EA style?!

EA and their M$-type "innovations"

Gamespot is running an article about how EA is going to shock the world with the ability to... wait for it... purchase games online.

WWW Link
26,580 views 23 replies
Reply #1 Top
Yeah, I read an article on that topic a few days ago. But it turns out they are going to have "in game advertising" as they claim that us gamers keep asking for such superior products that they should charge us 100.00 plus for such games... so to keep the production costs down they're going to allow advertisers to place ad's throughout the game for a tidy little sum of cash. Angered quite a few gamers from what I read at other forums... do you blame them?
Reply #2 Top
Rarely does EA even make a game that interests me. Perhaps they should spend less time worrying about methods of distribution, and more time worrying about making something actually worth distributing in the first place.
Reply #3 Top
I second that

If your from the uk you may have noteist EAs feeble attempt at a rugby game
Reply #4 Top
One thing about EA is for sure. Alot of games come out half way completed at $50 and then charge you $30-40 for the second half as an expansion. I have not bought an EA game in four years now. It seems like they prerelease too many games.
Reply #5 Top
Yeah, try BF 2142. I got it and the hole system is totally srewed up. Not only to you only get to play with less than half the items they have when you start out, you can only get these special items through online servers run by, guess who, EA. The game has no single player really, and it comes with tons of free bugs for you to play with. EA needs to get a clue, listen to the 5 million complaints from your users on the forums.
Reply #6 Top
I've made it a point to avoid EA games as much as possible. In fact, I don't think I've bought an EA game in years. If everyone did that then maybe EA WOULD get a clue and actually make a product that didn't suck. But that is just wishful thinking.
Reply #7 Top
I do buy the occasional EA game, and am generally quite happy with them. However, my views on their quality and business strategies are quickly pissing me off, this last year especially. They're looking as bad as Microsoft when it comes to the quality of their products and how they screw customers for cash. EA is the microsoft of the gaming industry.

Rant mode: ON

I work at a store where our main focus is renting and selling games. I see examples of EA's cheapness constantly, especially lately.

Introduction to Instruction: Many of their games now have minimalist instruction manuals. The sports games are lucky to hit 10 pages including the front and back covers. All they include is the basic controls and a summary of how to start up a game. Everything else is left for you to figure out on your own. It's like they're supplying only the beginning of an instruction manual, when compared with most other game's instructions.

Customers Aren't Worth Colour: On top of that, most of their instruction manuals (if they can even be called that) are completely black and white. Count yourself lucky if you get instructions with even just the front cover in colour, because that's becoming a rarity for their games. Even the label art on their game discs is going black and white. Talk about penny pinching.

So Called "Expansions" and Extras: I'm sorry, but EA expansion packs are an absolute joke. It's at the point of them creating a game and hacking features from it just to make sure the core game can be released quickly. Then all of the other features will each earn their own expansion, and EA will charge almost the same price for a single expansion as for the original game itself. So even if you buy 2 expansions, you've ended up paying 3 times the price of a normal game, and still don't have anywhere near the whole game. Take The Sims 2, for example. I think there's about 8 or 9 (probably more already) additional expansions released for it so far (including the "Stuff Packs"). Some simply add a bunch of extra items to the game, while others add a few new features with a few additional objects. And if that's not enough, you can buy individual items like you'd buy a single chocolate bar, one at a time. That is a complete cop out. It can't take more than a couple hours at most to create an object (shape it, texture it, and make a bit of code for it). They're creating the game's core engine, selling it at the full price of a game, and then adding all the rest one piece at a time, charging for each as if its a whole new game. It's a lot like movie theatres and what they charge for popcorn. It costs them about 15 cents at most to make a large bag of popcorn, and they're charging customers $4 or more for it. It's an absolute rip off.

What's Beta Testing?: Some of their games (not all) are so full of bugs that you have to wonder if the game was tested at all before it was released. Or are they depending on customers to be their beta testers? The games are being released way too fast with the mindset that they can fix everything later, after it's made a bunch of money and customers start complaining. Whatever happened to making a product that simply works as its supposed to when you buy it? When did customers become the lead testers? And to top it all off, customers have to pay for this privledge, where as real beta testers are the ones that get paid to find the bugs.

Re-package The Old: Many EA games are being released twice these days. The original is released, and a number of months later, the game is re-released with a couple little modifications. There will be bug fixes, one extra course (if it's a racing game), a few extra objects, and other similar very minor additions. For example, there was the holiday edition of The Sims 2. Pretty much the exact same game, just a couple minor extras. They'll use fancy names and new cover art to make it look different or a lot better, when it really isn't. "Special Edition", "Remix", "Expansion" and other code names are used for these. One huge one was NHL 2007 for the Playstation 2. It's mostly just a rehash of the 2006 version, except with an updated team roster, a couple control changes, and that's about it. The game engine and graphics are pretty much identical to 2006. They just copied it all over, changed the team rosters, and slapped the 2007 title on it. They did a fair bit more work on the Xbox 360 version of 2007, at least.

Advertising In Games: This is nothing new by EA, even though they're talking about it now. Many of their games are full of little comercials. A sign along a race track. A banner on the ice rink's boards. Or a product mentioned or used by characters in a game (like a name brand computer, or game title, etc). This kind of thing is everywhere in their games. So if they're actually talking about "adding" this, I can't imagine how bad its going to be in their future releases.

EA is sucking customers wallets dry in every way they can. They'll do anything to cash in and boost their bottom line. I half expect EA to out source everything to a 3rd world country just to cut down on labor costs. That's how greedy they're getting.

Rand Mode: Off
Reply #8 Top
EA Bashing !?! Let me in.  

EA's policy of buying out any fledgling developer who gets a good franchise going pisses me off. Next thing you know the series is dumbed down for the "Mass Market" and another good franchise down the drain.
When their own employees sued EA for basically being exploited.(mandatory overtime w/o the compensation, etc.) it really showed me, this isn't a company I want to support.
Please Stardock. Never sell if EA comes knocking with a suitcase full of money.
Reply #9 Top

EA just buy every good game and turn it into a lump of crap as to saying "our label will sell, it's not about the quailty of the game". But us gamers, modders and hackers see, EA is blind-man with a gun shooting down every game undiscriminetly.

EA is going to shock the world with the ability to... wait for it... purchase games online.


You came up with the idea in the frist place. Sue   , Sue   , Sue   .

Please Stardock. Never sell if EA comes knocking with a suitcase full of money.


Fight the power   .
Reply #10 Top
Hey now, all of this may be exactly 100% true. But I remember, once, an EA hockey game I liked. 97 or 98. I remember it well. C'mon guys, remember the good times! And there was one more thing I wanted to say.... lemme see... I think I remember... oh, yeah, that's it! EA sucks.
Reply #11 Top
Please Stardock. Never sell if EA comes knocking with a suitcase full of money


I second that

How does EA survive? do people really buy its games
Reply #12 Top
Do you really need to ask that?

The Sims
Fifa (or whatever sports game happens to be popular in your area of the globe)

EA seem to own the rights to pretty much every sport in existance. The EXCLUSIVE rights. This, of course, means that if you want to play a game of your favorite sport, you have to buy it from EA, unless you're willing to put up with mangled player names and fictional teams.

Now, all that said, I don't have that much of a problem with EA. Most of their games are, if not spectacular, at least solid, reliable and of a decent quality. I don't mind in game advertising, as long as it's appropriate. Sports games SHOULD have advertising hoardings, otherwise it wouldn't look right. I'd rather they'd be paid to put real companies up there rather than make up fictional ones. This is probably less true of games like Battlefield 2142, but who knows, maybe if it's integrated well it wouldn't be a problem.

The Sims isn't my cup of tea, but it is a well made game, and I can understand why people might enjoy it. It appeals to different people than those that would be considered the normal gamer (one word- girls). Since there aren't many games that cater to that audience, it has of course been massively succesful, and for some people the Sims is the ONLY game. If there is demand for add on packs, can you really blame EA for providing them?

The final word in this discussion is: Spore.




Well, OK, not the final word. But my point is that at least EA is willing to inovate. OK, its sports games are stagnant (what sport games aren't?) but games like the Sims and now Spore are demonstrations that they are willing to try new things. Maybe Spore will fail to fulfil its promise, but it's better than them churning out endless RTS and FPS games.
Reply #13 Top
The final word in this discussion is: Spore. Well, OK, not the final word. But my point is that at least EA is willing to inovate. OK, its sports games are stagnant (what sport games aren't?) but games like the Sims and now Spore are demonstrations that they are willing to try new things


Well, I wouldn't use that as evidence that EA is willing to innovate. Both of those games were made by Will Wright, someone EA is damn lucky to have (but doesn't seem to realize it). Apparently they almost canceled The Sims when it was in development.

They've finally learned to give Wright the freedom to do what he wants, which is why they're being patient with Spore. He's the exception though. Generally speaking EA is "risk averse" when it comes to creating games, which is why they generate endless sequels and uninspired games.
Reply #14 Top
BTW, I noticed a post likening EA Games to Microsoft Games. I have to say, I like Microsoft games even less. Every game, irregardless of game type or setting, seems to have the same guy for the main character (you recieve no options for choosing). Sometimes the concepts are really cool but the game is a horrible letdown, they get a good idea then think of ways to screw it up. Their games are insanely short. About the time you think, "well, maybe I'm halfway through the game now," the end credits are rolling. Now, I suppose a game doesn't need to be long to be fun, though it still feels like a gip. Like, one short game you can beat 6 hours after buying was Deus Ex, which I really enjoyed, except for the fact I paid $50 for 6 hours of gameplay. I guess Microsoft Games made a couple of longer games, like Freelancer. I have never beaten that particular game. It just gets so painfully boring, I can't stand it. What kills me in all of this, is how they are able capable of still selling games. Mostly because morons like me buy them thinking that maybe this time it'll finally be cool.

Reply #15 Top
I guess EA and MS are examples of what happens when suits run game development companies. I'm sure many of the people making the decisions don't even play games period, let alone the games their company is making. It's all just numbers on a spreadsheet to them, trying to make quarterly deadlines to satisfy shareholders, doing market research to determine how to make the game appeal to as many potential customers as possible, and so on. That's a great recipe for a mediocre game. Sad.

That's why our only hope rests in the hands of small, independent development houses. With companies like Stardock (and Ironclad, and Kerberos, and so on), decisions are being made by people who love the products they're working on, and who made the game THEY want to play. They're making unique games, and serving corners of the market that are otherwise ignored by companies like EA.

EA make a TBS game like GalCiv that wasn't part of an existing high profile franchise or movie tie-in? *laugh*

EA make an impossible-to-categorize game like Space Rangers 2? *big laugh* If you can't categorize it, how will you do the market research to prove to the suits upstairs that it's guaranteed to make X number of sales?
Reply #16 Top
Like, one short game you can beat 6 hours after buying was Deus Ex, which I really enjoyed, except for the fact I paid $50 for 6 hours of gameplay.



Proloton, you could beat Deus Ex in 6 hours? WTF? The loading times themselves will be over 6 hours! Or were you playing on a game console?

I'm really looking forward to BioShock, by the guys who made System Shock 2. Of course, the fact that my computer tends to be about 5 or so years behind the tech wave, I'll have to wait until around 2012 to play it.
Reply #17 Top
Sorry to keep spamming the thread with my two cents, but I couldn't resist responding to this

I'm really looking forward to BioShock, by the guys who made System Shock 2.


Oh yeah. System Shock 2 was one of the scariest games ever, and I'm looking forward to what they put together for BioShock. Judging from the movie they released of it, they haven't lost any of their twisted talent.
Reply #18 Top
Oh yeah. System Shock 2 was one of the scariest games ever, and I'm looking forward to what they put together for BioShock. Judging from the movie they released of it, they haven't lost any of their twisted talent.



Yeah, and the way the enemies will react to you will supposedly be heavily based upon how you've been reacting to them. In other words, there will be, as in SS2, many different ways to approach the game. Oh, and I fully expect it to scare the piss out of me.
Reply #19 Top
I'm really looking forward to BioShock, by the guys who made System Shock 2.


Wow, this is great news. I don't keep up with new game releases, but I will definitely take a look at this. SS2 has to be one of my all time favorites. Unfortunately I lent it to someone a few years back, and it was never returned.
Reply #20 Top
6 hours and like 27 minutes from start to finish. I played a 23 hour game where I crept around trying to see if I missed any cool, hidden goodies. My buddy actually finished the game even quicker than I did. He was almost exactly 6 hours, maybe 3 minutes over.

Reply #21 Top
6 hours and like 27 minutes from start to finish.



Hats off to you, sir!

I thought the dialogue would have taken that long!
Reply #22 Top
I think they've made some good games I'm not defending them but, I liked Sim City 4, mostly Maxis, yeah but it was an EA games contraption too in my opinion, Theyr'e going to be doing Crysis, which is going to push the envelope on fps, crazy graphics. They're going to be doing spore, they've got the madden franchise locked up. I seem to think they are doing some things right, at least not everything they make sucks.
Reply #23 Top
I'd love to play Madden except for the fact that you can use only approved controllers. I built my own retroarcade controller that is fully compatible with any operating system that accepts gameport signals from USB. What EA did is to completely disregard the entire concept of standards so they could sell off the completely alien concept of controller rights.

Even people with a perfectly good gamepad but not paying tribute to EA won't function with Madden.

The controllers I build are primarily for disabled kids that need bigger buttons and controllers to enjoy their games.

I have thought of organizing a class action lawsuit under the ADA but decided against it. I have to work for a living. MAME football games have been fine but they don't have online play.