EA:Worst Co. in America!

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I mention Call of Duty only to demonstrate that video games in general are more profitable than ever, because gaming has become more acceptable and further-reaching in recent years demographically speaking, no longer being a past time for "nerds", with budgets and ad campaigns rivalling the biggest Hollywood block-busters. The industry is in no way hurting; it is booming. Money "lost" to used sales is a drop in the bucket compared to money generated from new sales. If you're at all sketical: EA Revenue: 2013 ^ $4.1 Billion (with a B).

Revenue is the amount before they subtract costs

Also, the industry is actually doing worse every year, since like 2010. Games actually cost much less than films, for instance a $100 million budget for a game would be outrageous but that would be extremely cheap for a Hollywood blockbuster. But--games often have marketing that costs as much or more than films.
 
I never said there was anything wrong with the industry.
snappahead said: "I'd say many publishers would disagree that things have been fine until now."
That's a different subject anyway. If a company is doing well, they should be cool with losing money on certain things? They're making enough, so no biggie? No company is like that nor should they be.
I don't hate the company for trying to maximize profits, I hate them because they are trying to make it sound like it is the consumer's fault for there being a used market in the first place. They are basically saying "we had to implement online passes because you keep stealing our used game profits." There simply is no other company in ANY other industry that profits off of the used market, especially when they are adding nothing to the used purchase. It stinks of total disrespect towards your consumer base when you ask for money without a service in return. The copy of The Matrix is mine after I buy it, and I can do anything I want with it, including sell it, as long as it doesn't violate piracy laws. Same goes for the used Honda Accord. What EA is doing, is reverting partial ownership of the bought product back to EA. I've bought it fairly from soneone else who has bought it fairly, but I no longer have the right to the service I paid for. This is just plain greasy.

"it would be suicide" is why is said they would if they could. They can't because it wouldn't work for them.
I actually agree with you on this point, but you have to admit it is sad that it has come down to this. Just because they can doesn't mean they should. They could make the next Battlefield cost 89.99 if they wanted, and it would still be profitable. It doesn't mean it is a fair deal, and it doesn't mean the asking price is reflective of the game's budget.

Is that quote something you just made up or from someone at EA?

Made it up/ sounds entirely plausible :D

With Valve the only way to play their games is piracy or Steam. There's no legal way to play their games unless you buy them "new" physical copy or download. At the moment, they don't have the same problem that companies like EA are dealing with on the used market. Steam was their answer to used games and piracy. If they were facing the same problem console publishers are having, who knows what they would do. Maybe nothing. Maybe passes.

I just borrowed a PS3 copy of Portal 2 from a friend, and had no trouble playing it on my PS3 (came with a FREE PC copy btw, with FREE DLC), although I know what you mean, concerning digital purchases. I guess online passes and DRM means that the boxed game will soon be a thing of the past. :monkey2

Answers are in bold
 
Was that really a choice that you made? If you wanted to play those games, you had to go through Origin no?

Well I also have a PS3 and a 360, so I could go with one of those, in fact I first did with ME2. It was only later I got the PC version on Origin.
 
You love ea huh? Guess we should just stop. Not sure what you were trying to prove by keeping on stating we buy the games we want. Keep defending a company who doesn't care about you at all, good job. Hopefully they're reading these posts so they can hire you. The ending to me3 was silly and good thing they gave the most technically advanced nano suit a.................bow and arrow!?!?!!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!?! So Friggin stupid. I owned the other crysiss they were beautifully meh.

Sent from the Shell by codec.
 
C'mon let's be serious for a minute: Gearbox (and Sega) should be the worst Co lol
 
You love ea huh? Guess we should just stop. Not sure what you were trying to prove by keeping on stating we buy the games we want. Keep defending a company who doesn't care about you at all, good job. Hopefully they're reading these posts so they can hire you. The ending to me3 was silly and good thing they gave the most technically advanced nano suit a.................bow and arrow!?!?!!?!??!?!!?!??!?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!!?! So Friggin stupid. I owned the other crysiss they were beautifully meh.

Sent from the Shell by codec.
Theres a difference between loving a company (I can't imagine why anyone would love a company) and not hating it. I'm pointing out why I don't hate EA or any company simply for trying to make money. I generally make it an assumption that no company cares about me. They're a video game publisher who's only goal is to make money. I'm ok with them not caring about me.

ME 3's ending was Bioware's work. Work they later added to and made available at no extra cost.

Crysis is Crytek's work.
 
Last edited:
There is a huge difference between making money and try to make maximum profit. The first isn't bad at all, it is normal to work on something you really want to be great but on the same time paying your bills. The second is bad, because it lacks the ambition for quality and satisfied customers and it can easily lead to criminal acts or at least some that looks like that. EA is someone who isn't interested in making money, but making the maximum possible amount, no matter what. Bioware is no independent company, Bioware is EA and therefore it is EAs fault. The whole Mass Effect issue was an example of consumer-hostile marketing strategy. Delaying tactics, ignoring massive complaints, absolute lack of transparency, blaming the fans for not understanding the pure and lazy copy of a Deus Ex ending and so on. It was flawless. Making a DLC cost nothing was just part of it, because it didn't cost them much anyway but as they knew they wouldn't add much, they let the costumer wait half a year, so he didn't cared for it anymore. Really clever and really ugly.
 
We're just not going to agree on this.

Bioware made what I consider to be a fantastic game with a sketchy ending. After getting a negative response they spent time to create a more fleshed out ending for fans and released it at no extra cost. They also released a number of multiplayer DLCs for no extra cost. I agree that it was pretty wrong of them to make you wait a while for your free stuff, but these things take time. If you still want to be mad about it, that's your right, but I think they did more than they needed to.
 
It was not only the ending, the ending was just the straw that broke the camel's back after all the "mistakes" EA and Bioware did in the past and on top of it, in the same game. You may find the game fantastic but there is a huge difference between liking something and something being good. People and critiques pointed out all the issues in comments as long as essays and countless videos. Of course one can ignore all that and insist that he/she likes it and doesn't care about the consumer-hostility but that is everything but helpful. And I didn't wait for anything, the ending was a ****ty rip off from Deus Ex and the only way to repair it was the indoctrination theory, which had meant not only that they were wrong, but also to to extent the game. That would've cost money and work, nothing Bioware or EA is famous for in the past couple of years.
 
It was not only the ending, the ending was just the straw that broke the camel's back after all the "mistakes" EA and Bioware did in the past and on top of it, in the same game. You may find the game fantastic but there is a huge difference between liking something and something being good. People and critiques pointed out all the issues in comments as long as essays and countless videos. Of course one can ignore all that and insist that he/she likes it and doesn't care about the consumer-hostility but that is everything but helpful. And I didn't wait for anything, the ending was a ****ty rip off from Deus Ex and the only way to repair it was the indoctrination theory, which had meant not only that they were wrong, but also to to extent the game. That would've cost money and work, nothing Bioware or EA is famous for in the past couple of years.

Yeah, we disagree quite a bit.
 
SimCity 3000 and 4 used to be some of my favorite games, and they really F'ed up the new SimCity in so many ways, I could care less about EA.
 
The actual comment is embarrassing not less than the fake one. I think it is funny how every time when someone or something is criticized one says "yeah, we/they did mistakes, absolutly right, yepp, can't deny that, **** happens, caught red-handed" and instead of pointing the wrongs out (this was so superficial, hard to believe he really did this), continuing with how wrong the critiques are and how everything is fine. So saying they're right and they're wrong at the same time. Clever. Well, at least if the only people seeing it are sheeps.

If always-on wouldn't be so critical, why are people arguing about it? Well, maybe because it IS critical. It is a stupid constraint without any benefit for the gamer. Hell, the whole game is a let down, compared to the past games with the name and others of the genre.

The user numbers from Origin and Steam and UPlay result out of force. There is no competition. The customer has no choice, he has to register and use the programs. Capitalism my ***.

One of the most embarrassing comments is of course: "But millions buy from us!". Yeah as if the number of customers is saying something about quality. Is Kesha a great musician, because she sold millions of records? This is an invalid argument. There is a possibility that the number of something has a connection to quality but this is not a rule.

The thing with the madden cover, yeah that was stupid. And the reaction on LGBT too. But the funny thing is, the little fascist *******s raging about LGBTs are unimportant. They have no power. Really, look at the sales, people don't care for the racist, sexist, homophobes. But it's not like EA did anything great and groundbreaking after the first step. The scene with Liara in ME1? Stopped before a nipple. Advertisement with a female Shepard? Hell no! Gay relationship? No, no, no! Lesbian relationships with someone other than Liara? More skin? Pfft! It was less after Mass Effect 1 and Kelly wasn't even a squad member. EA is full of cowards and hypocrites.

And the microtransactions and all that? DLC? Their clear fraud and consumer-hostile behaviour is outstanding. Proud of this company? The only thing he is proud of is in doing money, not making good games. And being proud of selling something with a popular name is a subject for debate anyway.
"We are so successful, people are playing our games with names like Sim City or Battlefield, who saw that coming?"
What a ******.
 
Back
Top