Why do EA suck

Azza

Crysis is a pretty decent game, an above average FPS for the first two thirds of the game which are open ended enough to allow for a decent variety of tactics and gameplay styles. After entering the alien ship at the two thirds stage it becomes a much more linear experience with less interesting enemies to fight. The story is pretty generic and not very memorable. The multiplayer was well reviewed but never took off due to being perhaps overcomplicated and the fact that 64bit players where all but excluded by the lack of punkbuster support. The game is still the best looking full game on any platform surpassed only by its expansion Crysis Warhead. Crysis Warhead is good fun while it lasts with a much more hectic pace and a few new weapons. Combat against the aliens is improved thanks to the aliens have better A.I. and the Koreans don't dissappear completely after the aliens show up allowing for 3 way battles and keeping the action nicely mixed up. Again the story will win no oscars. The mutiplayer was again well recieved but I don't know if its taken off either.

eggplantman

thanks for the review,i will try it tonight

Overheal

It definitely deserved to be longer, and the game was left on a bit of a cliffhanger. Again, leading to the expansion-philosophy of marketing. Crytek still earns high praise for building a great looking gaming engine. Not deserving of a $60 price tag in my opinion; I'd place it more at a 30-40.

Cy_Revenant

Personally, I thought Crysis was a great game. Along with some other recent releases such as Mass Effect, Mirrors Edge and Dead Space, it proves that there are a number of good developers whose games are distributed by EA. Remember, Valves games are also distributed by EA.

That said, I am personally not a fan of them, due in part to their use of SecureRom DRM. Also, due to their abysmally poor Technical Support team.

These people never seem to actually read your message, they're quite content to simply reply with a link to some vaguely relevant but unhelpful FAQ article. The only tech support I've encountered who is worse than them was Midway, who refused to acknowledge that my problem existed.

evil-monkey wrote: »

Has anybody here considered that while ye may all think that EA do in fact suck, they are the world's largest video game developers / publishers now, and the developers of the most successful PC game of all time...
So while we may all think they suck (I'd be inclined to agree myself), they don't suck at all - in fact, they have conquered their industry in a way that no other developer has ever come close to replicating...

As I understand it, Activision Blizzard are the largest Developers/Publishers in the world. Though you touch on an interesting point here. EA is a very large company, so much so that the different aspects of it operate as separate entities.

Along with EA themselves who look after all of their Developers games such as Maxis, Crytek, Bioware, Harmonix etc. There are also EA's in house studios, who, as I understand it, are pretty functionally independent. EA Sports, EA Big, The Sims etc.

silvine

Why do EA suck?

Check out the dlc for Deadspace.

gizmo

At least they're making an effort to get better, although it's taken them long enough. As someone said above, there are some great games out now being published by EA. Fair enough it isn't enough to undo all the **** they've done in the past but any move in the right direction is a good one so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

rizzla

silvine wrote: »

Why do EA suck?

Check out the dlc for Deadspace.

Then on the opposite side of the spectrum, check out the DLC for Burnout Paradise.

Podge2k7

PogMoThoin wrote: »

Take a look at Need For Speed, see how they have milked that series, like they do with all their series. They force the developer to add a new skin to the same game with 1 or 2 new added features and call it a new game. Then there's the DRM, You never actually own your game but rent 3/5 installs off them. The patch support for their games also ends after about 6 weeks.

+1

monument

People view them as thinking something like... "oh, that works, let's make a million more of that type of game" and then they won't fix anything until sales start to slow.

EA, to be fair, have helped innovation. But on the other side, Will Wright was asking for years before he was allowed to make the Sims (not everybody's cup of tea, and it's image isn't helped by the apparent rampant cashing in on add-ons).

Toolbag

jonski wrote: »

Why do I have a problem with EA ........

Well , unlike many I didn't , then , 2 years ago , at the height of BF2 they brought out a patch to fix some issues . The patch "broke" the servers and the game became unplayable . You would start your server play the game for a few minutes , then the server would crash . Anyone that played the game will remember how hard it was to get a server going , this made it impossible . Also it brought an end to clan wars .

So , what was the big problem you ask , surely the hotfix cleared it all up , well it took 3 months for the hotfix to clear it up and in that time the game was unplayable for the majority and also the majority had paid up front for their clan servers that they couldn't use . Only the strongest of the clans survived the lull and the game was never the same after it .

And EA didn't seem to think that this was a big problem .

Why would EA fix one of their most popular games when they can turn people off it so they buy their latest crap? :rolleyes:

As if the patch fiasco wasn't bad enough, holes in the coding of BF2 and its player ranking system have left a window open for many widely available hacks to allow any a$$hole to crash a BF2 dedicated server (usually full 64 player ones) at will. Not only that, but also allow them to imitate other players' accounts, and hack with them to have the stats and accounts of innocent highly ranked players completely reset to zero.

So again, players who put in time playing and had attained a high rank and people paying money for servers were shafted. You would think such major security flaws, especially one that compromised the security of players' accounts would be fixed fairly quickly. But no, 18 months after the first cases were reported, no fix yet, although a fix is confirmed in the coming months.

Things like this, DRM software, recycled games and money extracting expansion packs would serve as pretty good reasons to dislike EA in my eyes.

tba

There is a certain belief that EA are a publisher, but they also have a large in-house development team, albeit under different names such as maxis. However the problem with EA is that they place the money before the game, seeing the developer as another tool in their business model along with marketing/distribution/human resources/accounting/maintenance, no doubt they have a cool name for it, something like "creative assembly"*.



As such, a product produced by the developer is most likely assessed for its market value rather than on its gaming value, this kind of thing will always happen with a big, money driven company like EA, however, distribution doesn’t have to be inherently a money business. If you look at the STEAM model introduced by Valve and consider that their "creative assembly" is routed deep within their distribution model, you can see how a developer could use digital distribution to benefit the end user. In fact they do so with their downloadable content for their own games, it is done on the fly, discretely and best of all it is free.



Valve however have a lot of unanswered questions about their system, including, but not limited to, price and long term playability (i.e. after valve go belly up). What they have proven is that they are willing to innovate for the benefit of the consumer. Ea while not afraid to innovate tend to do so for their own benefit, expansion packs, pay as you play, DRM and in game advertisement, the list goes on.



They continue to innovate their most exciting concept on the horizon is Battlefield heroes, it looks good on paper, apparently it is free to play, but I am sure that something will arise, some small issue, that will destroy that ideal, something brought in not by the guys charged with making the game but the guys charged with making the money.

*I realise Creative Assembly used to work for EA and I am aware of the implication as such*

Overheal

tba wrote: »

Valve however have a lot of unanswered questions about their system, including, but not limited to, price and long term playability (i.e. after valve go belly up).

Its my understanding that they said very early on with the inception of Steam is that should Project Steam fail, they will release crack-patches for all valve-published software in your digital locker, essentially releasing them of their DRM. They obviously cant promise the same for other publishers represented through steam, but its my understanding that most if not all would agree to it if the whole system fell apart.

Whats wrong with their prices? Probably the most reasonable among any of the big publishers.

uberpixie

tba wrote: »

As such, a product produced by the developer is most likely assessed for its market value rather than on its gaming value, this kind of thing will always happen with a big, money driven company like EA, however, distribution doesn’t have to be inherently a money business. If you look at the STEAM model introduced by Valve and consider that their "creative assembly" is routed deep within their distribution model, you can see how a developer could use digital distribution to benefit the end user. In fact they do so with their downloadable content for their own games, it is done on the fly, discretely and best of all it is free.

Funnily enough Gabe Newell came out id defense of EA a while back: EA are one of the publishers that that handle physical distribution for Valve.

According to Gabe they were a lot easier to deal with than some other publishers...

Spotted this ages back on N4g.com

"After enjoying a healthy relationship with EA during development of The Orange Box, Valve will likely stay in partnership with the publishing giant for 2008's zombie apocalypse epic, Left 4 Dead. Valve MD Gabe Newell told Eurogamer that it would only be a "natural consequence" of the time spent on October's orange offering. "Everybody always tells us what a horrible monster EA is supposed to be and we keep waiting for the hair to sprout out and the fangs to grow."
"
http://www.joystiq.com/2007/08/28/valve-not-looking-to-leave-ea-4-dead/

evil-monkey

Overheal wrote: »

Unless they own the rights to Windows-Solitaire, I'm not convinced.

And imo, Half Life is still the most successful PC title of all time.

The Sims is the most successful PC title of all time, if you consider sales figures as a measure of success...which I imagine, most big gaming companies do...

Kiith wrote: »

I'd say he meant The Sims (and its 50 million spawns)

Exactly...

m83 wrote: »

I say... f*ck EA!

:rolleyes: Well that's a well put argument...

xbox36016 wrote: »

must ea games are ****

:rolleyes: Another fine point...keep the wisdom coming lads...

Cy_Revenant wrote: »

There are also EA's in house studios, who, as I understand it, are pretty functionally independent. EA Sports, EA Big, The Sims etc.

All of whom have developed hugely successfull games...

EA are the world's largest developers - countrary to what a few posters have claimed - and are in their industry leaders for the simple fact that their games are very very popular. We might not like em, but a fair chunk of the world's gaming population do...

Slutmonkey57b

Toolbag wrote: »

So again, players who put in time playing and had attained a high rank and people paying money for servers were shafted. You would think such major security flaws, especially one that compromised the security of players' accounts would be fixed fairly quickly. But no, 18 months after the first cases were reported, no fix yet, although a fix is confirmed in the coming months.

Anyone that pays ~€50 for a game, and then spends money on a server or a monthly fee deserves whatever they get in my book. If a developer wants me to pay by the month for the privilege of playing their game, they can damn well give it away for free. People paying EA to be allowed to run a server for multiplayer? Morons. People paying to be in a clan? Morons. People paying for 10 "stuff" expansions for Sims games? Morons. Morons who are destroying gaming by substituting money for practised skill.

Y2J_MUFC

Creamy Goodness wrote: »

well considering their last good football game was releaed in 1997 and count how many they've released since then. Its easy to see why they get stick

This is BS of the highest order. You haven't even played the FIFA'09, how can you comment on something you haven't played?

It's widely acknowledged that 08 and 09 have overtaken Pro Evo...they had some bad iterations (around 01-05) but having played all the FIFA games, the last few have really improved, maybe its because they have got the finger out, but...

Don't judge something you haven't played and assume the worst. You can have gripes against EA, but the majority who play FIFA'08/'09 and are football fans like it. This is not something they can be criticized on.

humanji

I know The Sims is an easy target for complaining about cashing in, but to be honest the add-ons are demonstrations on how to lilsten to your fans. If you're happy witht he finished game, then you can ignore the rest. But the add-ons don't just add a few new things to do, they change the game mechanics which is what the fans asked for.

A much better target for cash-in complaints are the sports games that are released each year with only a few minor tweeks and an updated roster of players. At least with the sims you get the feeling that the developers are actually enjoying themselves while making them, as opposed to the factory line assemble of the by-the-numbers sports games.

jonski

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

People paying EA to be allowed to run a server for multiplayer? Morons. People paying to be in a clan? Morons.

I don't quiet follow you here . You don't pay EA to run the server you pay one of the server providers , this has been the way since I started gaming ...way back when .. . And as for paying to be in a clan , well for most clans thats not quiet how it works , you contribute to the costs of running the clan ir: servers costs and maybe web hosting costs . The reason you rent a server is so that you can run the game in a setup of your choice and also password it for clan wars and the like . Are you sure you understand the concept of clan servers ?

Maybe it's just not for you , and that is fair enough but part of your post comes across like you haven't a clue what it's all about .

steviec

humanji wrote: »

I know The Sims is an easy target for complaining about cashing in, but to be honest the add-ons are demonstrations on how to lilsten to your fans. If you're happy witht he finished game, then you can ignore the rest. But the add-ons don't just add a few new things to do, they change the game mechanics which is what the fans asked for.

A much better target for cash-in complaints are the sports games that are released each year with only a few minor tweeks and an updated roster of players. At least with the sims you get the feeling that the developers are actually enjoying themselves while making them, as opposed to the factory line assemble of the by-the-numbers sports games.

Plus the Sims concept (whether you like it or not) is actually one of the most original and innovative in gaming, and nobody else has managed anything like it.

The yearly sports updates are perfectly reasonable in my opinion too. Sports fans expect to be able to buy a game with the current season's rosters at any given time, so they're just meeting demand. As a Formula 1 fan, it annoys me that I can't buy a game featuring the 2008 season for example. Nobody's forcing you to buy a new one every year, but it's nice to have the option. And if there was no demand for it they wouldn't be doing it. Small "for the fans" type developers like Sports Interactive don't do it any differently.

Sabre0001

On the subject of the Sims expansions - certain ones are a good idea (Seasons, Pets, Free Time, etc) because they do change the game or game mechanics. My problem is the useless ones like H&M Fashion, Kitchen & Wardrobes and so on and so forth.

Interesting trivia - Spore and The Sims 2 and the top 2 most pirated games of 2008 (despite Sims 2 being 4 years old...) - http://clanbase.ggl.com/news.php?nid=306484

Krieg

Sabre0001 wrote: »

On the subject of the Sims expansions - certain ones are a good idea (Seasons, Pets, Free Time, etc) because they do change the game or game mechanics. My problem is the useless ones like H&M Fashion, Kitchen & Wardrobes and so on and so forth.

Interesting trivia - Spore and The Sims 2 and the top 2 most pirated games of 2008 (despite Sims 2 being 4 years old...) - http://clanbase.ggl.com/news.php?nid=306484

I saw that yesterday, wasn't surprised about spore but sims 2 was a shock. (Ive actually got the sudden desire to download it )

Anyway OT, Ive commented on EA in previous threads and I don't see the point in repeating what everyone else has said. I think all the main points have been covered. In a perfect world Id like to see Steam buy out EA

Ross_Mahon

Too many games recycled for main stream purposes, they like to wear games out a lot, EA can suck my balls, The left one is like the 'E' and right on is like 'A'.

steviec

EA bring out too many sequels every year, like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Warhammer Online and Spore.

Their yearly sports titles never improve, like FIFA, which lacks the kind of great innovation Konami show in their yearly updates.

They don't allow the development studios they own like DICE, Criterion and Maxis any creative freedom to push the envelope at all.

The sooner EA die and Activision get closer to a monopoly the better.

Cy_Revenant

steviec wrote: »

EA bring out too many sequels every year, like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Warhammer Online and Spore.

Their yearly sports titles never improve, like FIFA, which lacks the kind of great innovation Konami show in their yearly updates.

They don't allow the development studios they own like DICE, Criterion and Maxis any creative freedom to push the envelope at all.

The sooner EA die and Activision get closer to a monopoly the better.

I see what you did there.

Y2J_MUFC

steviec wrote: »

Their yearly sports titles never improve, like FIFA, which lacks the kind of great innovation Konami show in their yearly updates.

This is not true for Pro Evo and FIFA. EA (eg: FIFA'08 & FIFA '09) have made huge leaps forward, Konami (eg: PES2008) have made huge leaps backwards.

And this is coming from me.....I was a hardcore Pro Evo fan. Konami even released Pro Evo 6 on the 360 without an edit mode. Talk about short changing fans...

evil-monkey

Sabre0001 wrote: »

My problem is the useless ones like H&M Fashion, Kitchen & Wardrobes and so on and so forth.

Try telling that to my girlfriend!!

steviec wrote: »

EA bring out too many sequels every year, like Mirror's Edge, Dead Space, Warhammer Online and Spore.

Their yearly sports titles never improve, like FIFA, which lacks the kind of great innovation Konami show in their yearly updates.

Yet EA's sales figures would suggest that gamers across the globe feel differently...

Overheal

clearly sarcasm doesnt translate well over vBulletin.

gizmo

Eh, steviec was being sarcastic lads.

Seems like they've also picked up Brutal Legends after the title was dropped by Activision. Yea, real bastards EA are, no sign of change out of them at all. :rolleyes:

steviec

gizmo wrote: »

Eh, steviec was being sarcastic lads.

Seems like they've also picked up Brutal Legends after the title was dropped by Activision. Yea, real bastards EA are, no sign of change out of them at all. :rolleyes:

I was just about to post that

Sabre0001

evil-monkey wrote: »

Try telling that to my girlfriend!!

Oh believe me, I know plenty who buy all of them That's the problem - 15euro a pop and you could probably download similar, in not better stuff, for free!