Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Please Boycott EA games. The company needs to be put to re..

Last response: in Video Games
Share
January 18, 2005 12:24:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
industry EA needs to go down in flames.
I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
EA if anyone has one please add.


http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html

http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 12:24:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Mom" <momspamhjy6678@bjr.com> wrote:

>I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
>EA if anyone has one please add.

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/15120...
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=6016

EA's takeover bid has to be approved first, but I wouldn't be suprised if
it would be.
January 18, 2005 12:24:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Mom wrote:
> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
> industry EA needs to go down in flames.
> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
> EA if anyone has one please add.
>
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507
>
>

The French being French it is highly unlikely that the French Government
will allow the take over to take place.

That said - why is it a problem anyway?

--
Werewolf

Peace is Good.
Freedom is BETTER!
January 18, 2005 1:51:22 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.]
On 2005-01-17, Raymond Martineau <bk039@ncf.ca> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:24:22 GMT, "Mom" <momspamhjy6678@bjr.com> wrote:
>
>>I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
>>EA if anyone has one please add.
>
> http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/20/15120...
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=6016
>
> EA's takeover bid has to be approved first, but I wouldn't be suprised if
> it would be.

EA is the new SCO of gaming. Nothing to see here. Slashdot will
be posting anti-EA stories until all the wanna-be geeks working
at Best Buy find some other company to draw a bullseye on.
January 18, 2005 6:24:55 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> Mom wrote:
>> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and
>> the industry EA needs to go down in flames.
>> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover
>> bid by EA if anyone has one please add.
>>
>>
>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html
>>
>> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507
>>
>>
>
> The French being French it is highly unlikely that the French
> Government will allow the take over to take place.
>
> That said - why is it a problem anyway?
>

Because it seems with the larger and larger companies (and fewer small
gamemakers) you lose the nich games and quality goes out the door... more
than it already has if that's possible. If there's only one company
left... where else are you going to get your games from ;) . EA is already
on my 6 month list. I don't buy any EA games until 6 months after they
come out because you'll want the patches. Simcity 4 never had the bugs
ironed out, thank goodness for the fan base who did the fixes themselves.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 1:54:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Mom" wrote:

> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
> industry EA needs to go down in flames.

i'm with you
i'm very worried about ea becoming unhealthy big
i'm very worried about the ubisoft hostile takeover
i now see ea as a menace to pc games
and i completely agree with you that ea has to be stoped for the good of
pc games and pc gamers

i guess valve and steam wasn't already enough worries we now have ea too
not easy the life of pc gamers nowadays

--
post made in a steam-free computer
i said "NO" to valve and steam

please sign petition "Say NO! to Steam!" available at:
http://www.petitiononline.com/nosteam/petition.html
January 18, 2005 4:53:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Mom" <momspamhjy6678@bjr.com> wrote in message
news:a2WGd.104363$6l.29567@pd7tw2no...
> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
> industry EA needs to go down in flames.
> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
> EA if anyone has one please add.

A few thoughts I have on whats posted on the links below:

> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

The gist of the article: woman's husband has to work long hard hours for EA.

This was pretty thoroughly discussed here about a month or so ago. I think
the big thing here is that in any company the size of EA you are bound to
find one or two people who aren't happy with their lot in life. Since no
specific information or proof is offered and its an anonymous post (by the
EA employees spouse, not the employee himself) its hard to really tell if
what the woman in the article is saying is true or a gross exaggeration or
what.

For all we know, the husband could be working only 6 hours a day for EA and
then spends 5 or 6 hours each night with his mistress or out drinking or
playing games with his buddies and just tells his wife that he was working
late yet again... and then say that EA is just a bunch of cheap bastards
because there is no overtime or extra benefits on his paycheque for those
extra hours he "works" every day. No, thats probably not the case, but the
point is that without any proof or a complaint from the person themself its
really hard to for anybody to say whats true and whats not and for EA to
defend themselves against the accusations (since they don't know who the
"spouse" is they can't even verify if a real employee is involved here and
its not just some flake writing a fake article because they bought a game
and then found it $5 cheaper at Best Buy a week later and couldn't return it
to get the cheaper version)

What this is going to really boil down to is: If you don't like it then why
don't you quit and find something else to do or try another company? If the
article is true then you would think that with his finger in so many pies at
EA and so much responsibility and hard work he must have quite the
impressive resume/portfolio and should be able to go to another company.

But one would have to ask as well: If this is typical then why, with a
company the size of EA, is there only 1 complaint out there?

> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html

The gist of the article: EA signs exclusive deal with the NFL.

If your favorite NFL game was something not produced by EA then I could see
somebody being upset... but this is the real world here: companies have done
exclusive deals in the past and they will in the future.

Just sticking with the NFL: CBS and FOX have exclusive deals with the NFL
as far as broadcasting the games go... so if ESPN, ABC or NBC are your
favorite stations you are out of luck, you aren't going to see an AFC game
on ABC or NBC showing the NFC

This is just how licensing works... if somebody has the rights to something
its their perogative to sell it to somebody else for as much as they can get
for it... EA is as much "in the wrong" as the NFL is since it takes 2
parties to make a contract, and since the NFL is the one who decides "yes"
or "no" on exclusivity and its their right to, they can't be in the wrong.
That means that EA, who simply had enough money to pay for the rights isn't
wrong.

> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507

The gist of the article: EA CEO is #4 on list of "computer game industry
jerks" list

Citing this article as an example really ruins any credibility the previous
two articles had... the guy that wrote this article comes across as #1 on
the list of "biggest jerks writing articles about the game industry" and
sounds like a real crackpot.

Just looking at who else is on the list:

#1) George Broussard.
Reason on list: because he is taking forever to release "Duke Nukem
Forever".

Like thats *never* happened before in this industry.


#2) Derek Smart
Reason on list: Writer doesn't like his games and when Derek Smart was
posting on various usenet groups and internet message boards defending his
games against detractors he often got caught up in flame wars.

This just shows that anybody involved in a flame war usually ends up looking
bad... its not so bad when you are anonymous (like almost everybody on
usenet is) but when people can actually tie you to something or to a company
it can damage your rep in your field (not just game developers, but
everybody). Personally I never played his games, but I like the idea of a
game developer actually coming around and talking to the people who bought
and played their games and gathering input and opinions instead of a
marketing focus group or company playtesters.


#3) John Romero & Stevie Case
Reason on list: John Romero: Daikatana was a big budget game that flopped...
Romero looks like a game designer and didn't go with the more corporate
"suit" look.
Reason on list: Stevie Case: she is a good looking woman.

What can you say? So the poster has a fear of attractive women and presumes
that they get anywhere through sexual favors... and would have preferred
John Romero stuck to making Doom and Quake. I'm sure if he had done nothing
but Doom and Quake maybe we would be on Doom 6 and Quake 5 by now but he'd
probably still be on the list for something like "not branching out into
other aspects of gaming" or "flogging a dead horse over and over again"


So whats the moral of the story: Its bad to be big.

The goal of all companies is to expand and grow, and to produce profit that
will allow it to expand and grow even further. As people run around and
complain about these things happening they seem to lose sight of alot of
things that make up the big picture...

1) If every game company was just "4 or 5 good buddies who went to school
together" that would not equate to a better product on the market or more
games. Games would probably be fewer and far between and nowhere near as
polished as they are now.... and when it came to support you could forget
about it.

2) If every game company worked on a tight budget and barely realised a
profit then the whole industry would have pretty much collapsed on itself...
because every company would be subject to complete collapse if they put out
a bad game, or even a good game that wasn't a commercial success.

3) If every game company was just 4 or 5 people working away then life for
those designers would be tougher than whats portrayed in the EA Spouse
article - because they would have to work 20+ hours a day to meet any
deadlines. The game industry isn't like it was 20 years ago when 2 or 3
friends could crank out a game for the Commodore 64 or Apple II and make a
few bucks off it... gamers want cutting edge graphics, gameplay, story
lines, etc... something that just 3 or 4 people alone can't do in a
reasonable amount of time.

4) If every game company was just 4 or 5 people and still strived to come
out with games that were as quality as they are today then games would be
few and far between. If a game takes 100,000 "man hours" to design, develop
and test then a big company can assign 100 people "over the projects
lifetime" to work on the project and come out with a finished product in
under a year... if it was just 5 people working away then even putting in 20
hours a day it would take them 4 years to make a game.

5) By being big, companies are able to hire people to fill specific needs:
script writers, storyline developers, graphic designers, voice talent, etc.
This leads to a better and more polished product in the end.... look at
games from the 80s: sure we had fun playing games like Ultima 4/5,
Wasteland, the gold box D&D games... but you look at what they became when
the companies involved grew and got bigger and could afford better
designers, voice talent, script writers and better graphics designers:
Ultima 7/Ultima Online, Fallout 1 & 2, Baldur's Gate 1 & 2

In the end people may not agree with EA's policy of buying an exclusive deal
with the NFL or buying smaller companies to expand its holdings or bring
talented writers and developers into the company fold... but it is the
natural evolution of a game company, or any company for that matter, and
gone are the days when a game company was a bunch of computer geeks whose
"office" was in their parents' basement... big bucks are involved now in
this field, where a smash hit can lead to tens or hundreds of millions of
dollars in revenue and its every business' right to grow and expand.

Atleast thats my 2 cents...

Clint
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 11:04:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"difool" <john.difool@mail.telepac.pt> wrote in message
news:jmqpu0d1r9v3ftrcircenvke9ire4egj2s@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005, "Mom" wrote:
>
>> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
>> industry EA needs to go down in flames.
>
> i'm with you
> i'm very worried about ea becoming unhealthy big
> i'm very worried about the ubisoft hostile takeover
> i now see ea as a menace to pc games
> and i completely agree with you that ea has to be stoped for the good of
> pc games and pc gamers

EA Games - ruin everything.

A company run by accountants, not people who have any affection for games
(rather like the major record companies). I began a personal boycott not so
long ago. Every game they release is just eminently shruggable and is never
going to make me gasp - so I just don't buy. They even managed to ruin C&C.
Just say no, kids.
Anonymous
January 18, 2005 11:27:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Thanks for this thread. I'll have to buy double extras of all the EA
products I come across.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 5:25:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"Mom" <momspamhjy6678@bjr.com> once tried to test me with:

> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and
> the industry EA needs to go down in flames.
> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover
> bid by EA if anyone has one please add.

EA has been scum for a long time. I've already been boycotting them.

Well, except for Medal of Honor. But that game rocked.

As a rule, though, I rarely even look at EA's games. It's got to blow me
away to even consider it, and even then I think twice.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:59:44 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 03:24:55 GMT, Pete <pete@nowhere.com> wrote:

>
>> Mom wrote:
>>> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and
>>> the industry EA needs to go down in flames.
>>> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover
>>> bid by EA if anyone has one please add.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>>>
>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html
>>>
>>> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The French being French it is highly unlikely that the French
>> Government will allow the take over to take place.
>>
>> That said - why is it a problem anyway?
>>
>
>Because it seems with the larger and larger companies (and fewer small
>gamemakers) you lose the nich games and quality goes out the door... more
>than it already has if that's possible. If there's only one company
>left... where else are you going to get your games from ;) . EA is already
>on my 6 month list. I don't buy any EA games until 6 months after they
>come out because you'll want the patches.

Er... please name any significant recent PC game from any
developer/distributor that has not required patching....

> Simcity 4 never had the bugs
>ironed out, thank goodness for the fan base who did the fixes themselves.
>
>

Better postpone any purchase of Battlefield 2 then...........

or Crytek's ( Far Cry) next offering....

A very sound economical move, I may say, since not only will you
get the latest patch, but prices will have fallen significantly and
many user-reviews will guide you in your purchase-choices.

John Lewis
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 2:08:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Well I hate to see workers being taken advantage of. I will be boycotting
any future EA games. Not that it will be difficult as theyre all so rubbish
anyway.

--
Regards
Nats

"It's life, Jim, but not as we know it."

"Mom" <momspamhjy6678@bjr.com> wrote in message
news:a2WGd.104363$6l.29567@pd7tw2no...
> Please read all this. There is alot. For the good of all gamers and the
> industry EA needs to go down in flames.
> I could not find a good link to the recent Ubisoft hostile takeover bid by
> EA if anyone has one please add.
>
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/
>
> http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/041213/135991_1.html
>
> http://www.somethingawful.com/articles.php?a=1507
>
January 20, 2005 8:02:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in
news:41ee122d.47353751@news.verizon.net:

>>Because it seems with the larger and larger companies (and fewer small
>>gamemakers) you lose the nich games and quality goes out the door...
>>more than it already has if that's possible. If there's only one
>>company left... where else are you going to get your games from ;) .
>>EA is already on my 6 month list. I don't buy any EA games until 6
>>months after they come out because you'll want the patches.
>
> Er... please name any significant recent PC game from any
> developer/distributor that has not required patching....


Unfortunately there aren't any, just with them it's more of needing patches
as opposed to fixup patches, patches fixing major gameplay issues as
opposed to just cleanups. Sim City 4 had all this talk about it's new
traffic code and it was just as bad as the prior SimCity, it was the fan
base that actually fixed the code so highways where actually used etc.
It's still buggy but as soon as it's mostly working, it's onto the
expansion instead (where there's more money of course) with the remaining
problems never fixed.

> Better postpone any purchase of Battlefield 2 then...........
>
> or Crytek's ( Far Cry) next offering....
>
> A very sound economical move, I may say, since not only will you
> get the latest patch, but prices will have fallen significantly and
> many user-reviews will guide you in your purchase-choices.
>
> John Lewis

Yeah that to ;) . I never got anything without seeing reviews, unless it
was from really trusted makers (eg, the BalderGate series).

P.
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 3:30:40 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Pete wrote:
> john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in
> news:41ee122d.47353751@news.verizon.net:
>
>
>>>Because it seems with the larger and larger companies (and fewer small
>>>gamemakers) you lose the nich games and quality goes out the door...
>>>more than it already has if that's possible. If there's only one
>>>company left... where else are you going to get your games from ;) .
>>>EA is already on my 6 month list. I don't buy any EA games until 6
>>>months after they come out because you'll want the patches.
>>
>>Er... please name any significant recent PC game from any
>>developer/distributor that has not required patching....
>
>
>
> Unfortunately there aren't any, just with them it's more of needing patches
> as opposed to fixup patches, patches fixing major gameplay issues as
> opposed to just cleanups.

Can you explain this and how you come to this conclusion? Keeping in
minf that patches for anything can be applied using binary difference
files are often no different in size.
January 21, 2005 7:23:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.naval,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Walter Mitty <mitticus@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:cso4ov$9s$03$3@news.t-online.com:

> Pete wrote:
>> john.dsl@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in
>> news:41ee122d.47353751@news.verizon.net:
>>
>>
>>>>Because it seems with the larger and larger companies (and fewer
>>>>small gamemakers) you lose the nich games and quality goes out the
>>>>door... more than it already has if that's possible. If there's
>>>>only one company left... where else are you going to get your games
>>>>from ;) . EA is already on my 6 month list. I don't buy any EA games
>>>>until 6 months after they come out because you'll want the patches.
>>>
>>>Er... please name any significant recent PC game from any
>>>developer/distributor that has not required patching....
>>
>>
>>
>> Unfortunately there aren't any, just with them it's more of needing
>> patches as opposed to fixup patches, patches fixing major gameplay
>> issues as opposed to just cleanups.
>
> Can you explain this and how you come to this conclusion? Keeping in
> minf that patches for anything can be applied using binary difference
> files are often no different in size.
>

Eh?! Like I said, depending on whether it's fixing up major gameplay issues
or not. I don't need to compare patch sizes or such to find that out, I
get that with just the patch readme and playing the game. If the release
is so bad I end up putting it aside until it's fixed, I call that a needed
patch and inexcusable (imo). If it's just anoying but still perfectly
playable then it's a cleanup. I'm also more lenient with hardware issues
(as I know that's difficult to test with the unlimited number of different
hardware combos) than gameplay issues that should have been caught in beta.

There's stuff that fall inbetween and what is my limit for bugs is
different by others, but it's nothing to do with the patch size, number of
issues etc. as that is different between games and/or even game types.

P.
Anonymous
January 22, 2005 4:40:50 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>As a rule, though, I rarely even look at EA's games. It's got to blow me
>away to even consider it, and even then I think twice.
>

I think the last EA game I bought was "The Standing Stones" back in 1985...
!