EA hits on sales pretty much routinely. Its actually rare (Medal of Honor reboot is the prime example of not selling well) for them to not make sales goals. I'm not going to defend EA for the publishing techniques but their games sell, and sell well. As a minority group we'll tear them a new asshole every chance we get but sales speak for themselves.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Is EA becoming a publishing cancer?
- Thread starter DatDude
- Start date
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
They tried the new IP thing ONCE, and decided it didn't work.
What good is a new IP when it's just another mass market, focus tested AAA game that does nothing new from the 2 dozen other games coming out?
Unless by new IP you just mean Mirror's Edge like a lot of other people do. In which case I'd ask just how many years of goodwill does 1 game (that they won't make a sequel of because it bombed) buy?
Should have been 1st post
Swap Nintendo and Activision and I honestly think that would be a quite accurate list, in order, of the amount spent on money hats.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
EA games never get bad reviews nowadays.
Edit: Just noticed that was a aggrigated score in the pic.
TheVoidDragon
Member
Choices in past games didn't matter at all with several of them being pretty much retconned or ignoring your choice completely, a meaningless random number was given for completing quests (the whole Galaxy at War system was stupid and had no use at all), a terrible ending that even with the changes made with the DLC is not as good as it should of been (it is still a disappointing choice between 3 things), a complete lack of side quests compared to previous games - there were hardly any other than a few repetitive fetch quests with pretty much no interaction that give you a random number as a reward and little else. There were also several stupid plot points such as the purpose of the Reapers. I don't think it a good game.
EA games seem to be getting worse. The first game in a series they make is normally good, but after that they just take out things players liked, remove any sort of consistency or sense regarding plot and add in microtransactions and Day 1 DLC.
Chairman Yang
if he talks about books, you better damn well listen
Thank you. However, I asked CrunchinJelly for clarification because I think the whole "EA tried to be good in 2008 but they were punished financially!" narrative is nonsense, and I wanted to see if he had any compelling arguments to convince me otherwise.
Dead Space was successful enough to become a sizable franchise. Mirror's Edge is one game among many. I don't understand why people hail 2008 as some sort of massive strategic shift and creative golden age for EA, and I don't understand why people blame EA's current direction on Mirror's Edge financial failure.
Their business strategy to exploit IPs and get you to pay more than the $60 disc price is fucking tiresome for one. Their delusions of an ever-expanding audience is a sure recipie to dilute whatever good gaming the product in question has.
They were on to something a few years ago with new IP but the back end business has shitted that all up. No recent game has been as good as a predicessor for a couple years now.
They were on to something a few years ago with new IP but the back end business has shitted that all up. No recent game has been as good as a predicessor for a couple years now.
toddhunter
Member
EA goes in cycles. 2014 will be their "all our IPs are fucked lets make new ones" year. Then all will be good again until they run them into the ground too.
The list of things killed by EA is a lot longer than the OP. calling their game service "origin" is still one of the biggest dick moves of all time.
Glass Rebel
Member
New companies that support my platform of choice with games I enjoy make it more bearable but it's sad that not many have stepped up to fill the holes these three companies have left.
Just looking at what I have in front of me, EA has had a hand, who knows how small, in publishing new IP more recently with Bulletstorm, Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning, and EA Sports MMA. None of which sold particularly well.
I liked both Dragon Ages and all three Mass Effects. I don't see how you can use the term "dog shit" with any of those games, even if you might have been somewhat disappointed in them. Mass Effect 2 was the best of the series, imo, and I never understood the overreaction over the third game. I think your opinions might be a little extreme.
So, no, EA is not a cancer, it is just fun for some people to hate on them.
GiantBreadbug
Member
It really wasn't. It was poor in a great many ways, full of dull fetch quests instead of content, one dimensional combat and bad writing in a lot of other ways (Morinth: "I have to go now, my planet needs me").
TheUnsunghero26
Member
Keep in mind EA didn't publish the first Mass Effect, Microsoft did.
EA has always seemed like they focus test their games to a point where it just kills all creativity.
slowclap.gif
AHA-Lambda
Member
ummm...yeah and they have been for some time.
GAF <3
EA has a great portofolio of annual sportgames, that inflate their average score (fifa, maddan, tiger woods etc. are sure 8+ games).
Metroid In A Glass Tube
Banned
I think any oversaturation of a series sucks, this gen seems to be the worst in that regard. EA publishing it doesn't help the matter any.
Glass Rebel
Member
Yup
DerZuhälter
Member
Games journalism
I think it's valid to criticize EA for trying to plug the same formula into a number of their titles over last few years. I don't think it's served them well, and I think it's hurting products that otherwise might have stood out as unique (see FUSE).
But equating games like Mass Effect 3 to dog shit is the worst kind of hyperbole. If you want people to take you seriously, act like a human being.
But equating games like Mass Effect 3 to dog shit is the worst kind of hyperbole. If you want people to take you seriously, act like a human being.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
The only thing they have to do right is Mirror's Edge 2. Has to be.
Although I agree to a point about their new IP's. Like Army of Two (the first was average to good, but had potential; the second one was actually quite a detriment; and I don't even want to know how's the third going to be).
Although I agree to a point about their new IP's. Like Army of Two (the first was average to good, but had potential; the second one was actually quite a detriment; and I don't even want to know how's the third going to be).
CosmicQueso
Member
Calling something a cancer implies uncontrolled growth. Regardless of how tasteless the comparison of cancer is to a video game company, when you look at EA's financials, there's nothing uncontrolled growth about it.
&chco=0066FF%2CFF9900%2C990033&chds=-1666.6666666666667%2C5000%2C-1666.6666666666667%2C5000%2C-33.333333333333336%2C100&chxt=x%2Cy%2Cr&chxl=0%3A%7C2008%7C2009%7C2010%7C2011%7C2012%7C1%3A%7C-1667%7C0%7C1667%7C3333%7C5000%7C2%3A%7C-33%25%7C0%25%7C33%25%7C67%25%7C100%25&chd=t2%3A3665%2C4212%2C3654%2C3589%2C4143%7C-454%2C-1088%2C-677%2C-276%2C76%7C-12.387449%2C-25.830959%2C-18.527641%2C-7.6901646%2C1.8344195)
And I don't get the Activision hate either. They're pretty straight up about what you're getting when you buy one of their games and Skylanders was pretty damn innovative.
And I don't get the Activision hate either. They're pretty straight up about what you're getting when you buy one of their games and Skylanders was pretty damn innovative.
Gully State
Member
Become? EA has consistently been dropping a nice piece of turd on their developer's offerings for awhile now with only a slight break in 2007...As a publisher they really offer nothing that actually adds value to their product and in most cases devalue it.
Atrocious marketing campaigns
Horrible infrastructures tacked onto their games
Cash grab DLC's
The worst thing being that when that steaming pile of doo doo that they dropped on the game stinks too much to the point that consumers start to finally avoid it, instead of perhaps maybe not continually shitting on the game, they decide to put the developer and IP out to pasture and proceed to shit on the next big thing in their house.
Atrocious marketing campaigns
Horrible infrastructures tacked onto their games
Cash grab DLC's
The worst thing being that when that steaming pile of doo doo that they dropped on the game stinks too much to the point that consumers start to finally avoid it, instead of perhaps maybe not continually shitting on the game, they decide to put the developer and IP out to pasture and proceed to shit on the next big thing in their house.
Diddy Kong
Banned
EA is horse shit.
EA is complete and utter trash, but such is the law of average in any working field. You need good and bad publisher to compare them against each other. 
Making Mirror Edge and Dead Space doesn't buy them years of goodwill in my book. They are still as crappy as ever as a big AAA publisher. In fact, they are gradually becoming worse and worse given all the tactics they use to squeeze as much money out of their games. It's almost beyond desperation at this point.
Making Mirror Edge and Dead Space doesn't buy them years of goodwill in my book. They are still as crappy as ever as a big AAA publisher. In fact, they are gradually becoming worse and worse given all the tactics they use to squeeze as much money out of their games. It's almost beyond desperation at this point.
Pop-O-Matic
Banned
I imagine that it will be a huge bomb if EA decides to implement that idea where bullets are available through microtransactions.
Teletraan1
Banned
I thought ME3 was a decent enough game, the ending was complete shit but the rest of the game was no worse than ME2. The overarching narrative of the plot didn't make sense for how I played any of the series. You would think there would be a sense of urgency based on what was going on but I still took time to talk to everyone, do all the side missions etc. Perhaps people just rushed through it and got to the idiotic ending. I could see how that experience would be not as favorable.
I liked but didn't love DA:O. If they had built on the first game and made it more complex rather than a very shitty action game it could have been really special. They took a concept that was pretty unique in this day and age and turned it into the kind of soulless tripe that we get fed on a monthly basis.
Since I am not privy to the inner workings of EA as a publisher I have no idea how much of this was them vs how much of this was Bioware falling off a cliff. Looking at the new Sim City game I would have to think EA had at least a small hand in it. Taking games that have complex systems, dumbing them down and spoon feeding the casual masses 1 piece of DLC at a time seems like their modus operandi.
I liked but didn't love DA:O. If they had built on the first game and made it more complex rather than a very shitty action game it could have been really special. They took a concept that was pretty unique in this day and age and turned it into the kind of soulless tripe that we get fed on a monthly basis.
Since I am not privy to the inner workings of EA as a publisher I have no idea how much of this was them vs how much of this was Bioware falling off a cliff. Looking at the new Sim City game I would have to think EA had at least a small hand in it. Taking games that have complex systems, dumbing them down and spoon feeding the casual masses 1 piece of DLC at a time seems like their modus operandi.
ME2 did not lack story. It had lots of story, it just focused it's story in different ways than ME1. ME1 focused on introducing the player to the Mass Effect universe and worldbuilding, to the point that most squadmates acted as information booths on the subjects of Quarians, Krogan, biotics, etc. In ME2, the main story was mostly just a driving force for diving into the personal character stories of your squadmates and fleshing them out. You can argue which was better, but to say ME1 was more of an RPG than ME2 because it had story and ME2 did not, rings hallow.
I'd argue the character customization was stronger in ME2, due to the branching skill tree, which they expanded further upon in ME3. In ME3 especially, you can have some meaningful different builds depending on what you took in the skill trees within the same class. Each skill purchased in ME2 and ME3 makes a noticable difference. In ME1 there wasn't much variety in the different ways you could build a class, and skill increases were so finely incremental they were barely noticeable.
As for exploration I assume you're referring to the Mako. True, outside of the Firewalker DLC, they got rid of the planet roving. But frankly, that was weak exploration to begin with. Just Shepard rolling around an empty procedurally generated terrain in his mountain-climbing tank, going in a straight line from point A on him minimap to point B, with things to collect at those prepositioned points, but nothing to really discover. At least the skyboxes were pretty.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
GAF <3
Hahahaha, EA has some not 10/10 games, but i dont think id call them a publishing cancer.
GAF members can be melodramatic at times.
Did people skim over these two paragraphs or just ignore them.
WrenchNinja
Member
When people say that only the last five minutes were bad and the rest of the game was fine and great, I really start to wonder what game they played. Were both my copies of ME3 broken? Did I imagine all of the bad writing before hand? The reaper pacman? The side quests? Autodialogue? Random turrert sequences? The ME2 cast being completely sidelined? The janky animations, visuals and performance compared to ME2? The gross freemium model in the multiplayer mode?
I mean hey, I guess if you came to the game for decent third person shooting, I suppose I could understand that.
I mean hey, I guess if you came to the game for decent third person shooting, I suppose I could understand that.
You mean the free DLC that is available to all players so no one is ever locked behind a paywall?
Seriously, what's so gross about this? You don't have to pay a dime. You can get everything in the game by playing it, and doing so is no different from progression in any other FPS. And the people who do pay are funding the DLC for everyone.
ii Stryker
Banned
It's like they don't even try anymore.
innovation is out and aping mechanics of other franchises is the rule of the day and the bullshit excuse is we need new hardware to innovate...whatever
THB most all publishers are guilty of this shit.
Activision~the market leader of garbage. they have what, 1 IP that sells and then WoW
Ubisoft~Tom Clancy and AC anything new they try is mediocre at best and usually reserved for a Nintendo console(red steel zombiU)
EA~probably the one publisher of this group with the mos diverse library
and its more or less what killed THQ
innovation is out and aping mechanics of other franchises is the rule of the day and the bullshit excuse is we need new hardware to innovate...whatever
THB most all publishers are guilty of this shit.
Activision~the market leader of garbage. they have what, 1 IP that sells and then WoW
Ubisoft~Tom Clancy and AC anything new they try is mediocre at best and usually reserved for a Nintendo console(red steel zombiU)
EA~probably the one publisher of this group with the mos diverse library
and its more or less what killed THQ