psychological help based on morality.

[Remix-General Aetius]

So EA ended up winning it despite the fact that they aren't legitimately the worst company in America, or even really anywhere close to it. No video game developer is anywhere close.

 

Activision is.

 

[Chealec]

To be fair, it's not like series such as Battlefront or Sim City were all that lively before the most recent iterations that messed them up.

 

EA just revived what was already dead to make money on branding.

 

SimCity 4 had, and still has, a small but dedicated community behind it...

 

Though, to be fair to EA there probably wouldn't have been a SimCity 4 if they hadn't bought/bailed out Maxis; I don't think EA killed Maxis they merely postponed its demise for a few years and spun off the more profitable (The Sims) bit into a separate company. SimCity (2013) so very, very badly judged what the fanbase actually wanted from a city builder game without realising that it's a pretty niche market so trying to broaden the appeal was very risky - and it didn't pay off.

 

...and I'll take Origin over UPlay I suppose and Ubisoft's ubiquitous always-on DRM.

[Felya87]

Well, they are not Ubisoft, who make the same games every year (Assassin's Creed, anyone?  ) killing the quality or at least making the brand overused, while not delivering games that have been revealed something like in 2008 (Beyond Good and Evil 2, anyone?) without even having the decency to confirm if the game have been cancelled or not.

 

Many things EA delivered were bad, I can't play The Sims 4 because is incredibly bad and boring, and many step behind have been made from The Sims 3. (really, no toddlers and pools delivered like, some month later that the game was out?) but at least EA deliver the game, or have the decency of letting know if a game is been made or not, even if said game is not what I was hoping to be.

 

Between all the big names, EA is not my least favourite, at least have a more varied catalogue of games.

[SNascimento]

Dragon Age: Inquisition

Bioware had the time and resources to make the game they wanted. Whatever the problems one say it had, it has to do with creative decisions from the developers, and not some evilness by EA. 

[Cyonan]

SimCity 4 had, and still has, a small but dedicated community behind it...

 

Though, to be fair to EA there probably wouldn't have been a SimCity 4 if they hadn't bought/bailed out Maxis; I don't think EA killed Maxis they merely postponed its demise for a few years and spun off the more profitable (The Sims) bit into a separate company. SimCity (2013) so very, very badly judged what the fanbase actually wanted from a city builder game without realising that it's a pretty niche market so trying to broaden the appeal was very risky - and it didn't pay off.

 

...and I'll take Origin over UPlay I suppose and Ubisoft's ubiquitous always-on DRM.

 

Well, I more meant that it's not like games were still being actively released in those series on a regular basis. Both Sim City 2013 and Battlefront were attempts to reboot a series.

 

I find it hard to say that Sim City 2013 buried the series when the last game before it was in 2007, and 2003 before that.

 

It's not like, say, Command and Conquer which EA actively ran into the ground and then killed off just as it looked like they were about to release something fun.

[themikefest]

I wonder what EA will do if Andromeda doesn't do well.

[ZipZap2000]

I wonder what EA will do if Andromeda doesn't do well.

Speak no evil please because we all know what happens to franchises that start to slip past a certain point.

[ZipZap2000]

Double post.

[Guitar-Hero]

Well ME2 and 3 were pretty great, infact the trilogy is among my favourite games of all time. Other than that nothing  

[SNascimento]

Well ME2 and 3 were pretty great, infact the trilogy is among my favourite games of all time. Other than that nothing  

Well, ME2 was the best game Bioware ever made and it was released under EA, but that was 5 years ago...

Anyway, I was wondering how people reaction would be today if a MEA is released in the same state ME1 was released back in 2007. It was (still is) an absolutely technical mess with major FPS dropings, bugs, game crashing issues and all that. Not to mention stuff in the game like copy and past level design. And Bioware was not owned by EA back then. 

It's not like I love EA or anything. I just find it funny how evil they are portrayed by parts of the gaming community and how everything seems to be their fault. 

[Elhanan]

Personally prefer Origin to Steam, though I wish it all to be more like GOG.

[CronoDragoon]

I don't even know where to start. They buried several companies, they ruined a lot of beloved gaming franchises like: Medal of Honor, Need for Speed, Sim City, Dead Space, KOTOR, Battlefield, Command & Conquer now Battlefront bites the dust as well, while Mass Effect and Dragon Age also suffered from it to some extent.

Hey now, Dead Space 3's shortcomings are mostly on Visceral's lap. EA didn't force them to make the story into a soap opera, I assure you. EA's influence was likely limited to the series becoming more of an action/horror mix (which was already the case in Dead Space 2, a beloved game by fans) and the inclusion of co-op, which wasn't really a big deal at all.

[Vortex13]

EA did give BioWare a year extension on making DA:I; which kind of stands at odds with the preconceived notion of the EA overlords breathing down the poor developers' necks to release unfinished games.

 

 

Are they the bestest,  most super duper, and awesome gaming publisher ever? No, but then again, name one major publisher that is. Ubisoft, Valve, Activision, and Blizzard have all done similar things in the past, and in some cases have done even worse things than EA is accused of. 

[LostScout61]

When I first started gaming I was an adult in my 30's and Electronic Arts was a game developer with a creative vision.  Some of my favorite games were created by them.  But then Trip Hawkins left, EA become too successful and turned into a corporate money making machine.  It has been several decades since I bought any game from EA other than Bioware's offerings, which I started doing before they were purchased by EA.  Forcing Origin on us is something I find unforgivable, it does nothing I want, it just sits there using up system resources which would be better spent actually running the game.  And now, every publisher seems to think it's a good idea to shove their own separate proprietary DRM Client onto their customers.  Origin is actually slightly less annoying than steam now (to me, your milage may vary) but I dislike having either of them forced upon me.  Then there is the whole "all EA games must have an online component" even though there are many people who don't want that.

 

So no,  EA has not done anything lately which would make me optomistic about Mass Effect Andromeda.  But some of the things I've heard here about ME:A on this forum like the return of the Mako and emphasis on exploration lead me to believe I might enjoy it.  If they just don't screw it up by forcing everyone to play multiplayer or always maintain an online connection then I will probably enjoy the game.

[BatarianBob]

If you still think that EA deserved that, i think you'll need a psychologist...

The whole point of that award is to shame bad companies into doing better. Allowing a company like BoA, that clearly doesn't give a **** to monopolize it defeats the purpose.