EA: who are they and what is their relationship

[ub3rman123]

Bioware is the company that makes the game and EA is the company that insists that Bioware changes out a soccer-style game in it to football-style because EA specializes in football games.

 

Simplest explanation I can think of without several choice expletives and waving around an axe.

[brokenergy]

EA is getting better though and it is way better than Activision. If DA or ME moves in a direction that people don't like then it is BioWare's responsibility to admit to it, not EAs. IF we are talking about BioWare, most of their new things came BEFORE EA takeover. People don't seem to see that BioWare was moving in that direction they are now years ago with consoles ports, VO, cinematic experiences etc. Kotor had cinematic cut-scenes and was released in consoles, JE didn't allow you to mess around with companion gear, in NWN you didn't use your companions etc.

 

BioWare was moving in that direction years ago but people don't seem to mind till EA arrived. It's the name that people hate, it's what EA did in the past that people hate. People don't know what's going on inside so they tend to blame things that they don't understand, like Mirror's Edge 2. DICE couldn't release a good prototype and EA canned it as the report suggests but who know that maybe they could revisit it later on. We simply do not know the processes involved for us to conclude that EA is buying and eating them for money. EA has improved over the recent years and it is much better than it's counterpart Activision, which thrives on COD and WOW now as GH was canned. I know that mud sticks for a long time and EA can't get it off no matter what they do but really we should move on from "EA is the devil" crap. EA has improved dramatically and sales show.

Edited February 16, 2011 by brokenergy

[csgators]

O Electronic Arts of yore, where hast thou gone?

 

I admit it, they made some great games for the Commodor 64 (it was either that or TSR-80) they are the first game company I remember ever playing on a PC. One of their games was exploring the New World and you could trade or fight with native tribes and found new cities. I have always waited for someone to remake something like it that didn't suck but no such luck.

 

Edit - found it:

 

From HERE

 

Seven Cities of Gold

You started from Spain, like Columbis, and discovered the New World. You could trade with the natives or you could fight them into submission. The point of the game was to find the fabled Cities. I think the quickest I ever finished it was in 'only' a week. It also came with a world creator that would draw a new world to explore. I don't know how many HOURS I played this on my C64, but not even girls caused me to lose more sleep in the eighties.

 

It looked sweet:

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Seven_Cities_of_Gold.jpg

Edited February 17, 2011 by csgators

[Vindekarr]

I feel the need to insert a little balance into this, even if it means being the devil's advocate.

 

StarDusk-It's very easy to hate EA, many people hate them simply because they're enormous. But fact is, they arent the villains anymore.

 

EA is a massive umbrella corp-that's WHAT they are, who they are? EA has re-invented, or tried to re-invent, themselves time and again.

 

For about a decade they got by by making cheap, poorly constructed serials, like their various sports games, Need For Speed, and a few other games. Their market stratergy was mass production, populist appeal, and a sacrifice of build time in favour of yearly releases.

 

Their current market practice is somewhat diferent.

 

They've cut down their lineup somewhat in the aftermath of the GFC(a massive general market downturn, that hit America particularly hard).

 

Their main products are still Need For Speed, BattleField, and a variety of sporting games.

 

I cant comment on their sports games, however, Hot Pursuit, the most recent Need For Speed, is among the best, most entertaining racing game's I've ever played, combining simple, arcady controls, a Burnout style engine/mechanical system, with stunning graphics and bulletproof reliability.

 

Likewise for Bad Company II, their flagship FPS. Bad Company isnt the best FPS I've ever played, but it easily ranks up there. The graphics are excellent, the singleplayer is short but genuinely entertaining and at times hilarous by virtue of great characters and a hokey, silly story, and the multiplayer is simply superb, outstripping even it's closest rival, COD.

 

Im not leaping to EA's defence here, in the past they've made some aweful decisions and shut down some wonderful devstudios, but I have enjoyed their recent works immensely, and would hapilly continue to buy games of those series, evemn if it means pumping money into EA's coffers.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Vindekarr

[CommanderCrazy]

Pandemic Studios.

 

Thats reason right there to hate EA with a passion, and why I am dicey about buying a game with EA on the box.

 

EDIT: Remember, Vin, EA is not a developer. You should be thanking Criterion, or DICE. Not EA.

Edited February 17, 2011 by CommanderCrazy

[brokenergy]

EA is a very important publisher. What happened to some of these studios have to do with internal issue that we just don't know. I remember one former employee say that it was their internal problems that cause them to fall. We just don't know what really happened within developer studios that causes them to collapse and creating conspiracy theories isn't going to help.

[ThomasKra]

I don't hate EA, when it comes down to the bitter war between EA and Activision, I know very well who the lesser of the two evils is. (Bobby Kotick is a money-grubbing windbag who only cares about how much more he can pump into his bank account, if that helps).

 

What I DO loathe about them, however, is their recent marketing strategies. Well, really, I could blame Visceral for them, but EA endorsed and funded these ads, so they are just as much to blame as Visceral for this:

 

A quick vid, I agree with many of the points in it (else why would I post it). Basically the idea is that EA is starting to drag the gaming industry into the muck with its immature gimmicks and self-serving ploys. The Dead Space 2 ad was... wow. Good [censored] job indeed, EA! :wallbash:

 

I will be much happier with them when they fire everyone on their marketing board and clean house with people who ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT OUR MEDIUM'S FUTURE.

[evilneko]

I thought the little hiring fake protesters for Dante's Inferno stunt was a nice Take That against real protesters. It was worth a chuckle and was memorable--very good things, from an advertising perspective.

 

Unfortunately they didn't know where to stop.

[HellsMaster]

I don't like EA due to the price tags they put on their games and how they tend to sexualise the games

[brokenergy]

Dead Space II one was funny, funny because EA's marketing department needs to get layed off. The head of world-wide BioWare marketing (also a member of the EA wonderful marketing department) David Surimen (spelling?) bashed Origins while really sold marketing tagline.

 

The problem is that the marketing department doesn't know how to market a game product. They don't know what age group to market for nor do they know much about the product it-self. These are some of the basics of marketing that must be addressed.

 

That escapist vid didn't help either (like all escapist vids ever did), all it stated is the marketing's faults. It didn't address the key issue; how do you market the game to your key audence without making a fool out of the developer's product? Part of a discussion piece is to give your opinion as to how to fix something and that's something that escapist never addresses in any of it's vids. Sure it raises a few points but that's really about it, really.