Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Safai]

Knights of the Old Republic. The second one could have been good but they screwed that one up by releasing it for the Christmas rush with 25% of the content unreleased.

Obsidian was the developer for Knights of the Old Republic 2.

LucasArts did not 'rush' them; Obsidian was so hungry for that IP they committed to something they couldn't deliver.

Yeah, this is true. EA had nothing to do with either of the KOTORs, and this was Obsidian's first project as a company. The missing content in KOTOR2 was novel to see, but tedious and unpolished as mentioned.

I still have a soft spot for Obsidian Entertainment though. They're the awkward one and sometimes fuck up the job, but they have more soul than Bioware and Bethesda combined.

edit; Wow I have to second Silas' feelings there.

[Lyn Farel]

If you work for EA, my deepest sympathies.

I understand there is a world of difference between MANAGEMENT/OWNERS and the people writing code and making games. Very different groups, and the people putting the hours in meeting deadlines are not the people we dislike.

That being said, EA is generally responsible for the lion's share of the WORST trends in gaming over the last decade or two, from DLC, to yearly FPS 'sequels', to yearly sports game 'sequels'.

Making less product for more money, and charging you extra money for things that traditionally were always part of original games.

I am not sure that EA actually develop a lot of games themselves ? Really no idea, would have to check. They own a damn load of studios though.

Yes gaming was always a business, but the producers changed the nature of the agreement unilaterally on the players.

Old math: I pay you $x, I get a game full of stuff to finish, and maybe play multiplayer online.

EA Math:  I pay you more $$, I get 2/3 of a game, I pay you more $$ for my original content, and you want me to do it every year.

$50-60 games are now $110-120 games to even get all the things now ;(

I will not even begin to talk about always on DRM

Games are more expensive these days, to their defense.

But well yeah, that's quite bad form and shameless mercantilism. *is proud to work for a company that publishes free DLCs*

I'm not trying to sound unreasonably negative, but this sort of shit it why I have stopped buying console games entirely.

I liked going to a store, paying a known quantity of money, and getting a known quantity of game.

Now there's all this other shit associated with -everything-.  Do I want the collector's edition? Do I need the extra multiplayer  map? Do I need the special cosmetic upgrades? Do I need the super super collectors edition for the shiny thing?

Well, that's also true for computer games too, no ?

The main difference is the overpriced product for console (10-20$ more) since you also pay the console maker.

[Silas Vitalia]

No, it's the same exact issue as the movie industry.

Less risk taking, all eggs in one basket. Less innovation, more stagnation.

That basket is nothing but sequels to known properties, on a conveyor belt of infinity.

Homogenized for the largest 4-corners audience. On rails shooters with nothing but set-pieces and scripted movie scenes to watch.

One only has to look at Steam and Kickstarter to see the many, many successful and innovative, fun things going on that don't cost $50 million to produce with mocap and 'celebrity' voice overs.

Or look at Valve in general.

[Silas Vitalia]

Ok, put it this way, how many of EA's releases are not sequels to existing properties?

[Silas Vitalia]

It's the same pitfall the Japanese producers fell into in the 2000's, every release was a sequel to existing property, or spinoff of existing things.

5,000 megaman games, castlevania games, final fantasy 25, street fighter II championship edition hyper fighting. Mario -tennis-.

That's why the American producers ate their lunch in the last generation, new ideas and new games.

EA will end up like Capcom if they keep it up.

[Caellach Marellus]

Ok, put it this way, how many of EA's releases are not sequels to existing properties?

A lot of those properties are their own developed IP's though. They don't need to make new ones as they have so many current financially successful franchises operating.

[Silas Vitalia]

Ok, put it this way, how many of EA's releases are not sequels to existing properties?

A lot of those properties are their own developed IP's though. They don't need to make new ones as they have so many current financially successful franchises operating.

When this generation of console kids gets tired of Call of Medal of Honor Dutybound Special Black Ops part 25, they are going to be in trouble.

Exhibit A: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/08/ea-registers-battlefield-13-20-domains-but-who-got-21/

[Silas Vitalia]

I think a strategy I would be interested in would be to release ONE game for the genre that can run for years at a time. Call it simply BATTLEFIELD or MADDEN.

Release regular content for the game via DLC, like 'episodes' every 6m to a year, etc. Maybe gfx patches, etc.

Have a whole marketplace for things, sure.  DLC new rosters for your football teams every year, players, etc, sure!

Change the game from a yearly $60 release +DLC to a more 'ala cart' system. Pay for content you like while maintaining the core game, without having to be forced the $60 'upgrade' each year.

The issue is not so much the DLC (while annoying), it's that everything you buy is useless as soon as the new version of the game comes out.  All that extra shit I bought for Battlefield 18? Useless as soon as Battlefield 19 comes out.  Having fun playing multiplayer on battlefield 18? Welcome to dead servers and server shutdown soon as 19 comes out.

Want to play your PC game that you purchased on your laptop without an internet connection? Haha nice try!

We are moving from a content ownership market to a 'service rental' market.

 

[Caellach Marellus]

Ok, put it this way, how many of EA's releases are not sequels to existing properties?

A lot of those properties are their own developed IP's though. They don't need to make new ones as they have so many current financially successful franchises operating.

When this generation of console kids gets tired of Call of Medal of Honor Dutybound Special Black Ops part 25, they are going to be in trouble.

Exhibit A: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/05/08/ea-registers-battlefield-13-20-domains-but-who-got-21/

If you look at recent published EA titles over the last few years you've got the Deadspace IP, Dragon Age, Bulletstorm.

Then there's always their sports franchises and the Sims before you touch Battlefield.

[Ghost Hunter]

[mod]Calm your shit about the EA hate mongering.Additionally, stop double posting when you can just as easily edit your last post and shove content into it.[/mod]

[Silas Vitalia]

Calm your shit about the EA hate mongering.

Additionally, stop double posting when you can just as easily edit your last post and shove content into it.

OP and thread is about disliking EA, goin' with the flow?  Will stop double posts, and PM apologized to Makkal re EA employment.

I get your point, but not hate mongering, it is a widely held opinion about the company and their products.  Because some people here work for them or like the company I'm not going to call it ice cream.

I'll try and be more civil about it but they are welcome to disagree or tell us why EA is fantastic.

[Ghost Hunter]

I'm quite fine with people voicing their displeasure with EA and their quality of service. Jumping the gun and going after someone who people are presuming are an EA employee is going too far.

[Makkal]

I am going to bow out of this topic.

Before I do, I'd like to clarify that I do not work for EA.

[Esna Pitoojee]

The thing that bugs me about EA is not just the homogenization of the games that they produce under their own label, but how they purchase other gaming companies and redirect those seperate companies efforts to homogenized products as well.

On some level this isn't always bad - let's face it, Star Wars Battlefront is essentially a SW skin of Battlefield 1942; it's still a great game, in my opinion - but when it is repeatedly done to many different IPs with repeatedly disastrous results, it begins to bug me.

Prime example is the C&C series. Not only did EA manage to badly damage the series' style with the heavily Warcraft III-inspired Generals, but after partially restoring faith in the series with C&C3 - you'd think they learned their lesson, no? - they proceeded to again attempt at mimicking another successful series (Dawn of War II this time) and again produced an incredibly bad game.

Think that covers it? Nope. I dunno how many of you have played C&C Renegade, but as originally conceived it had a much more commando-ish theme about it - more emphasis on sneaking and overall strategy. When the developers faced legitimate production delays, EA came through and insisted on a total rewrite. The result is some sort of weird hybrid of Doom, Serious Sam, and Halo which was frankly only interesting on the multiplayer level.


tl;dr - EA seems to consistently operate under the assumption that if a series is successful, then it is the core concept - not the series in question - that is responsible, and that this core concept can be easily transplanted into any other series of superficial similarity. This is, decidedly, not true.

[Silas Vitalia]

I hope no one misconstrued my issues with EA the company and them as individuals, completely not intended.   If so apologies all around