-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
EA: "I struggle with the perception that we're just a bunch of bad guys"
- Thread starter Lant_War
- Start date
Hmmm they like playing games? Does that apply to the games EA themselves put out?
Here's an idea ta garner some goodwill (although there would surely still be shots taken): pull a Capcom. Remember Ultra SF2? Do a Road Rash Ultra. Romhack assets & features from thre original 3 games into 1. Or remaster/romdump the Strike series games Mana Collection style or something.
Monkeys Paw: they end up mobile-exclusive with timers and IAP
Here's an idea ta garner some goodwill (although there would surely still be shots taken): pull a Capcom. Remember Ultra SF2? Do a Road Rash Ultra. Romhack assets & features from thre original 3 games into 1. Or remaster/romdump the Strike series games Mana Collection style or something.
Monkeys Paw: they end up mobile-exclusive with timers and IAP
They are making fewer games and are holding the nfl license!?!? Good god the inhumanity! Truly a demonic company.
What a weak defense of an unjustified memey mob mentality. If EA fell off the face of the earth tommorow we'd come up with a new boogeyman ruining gaming, perhaps Activision would take its place.
What a weak defense of an unjustified memey mob mentality. If EA fell off the face of the earth tommorow we'd come up with a new boogeyman ruining gaming, perhaps Activision would take its place.
This is still unforgivable. At least keep them alive in name only until someone competent steps up that can take over the studios. Nope. Just canceled, cannibalized and annihilated.
Holy shit.
Makes me appreciate how generally restrained how Sony is with MLB The Show. Yeah, they have player packs but none of this bullshit. Nowhere near fucking close.
I've worked for companies that have done some really crappy things. Both to customers and employees.
I fully recognise those things and I have had to justify whether it's worth my conscience to remain there. Sometimes I have left and sometimes I stayed.
If you work for EA and you don't realise why a lot of people don't like what the company does, then you need to gain some perspective.
I fully recognise those things and I have had to justify whether it's worth my conscience to remain there. Sometimes I have left and sometimes I stayed.
If you work for EA and you don't realise why a lot of people don't like what the company does, then you need to gain some perspective.
OP
OP
Jesus, I didnt even know you are allowed to charge that much on a mobile game.
OP
OP
They don't intend you to pay that much, but rather make the other prices better in comparison. If someone also buys it, then that's even better for them.
The absolute irony is that Konami took their fuckery and went legit with it... directly into regulated casinos. As of right now, EA is shittier than Konami. Let that sink in.
Oh I'm not disputing that. The funny thing is that when people noticed a resemblance with Kruger and CEO mr Wilson , it got changed, didn't it?
to this:
I feel like you could recreate this entire scene in EA's board room with 2 executives having this conversation about their business practices.
Sure, but an alternative explanation is... that you created concepts for the character hoping you could get a certain actor for the performance and then that fell through so you redo the character around who is actually cast.
They moved the "make him look like General Tarkin" slider all the way to the right.Oh I'm not disputing that. The funny thing is that when people noticed a resemblance with Kruger and CEO mr Wilson , it got changed, didn't it?
to this:
wtf lol
CDPR are privately owned.
EA, like it or not, have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to maximise their profit. It doesn't make them bad guys. You could argue, and I would agree, that current public ownership laws are incredibly toxic and end up driving companies in the wrong direction. But it doesn't make EA the bad guys.
I also haven't bought many EA games this gen. I own a switch. But that's fine. I like single player games. They mostly make GAAS now. And they don't put them on Switch. That's fine. I don't need to play everything. It's ok. Not every release is for me.
Nah, they put it up for auction and EA outbid 5 other companies for it.
Just think of those poor shareholders! It's fine
It's fine!
And yes. You got yours!
FIFA Ultimate Team may not be as nasty as some Gacha names but those games don't have the most popular license in the world.
I'm sure that is the case. But, also, the people without power (to run a multi-billion dollar company) are also not in touch with the reality of business. Most people in these posts on Era would be bad businessmen, driving investors away. Sure, they would have the best intentions, but the truth is more nuanced And complex. The profits need to go up, because that's how capitalism works. Ok, let's add loot boxes! Outrage. Ok, so let's raise the price of games to $70. Outrage. Let's make a subscription service for our games with a store to match. Outrage. Ok - let's crunch to make more games so we earn more! Outrage (justified, but you get what I'm saying).Ok, Let's change capitalism for the better! Um, sure I guess, yeah, but you do realize this is a very complex thing to do, far beyond the ability of one company?
Of course, there is a middle ground and the best game companies seem to be able to make some compromise. Like, CDPR was totally fair to gamers and still earned a lot of money with Witcher and Ubisoft (even with all the criticism) seems to be offering good value for the base price of their games. EA made a lot of bad mistakes, sure, and they should suffer the consequences of these mistakes, but I think some people are too quick to oversimplify the entire issue.
Last edited:
"Well first, we don't call them 'bad guys', we prefer 'proactive value creators'."
Way to miss the point. Obviously the shareholders don't need sympathy. But companies can't just do the 'moral' thing.
The MTX problem is a systematic one.
Look. I think people have misunderstood my point.
I am not saying shareholder laws are good. I'm saying the opposite. It's just useless attacking specific companies for operating according to law. Law says they must deliver value to shareholders as a priority.
It sucks. But EA aren't some evil superpower and seeing them as such basically let's off governments and politicians who have failed to create a sustainable system and one that works for regular folks.
Right wing blowhards love it when people attack specific companies, because they mask systematic flaws under 'bad actors'.
EA are not a bad actor. Their practices are not any more anti consumer than law basically forces them to be. Wish people would realise this.
I've seen a lot of folks justify EA's bullshit and general idiocy with them totally getting the market. (Let's ignore the dumpster fire currently burning in the corner that is Anthem)
But if there is one decision that can earn them a ton of goodwill and make a ton of money, it's this. Like, those games are all running on a single, familiar engine. If you want to cheap out and put in the absolute minimum effort, just have them at 4K/60FPS and leave it at that without touching up the outdated assets and janky gameplay of ME1. It would be an impressive feat if they went back and improved a lot of the mechanically weak aspects of the ME trilogy but it would still be a successful package even if they put the most absolute bare minimum. Yet, they're not doing it.
Absolutely baffling.
This is too handwavey. Yes this legal requirement in the US is terrible and will ultimately cause the collapse of capitalism if kept unchecked, but EA is surely not under a legal obligation to keep lootboxes in, because:
A) instead of caping for it's total ethicalness as they do right now, they could also publicly argue that they think it's sketchy, that it may be potentially illegal, and that they want to not get problems with the law (as they already are experiencing in NL and BE)
B) heck they could just say it's terrible for their branding, which is also quite clearly true
C) they could go the Nintendo route and argue that exploitative mechanics might make more short term gains, but leads to shallow interaction with games that long term can lead to disengagement. Nobody would be able to check it, but it's sufficiently nebulous to not open yourself for litigation.
A) I've not heard a convincing argument that under current US law, loot boxes are illegal. And FIFA alone generate over $1bn. Convincing shareholders that revenue, generated by quite standard industry practices, should stop is a non starter.
B) I'm not sure you can make the case that it IS terrible for their brand. Are FUT etc revenues dropping over time?
C) Nintendo are Japanese. Their public ownership laws and corporate culture allow for a lot more faith in management. Also, they still do loot boxes. How many currencies does Animal Crossing have?
EA: 'I struggle with the perception that we're just a bunch of bad guy'
Also EA: we don't call them lootboxes, they are surprise mechanics
Also EA: we don't call them lootboxes, they are surprise mechanics
You know your the bad guy when you push the already controversial and predatory lootboxes so far and so hard that it prompts multiple national governments around the world to consider banning them. This is a publisher that has gambling mechanics in football games aimed at children. Is it any wonder why there is a perception that EA are the 'bad guys'?
Buy studio of Beloved Franchise.
Interfere and kill Beloved Franchise.
Put studio at work on other established IP's.
Kill studio.
"Why are we the baddies?"
Interfere and kill Beloved Franchise.
Put studio at work on other established IP's.
Kill studio.
"Why are we the baddies?"
I don't think any company is obliged to push to the boundary of what is legally possibly. I'm quite sure of it actually.
Anyway by this same token, would you argue that any company that doesn't include gambling mechanics opens itself up for litigation by share holders? Should coca cola machine manufacturers give you variable payouts or risk getting sued by the shareholders?
Really? They've been made worst company the country how many times? Where are they on the best brand list?
But the worst company thing is so obviously hyperbolic nonsense.
I am saying if you find me a gaming company listed on the US stock exchange that has eschewed loot boxes I would be surprised
Yeah they probably should have lead with the whole "buying studios and closing them down when they don't make enough money" bit
He can disagree but... isn't it kind of bad if he can't even understand why people feel the way they do? :/
This post is counter to what EA is saying...that a LOT of people do hate them, so much so that's it's known to them...hell, they win worse company almost every year...
Here's a thought on how to end endless crunch...create work shifts, done...
Last edited:
I don't think that works in a creative production process like game development, especially (as jschreier has reported several times) the deliverables are constantly shifting because management can't settle on a cohesive vision or 'find the fun'.
