1) The development of "sweetheart deals" between internet content providers and internet service providers (ala Netflix and Comcast) has put EA at a disadvantage. Games like Battlefield 4 require gobs of bandwith to be set aside so that clients can stream it. When the 25 year old clan boss loses his connection because the ISP is prioritizing some woman in Tuscan who wants to watch 7 hours of The Good Wife on Netflix, the clan boss's problem is now EA's problem.
2) EA's server and multiplayer technology has a reputation for being unreliable. Their marquee title on next gen, Battlefield 4, have suffered because of reliability problems and connection issues. When you are the biggest game publisher on the planet and you can't put down a reliable multiplayer game, something is very wrong.
3) O'Bannon v. NCAA is going to stick a fork in EA Sport's NCAA franchises. While O'Bannon may not win the case, the legal regime that enabled the games is probably going to get a lot more complicated and expensive, most likely prohibitively so. The NCAA already pulled its wavier to image and likeness rights from its annual player contract. Without those, the game can't get made in the way that people have come to expect.
4) EA's recent titles have not been without controversy. From DRM, to lack of offline play for games like Sim City, to the Sheppard ending, EA has been panned by fans and the press.
Frankly, I'm not surprised Sony turned down EA's streaming plan. Without Titanfall, the deal just isn't as good. It should be renamed, "play Titanfall and 8 other games for $5" deal.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
It's a complete joke to call EA the worst company in America. Compared to all the companies that hurt people all over the world. Companies like Monsanto are literally resposible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people...
EA CEO, John Riccitiello, who returned to EA in 2007 had laid out a new foundation for EA. EA would start making more innovative games and invest in new IPs instead of just living off boring sequels. That resulted in an astounding amount of new IPs being developed at the same time, which they sponsored. Many of them risky - Dantes Inferno, Hellgate London, Mirrors Edge, Left 4 Dead (Boxed Copies, Valve the digital distribution), Skate, Warhammer Online, Crysis, Boom Blox, Dead Space and More...
We're talking a lot of games. A lot of new IPs being extremely risky for EA, and most of these games were considered failures, either commercially or otherwise. Crysis later managed to recoup a lot of its losses thanks to a lifespan given its extremely high test bench potential as well as bundles with graphic cards manufactureres for years and years.
Warhammer Online and Hellgate London were risky endevours which held a lot of promise, but surely, backing on these two companies at the end of the day seemed like a bad idea. They could have made so much more money on just sticking to the IPs they knew.
Mirrors Edge later became a cult classic, but never took off, and Dead Space and Skate were succesful. Boom Blox (Steven Spielbergs game) didnt do bad either.
Point is.. People didn't really give a crap when John Rio' actually tried to turn EA into a company that stirred towards innovation and new games. There is a reason why EA and companies like it, bet on the safe bets. And sure enough that is why EA later returned to their old ways. Dragon Age 2 was really when you saw EA pushing out a game extremely aggressively. Much to Biowares frustration. 9 months of actual production time? They had over 3 times that for Dragon Age 1. It's a wonder that DA2 ended up as good as it did despite the circumstances they were put under.
I am not saying people have to love bad games just because they are new IPs, but people have a short memory and often lack the objective nuanced viewpoint. I am not saying I have it - I am not a developer, but I have worked long enough in a big financial company to know that companies are entities which only objective is profit and growth. Be it goodwill, goods, commons or other.
It's not good enough for EA to have 100£ Million Porift in 2014. No. If there is no growth, people in the company is not happy. I don't even think it's sheer greed as much as a social conditioning. Hook those investors at EA up to a MRI machine and you will see deeply concerns of anexiety. Their troubles are just not that of normal people. And if you are a normal person and don't understand why EA are squeezing the lemon so high on gamers with their DLC passes and semi-hostile anti-competitive, then just know that, for better or worse, it's a sickness. Some corporate shills are truly evil, but most of these guys really see themselves fighting for tooth and nail. they run around passive-aggressively feeling that Ubisoft and Activision are honking all of their profit. Business is booming, but it is also slowing killing us all.
Rarely, if ever, is the truth in the extreme. So often the truth is somewhere in the middle. EA is dualistic like so many other things in life. it's both a turd, but also a turd made of gold. Balance your hatred with your positive affirmations of the good games they at least have helped publish. And as dumb they can seem, often they surely have also put the stop clock on developers who couldn't get it together for whatever reasons, and shot down projects that were going nowhere. But you don't get to recognize any of this if you are stuck in the "EA is the worst company ever" sthick.
So best case scenario, they capture most of gamefly's (and other game rental distributors) new release market pretty much uncontested. Frankly, I thought amazon would've tried a similar service a long time ago, especially after they released their controller.
And we all know what some rabid fans will pay for early access, so a $5 trial fee at most isn't a big hurdle to overcome if it means getting their hands on a blockbuster that much faster--sure beats the lines at bestbuy on black friday.
The thing that I'm interested in is the 10% discount to purchase the game. It seems (unless I'm reading too much into this) they plan to eventually take the games available to you once subbed off the service as new games release. That means, potentially, that if you enjoy the game and want to continue playing it after the hype dies down and they take it off the service, you'll then need to purchase it.
Meaning you end up paying game price (discounted) + previous sub fee (if that was the reason you subbed) for the game. Now, if this is really how it ends up working, (I can't be assed to research it), by allowing people to play new games extensively before buying it, the model could come back to bite them, but they seem to be playing the long game. Which, I find myself rather impressed by in an era of poorly thought-out cash-grabs.
Interestingly I am not aware of an EA game I want to play. I did like the Sims but if I want to play that I have most of the Sims 2 and Sims 3 is pretty much exactly the same game
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I almost reported the OP for trolling. The title of this topic does too good of a job at evoking a heated debate.
To answer the OP, EA will find a way to make more money. The subscription sounds too good to be true because it is. They are already making $50 per month from people who buy their monthly game releases. Dropping the price won't attract ten times more customers, so there has to be some gimmick to this. Maybe the latest games won't be on the service for a year, or they will limit the titles available.
And as someone else pointed out, the trouble with these companies is too many shareholding suits and not enough game players. It's very clear that they don't care about customers or their own games, it's only cash that counts!
Yes, they are a company and have a need for profit (overheads, wages etc. etc.) but there is profit and then there's sucking people dry over a barrel.
And yes, they arn't the only one's at it, another good example is a bag of chips/crisps, you buy them, open them up and find half a bag.
That's what we buy now, half a game, you'll buy the rest later or starve!
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
EA is just a game shark and their main goal above all else is to maximize their profit.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft and just about any other large corporation is doing just that. Looking for ways to maximize their profit. If you were an EA exec you would be doing the same, I know I would.
Just because two companies have the same end goal (profits) doesn't mean they're going to achieve them the same way.
Take Valve, arguably the most well loved gaming company. Why? Their price models are fair, their quality is superb and their business sense (with Steam) is just obscenly high... and with their daily promotions and Summer Sale special, they've marketed Gabe Newell as a cross between Jesus and Santa Claus all at once.
Now take EA - their policy of chopping content for DLC, gauging their customers all the while producing content that's, at best, good but usually mediocre... all the while devouring quality content producing companies like Mythic and Bioware, gutting the core of what makes them good, and crapping all over their IP. Just watch this video - it's a bit dated (as this guy was fired), but it shows what EA is all about:
Is it any wonder why Valve is doing so well and EA stock value is about half of what it was 10 years ago?
Hey i got battlefield 3 for 5$ and battlefield 4 for 10$. You should definitely check Origin more often. That "On the house" program is sick sometimes, but yeah, you have to catch the moment.
All games that Steam puts on summer sale are single player games that are at least 2 years old and probably played by everybody and their dog.
Valve's own games are F2P and we all know how much people love F2P, with the exception of Counter-Strike, but its obvious, if they release CS as F2P, no gamer in his right mind would play it so that's that. I snatched few copies of Left4Dead 2 for free though, cool times.
The daily promotions include 99% of indy crap. I have no interest in playing low quality indy games regardless of their mechanics or whatever. What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
And yeah that CEO was fired for a reason. He tanked 2 of the most promising MMOs and ruined the image of EA, although what I'm seeing lately is that both software giants Microsoft and EA are becoming less about the business and more about the people or so it seems. Both companies changed their CEOs.
But tell me...how many own games have Valve published recently? What happened to half life episodes. What about half-life 3. Why is this great company NOT releasing any new product besides Dota 2 which still breathes LoL's dust? Yeah they tanked some 5 million into a tournament to raise awareness about their game but they are still behind LoL so, I would say this is a bit of a fail. Given that there are more MOBA players than there are MMO players they are surprisingly unable to get the lead in that segment. We have CS: Go but its a mere ant compared to franchises like call of duty of battlefield.
I almost reported the OP for trolling. The title of this topic does too good of a job at evoking a heated debate.
To answer the OP, EA will find a way to make more money. The subscription sounds too good to be true because it is. They are already making $50 per month from people who buy their monthly game releases. Dropping the price won't attract ten times more customers, so there has to be some gimmick to this. Maybe the latest games won't be on the service for a year, or they will limit the titles available.
No its a part of the deal between Microsoft and the largest game publishers. Why do you think Xbox One launched with so many integrated DRMs? It was all done to please the publishers. The community rioted, they changed course, I assume the deal remained due to close to 0 piracy in the new consoles.
EA is just a game shark and their main goal above all else is to maximize their profit.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft and just about any other large corporation is doing just that. Looking for ways to maximize their profit. If you were an EA exec you would be doing the same, I know I would.
Just because two companies have the same end goal (profits) doesn't mean they're going to achieve them the same way.
Take Valve, arguably the most well loved gaming company. Why? Their price models are fair, their quality is superb and their business sense (with Steam) is just obscenly high... and with their daily promotions and Summer Sale special, they've marketed Gabe Newell as a cross between Jesus and Santa Claus all at once.
Now take EA - their policy of chopping content for DLC, gauging their customers all the while producing content that's, at best, good but usually mediocre... all the while devouring quality content producing companies like Mythic and Bioware, gutting the core of what makes them good, and crapping all over their IP. Just watch this video - it's a bit dated (as this guy was fired), but it shows what EA is all about:
Is it any wonder why Valve is doing so well and EA stock value is about half of what it was 10 years ago?
Hey i got battlefield 3 for 5$ and battlefield 4 for 10$. You should definitely check Origin more often. That "On the house" program is sick sometimes, but yeah, you have to catch the moment.
All games that Steam puts on summer sale are single player games that are at least 2 years old and probably played by everybody and their dog.
Valve's own games are F2P and we all know how much people love F2P, with the exception of Counter-Strike, but its obvious, if they release CS as F2P, no gamer in his right mind would play it so that's that. I snatched few copies of Left4Dead 2 for free though, cool times.
The daily promotions include 99% of indy crap. I have no interest in playing low quality indy games regardless of their mechanics or whatever. What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
And yeah that CEO was fired for a reason. He tanked 2 of the most promising MMOs and ruined the image of EA, although what I'm seeing lately is that both software giants Microsoft and EA are becoming less about the business and more about the people or so it seems. Both companies changed their CEOs.
But tell me...how many own games have Valve published recently? What happened to half life episodes. What about half-life 3. Why is this great company NOT releasing any new product besides Dota 2 which still breathes LoL's dust? Yeah they tanked some 5 million into a tournament to raise awareness about their game but they are still behind LoL so, I would say this is a bit of a fail. Given that there are more MOBA players than there are MMO players they are surprisingly unable to get the lead in that segment. We have CS: Go but its a mere ant compared to franchises like call of duty of battlefield.
Where is your God now?
The reason why Steam is doing sooo much better than Orgin is two fold (neither is related to cost)
1. EA games are not that interesting
2. There are a ton of great games on steam
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
EA is just a game shark and their main goal above all else is to maximize their profit.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft and just about any other large corporation is doing just that. Looking for ways to maximize their profit. If you were an EA exec you would be doing the same, I know I would.
Just because two companies have the same end goal (profits) doesn't mean they're going to achieve them the same way.
Take Valve, arguably the most well loved gaming company. Why? Their price models are fair, their quality is superb and their business sense (with Steam) is just obscenly high... and with their daily promotions and Summer Sale special, they've marketed Gabe Newell as a cross between Jesus and Santa Claus all at once.
Now take EA - their policy of chopping content for DLC, gauging their customers all the while producing content that's, at best, good but usually mediocre... all the while devouring quality content producing companies like Mythic and Bioware, gutting the core of what makes them good, and crapping all over their IP. Just watch this video - it's a bit dated (as this guy was fired), but it shows what EA is all about:
Is it any wonder why Valve is doing so well and EA stock value is about half of what it was 10 years ago?
Hey i got battlefield 3 for 5$ and battlefield 4 for 10$. You should definitely check Origin more often. That "On the house" program is sick sometimes, but yeah, you have to catch the moment.
All games that Steam puts on summer sale are single player games that are at least 2 years old and probably played by everybody and their dog.
Valve's own games are F2P and we all know how much people love F2P, with the exception of Counter-Strike, but its obvious, if they release CS as F2P, no gamer in his right mind would play it so that's that. I snatched few copies of Left4Dead 2 for free though, cool times.
The daily promotions include 99% of indy crap. I have no interest in playing low quality indy games regardless of their mechanics or whatever. What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
And yeah that CEO was fired for a reason. He tanked 2 of the most promising MMOs and ruined the image of EA, although what I'm seeing lately is that both software giants Microsoft and EA are becoming less about the business and more about the people or so it seems. Both companies changed their CEOs.
But tell me...how many own games have Valve published recently? What happened to half life episodes. What about half-life 3. Why is this great company NOT releasing any new product besides Dota 2 which still breathes LoL's dust? Yeah they tanked some 5 million into a tournament to raise awareness about their game but they are still behind LoL so, I would say this is a bit of a fail. Given that there are more MOBA players than there are MMO players they are surprisingly unable to get the lead in that segment. We have CS: Go but its a mere ant compared to franchises like call of duty of battlefield.
Where is your God now?
The reason why Steam is doing sooo much better than Orgin is two fold (neither is related to cost)
1. EA games are not that interesting
2. There are a ton of great games on steam
How do we define "much better" or "more successful"? Is it by earnings or registered users or how? Because I'm not sure Valve is leading on earnings.
EA is just a game shark and their main goal above all else is to maximize their profit.
Facebook, Google, Microsoft and just about any other large corporation is doing just that. Looking for ways to maximize their profit. If you were an EA exec you would be doing the same, I know I would.
Just because two companies have the same end goal (profits) doesn't mean they're going to achieve them the same way.
Take Valve, arguably the most well loved gaming company. Why? Their price models are fair, their quality is superb and their business sense (with Steam) is just obscenly high... and with their daily promotions and Summer Sale special, they've marketed Gabe Newell as a cross between Jesus and Santa Claus all at once.
Now take EA - their policy of chopping content for DLC, gauging their customers all the while producing content that's, at best, good but usually mediocre... all the while devouring quality content producing companies like Mythic and Bioware, gutting the core of what makes them good, and crapping all over their IP. Just watch this video - it's a bit dated (as this guy was fired), but it shows what EA is all about:
Is it any wonder why Valve is doing so well and EA stock value is about half of what it was 10 years ago?
Hey i got battlefield 3 for 5$ and battlefield 4 for 10$. You should definitely check Origin more often. That "On the house" program is sick sometimes, but yeah, you have to catch the moment.
All games that Steam puts on summer sale are single player games that are at least 2 years old and probably played by everybody and their dog.
Valve's own games are F2P and we all know how much people love F2P, with the exception of Counter-Strike, but its obvious, if they release CS as F2P, no gamer in his right mind would play it so that's that. I snatched few copies of Left4Dead 2 for free though, cool times.
The daily promotions include 99% of indy crap. I have no interest in playing low quality indy games regardless of their mechanics or whatever. What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
And yeah that CEO was fired for a reason. He tanked 2 of the most promising MMOs and ruined the image of EA, although what I'm seeing lately is that both software giants Microsoft and EA are becoming less about the business and more about the people or so it seems. Both companies changed their CEOs.
But tell me...how many own games have Valve published recently? What happened to half life episodes. What about half-life 3. Why is this great company NOT releasing any new product besides Dota 2 which still breathes LoL's dust? Yeah they tanked some 5 million into a tournament to raise awareness about their game but they are still behind LoL so, I would say this is a bit of a fail. Given that there are more MOBA players than there are MMO players they are surprisingly unable to get the lead in that segment. We have CS: Go but its a mere ant compared to franchises like call of duty of battlefield.
Where is your God now?
The reason why Steam is doing sooo much better than Orgin is two fold (neither is related to cost)
1. EA games are not that interesting
2. There are a ton of great games on steam
How do we define "much better" or "more successful"? Is it by earnings or registered users or how? Because I'm not sure Valve is leading on earnings.
same way you say that 99% of the indie games are crap.
Dont ask me to be something you are not willing to be yourself
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So these guys, who were voted "the worst game company in #murica" 2 years in a row, are introducing something that I can't wait to check out. Here's the article for those of you interested: EA Will Let You Play Its Newest Games for $5 a Month on Xbox Onehttp://mashable.com/2014/07/29/ea-access/I kinda pitty the PS4 owners but oh well. Their choice I couldn't wait long enough for the upcoming dragon age but from the looks of it, I'll get to play it sooner yay !
feels like great value for my money. I'm all for it. Especially if there will be good games every year.
So these guys, who were voted "the worst game company in #murica" 2 years in a row, are introducing something that I can't wait to check out. Here's the article for those of you interested:
EA Will Let You Play Its Newest Games for $5 a Month on Xbox One
So EA rents select games under a subscription program and they become the best?
Bearing in mind you never actually own the games they allow access to, and I would guess that new releases would be withheld from the Vault service to promote such title's sales, I don't think it's as great a deal as it sounds unless you are a huge EA fan already.
Well they do (at least on PC through origin) offer that great game guarantee now as well, don't like it you can get a refund... Not a bad practice at all if you ask me. On the house is pretty cool as well. WHo doesn't like free games?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So EA rents select games under a subscription program and they become the best?
Bearing in mind you never actually own the games they allow access to, and I would guess that new releases would be withheld from the Vault service to promote such title's sales, I don't think it's as great a deal as it sounds unless you are a huge EA fan already.
Well they do (at least on PC through origin) offer that great game guarantee now as well, don't like it you can get a refund... Not a bad practice at all if you ask me. On the house is pretty cool as well. WHo doesn't like free games?
I think the number 1 issue for those who are not interested is that the games do not appeal to them.
If the games did appeal to them I am sure they would come up with the money to have bought them already
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think Nintendo is the greatest game company, they made video games mainstream with the first Mario and all their characters are considered Icons in the industry. Many people who play games now started gaming with either an NES or SNES, or N64. While other companies struggle in consoles like Sega and Atari, or compete against each other like Sony and MS, Nintendo just keeps trucking on because their games and characters are stamped into the hearts of every kid of every generation since the 80s to present. Metroid, Zelda and Mario will always keep bringing the fans back eventually.
What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
....And yet you said "call of duty & battlefield".
I'm at a loss for words here!
"Where is your God now?" ..He's LOLing!
I suppose you've never played either of those in multiplayer. Pirating much?
Hearing younger teenturds mic spamming and crying about hacking 90% of the time was enough to make me stop playing MP in those games. Also, they removed (at least in COD but a friend's BF3 was the same shit) chosing your own server and what not so it made it all even more boring since now you dont have servers requiring you to be good or else ban so most games are against shit players. I don't feel happier if I kick shit around in the street, same applies to the Internet.
Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.
Comments
Things aren't looking so well for EA.
1) The development of "sweetheart deals" between internet content providers and internet service providers (ala Netflix and Comcast) has put EA at a disadvantage. Games like Battlefield 4 require gobs of bandwith to be set aside so that clients can stream it. When the 25 year old clan boss loses his connection because the ISP is prioritizing some woman in Tuscan who wants to watch 7 hours of The Good Wife on Netflix, the clan boss's problem is now EA's problem.
2) EA's server and multiplayer technology has a reputation for being unreliable. Their marquee title on next gen, Battlefield 4, have suffered because of reliability problems and connection issues. When you are the biggest game publisher on the planet and you can't put down a reliable multiplayer game, something is very wrong.
3) O'Bannon v. NCAA is going to stick a fork in EA Sport's NCAA franchises. While O'Bannon may not win the case, the legal regime that enabled the games is probably going to get a lot more complicated and expensive, most likely prohibitively so. The NCAA already pulled its wavier to image and likeness rights from its annual player contract. Without those, the game can't get made in the way that people have come to expect.
4) EA's recent titles have not been without controversy. From DRM, to lack of offline play for games like Sim City, to the Sheppard ending, EA has been panned by fans and the press.
Frankly, I'm not surprised Sony turned down EA's streaming plan. Without Titanfall, the deal just isn't as good. It should be renamed, "play Titanfall and 8 other games for $5" deal.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
the thread title is inviting criticism by calling any game company "the greatest"
but otherwise sounds like a good service
EQ2 fan sites
It's a complete joke to call EA the worst company in America. Compared to all the companies that hurt people all over the world. Companies like Monsanto are literally resposible for the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent people...
EA CEO, John Riccitiello, who returned to EA in 2007 had laid out a new foundation for EA. EA would start making more innovative games and invest in new IPs instead of just living off boring sequels. That resulted in an astounding amount of new IPs being developed at the same time, which they sponsored. Many of them risky - Dantes Inferno, Hellgate London, Mirrors Edge, Left 4 Dead (Boxed Copies, Valve the digital distribution), Skate, Warhammer Online, Crysis, Boom Blox, Dead Space and More...
We're talking a lot of games. A lot of new IPs being extremely risky for EA, and most of these games were considered failures, either commercially or otherwise. Crysis later managed to recoup a lot of its losses thanks to a lifespan given its extremely high test bench potential as well as bundles with graphic cards manufactureres for years and years.
Warhammer Online and Hellgate London were risky endevours which held a lot of promise, but surely, backing on these two companies at the end of the day seemed like a bad idea. They could have made so much more money on just sticking to the IPs they knew.
Mirrors Edge later became a cult classic, but never took off, and Dead Space and Skate were succesful. Boom Blox (Steven Spielbergs game) didnt do bad either.
Point is.. People didn't really give a crap when John Rio' actually tried to turn EA into a company that stirred towards innovation and new games. There is a reason why EA and companies like it, bet on the safe bets. And sure enough that is why EA later returned to their old ways. Dragon Age 2 was really when you saw EA pushing out a game extremely aggressively. Much to Biowares frustration. 9 months of actual production time? They had over 3 times that for Dragon Age 1. It's a wonder that DA2 ended up as good as it did despite the circumstances they were put under.
I am not saying people have to love bad games just because they are new IPs, but people have a short memory and often lack the objective nuanced viewpoint. I am not saying I have it - I am not a developer, but I have worked long enough in a big financial company to know that companies are entities which only objective is profit and growth. Be it goodwill, goods, commons or other.
It's not good enough for EA to have 100£ Million Porift in 2014. No. If there is no growth, people in the company is not happy. I don't even think it's sheer greed as much as a social conditioning. Hook those investors at EA up to a MRI machine and you will see deeply concerns of anexiety. Their troubles are just not that of normal people. And if you are a normal person and don't understand why EA are squeezing the lemon so high on gamers with their DLC passes and semi-hostile anti-competitive, then just know that, for better or worse, it's a sickness. Some corporate shills are truly evil, but most of these guys really see themselves fighting for tooth and nail. they run around passive-aggressively feeling that Ubisoft and Activision are honking all of their profit. Business is booming, but it is also slowing killing us all.
Rarely, if ever, is the truth in the extreme. So often the truth is somewhere in the middle. EA is dualistic like so many other things in life. it's both a turd, but also a turd made of gold. Balance your hatred with your positive affirmations of the good games they at least have helped publish. And as dumb they can seem, often they surely have also put the stop clock on developers who couldn't get it together for whatever reasons, and shot down projects that were going nowhere. But you don't get to recognize any of this if you are stuck in the "EA is the worst company ever" sthick.
So best case scenario, they capture most of gamefly's (and other game rental distributors) new release market pretty much uncontested. Frankly, I thought amazon would've tried a similar service a long time ago, especially after they released their controller.
And we all know what some rabid fans will pay for early access, so a $5 trial fee at most isn't a big hurdle to overcome if it means getting their hands on a blockbuster that much faster--sure beats the lines at bestbuy on black friday.
The thing that I'm interested in is the 10% discount to purchase the game. It seems (unless I'm reading too much into this) they plan to eventually take the games available to you once subbed off the service as new games release. That means, potentially, that if you enjoy the game and want to continue playing it after the hype dies down and they take it off the service, you'll then need to purchase it.
Meaning you end up paying game price (discounted) + previous sub fee (if that was the reason you subbed) for the game. Now, if this is really how it ends up working, (I can't be assed to research it), by allowing people to play new games extensively before buying it, the model could come back to bite them, but they seem to be playing the long game. Which, I find myself rather impressed by in an era of poorly thought-out cash-grabs.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Um no. That title belongs to Nintendo.
I almost reported the OP for trolling. The title of this topic does too good of a job at evoking a heated debate.
To answer the OP, EA will find a way to make more money. The subscription sounds too good to be true because it is. They are already making $50 per month from people who buy their monthly game releases. Dropping the price won't attract ten times more customers, so there has to be some gimmick to this. Maybe the latest games won't be on the service for a year, or they will limit the titles available.
This guy sums up EA (& others) pretty well...
And as someone else pointed out, the trouble with these companies is too many shareholding suits and not enough game players. It's very clear that they don't care about customers or their own games, it's only cash that counts!
Yes, they are a company and have a need for profit (overheads, wages etc. etc.) but there is profit and then there's sucking people dry over a barrel.
And yes, they arn't the only one's at it, another good example is a bag of chips/crisps, you buy them, open them up and find half a bag.
That's what we buy now, half a game, you'll buy the rest later or starve!
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
Hey i got battlefield 3 for 5$ and battlefield 4 for 10$. You should definitely check Origin more often. That "On the house" program is sick sometimes, but yeah, you have to catch the moment.
All games that Steam puts on summer sale are single player games that are at least 2 years old and probably played by everybody and their dog.
Valve's own games are F2P and we all know how much people love F2P, with the exception of Counter-Strike, but its obvious, if they release CS as F2P, no gamer in his right mind would play it so that's that. I snatched few copies of Left4Dead 2 for free though, cool times.
The daily promotions include 99% of indy crap. I have no interest in playing low quality indy games regardless of their mechanics or whatever. What I want is a solid game with a good story that will keep me interested for hours on end.
And yeah that CEO was fired for a reason. He tanked 2 of the most promising MMOs and ruined the image of EA, although what I'm seeing lately is that both software giants Microsoft and EA are becoming less about the business and more about the people or so it seems. Both companies changed their CEOs.
But tell me...how many own games have Valve published recently? What happened to half life episodes. What about half-life 3. Why is this great company NOT releasing any new product besides Dota 2 which still breathes LoL's dust? Yeah they tanked some 5 million into a tournament to raise awareness about their game but they are still behind LoL so, I would say this is a bit of a fail. Given that there are more MOBA players than there are MMO players they are surprisingly unable to get the lead in that segment. We have CS: Go but its a mere ant compared to franchises like call of duty of battlefield.
Where is your God now?
No its a part of the deal between Microsoft and the largest game publishers. Why do you think Xbox One launched with so many integrated DRMs? It was all done to please the publishers. The community rioted, they changed course, I assume the deal remained due to close to 0 piracy in the new consoles.
....And yet you said "call of duty & battlefield".
I'm at a loss for words here!
"Where is your God now?" ..He's LOLing!
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
The reason why Steam is doing sooo much better than Orgin is two fold (neither is related to cost)
1. EA games are not that interesting
2. There are a ton of great games on steam
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I suppose you've never played either of those in multiplayer. Pirating much?
How do we define "much better" or "more successful"? Is it by earnings or registered users or how? Because I'm not sure Valve is leading on earnings.
same way you say that 99% of the indie games are crap.
Dont ask me to be something you are not willing to be yourself
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
feels like great value for my money. I'm all for it. Especially if there will be good games every year.
I took a look at Orgin and to be frank I didnt see any game I wanted to play
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well they do (at least on PC through origin) offer that great game guarantee now as well, don't like it you can get a refund... Not a bad practice at all if you ask me. On the house is pretty cool as well. WHo doesn't like free games?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think the number 1 issue for those who are not interested is that the games do not appeal to them.
If the games did appeal to them I am sure they would come up with the money to have bought them already
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Hearing younger teenturds mic spamming and crying about hacking 90% of the time was enough to make me stop playing MP in those games. Also, they removed (at least in COD but a friend's BF3 was the same shit) chosing your own server and what not so it made it all even more boring since now you dont have servers requiring you to be good or else ban so most games are against shit players. I don't feel happier if I kick shit around in the street, same applies to the Internet.
Boycotting EA. Why? They suck, even moreso since 2008.
this information came up very suddenly and not enough detail about it...
They are droping everyones jaws with this service only to rip it off their faces when they announce whats the catch in all of this.
The flames of hell will consume the world soon.... i need my popcorn!
2014. The year of the Eastern Europe indie game boom and financial trickery as 'innovation'.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me