Well there is no problem with offering DLC and whatever, but it is things like day 1 DLC that people don't like.

But I still don't think all of their games even had that, such as Battlefield 3, it was Origin that people didn't like which isn't a bad idea seeing as the success with Steam and all.

As an rpg Skyrim was terrible.
You cant steal and just beat things to death with a hammer? Well you can still finish the thives guild, no with no actuall stealing or stealth required. Essentials [censored] everywhere, replace what I said about the thives guild, to the mages where you just need to cast a basic spell on the floor. That [censored] facction even had a nice asspull at the end and was just a few dungeon crawls. Kill the emporer while fighting for the empire (what the [censored]!).

No, if they just adrvertised it as an action game, sure. But it was NOT an rpg.

Mass effect 2/3 were bad too. Not because of the ending, but like I felt all along (even though people said "wait until the ending) there are no choices. Only an illusion of choice, they had from the start (it was a trilogy from the get go) to plan this out, they still [censored] up. DA2 was recycled as [censored], had terrible companions and combat was button mashing. They still advertise their games as rpgs and thats why I can easily say they are bad games, because they arent rpgs. Some people hated alpha protocol, I loved it, but atleast it was an rpg. Thats mor than I can say for bethesda/bioware games.

Well I disagree. Yes it had admittedly weak factions, but I think it was still a great RPG.

Walmart and Target offer low prices and easy returns.

EA offers Origin and day 1 DLC.

Sure, they're only doing what people will pay for. But whereas supercenters utilize their economies of scale to make customers want to shop there and make profit that way, EA devises methods to extract as much money from the customer as possible because the customer has no other alternative if they want EA games.

It's called a free market. EA does what makes EA money. If they don't like it, they don't have to buy it. EA has never sent a masked man to my door with a pistol and instructions stating "Buy the latest Sims 3 DLC or Fido sleeps with the fishes."

You don't like it? Good for you. Don't buy it. Others don't mind. Let them buy it.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-posts-381-million-loss-6399243

So maybe people are getting fed up with it.

Either way, people [censored]ing on the internet will do nothing to help/hinder the situation. Vote with your wallet and what not...

I said as much, when I said they're only doing what people will pay for. Why so needlessly aggressive?

A customer must put up with EA's schemes if they want EA's games. There's no other way to get their games. And EA has a LOT of games. It's not really a free market.

It's not?

How so?

EA essentially has a monopoly over their games, because while a customer can purchase from different locations, they always have to go through EA's Origin and DLC schemes.

"Free market" doesn't mean a customer has a choice in purchasing or not purchasing. It means they have a choice in how and what they purchase. If there's no real alternative to an EA game (for example, if you want a football game and there's only Madden) or if there's no real choice in how that product is obtained (because it all comes back to Origin) it's not really a free market.

Taking Walmart for example again: you can purchase the same waffle iron at any other supermarket, or purchase one of a dozen alternative competing products. With EA games the choice isn't possible or doesn't matter.

This word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Nope, on Xbox and PS3, not a single scheme has to be dealt with.

Enlighten me. Or at least make an argument longer than a sentence.

You still have to go through them for DLC. And I swear someone made the comment somewhere that they still needed an Origin account for a console game.

In either case there is still a huge difference between what EA does and what Walmart does, which was my original point everyone seems to be forgetting.

No, for DLC you still go through Xbox Live, EA just gets the money, obviously. And Origin accounts are only needed if you want to see your Battlefield or Medal of Honor stats online.

I've bought and played SW:TOR and The Sims Medieval, and I don't recall ever having to go through Origin.

And if you're bugged by EA, there's a simple solution: buy non-EA games instead.

My point being, this isn't a valid solution if EA makes a game you want and there's no other game quite like it. There's not always a substitute like there is with waffle irons or anything else Walmart stocks.

Hmm? No you don't, you go through Microsoft or Sony and purchase it through Market or PSN respectively.

I should have worded it differently. You still have to put up with their DLC schemes. Cutting content for later sale, day 1 DLC, that sort of thing. I didn't mean you buy it directly from EA or through Origin.

So you're against EA controlling the content in the products they make and release? They don't have a monopoly on anything, I can go to Steam and buy a video game if I don't want to use Origin. Sure, they don't have EA games in Steam, but that's not exactly illegal, or else Apple would be in court fighting for the right to only sell Apple products in the Apple Store.

You still use an Origin Account, even on EA's console games, to use any of their online services and they push it on you like a [censored] too. It is always popping up telling you to DL origins and [censored] on a lot of their games.

Just sayin'.

This Atari is not the same Atari that existed previously. The old Atari literally died with the Jaguar with another company picking up the name and using it as a publisher.

It didn't do that for Battlefield 3. I didn't make an origin account until a few months after I had the game and that was to view my stats on the Battlelog thing.

But how is that wrong? I mean, I've only used the Origin account from Battlefield to check my stats online.

No. I never said that. I'm only saying it's true that they have exclusive control over their products.

Walmart and Target do not. Walmart and Target offer a service. They're a reseller. A customer can choose to purchase those same goods elsewhere, or purchase an alternative which accomplishes the same thing. With EA you can't. You want an EA game, you have to put up with EA's schemes. I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying that's how it is. That's the fundamental difference between Walmart, Target, and EA doing everything they can to maximize profits. Walmart and Target do it through offering a particular service. So does Steam, with a few exclusive games and the recent use of it as DLC as exceptions. EA does it through the exclusivity of their products.

I'm not trying to be anti-EA. I'm just pointing out the flaw in the "You don't like it, don't buy it" argument.

mo·nop·o·ly
Noun
The exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade in a commodity or service.


EA obviously doesn't have exclusive possession or control of the supply or trade of video games.

To say that EA has a "monopoly" on their games doesn't even take account of the definition of the word. You're just throwing it around because it sounds good.

Of course EA has complete control over their games. They don't sell Bethesda games, they sell EA games. If you want to play EA games, you have to do it by EA rules. If you don't like those rules, you don't play EA games. It's really that simple.