EA Gave Us A Lot Of New IP And We Said No Thanks

Hating on EA is a popular thing these days. I feel like this whole thing really goes back to their very publicized mistreatment of employees a while back. Today, EA gets slammed for pulling a lot of moves that aren't consumer friendly (e.g. unfair looking microtransactions). This probably won't be a a well liked opinion, but I argue that the games market is at fault for pushing EA into this position, though only to a certain point. I am certainly not saying that EA (and companies like EA) are cute little angels. Let me be clear: my opinion comes from observing the industry on a daily basis for many years, I do not claim to have insider knowledge of anything.

New, Well Known EA Published Games (this is off the top of my head, maybe I'm missing something)

Mass Effect 2* (check the edit, I know this one doesn't make too much sense)

Dead Space

Dragon Age

Mirror's Edge (maybe not the best game ever, but certainly a shot at something new)

The Questions

• What do these games have in common? None of them made the money that EA wanted them to.
• Why? Well I don't claim to know how EA operates on the inside, so I can only assume that they spent what would become too much money on a game's development and marketing cycle.
• Why not spend less resources? It does not seem plausible to me that you can make a Mass Effect or a Dead Space style game on a smaller budget. Real human beings make these games, and they deserve to be paid.
• For all I know, EA may have spent its money in a reckless fashion. But they're a huge company and I am operating under the assumption that their business guys are at least somewhat competent.

The Conclusion

So if it takes an X amount of money to make a game like Mass Effect 2, and if the profits are minimal or nonexistent, why bother to even make Mass Effect? As we have seen, this idea is part of the Activision business model. I'm sure none of us would want EA to simply become the FIFA and Battlefield house. Game companies are as much of a business as any other company. They are not your buddies and they never will be. Gabe Newell is not going to invite you to hang out at Valve and eat delicious Half Life 3 branded ice cream with him. If the game market isn't going to buy certain types of games in numbers that benefit the company, then you potentially wind up with a situation where the company becomes more desperate.

THQ was in the same boat. Their new IP got shot down, they had no back up strategy, and look at what happened. Maybe all of those developers will go on to do bigger and better things, but maybe each and every one of those franchises will crumble forever. We can't honestly say for certain, but the disruption from such a closing could be felt for years to come. As the Bombcast pointed out, a lot of talent leaves in situations like this.

Ultimately, it seems that the game market is not interested enough in new experiences in order to successfully sustain them without monetizing them in ways that are not consumer friendly. As games get more expensive to make, the stakes only get higher. In EA's case specifically, I feel that a lot of the hate towards the company is unjust. The company reflects the market (at least in theory) to a point.

The Other Side Of The Coin

As I've frequently mentioned, I have made a lot of assumptions in this post. It is possible that EA has been actually spending money recklessly, and that their profit wishing is fueled by incredible greed. Who knows? Only the people at the company do. However, I want to point out that this rejection of new IP has been seen at other companies (like THQ), not just at EA.

So is it the fault of companies? Shouldn't they know the market better and adjust budgets accordingly? Is that even possible? Has the game market driven the likes of EA to pull off non-consumer friendly moves? At the end of the day, I don't know. But it seems to me that all parties involved have should be blamed to some degree. As consumers, we have many choices to make, and it is NOT our duty to buy a game just to keep the franchise going. Our purchases do affect the games being made (and the payment structures surrounding them) to a point though, so I don't think it's fair to just shit on EA. They're a business that wants and needs to make money, and unless they are mistreating human beings and murdering cute puppies, the level of hate they get is perhaps too extreme.

Edit 3: You can also make the counter argument to the original point that companies like EA incorrectly treat "hardcore" games as much bigger than they actually are.

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this subject and point of view, so let's see your two cents!

Edit: Oops, I fucked up with the Mass Effect publisher. Edited that to 2. My mistake! Also I realize that a sequel probably shouldn't count as new, but you guys get the gist of it! It's more of an example for budgets than anything else. Remember that all of this discussion is ultimately based in assumption since we're not EA insiders.

Edit 2: To be clear I am talking about EA published stuff. It doesn't really matter if the IP was bought or in house or whatever, clearly there have been changes since then.

Mass Effect was published by Microsoft so take that one out and Dragon Age was in development before EA bought them. :P

EA didn't give us Mass Effect, Bioware and Microsoft did.

you're right about mirror's edge but I don't think you're right on the whole

@Phatmac said:

Mass Effect was published by Microsoft so take that one out and Dragon Age was in development before EA bought them. :P

And also, Dragon Age Origins was a big success (I mean, it was in development for a long time so must have been costly, but it sold very well) and then DA II was crap and sold crap... and it sure seemed to be a big departure. EA very well seems to blame.

Also, OP singled out Mirrors Edge and that game is amazing and probably the best example you could make of EA taking a big risk and it not paying off via a lack of support from gamers.

I'm not someone to hate on EA, really, and I do appreciate that they took chances. But they have done plenty of scummy things and plenty of boneheaded things. Even when these games sold well, like DA: O did, they think there is some massive market they can get if they make huge changes. This is no different than basically any of the big publishers right now (Ubi, Activision) so yeah... but I won't excuse it either.

At some points we do have to say that Bioware basically could do no wrong until they became wholly an EA organization. I'm not one to bury them right now either but it's true.

As discussed on the Bombcast this week, I do get why they need to do some of the things we see as scummy to make money. AAA games are in a weird way right now. But there's still things to object to.

I do appreciate you making this thread though and thinking from the other POV. People on forums never do that.

I agree with you for the most part. I've avoided jumping on the EA hate train, they've made a bunch of mistakes no doubt but over the past few years they tried to push out a bunch of new IP. Some worked, some failed. Even in the case of Dead Space, the first didn't do amazing but they doubled down on it to give us a sequel. I could be wrong but it seems like most people think they're worse then Activision, which I don't get at all. What has that company done other then run franchises into the ground? I think EA deserves some of the hate it gets but not all of it.

@_Chad said:

EA didn't give us Mass Effect, Bioware and Microsoft did.

I loved ME 1 so much. I would love games to all be multiplatform and all but it's a sad "what if" for me to think if Mass Effect stayed with Microsoft.

Barring Mirror's Edge (which I didn't think was a good game in the first place...), they simply tried to turn their series into something they weren't. That's the problem, they established a good reputation with their initial offering and then bring it off course. Sometimes wildly off course. I don't need to explain this for those who are familiar with Mass Effect, Dead Space, or Dragon Age. I never bothered playing ME3, I won't be buying DS3, and I sure as hell regretted spending $60 on DA2. In fact, I'm still kinda pissed about that.

Well, no matter how much gamers bitch about EA, the world is a better place with Mirror's Edge's existence. Mirror's Ege improved the running animation in Battlefield 3. I'm pretty sure, Dragon Age will be great. I'll let my mind fuck off and pretend ME4 won't be out until 2015. Dead Space 3 feels just fine. ~ I don't know how much oomph Next Gen will bring to the table, but, a man can dream. ~ A world without EA would be awful. It'd be a world where I HAVE to play Call of Duty. And I suck at COD. And truthfully, everyone sucks at COD. If you're not winning you're losing. You're not numba one?, you're last you fucking loser. Battlefield is this wonderful place where you can blow a tank and kill 6 guys and then snipe a helicopter and have that crash into a base and kill more shit.

This world already doesn't have THQ. This world already has a shitty RE to not go back to. Again, Capcom could sure save that with Next Gen. But, a world without EA is not a world I wanna live in.

Dead Space is doing great. Dragons Age is bioware. Maybe they funded it, now sure if EA owned them then or now. Mass Effect is started by mircrosoft. Mirrors Edge was a neat but flawed idea. Not shocked that never went places. The soundtrack by solar fields was excellent at least.

Not sure i understand the inclusions of ME2, DA and Dead Space.

If those games weren't successful EA wouldn't have pushed for 2 more games in each of these franchises.

Sorry about the original Mass Effect publisher mistake, I totally forgot about Microsoft for that!

@ArtisanBreads: Thanks! I agree that it's always good to consider all sorts of view points. It's too easy to get caught up in a mob mentality, especially on the internet. And yeah, you definitely cannot simply excuse the company for burning the consumer.

@TheSouthernDandy: Yeah, I get the impression that EA is the most hated game company at the moment. They don't seem too different from any other major publisher to me.

@Giantstalker said:

Barring Mirror's Edge (which I didn't think was a good game in the first place...), they simply tried to turn their series into something they weren't.

You definitely have a valid point there. Stuff like that can't be ignored.

@Pr1mus said:

Not sure i understand the inclusions of ME2, DA and Dead Space.

If those games weren't successful EA wouldn't have pushed for 2 more games in each of these franchises.

The operating assumption here is that they got sequels but that the games were pretty different from the original due to the fact that the original style of game did not sell enough. "Enough" could mean a million different things though. There are a lot of viewpoints to be considered obviously.

Preface: (I don't hate EA, in fact i'd go so far as to say i am warm towards them as a company atm, both for some of the games they have published, and relatively solid implementation of Origin)

• A bit of of wild assumptions and speculation here at the start, this is never a good platform to start basing further arguments/musing/conclusions on. Firstly about how profitable those games were. We do not know the expenditures for those games, nor the actual final sales and profits numbers to determine even proximate ratios (except a few specific cases where publisher came out and gave out info themselves). Nor the related profits from periferal merchandise etc.
• Just because a publisher (EA) tried to seek more profits by trying to broaden those franchises appeals, we cannot assume they did not do well, we can only assume they wanted more $, was it because it was not enough for them? obviously, but then you need to define what constitutes "enough" for a company, because I can assure you for most sizable corporations there is no such thing as "enough", it's an excuse that can be applied indefinately at will and does not constitute a valid metric (more on that below, i edited this point in based on your later response)
• Apart from Mirror's edge, all these games sold enough to justify sequels at the very least
• Apart from Mirror's edge (i'm going to stop saying this now and unless talking abut it specifically assume it's the other 3 games) what those games also have in common is that their first iterations were very well received, and their last iterations to come out have all been by a larger consensus disappointing compared to the original new games that started the IP in the first place (tho the final retrospective judging is still out for DS3)
• Apart... , all of these games also share a trend that their marketing and development strategy after the first game has been to broaden the audience as much as possible (not only obvious in design but by their own admission in all 3 cases), to try to rake in more money, in the process alienating the people who loved what made those games unique in the first place
• Dragon Age: Origins actually sold relatively more then DA2, and DA2 was a rushed development job as admitted by Bioware, this should speak volumes as to where the blame lies
• Dragon Age IP is still going, with at least very evident double take being done by Bioware going into the 3rd game, and they already relayed more plans for a new game in the Mass Effect universe, we should not be weeping for those IPs just yet
• EA did not give us the start of the Mass Effect franchise as others have said
• ME3 is still making EA money by virtue of it multiplayer model, they keep releasing free updates, packs, maps, classes, weapons, tons and tons of free content; why? a simple cynical reason is that people keep spending real money on it, which they are; otherwise no one would be putting in the work on so much free MP content if there was no return on investment
• The only game where any any argument can be leveled towards the (non mass) market as well as developer/EA is Mirror's Edge, and even that is highly debatable.
• Finally a statement like "None of them made the money that EA wanted them to." is not something a consumer should ever care about, how much money EA wanted to make is irrelevant, if we are to have an introspective towards gamers any moral imperative or questioning should imo) begin and end at the notion: "if it's a good game, did it make a profit, or at least break even", not whether or not some publisher had higher profits in mind then what they got. Should we care if a good game fails, sure/maybe, but not on the basis of what the publisher wanted or what seemed enough for their corporate overlords.

(all these arguments can can be extended to THQ: SR, DoW, Darksiders all these games and more made profits for them, SR3 did extremely well in the last itteration, DoW series was assumed profitable through ought and first Darksiders sold way more then they expected to the point where they decided to double the expenditure to develop the second game based on how well the first game did, their missteps were in entirely different areas, nothing to do with giving us new fresh games)

While i respect your sentiment, i can't help but feel it's a little misguided in application.

I don't understand why people hate EA, actually I don't think that hate is real. The only time I hear people "hating" on EA is on the internet, it doesn't happen in real life.

EA has some business practices I disagree with, such as online passes and Day 1 DLC. But they publish some really great games and it's not right that everyone blames them for things that other big companies in the industry are already doing.

If you want a "bad" gaming company then look no further than Bethesda. They can't optimize their games right for other systems and knowingly released a broken game on the platform and tried to get away with it. Sure they fixed the issues later, but that still doesn't excuse their actions.

That being said I still love their games so I buy them anyway :P Oh and for the record: Dragon Age 2 is a lot better than Dragon Age Origins. Come at me bro!

@ShadowMoses900 said:

That being said I still love their games so I buy them anyway :P Oh and for the record: Dragon Age 2 is a lot better than Dragon Age Origins. Come at me bro!

I actually liked DA2 as well but i understand why people didn't like it though but i don't understand how some people hate it.

I just want to know at what specific point EA became more hated than Activision.

@gogosox82: Well I thought DA2 was a good but flawed game personally. However, I think its clear why some people had serious reservations about it. For one, there was the lack of environments and huge amount of backtracking. The game would make you visit most locations like 2 or 3 times and run through the exact same level in reverse. DAO never had that despite being a longer game. Also, the combat was less strategic because of the lack of a tactical view and the fact that literally most every fights enemies would spawn in and swarm you from all directions. Tactical positioning played no part in DA2 on the higher difficulties and the game revolved around how fast you could dps down enemies before you ran out of stuns. Also, the story never really felt very interesting with a very one dimensional villian and the third act just got ridiculous. I dont want to spoil anything but the way the story was written was just awful for a lot of people. Lastly, the companions never felt as developed and fleshed out like in DAO where they actually went through major character development. The relationship stuff just felt thrown together. Also, not letting you equip armor on companions was a horrible idea.

So while I dont think that DA2 was an absolutely horrible game, it was a huge disappointment as a followup to DAO, which I hold in regard as one of the best and most epic rpgs ever made. Its pretty obvious that EA had an influence on the game's development if you watch the pre-release videos where they were hyping up all these changes that no one wanted.

As for EA in general it seems like every important IP that they aquire and any success they have they then piss away the original concept and what people were attracted to in the first place. They did it with mass effect, dragon age, and now dead space. One can't deny that the first games in each of those series are radically different than the games we got in the sequels. I think that a lot of people are not necessarily ok with those changes.

EA seems to be good at grabbing hold of things of value, making it work for a game or two, and then completely fumbling it usually through some attempt to cut costs or wring more money out of it.

For me it's less a burning hatred and more a sense of disappointment and confusion, it's like they want to do good but they really have no idea how.

I don't typically buy games that don't appeal to me regardless of their quality, and yet I still totally bought Mirror's Edge and gave it a frustrating shot.

I was totally interested in Dead Space, but I can't play horor games. So basically I've watched bits and pieces of let's plays.

Dragon Age 2 is not an irredeemable game, but it was a mighty step back in almost every regard.

Mass Effect 2.... well, no, that game is legitimately amazing. My favorite in the series and one of my favorite games of all time. But I don't really see how it didn't sell well. If it sold below expectations, I'd say those expectations were too crazy to begin with. 2 million in the first week.

@ShadowMoses900 said:

I don't understand why people hate EA, actually I don't think that hate is real. The only time I hear people "hating" on EA is on the internet, it doesn't happen in real life.

I actually "hate" E.A. More precisely I don't hate them because that would require time and energy I don't see fit wasting on them but I however do boycott them and that does exist in real life for me.

So the core argument is that one of the largest video game publishers in the world took a gamble on only two new notable IPs throughout an entire 7-year generation? And that's supposed to be used to defend them?

(I'm obviously not including Bioware's efforts. Both Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins were already well into their development, with a respected developer behind them, and had their own massive cross-game userbase to profit off of. They simply do not count as a 'risk.')

I bought Mirror's Edge, so don't blame me!

EA's cool with me. They published BF3 and Mirror's Edge, so that's all I really care about. I would LOVE a Skate 4 on next gen, though.

EA is like every other company on the planet: they make money. If a game doesn't net a profit, or not enough of a profit (such that the resources could be refocused somewhere else to be more beneficial), then what's the point of the making the game? EA is responsible to their shareholders.

THQ died because they spent entirely too much money on uDraw (which flopped horribly) and homefront was a flopped singleplayer with a solid (but unsupported) multiplayer. Their IP was good, they just really gambled too big on uDraw and it screwed them over.

If you want EA to die in a firery firehell of fire, that's fine (nobody is going to stop you), but just be prepared to deal with the consequences. They're not going anywhere fast, and I suggest you buy games based on their individual merits rather than who publishes it.

From looking over some of the largest misses in its history, I believe EA's biggest problem is thinking they can make more cash sooner by rushing out a game as soon as possible and/or cramming in other monetization methods, rather than letting a game's date slip and selling a full product.

Best example of games that did astronomically well for them that they let slip: Dragon Age: Origins is the biggest example, other good examples are the original Dead Space (which if I remember right slipped nearly half a year) and I believe Burnout Paradise, but I could be remembering wrong. ME2 also missed like 2 dates. All of these games sold pretty darn well (although I think DS1 sold modestly).

Best examples of games that got pushed out early or had aspects held back/modified for monetization that did poorly for them: Dragon Age 2 is a direct example of being rushed out the door and not hitting expectations. Mass Effect 3 is either an example of being rushed out the door, or of modified for the case of monetization(Potentially rushed out the door as most of the DLC content (barring maybe the extended cut) really should have been within the game. Potentially monetization as this stuff may have been buildable before launch but was held back for DLC).

EA seems to have a habit of letting a new IP (for EA) take the time it needs, but as soon as they get a hint of high sales, they do everything they can to rush sequels out and/or monetize content. The mindset is probably that "well obviously if they paid this much for a game that took 3 years, they'll gladly buy this new one that came out only 1.5 years later, even if it's not quite finished, and then we can add in some microtransactions/expound on some content that's not ready yet due to rushed release as DLC to make even more money".

This is all speculation and opinion on my part, though, maybe this is actually not interference on EA's behalf, but the developers behind the games feeling that their products were finished, and the DLC was their plans. Who knows?

Slightly unrelated, but I'm real interested to see what happens to games (Retail and MMO) that have the Lockbox and key style microtransactions. (IE: ME3's multiplayer boxes that you get random rewards in, and EA has seemed to jump onto this style of microtransaction the quickest out of all publishers). These types of items were recently made illegal in Japan after examining them and realizing they're the same as actual gambling, along with Gacha arcade machines. I'd be glad to see these types of cash-for-chance-to-get-nothing-valuable items disappear. Not only in EA games, but in games like Star Trek Online and other MMOs. Similar legislation is being examined in the US and EU.

@RedRavN said:

@gogosox82: Well I thought DA2 was a good but flawed game personally. However, I think its clear why some people had serious reservations about it. For one, there was the lack of environments and huge amount of backtracking. The game would make you visit most locations like 2 or 3 times and run through the exact same level in reverse. DAO never had that despite being a longer game. Also, the combat was less strategic because of the lack of a tactical view and the fact that literally most every fights enemies would spawn in and swarm you from all directions. Tactical positioning played no part in DA2 on the higher difficulties and the game revolved around how fast you could dps down enemies before you ran out of stuns. Also, the story never really felt very interesting with a very one dimensional villian and the third act just got ridiculous. I dont want to spoil anything but the way the story was written was just awful for a lot of people. Lastly, the companions never felt as developed and fleshed out like in DAO where they actually went through major character development. The relationship stuff just felt thrown together. Also, not letting you equip armor on companions was a horrible idea.

So while I dont think that DA2 was an absolutely horrible game, it was a huge disappointment as a followup to DAO, which I hold in regard as one of the best and most epic rpgs ever made. Its pretty obvious that EA had an influence on the game's development if you watch the pre-release videos where they were hyping up all these changes that no one wanted.

As for EA in general it seems like every important IP that they aquire and any success they have they then piss away the original concept and what people were attracted to in the first place. They did it with mass effect, dragon age, and now dead space. One can't deny that the first games in each of those series are radically different than the games we got in the sequels. I think that a lot of people are not necessarily ok with those changes.

I would agree that DAO is a superior game without question but i liked DA 2. A lot of the reasons you mentioned are the reason why DAO is superior. But i did like some of the characters you had in DA 2 like Merrill and Varric but others i could do without like Carver (who was just an annoying twat the whole game), Anders ( who's brooding just got tiresome after a while). The only problem i had with the plot at the end that it doesn't seem to matter who you side with for the majority of the game, it plays out the same. The boss fight at the end is nothing short of totally ridiculous. The game is just much easier in general unlike DAO were it could be challenging on normal, you really have to play on hard to get a real challenge.

That is the funny thing about EA games. The first games in mass effect, dragon age, and dead space could all be one off games. The games that succeed them almost feel like different games.

@TheSouthernDandy said:

I agree with you for the most part. I've avoided jumping on the EA hate train, they've made a bunch of mistakes no doubt but over the past few years they tried to push out a bunch of new IP. Some worked, some failed. Even in the case of Dead Space, the first didn't do amazing but they doubled down on it to give us a sequel. I could be wrong but it seems like most people think they're worse then Activision, which I don't get at all. What has that company done other then run franchises into the ground? I think EA deserves some of the hate it gets but not all of it.

Activision is WAY worse than EA and anyone who doesnt agree is a blind troll

You know when Peter Moor was in charge, i was actually starting to like EA, but now with ME3, DS3, MOH, and BF3, it is so clear that EA is pushing their agenda in favour of making great videogames.

I don't understand why people dislike EA either. They Published Mirror's Edge, Crysis, Dead Space, Army of Two, Skate, Rock Band, many other good/great new IPs. I think that it's economically ignorant people that have this dislike of large corporations that don't like them. They see that EA sets trends with online passes, preorder bonuses, day one DLC, etc. What they don't realize is that these are pretty intuitive measures to keep the entry cost of video games down without really effecting quality. As someone that often buys new release games, online passes and preorder bonuses are rarely a problem for me. It's only people that buy used games (who the publishers aren't receiving money from anyway) that are losing out. The publishers/developers probably care little for these peoples experience with their product and they shouldn't. I don't personally see a problem with this as it keeps the cost of games down for those of us that buy new games. As far as day one DLC goes, I'm sure that there's a few anomalies out there, but I can't think of a game where not buying of day one DLC was really detrimental to the experience. ME3 is the best I can think of, but even if you didn't buy From Ashes you weren't really missing too much. Now microtransactions might be a different story since I stay far away from any game that relies on them, but the microtransactions in DS3 are totally unnecessary if you do a few side missions (which are often better than the main campaign).

I might be wrong, but I don't think people disliking EA has anything to do with them trying to do new IPs. From what I understand people hate EA because they buy already established IPs/companies and then go on to ruin them, which is a completely different issue.

I don't hate EA they have made many games that I truly enjoy, SSX & Most Wanted being the ones I am still currently go back to on a regular basis

But yeah, Of the games you mentioned I either did not like them or had no interest in them to begin with

The only real hatred I have of EA comes from their stupid Online Pass crap. While I don't hold trying to make money on used game sales against them, The part that really bugs me is that the Online Pass doesn't function like XBLA games. With an arcade game I can downnload it on my profile and it can be played by everyone on my console (me, my GF & my son) but with the Online Pass if they want to play online I have to keep buying extra passes since they only work for one account and won't apply to all users on a console. So when I buy a game brand new for $60 I have to pay an additional $20 just so they can play online (with full features) and that is just straight bullshit. So on that point yeah, Fuck EA in their greedy asses.

Other than that though yeah, no problems with EA.

Fuck EA. I buy FIFA and the occasional Need For Speed but fuck the suits in charge who push for shit that makes games worse.  
After what happened to Overstrike I don't think they are defendable.
   

Sometimes they put out good games. Sometimes they don't. I'll play the ones that are good and be happy and avoid the ones that aren't and not care. I have no reason to hate the company. They provide me with hundreds of hours of entertainment every year. They make video games and I like to play video games. Good enough for me.

@DefaultProphet said:

I just want to know at what specific point EA became more hated than Activision.

I'd say the breaking point was when they started labelling every studio out there Bioware.

@GoranP said:

• What do these games have in common? None of them made the money that EA wanted them to.

Source please.

EDIT: Also, I don't think EA would push for sequels of a game if they didn't think it would be profitable/if the first game wasn't profitable.

I think it's ridiculous to claim that just because the publisher didn't get as much money as they wanted the games didn't do well. EA doesn't rush to give unsuccessful games sequels (Mirror's Edge), releasing sequels for DS, DA etc. as they have show confidence in the franchise which I would assume is attained by sufficient sales more than anything.

Mirror's Edge wasn't successful, so there was no Mirror's Edge 2 two years later. DAO was successful, but didn't make as much money as EA wanted, so by attempting to widen the audience in DA2 they thought they could reach those higher numbers. This is what I'm seeing here, not that poor old EA tried something new by buying Mass Effect and it didn't pan out because we didn't buy it enough.

@DefaultProphet: I think it was right around the time DA 2 came out.

Dragon Age had been in development since Neverwinter Nights was released, EA had very little involvement beyond the marketing, which involved a lot of heavy metal music, violence and generally making the game look like a God of War clone. They had their grubby mits all over the second game though and look how that turned out.

You do have a point though, they did try to turn around their image and there was a short period where EA was legitimately trying to make better games, I remember Activision was being largely ignored for being the much worse company at the time too. Unfortunately, EA have gone right back to being toe-to-toe with Activision for being one of the worst publishers out there.

@Ares42 said:

@DefaultProphet said:

I just want to know at what specific point EA became more hated than Activision.

I'd say the breaking point was when they started labelling every studio out there Bioware.

@beeftothetaco said:

@DefaultProphet: I think it was right around the time DA 2 came out.

It was definitely before then.

@DefaultProphet: Hated ? sure. More hated than Activision.. I dunno, I'd say that's pretty recent. I remember the guys joking about how all the EA jokes in the Amped 3 QL would be Activision jokes "these days" and that was in 2010.

companies like EA are bad for videogames. producers who want to control artists so they can make more money from the art, and meanwhile taking away fro the artists vision and stifling the potential of the creation are villains. they are enemies of one of the most important and fulfilling parts of life itself. what they do is evil.

i think the way the franchises they have shadowed have been whittled away through recent years is all you need to grow a hate for the company.

unless youre someone who enjoys things like coca cola and mcdonalds, and the transformers movies, and adam sandler movies, and you buy games because they had badass wicked trailers with dubstep or rock music and an 'epic' catchphrase, i dont see how you could be a fan of anything EA has been doing lately.

i have decided to boycott them because of what theyve done to bioware, battlefield 3, and origin. but there is more, every time i read about them it seems theyre pulling some greasy move.

@WinterSnowblind: Still hillarious.

I'm fine with EA. Their EA Partners program was pretty dope. Without it we probably won't have Brutal Legend, Alice: Madness Returns, or Shadows of the Damned.

Don't forget Crysis, another game EA had to "mainstreamize". Also I'm still bummed The Saboteur didn't get the praised it deserved, I loved that game.

Mass Effect and Dragon Age were already in development before EA acquired BioWare. In fact, DA was stuck in limbo back in, at least, 2005. Mass Effect 2's main plot was altered on the request of EA. Mass Effect 3 was marketed as "the perfect point to start the series" despite being the conclusion of a trilogy. Dead Space 1 & 2 sold 2 million units each. They were successes. EA wants Dead Space 3 to sell 5 million, either out of unreasonable expectations or an inflated budget. When Brutal Legend got into EA's hands, the marketing actively tried to obscure the fact that the game is multiplayer-focused, with the single player Jack Black campaign only being an extended tutorial. Shadows of the Damned wasn't promoted at all.

And I have no idea how did you factor THQ into the mix. THQ didn't tank due to their failing IPs - they somewhat stupidly went all-in on the uDraw.

Well aside from Mirror's Edge, they seemed profitable enough to warrant sequels. If they didn't sell well enough (or believe the IP still had some value) I doubt EA will put more money into them.

I have nothing against EA. 
As a developer, maybe, but it's been almost a decade since I play an EA developed game, but the stuff they publish is fantastic. 

EA have done some good stuff but they have also done a lot of bad stuff to.

And those games were praised and sold well. Not cod numbers but only sports games can do that. Then they made bad sequels with shitty dlc. Just because they did good once doesn't exclude them from criticism

I can only do so much as one consumer. Purchased Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Mirror's Edge, Brutal Legend, Dead Space because they all seemed/were mostly great and I felt good about supporting them.

Haven't really messed with EA products outside of Mass Effect 3 in the past few years, don't like their direction and I try to put my money where my mouth is. Not necessarily a boycott, just something I keep in my head when weighing purchases. If they see a collective 'no thanks' regarding their early generation IP's, I won't lose sleep over it - there's always something else worth playing.