The Truth about EA games (from an ex employee)
 

"Most 'EA Games' [there aren't many real EA Games, they are all 3rd party developments and EA acts as a distributor only. At some point they buy the original developers out (especially if the game is a big hit) and continue developing it themselves, that's usually the point game starts to go downhill.]

For example, EA UK has only about 20 developers/ designers in their payroll, most games they 'develop' are done by teams of 2-4 guys who often have just about 2-3 months time to finish the product. They have a CCQ team that is supposed to do final test before the launch and if they feel the game is unplayable, it is supposed to go back to development.

So far not a single game has been delayed for that, they pretty much ask CCQ 'Does it burn down your computer?', if the answer is 'no' they launch the game. Also, CCQ tests ALL EA games for ALL platforms, they have only 2 technical testers and some 8-10 play testers, most times they have maybe a day or 2 to test the game by 1-4 testers and that's it.

The bottom line is simple: EA has no will to become game developers, they are a distribution company and that's what they want to stay. They buy out original developers at the point the game is so good that they don't really have to do but tweak the code. They are in business for money only, not like small companies that often develop more for the love of the game than financial reward.

In many ways they are like Microsoft, except I have to admit, MS at least has greater respect to their customers than EA has. Good sample about this is the way EA UK's software support works; try it out and you realise that it is not designed to give you support but to keep you far away from costly proper advice. When I was working for EA UK (about 3 years back), their 'Support' department had 6 people covering most of the Europe, all platforms and all games, hardly sufficient I would say.

What I do wonder is why they took their chances and tried to develop a new game from MOHAA, it is very unusual act from EA and a good sample why they should never do that. I have a feeling that somehow it just got out of their (EA project leads') hands and by the time they realised what had happened it was too late. Pity really.

In brief this is what happens:

1- A software house (2015) has an idea for a game and starts developing it.
2- It costs money, so they go to distributors looking for funds.
3- Distributor (EA) previews the game, sees the potential and makes a deal (e.g. we pay you the development + royalties for exchange of these terms...)
4- Software house makes a deal, it means they get to make the game and someone else markets it

Now comes EA 'specialty':

1- EA 'brands' the game and distributes it
2- Game sells in millions
3- Everyone knows it's a hit, worth of 2nd part
a) original developer does it --> good, quality stays high
b) original developer doesn't do/ want to do it
--> b1) EA buys all the rights to the game
----> b1a) EA hires another company to develop it (expensive)
----> b1b) EA decides to develop it themselves (cheap)
|
-> b1a) game is of good standard and gamers are happy
-> b1b) game stays pretty much as it was, just small additions and tweaks; reasonable solution
----> b1ba) for what ever reason, EA decides to create a new game; results can be seen in Spearhead"

This was from [WLA] Spade who has worked with EA in the past.

Explains alot about why EA dont support anti-cheat, because theres basically nothing to be gained by it financially.

p

Ooo! Thanks for that inside information Prey! evil:

Now, if i can have those blueprints to the EA offices, i'll be on my way.

P.S. Ewwwwwww!!! You worked for EA? oOo: oOo: oOo:

So all those games made by EA gor Commondore 64 and Snes and Megadrive werent really theirs??

You left out that part.

Ea used to be one of those small companies with the love and happiness etc: etc:

Then they grew bigger with the new consoles and they do create games themselves always have and always will but they prefer "franchises" a game that spawns countless others FIFA xxxx ,formula 1 games etc:

Now they do what FM prey said but they did make games and some damn good ones too.

But you cant blame EA for the way they are its really not their fault after all they dont buy the games.

Ps2 chart 4 EA games in top 10, 4 are pure shite
Gamecube 2 games in top 10 MOH Frontline and Bond Both pure shite (my opinion)
PC 5 games in top 10 4 crap 1 =MOH :)
X box 5 games in top 10 ,5 crap games.


Cant blame EA for that ,someone is buying those games and proving their is a market for it.
Also in those top tens i dont see any game that is original ,all sequels or ports from another system.

kdjac

[img]http://mohaa.cact-sd.org/aasigs/pirateflag2.jpg[/img]

*salutes*

I can well believe it!!!

I also notice we dont see much of C Shelton on the newsgroups anymore!

Geez I dunno, they certainly f**ked mohaa right up by keeping it in-house though!

In 100 years whos gonna care :)

Thier like dope dealers, they know we are coming back for the product.....regardless of its quality. After we buy some bunk we may not buy the next bag from them. But then they pop up with a new drug for our pleasure.........BF42......can you only imagine what the expansion pack will be like if EA produces it? Well the first sign of how bad it will be is....the Itailan Army....what Army? LOL!!!!

As for the EA sports franchise, the latest PCG said basically don't bother on the latest hockey game...why? Nothing new, and the AI is screwy.....sound familiar? But yes its all about money, the origional post wasn't hard to assume. But having it in print in such a way just adds to the conspirecy. It was the 2nd gunman in the grassy noll I swear it!!! Quack! oOo:

bhaaaaaaa great post , but it's 100% true? Who can be realy sure. eek:


My personal opignon about medal of honor is EA know most players don't buy it . Most around here are little kid who donwloaded it on the warez scene . pfffff and if they can hack for money , i think they can hack for win eek:


I think thats why EA don't support medal of honor . Most use warez version . I think i am the only one who bought it cool: .

Just check the credits to see that its true, anyway wtf would anyone want to lie about how a company operates!

EA are basically a money grabbing industrial monster, whatever it once was, its altered for the worst. You can see the remote management simple minded approach they take, when they even fail to include a fix for the key generation, one key to fit them all? fools.

I also paid money for the game, which is my only real regret, basically they knew the first moh game was such a huge hit, the second was `bound` to sell, so they didnt bother with it. Well I learned from this definately, I wont get caught twice.

if everyone pirates why did EA stay in top ten selling PC games for like 5 months? (if not longer)

heh..
Well duh..

Thats how all games are made..
Theres a development company
and there is a publishing company.
Thats how its always been done.
and always will be done.

I have tried pointing that out to many of the folks in the MOH comunity.
But there just to conserned on calling people noobs, and bitching about shotgun users and grenade lauchers..

Like you said.. who really cares in 100 years..
Fact is.. I dont care now.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":b843b]if everyone pirates why did EA stay in top ten selling PC games for like 5 months? (if not longer)[/quote:b843b]

I said everyone or most?

Yeah, you said everyone.

Damn EA. I know they got us AA, but i still hate them.

Money is always the bottom line Prey , no matter who , what , where or why.
angel:

[quote:8bb9a]2015 created MoHAA. EA bought out 2015. Most (if not all) 2015 staff did not join EA. EALA makes Spearhead. They use 2 maps for Spearhead that 2015 made, 3 user made maps, and 7 of their own. The two 2015 maps run flawlessly (good framerate, etc) as do the user created maps, same with all the old MP maps. The EALA maps are another story all together. Poor framerate on some (Holland, Ardennes), cartoonish graphics (ie. Holland) and full of bugs (ie. walking up stairs bug, crouch bug, etc). Nice graphics but poorly executed (coded).


My theory is that EALA were in over their heads. Sure they made some nice maps, but without the knowledge of the original 2015 team, they had problems optimizing the framerate for single player and the new MP maps. Not to say they didn't know what they were doing (new weapons and skins are great, same with new lighting scheme) but I think they didn't have the personnel to really make the maps as good as they could have been. Who knows, it could have been a time issue, pressure to get the expansion out before Christmas. Either way, if they had the original 2015 team making it, with their past experience they could have done it quicker and better, imo.[/quote:8bb9a]

I wrote this last month here. My opinions still stand. :)

sh is junk, after playing it for 20 minutes i got sick of its crappy fps and the silly way they just used old maps over again. 75% of the maps on sh are maps taken from usermades, renamed, added trees or some bs, and marketed as their own. pisses me off too that I actually paid $35 for that peice of crap they call an expansion. expansion my ass. the original concept for an expansion is that it expands the original game. this did nothing like that. they just hired some 2 bit coders and made a cheap copy of the original and much loved alliedassault. I mean just look at the quality on the bunked expansion. looks like one of those games you find at best buy for $5. graphically its ok, but playablity is shite. just a pos in my opinion. so much so that ive almost came to the point that i wanna uninstall the bastard.

Un autre missionaire de l'intéligence.

hmmm, i think I'll side with EA once again in the statement that "We have your money. We don't fuckin care what you think!"

hey I like the game, but I know EA doesnt give a damn. At least they are nice enough to bring out a patch for it. Alot of other companies wouldn't even bother.

[quote="CSF_Jaizen":4523f] At least they are nice enough to bring out a patch for it. Alot of other companies wouldn't even bother.[/quote:4523f]

Really ?? Well lets look at the best 3/4 top FPS games around : UT2003 / Half-Life / Quake 3 / MoHAA

Question 1:

Which game has had the least support from its developers ?

Question 2:

Which game has the source code not been released for ?

Question 3:

List all the patches produced for the games listed


Answer 1:

MoHAA

Answer 2:

MoHAA

Answer 3:

Half-Life - too many to count

Quake 3 - too many to count

UT 2003 - only 1 so far, but a second one on the way in the next week or 2(but the game has only been out a few weeks !!!!!)

MoHAA - 2 - and the benefits have been debatable - and in some cases would have been better not to instal the patch...


TBH i'm not Microsofts biggest fan - but when it comes to supporting their games they do the job 20 times better than EA. Time and time again its been proven that properly supporting your game goes a long way. You make more money on the game, and customers are more willing to purchase the next one, and the one after that....

I've returned Spearhead to the shop where I got it because it wasn't worth the money i paid for it.....I agree that EALA were probably thrown in at the deep end and i feel sorry for them cause they've taken a lot of flak for some things which they probably didn't have time to look into properly....

As for the SDK..well its the only thing keeping me (and my site) in this community. I'm hoping that EA have seen the light and are actually going to produce a good SDK this time around, with more than just an updated map editor in it. If not, I'll start looking for a game thats properly supported and go buy it with the money I got back from SH.....

EA is not the only company that does this. Sierra is another big one. They're just a name that carries other peoples work. It's not a big deal, it's how alot of games are distributed.

I read somewhere that something like 60-70% (forget the actual number) of EAs games are reissues of old games - expansion packs, new season of sports, etc. That is fairly significnt revenues off minor reworkings. Sounds rather smart businesswise to me. Unfortunately, it didnt produce the best spearhead for us. Just for comparison, Q3 just released yet another patch years after its release.