Gaming News

earthwormjack

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I can only imagine people willing to work for EA because EA throw scandalous amounts of money at them. It has such a toxic image, it's hard to imagine someone actually wanting to work for them. Although, I hear the place in Galway is good to work in, but that's coming from a couple who work there and one of them is head of some part of it (don't want to say which in case I identify them, so may be biased). Can imagine it's quite different to working for EA in the USofA.

From what I've read online over the last couple of years, EA seems a genuinely good company to work for and actually treat employees well. Much better than the likes of Rockstar, Naughty Dog etc.

FAILSAFE 00

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Former Gameinformer editor in Chief Andy McNamara has joined EA as their new Director of Communications Strategy
https://twitter.com/TheRealAndyMc/status/1281311541002768385?s=19

All he needs to know is how to write a really good yearly apology for <insert EA game>

Markitron

EoinMcLovin wrote: »

Former Gameinformer editor in Chief Andy McNamara has joined EA as their new Director of Communications Strategy
https://twitter.com/TheRealAndyMc/status/1281311541002768385?s=19

And he seemed like a nice guy. I will give it 18 months before he is tweeting about wanting a new challenge in games media or some ****e

dudeeile

glasso wrote: »

Atari VCS will be $400 lol

Jaysus even at half that price I'd consider it steep.

pixelburp

Potential-Monke wrote: »

I can only imagine people willing to work for EA because EA throw scandalous amounts of money at them. It has such a toxic image, it's hard to imagine someone actually wanting to work for them. Although, I hear the place in Galway is good to work in, but that's coming from a couple who work there and one of them is head of some part of it (don't want to say which in case I identify them, so may be biased). Can imagine it's quite different to working for EA in the USofA.

Does EA still have that image though? You can't change a company culture overnight but it was one of the first targets for bad workplaces, going back a few years now. Thinking on all the various subsequent controversies, have any emanated from EA? Naughty Dog, Ubisoft etc - but nothing from EA re. crunch or bad management AFAIK.

Maybe they cleaned up their act; not like they wouldn't have the budget for a root & branch shift in culture, and if they quietly moved the troublemakers away from the coalface, bring in more collaborative processes and managers - that would have helped. Totally open to correction here but it's possible EA had their Road to Damascus, the rest of the industry lagging behind.

It's not related to the workplace, but the manner EA handled the C&C remaster has been very un-EA.

Retr0gamer

I really don't think EA are the worst. Their FUT Ultimate Team is as bad as they get.... and with their surprise mechanics bull**** and stance on skinner box mechanics that makes them money by exploiting vulnerable people with psychological issues it's pretty disgusting, but there is far worse out there. Zenimax, 2K and Warner Bros are far, far worse in terms of how they treat employees and customers. EA I heard is actually not a bad place to work for.

They kind of flip flop between corporate evil and redemption when they learn from their previous mistakes... and then the shareholders throw their weight around and they make new mistakes. They go through phases of making new exciting IPs and then ruining them when the shareholders mandate that the games have to be changed.

Then there was the whole Mass Effect 3 ending thing which was gamer stupidity up there with the recent Last of Us 2 non-controversy.

I think most of the hate they get is because they've gutted and destroyed a lot of excellent and beloved companies like Bioware, Bullfrog and Westwood.

They aren't perfect but they seem to try and not be too evil unless the shareholders manage to get involved in mandating changes to games.

Markitron

Retr0gamer wrote: »

EA I heard is actually not a bad place to work for.

Tell that to the employees of the numerous development studios they bought and shut down soon after. Yes you mentioned some other nasty publishers that maybe get away with it, but EA deserve their rep as the worst company in the industry

pixelburp

Markitron wrote: »

Tell that to the employees of the numerous development studios they bought and shut down soon after. Yes you mentioned some other nasty publishers that maybe get away with it, but EA deserve their rep as the worst company in the industry

In fairness, Retro mentioned those companies in the very post you quoted; EA's acquisition and killing of small studios is famous - but then Petroglyph (aka Westwood) seemed perfectly happy to work with EA on the C&C remaster so clearly there was no bitterness there. Indeed it was amicable to the point of chummy.

And when's the last time they even did this? Bioware is recent enough and that still rankles (not least because as a C&C fan, they were working on Generals 2), but beyond that?

Retr0gamer

Once those companies get bought out the talent tends to hang around for a bit and then leave to pursue their own adventures and you are kind of just left with a typical run of the mill studio that gets folded back into EA. I mean is there anyone left at Bioware that was a creative lead during their heyday? Same with Westwood, all the talent there jumped ship.

However I feel EAs biggest crime was the dismantling of Origin. I still remember how awesome Origin were in the 90's for PC gaming and they are sorely missed.

Markitron

pixelburp wrote: »

And when's the last time they even did this?

Visceral is the recent best example.

ERG89

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Just thinking if Microsoft do buy WBGames, hard to see them not releasing games on PS5 and Switch but with the added benefit of having them release day 1 on GamePass. Might make some people switch for that value alone. Also hard to see any ot those games released on PSNow

Have to say I find 4 Billion evaluation of WB Games is insane. Plus their last major games Shadow of War, Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat XI were not exactly warmly recieved, they sold well but its often the next game where the game sales suffer.
They essentially have another Batman game as good as made and a live service game based on Suicide Squad, I don't see the Marvel Avengers game performing to lofty expectations (that people will stay pumping money into it long after launch) so what chance does Suicide Squad have in that case.

Microsoft and EA haven't the best reputation of taking over studios. Activision essentially had Bungie buy themselves back out it got so bad, plus they killed Bizarre Creations pretty soon after they released Blur. Take 2 are another money vampire company who would be happy to fill their pockets on live service games.

gizmo

Perhaps the confusion is coming from the conflation between how people who solely play games view EA and how people who also make games for a living view EA?

The EA Spouse incident, and how the company responded to it over time, will have been of far greater relevance to people deciding where they want to work than the ending of Mass Effect 3, for example.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I mean is there anyone left at Bioware that was a creative lead during their heyday? Same with Westwood, all the talent there jumped ship.

Yes, this came up during the conversations about Anthem and this post covered the status of the leads at the time. It's worth noting that following the post-mortem articles that have followed its release, the design paralysis which formed a large part of the problems with its development came from many of these same people.

On the subject of Bullfrog, Origin and Westwood though, while they'll continue to be a stain on the company's history, what executive, who was in charge of EA at the time and who would have directed the approach taken with that company, is still at EA? John Riccitiello, for instance, at least admitted the approach the company took in the past was to blame but let's be honest here, there's no company charter at EA that outlines their evil intentions over several decades. They're a publicly traded, large scale, US-based publisher - their flaws are the same as those of Activision, Take-Two, 2K and even THQ before them - it's just a matter of scale.

EoinMcLovin

Far Cry 6 has been revealed a little earlier than planned via a PlayStation Store leak, which has listed it for launch on 18th February 2021.




PlayStation 4 copies of the game will upgrade for free if you play on PlayStation 5 - which will almost certainly be the same for Xbox One and Xbox Series X.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2020-07-10-far-cry-6-leak-confirms-breaking-bads-giancarlo-esposito-will-star

Welcome to Yara, a tropical paradise frozen in time. As the dictator of Yara, Anton Castillo is intent on restoring his nation back to its former glory by any means, with his son, Diego, following in his bloody footsteps. Their ruthless oppression has ignited a revolution.

FIGHT FOR FREEDOM
Play as Dani Rojas, a local Yaran and become a guerrilla fighter to liberate the nation

YARA TORN APART
Fight against Anton's troops in the largest Far Cry playground to date across jungles, beaches and Esperanza the capital city of Yara

GUERRILLA FIREPOWER
Employ makeshift weapons, vehicles, and Amigos, the new Fangs for Hire to burn the tyrannical regime to the ground

Zero-Cool

Poster looks class but they're really gonna have to change things up. 4, 5 and the spin off were stale as they were and this sounds like the same story to 4. Interested to see more.

J. Marston

What isn't Gus in these days?

Homelander

I never really got how Far Cry 3 and 4 were so popular, I found them really boring and repetitive. But I did genuinely like Far Cry 5.

Zero-Cool

Homelander wrote: »

I never really got how Far Cry 3 and 4 were so popular, I found them really boring and repetitive. But I did genuinely like Far Cry 5.

I never played 2 but 3 was brilliant, thoroughly enjoyed it all the way through but none of the sequels had the same impact on me.

mrkiscool2

ERG89 wrote: »

Have to say I find 4 Billion evaluation of WB Games is insane. Plus their last major games Shadow of War, Arkham Knight and Mortal Kombat XI were not exactly warmly recieved, they sold well but its often the next game where the game sales suffer.
They essentially have another Batman game as good as made and a live service game based on Suicide Squad, I don't see the Marvel Avengers game performing to lofty expectations (that people will stay pumping money into it long after launch) so what chance does Suicide Squad have in that case.

Microsoft and EA haven't the best reputation of taking over studios. Activision essentially had Bungie buy themselves back out it got so bad, plus they killed Bizarre Creations pretty soon after they released Blur. Take 2 are another money vampire company who would be happy to fill their pockets on live service games.

Normally would agree with the Microsoft point but since they bought Mohjang they have just been like "hey, here is money, check in every now and again but just do what you want!" Which has to be admired, really.

But yeah, 4B without the DC and HP licenses for games is kind of ridiculous

AlmightyCushion

Homelander wrote: »

I never really got how Far Cry 3 and 4 were so popular, I found them really boring and repetitive. But I did genuinely like Far Cry 5.

Blood Dragon is by far the best of all the Far Cry games.

Jordan 199

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Blood Dragon is by far the best of all the Far Cry games.

That was great fun to play. Must play it again so thanks for reminding me.

pixelburp

There any sense at all this will be anything other than the generic Ubisoft sandbox we know n love?

The Raging Bile Duct

I think the poster makes it look like a crappy Netflix thriller. I'd have zero interest in playing it after playing 5. Those games are just boring as fook. Time sinks that are easy to play but have zero excitement to them.

johnny_ultimate

At least Clint Hocking is directing Watch Dogs: Legion - meaning there’s some hope Ubisoft could yet put out a game with the mad, distinctive ambition of Far Cry 2 (flawed though the final product was), rather than another of their tedious open world busyworkfests. Could still be an open world busyworkfest, but we’ll see :pac:

Stone Deaf 4evr

3 was great because it had the perfect storm of being somewhat fresh, with a great villain in the form of another Breaking Bad universe actor - michael mando as Vaas, that and the fact that the whole thing turns out to be a lot more intelligently written that initial inspections would lead you to believe. https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-12-18-far-cry-3s-writer-argues-critics-largely-missed-the-point-of-the-game


The main problem is that, instead of innovating, Ubisoft just kept attempting the same formula again with no real innovation.You've an over the top pantomime bad guy. The AI is still pretty much as dumb as rocks, the collectibles and crafting are little more than a distraction, and as soon as you get certain weapons, the game is essentially broken as you can cause wreck with little fear of consequence. 5 looks amazing, but its too big for its own good, I completed the first section and it took about 10 hours, No way could I apply myself to that same gameplay loop for however many sections were left so I dropped it.

CatInABox

Gamesindustry.biz had a deep dive into how Microsoft has changed their behaviour in regards to acquisitions recently, it's very good. Seems that they've put proper gamers in charge of most processes there, which actually raises an interesting point for me: Did the fact that, years ago, senior execs basically had no experience of games sabotage them? And now that senior execs grew up playing games, are they mentally better equipped to deal with the games industry?

Anyway, the article is here, it's pretty good.

Retr0gamer

I really enjoyed 3 as it felt so fresh but I started 4 a little after beating it and bounced straight off it as it was essentially the exact same game with mountains replacing the jungle.

Retr0gamer

CatInABox wrote: »

Gamesindustry.biz had a deep dive into how Microsoft has changed their behaviour in regards to acquisitions recently, it's very good. Seems that they've put proper gamers in charge of most processes there, which actually raises an interesting point for me: Did the fact that, years ago, senior execs basically had no experience of games sabotage them? And now that senior execs grew up playing games, are they mentally better equipped to deal with the games industry?

Anyway, the article is here, it's pretty good.

Don't think it was that. The XBox games devision was seen as a bit of a side diversion for the company. They made massive losses with the first XBox and the 360 was successful but the profits were minuscule compared to the profits of other divisions. I think the success of Game Pass is the big turning point for MS as a console platform as Microsoft seriously want a piece of a streaming service and it looks like a far better platform than PlayStation Now.

Zero-Cool

For anyone not following the EA UFC 4 thread on the mma forum, officially revealed today, releasing 14th August. Preorder to get Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua (for any boxing fans). Free trial on ea Access 7th August with 10% discount for subscribers.

They removed ultimate team which was my favourite mode (you didn't have to spend a penny in it but could) as they heard the fans dislike of it. Not a fan of that decision at all but we'll see.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjugTk9ovcI

J. Marston

God be with the days of Fight Night.

OptimusTractor

J. Marston wrote: »

God be with the days of Fight Night.

Round 4 was the bees knees.