Authenticating when playing online isn't much of an issue because it at least helps prevent cheating and piracy however offline should be just that, offline.
Your opinion is completely valid, and I pretty much share it...But from a business' point of view, why should they not get that protection against piracy even if you are just going to play single player?
Additionally, at what price point, would consumers accept the comprimise of having to authenticate? $10 less than normal? $20? $30?
For example, suppose a company is able to save $X per copy by digital distribution AND also gain $Y (amortized per copy) in sales that would've otherwise been pirated. Would you (the gaming public) be then willing to be forced to authenticate if the game only cost $(normal price) -X -Y? How much lower would that need to be to hit a critial consumer mass, I wonder?
I can see where Steam is beneficial, but forgive me for being a little leary of a company that decides what constitutionally granted rights I can enjoy.
You mean like almost every MMOG out there? This is nothing new. You can go buy Asheron's Call, Everquest, whatever you want, stick in your computer and not be able to play it. Why? Because you need an account. (as an aside: due to this, the MMOGs have been extremely successful in limiting piracy (almost none).)
I really hate steam and the direction in which video game distribution is headed
You are solidly in the minority on this though. When polled, the vast majority of gamers say that they would rather download their games, and pay a little less, than get a boxed version, and pay a little more.
In fact, many people would rather download their games, even if they didn't have to pay a little less, just to skip a trip to the store. To those people, downloading + paying less is a double-win situation.
"I have met many people from the MIT's of the world, and they don't really impress me as better human beings than I've met elsewhere"
Who ever said they were supposed to be?
In some cases, they were complete asshats.
Well, there's a shocker!...a sub-group of a group of people were annoying.
everyone in highschool knows the next best secret to getting in MIT, besides being rich
Before, I was serious/joking...But at this point in your post, I realized you no longer had any clue what you were talking about and stopped reading...
What would eventually be greater for the world as a whole? The energy saved by not running the computers at all?...or the results gained by using them towards problems like protein folding?
But what do you mean by "abused"?? Do you think they're going to run other stuff on your computer or something? This isn't Spyware or anything, it's a screen saver sending data occasionally to a server at some university (or sometimes foundation/company).
And possible weaknesses?? You're not running a server, you're running a client. The possibility for: a) anyone caring enough to try to do something malicious with some small program that a small percentage of the public will run, b) there being a possibility with the fact that you are running a client that only occasionally connects to one dedicated server.
While a Java client could only help, and open source, sounds feasible, you can loosen the tinfoil hat a bit...:)
Clearly you didn't even LOOK at the URLs. Nothing to do with private corporations, everything to do with public non-profit charities + academia...like the National Foundation for Cancer Research. Yeah, I would feel real bad helping those guys!
Ok, now that we've finally found prime numbers so ridiculously large as to never have any practical purpose within any of our lifetimes, can we stop running the GIMPS screen saver, and move over all that computational power to something that might actually help mankind (within our lifetimes, even)?
No, not SETI@home (which is about as useful as GIMPS), can't folks please switch to something like the UD/NFCR "Screensaver Lifesaver" that processes some various highly computationally intensive biological problems (ligand fitting, etc.) related to a number of issues (these are directed at cancer research, specifically): - http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/curecancer.html - http://www2.nfcr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scre ensaver - http://www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I hear of all the people running GIMPS, SETI@home, etc. etc., I feel a tiny bit sad that maybe all those unused cycles could be used towards something more useful, but not as sexy...
I'm sorry, but your claims just demonstrate that you really really don't know what you are talking about.
But first: 1) I never said EA has anything to do with creating BF1942. 2) You are somewhat wrong with regards to C&C and Westwood. What happened was far different and more complicated than what you stated.
As for the things that you are wrong about: 1) SSX 1 was a MASSIVE success. It was a PS2 LAUNCH TITLE...and the best one by far, if not the only decent one. You must look at facts and historical accuracy rather than rumors and opinions. Just because you "really can't remember knowing anyone" doesn't make it so.
2) You're whole discussion of Maxis is just outright incorrect across the board. Maxis has been owned by EA for YEARS now, since even BEFORE The Sims came out. As for independence, it has NOT "retained a lot of it's independance". Recently, the Walnut Creek studios were shut down, and all employees (that were willing) were moved over to EAHQ at Redwood Shores. The exact opposite of what you claimed...
Sorry, I admire you taking the time out to reply, but really, you don't have a very good understanding it would seem of the facts and what actually occurred.
Folks are still not understanding that these are just a few examples I pulled out of the air. Hardly comprehensive. People are still making the same mistake of blaming EA when something's bad, and giving the development teams credit when something's good. It can't be both.
For example, C&C. C&C was starting downhill WHEN EA BOUGHT WESTWOOD. Unfortunately, EA was not able to turn WW around, and eventually it dissolved.
Then, all these other games...Burnout, yes, so they didn't get involved until after Burnout 2, but that shows good perception on their part to recognize the value of the line. Same with BF1942. And if you think EA will have nothing to do with BF2, you are sorely mistaken. (I'm trying to remember, but I think EA even owns a substantial interest in DICE now.)
FIFA -- again, just one of many examples. And yes, WE has made a significant cut into the market, but that is still only fairly recently (in the last couple years). FIFA went through MULTIPLE versions before anyone could even come close to touching it.
Finally, you even admit that NFS is a good and successful series, and as for SSX 1 not fairing so well -- well, I don't know what planet you are from, but it's not earth.
And again, these are *EXAMPLES*, not all there is...christ, there's also all the "Sims" titles, the versions of sports games that have actually been significant improvements and are pretty much unanimously praised (ie., Tiger Woods golf). And so on and so on....
Also, if a game outran it's worth in sequels, well, that's hardly a phenomenon restricted to EA in the games industry, and is also 10x worse in the film industry.
You are completely missing my point time and time again...
You can't make some statement like "oh, all EA games suck"...and then turn around and say "well, there were a couple good ones, but they were made by other people, all the bad ones were made by EA"...it just doesn't work that way.
Understand that EA OWNS Maxis, for example. And the OWN Tiburon in Orlando, and so on and so forth. So they decide "we're going to make a car game", they look at their various teams on hand, and assign it to a team (it's actually much EASIER than that, for various reasons).
Then it comes to people like you that say: "Oh well, that EA game sucked" BUT also "Oh that other game was good, but that wasn't made by EA". You just can't have it both ways. They are contradictory. If you believe those "good games" weren't really "made by EA", then you would have to accept the fact that a lot of what you would call "bad games" were ALSO not "made by EA", but that doesn't matter in the eys of people like you, and EA gets the blame.
Your logic just doesn't work. You're basically still saying: - If a game is good that was made by one of EA's studios...oh, well, in that case it wasn't really made by EA, so it doesn't count. - If a game is bad, well, that's surely EA's fault (and not one of EA's studios which you have to regard now as separate...and do you have any idea how many there are -- not even including private contractors??)
That's been one of points all along. People say "oh EA makes all these games that suck", most of which were either contracted out to independent studios, or were independent studio's pitches that EA bought.
And then everyone turns around and says again "oh, but these games were good and they weren't made by EA". Like C&C as you mention...
So which is it? Either you give EA credit for the games it has published (which you must at the very least from a publishing standpoint) and EA's games are bad or good or whatever....OR you attribute them to the various studios that have created some of them....in which case THOSE STUDIO'S games are bad or good or whatever.
In any case, simple point being: - People seem to like to blame EA when they publish a game that's bad, whether it was internally developed or "externally" developed. - Then people seem to want to give all the credit to the studios for the games that are "externally" developed that are good.
Simply put: if a game sucks, it's EA's fault. If a game is good, it's because of the studio. And that's just plain ridiculous...you can't have it both ways.
(BTW, I use "externally" in quotes, because EA has wisely acquisitioned over the years a terrific set of previously independent developer. So what's external-vs-internal is a very sticky matter.)
I continue to fail to see why you seem to want sometimes separate EA from various studios that it has bought, and at other times don't. You can't have it both ways. Either EA had some part in making them, or didn't.
#1 & 2, I actually agree with. But all the others are just you expressing your opinion of certain types of games. Just because you say something sucks, doesn't mean it actually does...lol. Especially to the hundreds of thousands of people that will disagree with you. You have to separate out your personal taste/opinion to even remotely try to talk about games in this manner.
For example, I don't like DDR. I think it's silly and stupid. HOWEVER, I respect that it is an enormously popular game which made a number of intersting design decisions, and the game industry as a whole acknowledges that and goes with it...
Do *I* want to play DDR? No. But do I realize that many other people out there with different tastes than me want to play it? Sure. The same is true of most of the titles above as well.
You don't like Burnout 3, because YOU don't like racing games, NOT because it's a bad game. And there IS a difference.
One last thing: #7, this goes back to my first comments above. You say "AGAIN" as if you had stated it previously with regards to any other specific products, but you haven't. And...
Never mind...I'm not going to bother. I just reread the part where you said "the best thing it has going for it is that it is customizable"...
Ah...so complete crap includes the Medal of Honor games? The Command & Conquer games? The SSX games? The FIFA games? The Need for Speed games? The Burnout games? The Battlefield 1942 games?
I'm having a difficult time spotting the crap amidst all these highly acclaimed titles. Perhaps you're looking at a different list than I?
BTW, Two Towers and Return of the King were both fine games that god pretty much solidly good reviews...Could they have been better with more time? Probably (true of pretty much every game). Does that mean they were bad as they shipped? Hardly.
Has EA made some games that I think sucked? Absolutely. Do they still? Absolutely (with any developer of that size there is BOUND to be something). But does that mean that they haven't made lots of great games? Well, if that were the case, they wouldn't still be in business, would they?
1) Right. So you made a claim, and I gave a counter-example, and you agree...? Besides, don't you think that if many game companies were allowed the same amount of time that Blizzard allows for their games that their games could be much better as well?
2) "shovelware"?...hm, out of curiousity what games do you consider shovelware?
Eh...probably. Given the expense of Maya + other software, it probably goes over 10 grand... Plus, you need an audio studio if you want to do anything decent with the audio. That's not cheap either.
In any case, yes, definitely a game startup is nothing compared to a manufacturing plant or mining operation.. Absolutely. But those examples are fairly at the far end of the spectrum in terms of infrastructure. Also, they generally have much stronger business plans, are far more stable, and have a great deal more financial backing than a brand new untested game studio.
I agreed with everything you said except: The infrastructure costs to get started are close to zero
Um, huh? Computers + very expensive software + networking/bandwidth/etc. + very expensive development hardware (for consoles) + need for increasingly more people per project to remain competitive...ehh...I'm not sure about your infrastrucutre costs claim.
They have multiple times released games at times other than near the holidays and have multiple times released games that had "graphics that are even slightly behind the state of the art" (Diablo 2 was 640x480)
In any case, with that aside, I completely agree this is a management problem. It's a scheduling problem, cut and dry...
1) RE: "programming sweat shop"....for the millionth time, this is NOT specific to EA. It's pandemic across the game industry. It's not even true of all of EA even!
2) RE: "lawsuits take a ton of monet from EA"....great, so they fire some programers or scrap a game. That sounds wonderful.
"divide it up between the people who worked under these conditions."...whom they will no longer be able to employee due to lack of funds?
omg, where to even begin with all the misconceptions and outright falsities.
1) They don't make only EA-Sports games. That's just flat out incorrect.
2) 9 out of 10 game are not even remotely "acquired via merger or buy outs"...that's so ridiculous I don't even know what to say. Do you understand the concept of developers and publishers?
3) They make a few more than 5 sports titles a year.
4) As for the last sentence, I'm not even going to bother. See #3.
Rather than replying to like 10 different posts shortly enough, I'll just write what I have to write pre-emptively..;)
There have been so many misconceptions flying around about all this for a few months now, that's it has gotten ridiculous. The things I wished people understood are:
a) This is NOT a problem specific to EA. It is a problem with many -- if not MOST -- game developers (in the U.S., especially). Game studios all over are plagued with these problems that everyone's been talking about. The IGDA has had a "Quality of Life" group for a while now, trying to work on these issues. So why does EA get mentioned the most? Simple, it's for the same reason that MS gets slammed the hardest when people talk about OS issues or software engineering hours, etc. etc... -- They're the biggest. By default, the biggest will always bear the brunt of the attack. The only reason this is an issue at all is BECAUSE it's pandemic of the game industry as a WHOLE.
2) These things aren't even true within all of EA! EA is a large company, and while there are some groups that have these problems, it's hardly all of them! That's just yet another misconception people have.
Personally, I am bothered by these issues, but because they are big problems facing the game industry as a whole, not just one company.
There's a decent short article about this in an old issue of Game Developers Magazine: https://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/store.php?item_i d=287&category=22&book=
Unfortantely, the article is not readily available on-line. However, if memory serves me, the article pretty much says that the choice of "addictive" is a bad choice of words. That other things that we describe positively don't necessarily have the same negative connotation associated with them.
Which makes sense. Why not use the word "appealling"(sp?) or "engaging" or any number of other adjectives... I hope in the future the "addictive-ness" of games is left aside for better terminology...
Slashdot Mirror
Authenticating when playing online isn't much of an issue because it at least helps prevent cheating and piracy however offline should be just that, offline.
Your opinion is completely valid, and I pretty much share it...But from a business' point of view, why should they not get that protection against piracy even if you are just going to play single player?
Additionally, at what price point, would consumers accept the comprimise of having to authenticate? $10 less than normal? $20? $30?
For example, suppose a company is able to save $X per copy by digital distribution AND also gain $Y (amortized per copy) in sales that would've otherwise been pirated. Would you (the gaming public) be then willing to be forced to authenticate if the game only cost $(normal price) -X -Y? How much lower would that need to be to hit a critial consumer mass, I wonder?
I can see where Steam is beneficial, but forgive me for being a little leary of a company that decides what constitutionally granted rights I can enjoy.
You mean like almost every MMOG out there? This is nothing new. You can go buy Asheron's Call, Everquest, whatever you want, stick in your computer and not be able to play it. Why? Because you need an account. (as an aside: due to this, the MMOGs have been extremely successful in limiting piracy (almost none).)
I really hate steam and the direction in which video game distribution is headed
You are solidly in the minority on this though. When polled, the vast majority of gamers say that they would rather download their games, and pay a little less, than get a boxed version, and pay a little more.
In fact, many people would rather download their games, even if they didn't have to pay a little less, just to skip a trip to the store. To those people, downloading + paying less is a double-win situation.
Once someone is accepted, their full financial need is met completely, and in a way that doesn't put them in debt up to their eyebrows.
;)
You were all most completely right in this post, except for the "debt up to their eyebrows" part...
"I have met many people from the MIT's of the world, and they don't really impress me as better human beings than I've met elsewhere"
Who ever said they were supposed to be?
In some cases, they were complete asshats.
Well, there's a shocker!...a sub-group of a group of people were annoying.
everyone in highschool knows the next best secret to getting in MIT, besides being rich
Before, I was serious/joking...But at this point in your post, I realized you no longer had any clue what you were talking about and stopped reading...
Well, valid question:
What would eventually be greater for the world as a whole? The energy saved by not running the computers at all?...or the results gained by using them towards problems like protein folding?
The call for a *nix client is valid.
:)
But what do you mean by "abused"?? Do you think they're going to run other stuff on your computer or something? This isn't Spyware or anything, it's a screen saver sending data occasionally to a server at some university (or sometimes foundation/company).
And possible weaknesses?? You're not running a server, you're running a client. The possibility for: a) anyone caring enough to try to do something malicious with some small program that a small percentage of the public will run, b) there being a possibility with the fact that you are running a client that only occasionally connects to one dedicated server.
While a Java client could only help, and open source, sounds feasible, you can loosen the tinfoil hat a bit...
Clearly you didn't even LOOK at the URLs. Nothing to do with private corporations, everything to do with public non-profit charities + academia...like the National Foundation for Cancer Research. Yeah, I would feel real bad helping those guys!
It's ok troll, try again.
"unused" even...yeah, I can spell.
Ok, now that we've finally found prime numbers so ridiculously large as to never have any practical purpose within any of our lifetimes, can we stop running the GIMPS screen saver, and move over all that computational power to something that might actually help mankind (within our lifetimes, even)?
e ensaver
No, not SETI@home (which is about as useful as GIMPS), can't folks please switch to something like the UD/NFCR "Screensaver Lifesaver" that processes some various highly computationally intensive biological problems (ligand fitting, etc.) related to a number of issues (these are directed at cancer research, specifically):
- http://www.chem.ox.ac.uk/curecancer.html
- http://www2.nfcr.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scr
- http://www.grid.org/download/gold/download.htm
I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I hear of all the people running GIMPS, SETI@home, etc. etc., I feel a tiny bit sad that maybe all those unused cycles could be used towards something more useful, but not as sexy...
I'm sorry, but your claims just demonstrate that you really really don't know what you are talking about.
But first:
1) I never said EA has anything to do with creating BF1942.
2) You are somewhat wrong with regards to C&C and Westwood. What happened was far different and more complicated than what you stated.
As for the things that you are wrong about:
1) SSX 1 was a MASSIVE success. It was a PS2 LAUNCH TITLE...and the best one by far, if not the only decent one. You must look at facts and historical accuracy rather than rumors and opinions. Just because you "really can't remember knowing anyone" doesn't make it so.
2) You're whole discussion of Maxis is just outright incorrect across the board. Maxis has been owned by EA for YEARS now, since even BEFORE The Sims came out. As for independence, it has NOT "retained a lot of it's independance". Recently, the Walnut Creek studios were shut down, and all employees (that were willing) were moved over to EAHQ at Redwood Shores. The exact opposite of what you claimed...
Sorry, I admire you taking the time out to reply, but really, you don't have a very good understanding it would seem of the facts and what actually occurred.
Folks are still not understanding that these are just a few examples I pulled out of the air. Hardly comprehensive. People are still making the same mistake of blaming EA when something's bad, and giving the development teams credit when something's good. It can't be both.
For example, C&C. C&C was starting downhill WHEN EA BOUGHT WESTWOOD. Unfortunately, EA was not able to turn WW around, and eventually it dissolved.
Then, all these other games...Burnout, yes, so they didn't get involved until after Burnout 2, but that shows good perception on their part to recognize the value of the line. Same with BF1942. And if you think EA will have nothing to do with BF2, you are sorely mistaken. (I'm trying to remember, but I think EA even owns a substantial interest in DICE now.)
FIFA -- again, just one of many examples. And yes, WE has made a significant cut into the market, but that is still only fairly recently (in the last couple years). FIFA went through MULTIPLE versions before anyone could even come close to touching it.
Finally, you even admit that NFS is a good and successful series, and as for SSX 1 not fairing so well -- well, I don't know what planet you are from, but it's not earth.
And again, these are *EXAMPLES*, not all there is...christ, there's also all the "Sims" titles, the versions of sports games that have actually been significant improvements and are pretty much unanimously praised (ie., Tiger Woods golf). And so on and so on....
Also, if a game outran it's worth in sequels, well, that's hardly a phenomenon restricted to EA in the games industry, and is also 10x worse in the film industry.
You are completely missing my point time and time again...
You can't make some statement like "oh, all EA games suck"...and then turn around and say "well, there were a couple good ones, but they were made by other people, all the bad ones were made by EA"...it just doesn't work that way.
Understand that EA OWNS Maxis, for example. And the OWN Tiburon in Orlando, and so on and so forth. So they decide "we're going to make a car game", they look at their various teams on hand, and assign it to a team (it's actually much EASIER than that, for various reasons).
Then it comes to people like you that say: "Oh well, that EA game sucked" BUT also "Oh that other game was good, but that wasn't made by EA". You just can't have it both ways. They are contradictory. If you believe those "good games" weren't really "made by EA", then you would have to accept the fact that a lot of what you would call "bad games" were ALSO not "made by EA", but that doesn't matter in the eys of people like you, and EA gets the blame.
Your logic just doesn't work. You're basically still saying:
- If a game is good that was made by one of EA's studios...oh, well, in that case it wasn't really made by EA, so it doesn't count.
- If a game is bad, well, that's surely EA's fault (and not one of EA's studios which you have to regard now as separate...and do you have any idea how many there are -- not even including private contractors??)
That's been one of points all along. People say "oh EA makes all these games that suck", most of which were either contracted out to independent studios, or were independent studio's pitches that EA bought.
And then everyone turns around and says again "oh, but these games were good and they weren't made by EA". Like C&C as you mention...
So which is it? Either you give EA credit for the games it has published (which you must at the very least from a publishing standpoint) and EA's games are bad or good or whatever....OR you attribute them to the various studios that have created some of them....in which case THOSE STUDIO'S games are bad or good or whatever.
In any case, simple point being:
- People seem to like to blame EA when they publish a game that's bad, whether it was internally developed or "externally" developed.
- Then people seem to want to give all the credit to the studios for the games that are "externally" developed that are good.
Simply put: if a game sucks, it's EA's fault. If a game is good, it's because of the studio. And that's just plain ridiculous...you can't have it both ways.
(BTW, I use "externally" in quotes, because EA has wisely acquisitioned over the years a terrific set of previously independent developer. So what's external-vs-internal is a very sticky matter.)
I continue to fail to see why you seem to want sometimes separate EA from various studios that it has bought, and at other times don't. You can't have it both ways. Either EA had some part in making them, or didn't.
#1 & 2, I actually agree with.
But all the others are just you expressing your opinion of certain types of games. Just because you say something sucks, doesn't mean it actually does...lol. Especially to the hundreds of thousands of people that will disagree with you. You have to separate out your personal taste/opinion to even remotely try to talk about games in this manner.
For example, I don't like DDR. I think it's silly and stupid. HOWEVER, I respect that it is an enormously popular game which made a number of intersting design decisions, and the game industry as a whole acknowledges that and goes with it...
Do *I* want to play DDR? No. But do I realize that many other people out there with different tastes than me want to play it? Sure. The same is true of most of the titles above as well.
You don't like Burnout 3, because YOU don't like racing games, NOT because it's a bad game. And there IS a difference.
One last thing: #7, this goes back to my first comments above. You say "AGAIN" as if you had stated it previously with regards to any other specific products, but you haven't. And...
Never mind...I'm not going to bother. I just reread the part where you said "the best thing it has going for it is that it is customizable"...
If you think that, nothing more to be said.
Ah...so complete crap includes the Medal of Honor games? The Command & Conquer games? The SSX games? The FIFA games? The Need for Speed games? The Burnout games? The Battlefield 1942 games?
I'm having a difficult time spotting the crap amidst all these highly acclaimed titles. Perhaps you're looking at a different list than I?
BTW, Two Towers and Return of the King were both fine games that god pretty much solidly good reviews...Could they have been better with more time? Probably (true of pretty much every game). Does that mean they were bad as they shipped? Hardly.
Has EA made some games that I think sucked? Absolutely. Do they still? Absolutely (with any developer of that size there is BOUND to be something). But does that mean that they haven't made lots of great games? Well, if that were the case, they wouldn't still be in business, would they?
1) Right. So you made a claim, and I gave a counter-example, and you agree...? Besides, don't you think that if many game companies were allowed the same amount of time that Blizzard allows for their games that their games could be much better as well?
2) "shovelware"?...hm, out of curiousity what games do you consider shovelware?
Eh...probably. Given the expense of Maya + other software, it probably goes over 10 grand... Plus, you need an audio studio if you want to do anything decent with the audio. That's not cheap either.
In any case, yes, definitely a game startup is nothing compared to a manufacturing plant or mining operation.. Absolutely. But those examples are fairly at the far end of the spectrum in terms of infrastructure. Also, they generally have much stronger business plans, are far more stable, and have a great deal more financial backing than a brand new untested game studio.
The Sims, the best-selling game ever, is "complete crap"?
I agreed with everything you said except:
The infrastructure costs to get started are close to zero
Um, huh? Computers + very expensive software + networking/bandwidth/etc. + very expensive development hardware (for consoles) + need for increasingly more people per project to remain competitive...ehh...I'm not sure about your infrastrucutre costs claim.
One example going against your theory: Blizzard.
They have multiple times released games at times other than near the holidays and have multiple times released games that had "graphics that are even slightly behind the state of the art" (Diablo 2 was 640x480)
In any case, with that aside, I completely agree this is a management problem. It's a scheduling problem, cut and dry...
1) RE: "programming sweat shop"....for the millionth time, this is NOT specific to EA. It's pandemic across the game industry. It's not even true of all of EA even!
...whom they will no longer be able to employee due to lack of funds?
2) RE: "lawsuits take a ton of monet from EA"....great, so they fire some programers or scrap a game. That sounds wonderful.
"divide it up between the people who worked under these conditions."
omg, where to even begin with all the misconceptions and outright falsities.
1) They don't make only EA-Sports games. That's just flat out incorrect.
2) 9 out of 10 game are not even remotely "acquired via merger or buy outs"...that's so ridiculous I don't even know what to say. Do you understand the concept of developers and publishers?
3) They make a few more than 5 sports titles a year.
4) As for the last sentence, I'm not even going to bother. See #3.
Rather than replying to like 10 different posts shortly enough, I'll just write what I have to write pre-emptively.. ;)
There have been so many misconceptions flying around about all this for a few months now, that's it has gotten ridiculous. The things I wished people understood are:
a) This is NOT a problem specific to EA. It is a problem with many -- if not MOST -- game developers (in the U.S., especially). Game studios all over are plagued with these problems that everyone's been talking about. The IGDA has had a "Quality of Life" group for a while now, trying to work on these issues. So why does EA get mentioned the most? Simple, it's for the same reason that MS gets slammed the hardest when people talk about OS issues or software engineering hours, etc. etc... -- They're the biggest. By default, the biggest will always bear the brunt of the attack. The only reason this is an issue at all is BECAUSE it's pandemic of the game industry as a WHOLE.
2) These things aren't even true within all of EA! EA is a large company, and while there are some groups that have these problems, it's hardly all of them! That's just yet another misconception people have.
Personally, I am bothered by these issues, but because they are big problems facing the game industry as a whole, not just one company.
There's a decent short article about this in an old issue of Game Developers Magazine: https://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/store.php?item_i d=287&category=22&book=
Unfortantely, the article is not readily available on-line. However, if memory serves me, the article pretty much says that the choice of "addictive" is a bad choice of words. That other things that we describe positively don't necessarily have the same negative connotation associated with them.
Which makes sense. Why not use the word "appealling"(sp?) or "engaging" or any number of other adjectives... I hope in the future the "addictive-ness" of games is left aside for better terminology...