[=FM=1st Lt prey]

"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