What if KSP was sold to EA?

[Brabbit1987]

If EA were to buy out Squad I would keep a copy of whatever the latest build was that Squad put out. Apologize to my friends for recommending the game to them. Then probably b**** and moan on the forums till I was banned.

Making great games is a labor of love. EA loves money.

I try and steer clear of EA games because of the DRM BS, and alleged worker rights violations. Also any other company that thinks always connected DRM is the answer(acti-blizz).

I think Brabbit1987 works for EA or a PR firm hired by them.

ROFL =^.^;= ... nope. I may work in the game industry, but it isn't for EA. Actually it's a secret XD. Or well, I just rather not say just to be mysterious

[Sli]

Can we please burn this thread.

[Brabbit1987]

Because the company who insists on selling me a menu screen for 60$ deserves my money.

Menu screen? And as for $60 ... sorry .. that isn't just EA.

[Brabbit1987]

Can we please burn this thread.

Why? It's so popular =^.^=

[Oddible]

This is the dumbest and most ignorant thread. Sure, some of the EA product has been rolled out with pay as you go DLC, sure some has been rolled out half baked, and always online is crap, but EA rolls out a LOT of product each year and many... I repeat, MANY, of their franchises have NONE of what this thread is whining about. I'm no fan boy and certainly have had my issues with some of EA's handling of some of their product, but it is actually pretty small in comparison to what they release on a yearly basis.

Any thread with the letters "EA" in it always seems to be a magnet for a bunch of narrow-minded whining with no sense of the history of game production.

Remember when Steam used to be pilloried as the devil of DRM? Now everyone gets a hard-on every time someone mentions Gaben. Think Origin is bad? Try Ubiplay. Seriously, go find something better to do with your time until .21 is released.

[Brabbit1987]

This is the dumbest and most ignorant thread. Sure, some of the EA product has been rolled out with pay as you go DLC, sure some has been rolled out half baked, and always online is crap, but EA rolls out a LOT of product each year and many... I repeat, MANY, of their franchises have NONE of what this thread is whining about. I'm no fan boy and certainly have had my issues with some of EA's handling of some of their product, but it is actually pretty small in comparison to what they release on a yearly basis.

Any thread with the letters "EA" in it always seems to be a magnet for a bunch of narrow-minded whining with no sense of the history of game production.

Remember when Steam used to be pilloried as the devil of DRM? Now everyone gets a hard-on every time someone mentions Gaben. Think Origin is bad? Try Ubiplay. Seriously, go find something better to do with your time until .21 is released.

Someone with some sense .. yay!

[inkoil]

New Engine -- DLC

New Planet -- DLC

New Astronaut -- DLC

New Plane -- DLC

Limited Edition

Premium Edition

[Fractal_UK]

This is the dumbest and most ignorant thread. Sure, some of the EA product has been rolled out with pay as you go DLC, sure some has been rolled out half baked, and always online is crap, but EA rolls out a LOT of product each year and many... I repeat, MANY, of their franchises have NONE of what this thread is whining about. I'm no fan boy and certainly have had my issues with some of EA's handling of some of their product, but it is actually pretty small in comparison to what they release on a yearly basis.

Any thread with the letters "EA" in it always seems to be a magnet for a bunch of narrow-minded whining with no sense of the history of game production.

Remember when Steam used to be pilloried as the devil of DRM? Now everyone gets a hard-on every time someone mentions Gaben. Think Origin is bad? Try Ubiplay. Seriously, go find something better to do with your time until .21 is released.

With the greatest respect, I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Plenty of people in this thread have made very pertinent and specific criticisms of EA as a company, while your argument is what exactly? That because they are not subject to these flaws all of the time that is useless and ignorant to criticise them? Or likewise because certain other things are worse in certain respects?

If you want to argue successfully that this thread is a bunch of narrow-minded whining, you're going to have to demonstrate that the criticisms have been made are false (many of which are quite verifiable) or to name one other case where it's acceptable to sell a bad product because an alternative and non-equivalent product is quite good. Tell me, if you went to a DIY shop, would you be happy that you bought a useless hammer from them because the screwdrivers you bought from them were fantastic? Or would you, in fact, think that this was unnacceptable?

One of the greatest assets a company can have is brand value, something that many of the studios that were taken over by EA had in abundance, those studios had a reputation for excellence. Now they are part of EA they are associated with that company and are viewed accordingly. EA has generated a significant amount of consumer hatred of their brand and for that they can only blame themselves afterall, in many ways they were set up to succeed. When you acquire a major studio that has produced excellent forerunner games and decide to produce a successor, producing an average game that doesn't offend anyone is more than adequate, people will buy it due to it being a successor to a game they loved. Despite such a low bar for success, EA still managed to underperform and not only produce below-par successors but also generate backlash after backlash within sub-community after sub-community.

The company also has had plenty of opportunity to reach out to the gaming community and try and repair its image but it hasn't really made a great deal of effort to do so. If you feel, as a consumer that a business is making no effort to make their product appealing to you as consumer, why exactly should you feel bad about criticising them for it?

[Akhar]

Ooh, so THAT'S what happened to Ace of Spades. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

[Brabbit1987]

With the greatest respect, I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Plenty of people in this thread have made very pertinent and specific criticisms of EA as a company, while your argument is what exactly? That because they are not subject to these flaws all of the time that is useless and ignorant to criticise them? Or likewise because certain other things are worse in certain respects?

If you want to argue successfully that this thread is a bunch of narrow-minded whining, you're going to have to demonstrate that the criticisms have been made are false (many of which are quite verifiable) or to name one other case where it's acceptable to sell a bad product because an alternative and non-equivalent product is quite good. Tell me, if you went to a DIY shop, would you be happy that you bought a useless hammer from them because the screwdrivers you bought from them were fantastic? Or would you, in fact, think that this was unnacceptable?

One of the greatest assets a company can have is brand value, something that many of the studios that were taken over by EA had in abundance, those studios had a reputation for excellence. Now they are part of EA they are associated with that company and are viewed accordingly. EA has generated a significant amount of consumer hatred of their brand and for that they can only blame themselves afterall, in many ways they were set up to succeed. When you acquire a major studio that has produced excellent forerunner games and decide to produce a successor, producing an average game that doesn't offend anyone is more than adequate, people will buy it due to it being a successor to a game they loved. Despite such a low bar for success, EA still managed to underperform and not only produce below-par successors but also generate backlash after backlash within sub-community after sub-community.

The company also has had plenty of opportunity to reach out to the gaming community and try and repair its image but it hasn't really made a great deal of effort to do so. If you feel, as a consumer that a business is making no effort to make their product appealing to you as consumer, why exactly should you feel bad about criticising them for it?

Ya, you know because every company is required to make great games every single time or they suck as a company. Kinda funny how that works considering you can buy a music CD and only like 3 songs on it, but still love the artist.

EA has released some absolutely fantastic games, just because they also released some sub par games, doesn't make them a terrible company all of a sudden. How would you feel if everyone judged based on such a dumb standard? You do a few things wrong, and all of sudden you are the worst scum in the world and no one likes you.

Also, just because a company generates back lash doesn't mean that back lash is well founded. They get a lot of hate from people who do not even know what they are talking about. Then the moment anyone tries to explain things to someone who misunderstands, people like you comment, and go right back to hating because it's the popular thing to do.

I am sorry, but EA didn't kill your puppy. EA didn't pollute the world. EA doesn't make a habit out of making horrible games. They made few flops and tried afew things, and everyone is like pointing fingers and cursing at EA, like as if they just killed babies. They earned the title of worst company in america, for what reason do they deserve that title compared to other companies that destroy the environment or cause a lot of harm, or makes and sells weapons of destruction for war. I mean really, people need to grow up.

[Sir Nahme]

EA murdered my puppy by polluting my neighborhood with dead babies

or not. I just really find their games to be inferior, overpriced, and lacking in variety in terms of gameplay

[Brabbit1987]

EA murdered my puppy by polluting my neighborhood with dead babies

or not. I just really find their games to be inferior, overpriced, and lacking in variety in terms of gameplay

I don't understand this over priced excuse, are not just about all console games $60 when they first come out?

As for inferior games, I don't agree. I love their racing game franchises. I also have not played a game made by them that I can say I hated. So I really do not get where everyone gets this inferior games thing from. The only games i have not played are the most recent which are the ones people tend to hate, though I do have friends who thought Mass Effect 3 was perfectly fine, besides maybe the ending.

As for lacking in Variety? They have games in every single freaking genre. That does not sound lacking to me.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Fractal_UK]

Ya, you know because every company is required to make great games every single time or they suck as a company. Kinda funny how that works considering you can buy a music CD and only like 3 songs on it, but still love the artist.

Can you provide an example where anyone claimed that that was the case or are you just making up arguments because refuting the actual argument is too difficult?

EA has released some absolutely fantastic games, just because they also released some sub par games, doesn't make them a terrible company all of a sudden. How would you feel if everyone judged based on such a dumb standard? You do a few things wrong, and all of sudden you are the worst scum in the world and no one likes you.

EA has released some good games, though most of the games that EA has released and that I have enjoyed were released extremely shortly after the acquistion of a studio by EA, effectively permitting EA limited influence over them. That is the case for the overwhelming majority of EA games that I have enjoyed. Most of those games have then been followed up poorly once the studio did have full control of them. If you like the games that EA is producing at the moment, that's great but I and many others do not.

Also, just because a company generates back lash doesn't mean that back lash is well founded. They get a lot of hate from people who do not even know what they are talking about. Then the moment anyone tries to explain things to someone who misunderstands, people like you comment, and go right back to hating because it's the popular thing to do.

On many things, I would agree with you but products designed for entertainment are inherently a matter of opinion. If I think a game is terrible, you may not but both of our opinions on that matter are totally valid because we are probably judging the game by entirely different criteria. For the more substantitive criticisms, such as poor customer service, poor employment ethics, etc I'm yet to see a substantative reply refuting that criticism other than that other companies are worse. That doesn't make EA undeserving of criticism, it simply means other companies are deserving of criticism as well.

Are there companies that deserve criticism more than EA but are less widely hated? Probably but it's no surprise within the sector that they operate.

I am sorry, but EA didn't kill your puppy. EA didn't pollute the world. EA doesn't make a habit out of making horrible games. They made few flops and tried afew things, and everyone is like pointing fingers and cursing at EA, like as if they just killed babies. They earned the title of worst company in america, for what reason do they deserve that title compared to other companies that destroy the environment or cause a lot of harm, or makes and sells weapons of destruction for war. I mean really, people need to grow up.

Most of this comment is totally pointless, again, look in the mirror. You claim other people are being reactionary and post something like that?

[Oddible]

With the greatest respect, I think you need to take a look in the mirror. Plenty of people in this thread have made very pertinent and specific criticisms of EA as a company, while your argument is what exactly? That because they are not subject to these flaws all of the time that is useless and ignorant to criticise them? Or likewise because certain other things are worse in certain respects?

If you want to argue successfully that this thread is a bunch of narrow-minded whining, you're going to have to demonstrate that the criticisms have been made are false (many of which are quite verifiable) or to name one other case where it's acceptable to sell a bad product because an alternative and non-equivalent product is quite good. Tell me, if you went to a DIY shop, would you be happy that you bought a useless hammer from them because the screwdrivers you bought from them were fantastic? Or would you, in fact, think that this was unnacceptable?

One of the greatest assets a company can have is brand value, something that many of the studios that were taken over by EA had in abundance, those studios had a reputation for excellence. Now they are part of EA they are associated with that company and are viewed accordingly. EA has generated a significant amount of consumer hatred of their brand and for that they can only blame themselves afterall, in many ways they were set up to succeed. When you acquire a major studio that has produced excellent forerunner games and decide to produce a successor, producing an average game that doesn't offend anyone is more than adequate, people will buy it due to it being a successor to a game they loved. Despite such a low bar for success, EA still managed to underperform and not only produce below-par successors but also generate backlash after backlash within sub-community after sub-community.

The company also has had plenty of opportunity to reach out to the gaming community and try and repair its image but it hasn't really made a great deal of effort to do so. If you feel, as a consumer that a business is making no effort to make their product appealing to you as consumer, why exactly should you feel bad about criticising them for it?

The 3% of this thread that isn't OMG EA = SIMCITY aren't who I'm calling out, thought that was obvious.

EA has generated a significant amount of consumer hatred of their brand and for that they can only blame themselves afterall, in many ways they were set up to succeed.

And again, you're focusing on a VERY SMALL subset of the EA market and just the most vocal (who btw most of whome have purchased and will continue to purchase EA games). I'm not without my criticisms of EA, but every time EA is mentioned there is a lot of simple mindedness that follows.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Oddible

[Sir Nahme]

snip

and you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. That doesn't mean I have to agree or even care if you disagree with mine.

[Brabbit1987]

Can you provide an example where anyone claimed that that was the case or are you just making up arguments because refuting the actual argument is too difficult?

EA has released some good games, though most of the games that EA has released and that I have enjoyed were released extremely shortly after the acquistion of a studio by EA, effectively permitting EA limited influence over them. That is the case for the overwhelming majority of EA games that I have enjoyed. Most of those games have then been followed up poorly once the studio did have full control of them. If you like the games that EA is producing at the moment, that's great but I and many others do not.

On many things, I would agree with you but products designed for entertainment are inherently a matter of opinion. If I think a game is terrible, you may not but both of our opinions on that matter are totally valid because we are probably judging the game by entirely different criteria. For the more substantitive criticisms, such as poor customer service, poor employment ethics, etc I'm yet to see a substantative reply refuting that criticism other than that other companies are worse. That doesn't make EA undeserving of criticism, it simply means other companies are deserving of criticism as well.

Are there companies that deserve criticism more than EA but are less widely hated? Probably but it's no surprise within the sector that they operate.

Most of this comment is totally pointless, again, look in the mirror. You claim other people are being reactionary and post something like that?

Just so you know I post something like that because it's true. They earned the title of worst company in the US. Do you honestly think they deserve that?

I don't think the comment is pointless at all.

As for poor customer service and poor employment ethics. Customer service, never had to deal with personally, I can't imagine it's any worse than Nexon though. As for employment, I never heard anything remotely by anyone stating the company was bad to work for or they had bad employment ethics. Unless you want to point me to case of this being so on many occasions. I realize they buy out other companies, but what big company doesn't do that? I thought that was part of competition.

People may not like it, but it's a business. I think people are losing the concept of what a business is for.

You also say I have not many any points, but you have not either. You have stated your opinion, and we all know many people seem to think EA is the worst company ever, but really show me some proof behind all these claims besides you didn't like said game or said franchise. Show me something they do, that other big companies do not do.

Then also point out to me, why people even bother to deal with EA if they hate the company so much. The issue is people think their opinions justify hating on a company and posting hateful comments as if their opinion is the whole worlds opinions. Then people like me who do not agree have to deal with you all, just because you all have nothing better to do.

Edit: LOL, it reminds me of the whole hatred for Elder Scrolls Online. With every little info about the game, people hate on it and only hear what they want to hear.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Brabbit1987

[Levelord]

Ya, you know because every company is required to make great games every single time or they suck as a company. Kinda funny how that works considering you can buy a music CD and only like 3 songs on it, but still love the artist.

EA has released some absolutely fantastic games, just because they also released some sub par games, doesn't make them a terrible company all of a sudden. How would you feel if everyone judged based on such a dumb standard? You do a few things wrong, and all of sudden you are the worst scum in the world and no one likes you.

Also, just because a company generates back lash doesn't mean that back lash is well founded. They get a lot of hate from people who do not even know what they are talking about. Then the moment anyone tries to explain things to someone who misunderstands, people like you comment, and go right back to hating because it's the popular thing to do.

I am sorry, but EA didn't kill your puppy. EA didn't pollute the world. EA doesn't make a habit out of making horrible games. They made few flops and tried afew things, and everyone is like pointing fingers and cursing at EA, like as if they just killed babies. They earned the title of worst company in america, for what reason do they deserve that title compared to other companies that destroy the environment or cause a lot of harm, or makes and sells weapons of destruction for war. I mean really, people need to grow up.

Good morning, I went to sleep when the forum went into maintenance last night.

About the previous reply a few pages back, I don't understand why you'd think I'm biased after asking me to provide evidence for my views that EA is a company that mistreats their employees, but simply dismissing them without providing proof of your own other than saying 'I work in a vague part of the games industry and therefore my opinions have merit'.

I've personally cannot find articles that specifically speaks of EA's exemplary treatment of staff or the apparent stellar quality control of their games, so I only have the current articles of complaints, lawsuits and other things surrounding EA that provides evidence to the contrary.

EA isn't required to make fantastic games all the time, they only need to make half decent games half the time, which they can't even do on a basic level despite the multi-million dollar budgets at their disposal. To add insult to injury, they add other intrusive forms of DRM and microtransactions, that wouldn't even be required had the games they produced be any good in the first place. CD Projekt RED figured this out when they made The Witcher 2 and they are doing financially well enough to put up production for a third Witcher and a new title Cyberpunk 2077. EA would have been instantly redeemable if they decided to one day pick up on the work ethic of CD Projekt or even SQUAD, which sadly they don't.

[Brabbit1987]

Good morning, I went to sleep when the forum went into maintenance last night.

About the previous reply a few pages back, I don't understand why you'd think I'm biased after asking me to provide evidence for my views that EA is a company that mistreats their employees, but simply dismissing them without providing proof of your own other than saying 'I work in a vague part of the games industry and therefore my opinions have merit'.

I've personally cannot find articles that specifically speaks of EA's exemplary treatment of staff or the apparent stellar quality control of their games, so I only have the current articles of complaints, lawsuits and other things surrounding EA that provides evidence to the contrary.

EA isn't required to make fantastic games all the time, they only need to make half decent games half the time, which they can't even do on a basic level despite the multi-million dollar budgets at their disposal. To add insult to injury, they add other intrusive forms of DRM and microtransactions, that wouldn't even be required had the games they produced be any good in the first place. CD Projekt RED figured this out when they made The Witcher 2 and they are doing financially well enough to put up production for a third Witcher and a new title Cyberpunk 2077. EA would have been instantly redeemable if they decided to one day pick up on the work ethic of CD Projekt or even SQUAD, which sadly they don't.

You all must not be playing the same games I am playing that are made by EA. Either that or you all have some ridiculous standards.

[Brabbit1987]

and you are perfectly welcome to your opinion. That doesn't mean I have to agree or even care if you disagree with mine.

I agree with you because I feel exactly the same way. However, I am not the one who started this by making such a ridiculous thread. If people don't want to hear my opinion, simply do not post.

[pslytely psycho]

Wow, missed all of the EA bashing fun it appears.....now the thread has degenerated into a civil discussion of disparate opinions..

Oh well, Jeb, time to strap you to a cluster of boosters........

Jeb "I don't need no ASAS to stay on course!" did mention he thought it would be fun to ride an SRB around the EA boardroom however.....

Edited July 23, 2013 by pslytely psycho
Jeb, like always.....

[Fractal_UK]

The 3% of this thread that isn't OMG EA = SIMCITY aren't who I'm calling out, thought that was obvious.

And again, you're focusing on a VERY SMALL subset of the EA market and just the most vocal (who btw most of whome have purchased and will continue to purchase EA games). I'm not without my criticisms of EA, but every time EA is mentioned there is a lot of simple mindedness that follows.

I didn't even notice a large part of this thread was dedicated to discussion of Sim City. It is merely one of many examples, though Sim City is perhaps notable in much of the PR disaster being totally avoidable. I'm sure EA had plenty of server capacity to actually cover the regular operation of the game but not hiring extra to cover the demand on launch day brought the whole issue of the aggressive DRM to the forefront. Had they simply covered the initial demand at negligable extra cost compared to operating the DRM servers for a long period, the fact that the game was unplayable offline by itself probably wouldn't have had the ability to make headlines in quite the same way. Whenever a company makes negative headlines, consumers are likely to react to them less favourably.

It's tough to measure community reaction to EA though. Clearly the subset of the market that dislikes EA is large enough to ensure that EA "wins" several dubious internet honours, without knowing how many people would buy their games if they operated in a different manner though, it's difficult to quantify how much profit their perception is actually costing them.

As for employment, I never heard anything remotely by anyone stating the company was bad to work for or they had bad employment ethics. Unless you want to point me to case of this being so on many occasions. I realize they buy out other companies, but what big company doesn't do that? I thought that was part of competition.

There were instances of EA workers being expected to work 80-100 hour working weeks, which resulted in a large class action lawsuit against them. I do understand that this issue has been largely resolved in the wake of that lawsuit, though I have read several similar more recent criticisms with respect to smaller, more localised subsets of their workforce.

[Brabbit1987]

There were instances of EA workers being expected to work 80-100 hour working weeks, which resulted in a large class action lawsuit against them. I do understand that this issue has been largely resolved in the wake of that lawsuit, though I have read several similar more recent criticisms with respect to smaller, more localised subsets of their workforce.

Right, but the way you all have been making this out to be is as if this is a constantly thing that the company has always been involved in. I am not saying EA has not done bad things. What I am saying is, they do not deserve the amount of hate they get compared to other companies, which is simply true.

The only reason EA gets this much hate is because it's the popular thing to do. Sure they deserve criticism, but they don't deserve out right hatred.

[Levelord]

You all must not be playing the same games I am playing that are made by EA. Either that or you all have some ridiculous standards.

I've had my fair share of games from EA, mostly the Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 1 and 2, Dead Space, Red Alert 3, CnC Generals, CnC 4, CnC Tiberium Wars. But I saw the slow trend of their game quality falling below par based on what they previously were capable of doing in the 90's when I played their FIFA and Need For Speed series.

I've also played Simcity and the Sims before Maxis was bought under EA, but judging from the limitations of the newer games, they appear to be inferior products despite the updated graphics. For example, the plot of land used to build in Simcity is vastly smaller to what was provided in Simcity 2000 when the game was under Maxis, plus there is an online requirement for the game which EA lied about, saying that PC's could not handle the graphics load. Which for one, was an obvious lie anyone with basic knowledge of current gen PCs could see coming from a mile away.

But judging by the fact that we both bought and love KSP, our taste in games can't really be that far off.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Levelord

[Levelord]

whoops, double post

[Brabbit1987]

I've had my fair share of games from EA, mostly the Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age 1 and 2, Dead Space, Red Alert 3, CnC Generals, CnC 4, CnC Tiberium Wars. But I saw the slow trend of their game quality falling below par based on what they previously were capable of doing in the 90's when I played their FIFA and Need For Speed series.

I've also played Simcity and the Sims before Maxis was bought under EA, but judging from the limitations of the newer games, they appear to be inferior products despite the updated graphics. For example, the plot of land used to build in Simcity is vastly smaller to what was provided in Simcity 2000 when the game was under Maxis, plus there is an online requirement for the game which EA lied about, saying that PC's could not handle the graphics load. Which for one, was a lie anyone with basic knowledge of current gen PCs could see coming from a mile away.

Well to correct you, they didn't say it was the graphics load, it had something to do with the all sims in the city being able to be handled by 1 computer and it being linked with other users in the cities. Also their is no proof they lied. That is speculation. There was a person who was able to get sims working offline, but that doesn't mean every single function is actually working properly or as intended. While I agree the new simcity is a huge flop, I still don't think that justified people out right hating EA as they do. Sure disappointed to me is a more normal reaction, but hatred is just too far.

I have played a few of their recent games, and i can't say the quality really decreased any. To me it's equally comparable to anything I played in the past. Such as Need for Speed Hot Pursuit I enjoy just as much as their past games, but I am disappointed there was no multiplayer o.o. It most certainly wasn't a bad game though. I have not played Mass effect 3, but I absolutely loved 2. More so then the first.