Boycott Electronic Arts

[clanggedin]

I'll boycott EA until Marvel vs EA comes out on the XBOX2 or whatever the"secret Marvel title" is comes out.

[GGKoul]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/24/news_6117016.html

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Boy am I glad I don't like sports games!!     


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

But if it's any consolation to you shmokes, the activist in me just loves a boycott! I'm in!


mrC

[DYNAGOD]

and to add insult to injury they just pushed back battelfield:2 to
Q1 2006.. 
---daisies---!!

[GGKoul]

and to add insult to injury they just pushed back battelfield:2 to
Q1 2006..

[CCM]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/


According to this article Madden is under contract for the 2005-2006 season.  I'll bet he's gone after that. 

I, for one, will not be boycotting EA.  If they make a quality game that I like,  I'll buy it.  If they make an inferior game, I won't.   Simple as that...

[GGKoul]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/


According to this article Madden is under contract for the 2005-2006 season.

[shmokes]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/


According to this article Madden is under contract for the 2005-2006 season.  I'll bet he's gone after that. 

I, for one, will not be boycotting EA.  If they make a quality game that I like,  I'll buy it.  If they make an inferior game, I won't.   Simple as that...

You say, "Simple as that...," but that's not really true.  For example, if EA had your family murdered you would probably not buy EA games no matter how good they are.

My point is that it is possible for EA to do something that is not directly related to the quality of their games that still would inform and be relevant to your decision to buy their games (though smashing competition with a wallet rather than in the marketplace presumably does affect product quality).  Perhaps killing Visual Concepts does not appear on the list of things you care about, and that's fine, though short sighted, IMO.  But brushing it off with a, "I'll do business with somebody as long as they provide a product I want regardless of any other considerations..," is ridiculous.  Would that include buying merchandise from someone who obtained it by stealing it from a person they murdered?  Would it include eating at a restaurant that you knew had a policy of spitting in black people's food, simply because the food was excellent?

It's OKAY to allow ethics to play a role in guiding your purchasing decisions, in addition to desire.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It's OKAY to allow ethics to play a role in guiding your purchasing decisions, in addition to desire.

OMG! HTE LIBURUULLL!!!111   


mrC

[CCM]

http://money.cnn.com/2005/01/17/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/


According to this article Madden is under contract for the 2005-2006 season.  I'll bet he's gone after that. 

I, for one, will not be boycotting EA.  If they make a quality game that I like,  I'll buy it.  If they make an inferior game, I won't.   Simple as that...

You say, "Simple as that...," but that's not really true.  For example, if EA had your family murdered you would probably not buy EA games no matter how good they are.

My point is that it is possible for EA to do something that is not directly related to the quality of their games that still would inform and be relevant to your decision to buy their games (though smashing competition with a wallet rather than in the marketplace presumably does affect product quality).  Perhaps killing Visual Concepts does not appear on the list of things you care about, and that's fine, though short sighted, IMO.  But brushing it off with a, "I'll do business with somebody as long as they provide a product I want regardless of any other considerations..," is ridiculous.  Would that include buying merchandise from someone who obtained it by stealing it from a person they murdered?  Would it include eating at a restaurant that you knew had a policy of spitting in black people's food, simply because the food was excellent?

It's OKAY to allow ethics to play a role in guiding your purchasing decisions, in addition to desire.

You've got to be kidding me with your ridiculous analogies!!  EA didn't murder my family or murder anyone.  I think your are going a little overboard here, ok,  A LOT overboard.  This is business.   EA, who is bigger and has more money, won out over SEGA...  Life isn't a movie where the little guy always wins.  Who did EA kill?  Who did EA steal from??  Who did EA spit on???  EA made a business deal with the NFL and ESPN, period. 

Basically, you're saying that if I own a compnay and have the means to jump ahead of or significantly reduce the competition, thus strengthening my company, I shouldn't do it because it isn't very nice. 

If you do own a business I suspect it won't be around for long.

Visual Concepts isn't dead either, they were bought by Take-Two and will continue to develop games.   


http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2005/1/25-44

[CCM]

Here's another intersting read:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/01/20/news_6116704.html


Here's an excerpt from the above article:

Wedbush Morgan Securities analyst Michael Pachter reportedly said, "There's nothing illegal or unethical about what's EA's doing; it's just good business for them. They're making sure they have exclusive access to the best middleware out there and the best sports license out there...Microsoft did the same kind of things to improve its position." But Pachter sees the deal as one that demonstrates something else many are saying about the cash-rich publisher. "It's downright predatory," Pachter said, reflecting on the deal.

[DrewKaree]

It sounds as if you took those analogies and invested far more of yourself into them than is normal. 

He was using the ridiculousness of the analogy to point out the ridiculousness of your stance and its "and that's THAT!" tone.  I thought it was a rather simple analogy, and one that helped illustrate his point as it related to your stance.   It wasn't a "dude, what if they did THIS to you...huh, huh, huh?" analogy, rather one to demonstrate that your stance seemed to be absolute, when it is anything but.

And to think, I haven't played with consoles or purchased one of their games since 2002, and am part of this boycott by proxy 

[Dartful Dodger]

For example, if EA had your family murdered you would probably not buy EA games no matter how good they are.

Are you just talking about sports games, or all games?

Because I really want to buy Battlefield 2.


...sorry mom.

[CCM]

It sounds as if you took those analogies and invested far more of yourself into them than is normal. 

He was using the ridiculousness of the analogy to point out the ridiculousness of your stance and its "and that's THAT!" tone.  I thought it was a rather simple analogy, and one that helped illustrate his point as it related to your stance.   It wasn't a "dude, what if they did THIS to you...huh, huh, huh?" analogy, rather one to demonstrate that your stance seemed to be absolute, when it is anything but.

And to think, I haven't played with consoles or purchased one of their games since 2002, and am part of this boycott by proxy 

Actually, the analogies are ridiculous because they don't fit here.  EA  didn't break any laws, or spit on anyone's food and we don't work at Wal-Mart.  All EA did was make a good business deal for themselves, and as long as they still make a quality product, there is no reason for anyone to boycott them.   And as far as I'm concerned my stance is absolute as far as buying games from EA is concerned.  Equating buying a game from a company that made a good business deal to someone that murders my family or spits in my food, simply doesn't make sense.

[Luxury]

EA

[Ravant]

Personally, I've been boycotting EA as much as possible lately. They ruined the 007 Series, they practically destroyed Maxis... the only thing they HAVE done right so far is Command and Conquer: Generals. Even that left a little to be desired.

[SOAPboy]

ESPN NFL 2k was the superior football game of 2004.  What makes you think Madden 2007 is going to be the bee's knees when there is no longer another NFL game in town?  Visual Concepts had them beat, not only in presentation, but in the gameplay dept.  Visual Concepts was the number one reason that Madden's game would improve.  It's this sticky thing called competition.  Now there is none.  Do the math.

ESPN NFL was better then Madden in Overall Presentation and Graphics.  But in terms  of gameplay.  Madden won. 

Lies..

Madden 2005, you can STILL throw the ball, while running, on your off foot, and nail your receiver.. which is gay..

madden is nothing more than an arcade sim for football, while its "good" at that, espn had the overall package...  Better graphics, More realistic gameplay, Less button mashing, better presentation..

Button mashing in Madden?  Where?  If I were to remember correctly, ESPN has poor defence issues and recievers drop the ball like crazy.  More then usual?

I'll give you graphics and presentation, but Madden's game play is much better then ESPN. 

And I said this before EA merged with ESPN.  If they could combine the presentation and graphics of ESPN with the gameplay of Madden..  It'll be a game that no one would complain about.

Ok, you hike ball, said player to throw to is mapped to button A, you press A over and over and over.. nothing comes of it except your ball hits the receiver.. thus you mashed the buttons.. ESPN, you had 2 throw types, you COULDNT mash the button.. why? you pump faked..

Lies..

Madden 2005, you can STILL throw the ball, while running, on your off foot, and nail your receiver.. which is gay..

I suggest playing with a different quarterback than Brett Favre, then.

[GGKoul]

Ok, you hike ball, said player to throw to is mapped to button A, you press A over and over and over.. nothing comes of it except your ball hits the receiver.. thus you mashed the buttons.. ESPN, you had 2 throw types, you COULDNT mash the button.. why? you pump faked..

Turn on Quick Pass and it's a 2 button process.