- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- gaming@lemmy.zip
- cross-posted to:
- pcgaming@lemmy.ca
- gaming@lemmy.zip
You must log in or register to comment.
No EA game is worth the hassle.
EA has made some absolute bangers:
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
Dungeon Keeper (1997)
Lots of Ultima games (90s)
The Sims (2000)
Medal of Honor (2000)
Command & Conquer games (early 2000s)
SSX (2000)… Was Battlefield 2142 (2006) good? They didn’t make the first two games.
Does Spore (2008) count? The game was shit, and had DRM that only let you install it 3 times ever per license, and didn’t do what it said it would with massive over promise and under deliver. But it was ambitious and different, at least?
Dead Space (2008)
Mirror’s Edge (2008)
Dragon Age: Origins (2009)
Mass Effect 2 (2010) (they didn’t make 1)
Plants vs. Zombies (2011)I’m tired of going through this list, lol. There are a zillion “next sportsball version” games and mobile games to sift through. Also, turns out some of the best EA games I remember were only published by them but made by another developer… Until EA bought them out, lol.
No ea game is worth the hassle because if it isn’t made into some form of pay to win lootbox shitfest, EA is likely to can the game and the developer all together. N E V E R trust ea with singleplayer.
EA made games before pay to win loot boxes became a thing.
Past tense, NOW they have made themselves notorious for canning successful projects that don’t make enough. They just recently did it to one of the og creators of halo
Battlefield 2142 was ambitious. It included one of the most fun Battlefield game modes I’ve played (Titan), and in my opinion the main reason it bombed somewhat was that it came out way too quickly after Battlefield 2, which was still ragingly popular with PC gamers, and the player base didn’t have much appetite for changing over to a new game.
The more EA breaks their own shitty games, the more powerful Linux becomes
deleted by creator
Shitass support main. Hipfires with LMG mid-range, prones in the middle of the street, drops no ammo kits, somehow managed to die 3 times in the end.
Is it your position that cheaters are inevitable and publishers should not do anything to prevent them from cheating?
My position is that community moderated servers are significantly more effective at controlling cheaters than any intrusive anti-cheat has ever been, and that the rise in intrusive anti-cheat coinciding with the death of community and self hosted servers is not a coincidence.
My position is that cheaters, hackers, spammers and griefers when they are relatively equally distributed in all popular competitive games are not actually a threat to the business model of massive corporations like EA, rather they are actually a great business opportunity to rationalize taking more and more control away from customers so long as cheaters and hackers are loosely managed from getting entirely out of control.
When cheating is happening across most competitive multiplayer games what does it really matter to EA? It is only an issue if their competitive game has WAYYYY more cheaters than average for what gamers have learned to tolerate.
The SAME exact thing is happening with the narrative BlueSky is trying to create about moderation that only large corporations can protect us from hackers, spammers and griefers with AI and other bullshit, which means for BlueSky that the fediverse becoming full of hackers, spammers and griefers directly benefits their business model.
This needs to be made into a sign that we hang above the fediverse
The business incentives of massive corporations attempting to manage and then enclose the digital commons are fundamentally aligned with malicious hackers, spammers and griefers in the sense that the latter group provides a rationalization that has so far proven impervious to criticism for the former group to enclose the commons.
When cheating is happening across most competitive multiplayer games what does it really matter to EA?
I mean, other than making people not want to buy/play their games?
Beauty of a position you have there.
I agree. I think it’s the actual sense of community that you need. It’s the reason I can play rec sports or the pub quiz and it’s not constantly ruined by assholes.
You can’t have a sense of community with hundreds of thousands of people in the same queue to play a game.
Description says it was recorded February 7
Couldn’t bother really, game companies nowadays make such bad games anyway. The only good ones are the Playstation and Xbox exclusives ported to PC, because those games have to be good to be a selling point of the console. Meanwhile EA Ubisoft and friends just rely on using the same franchise name to sell copies
The only good ones are the Playstation and Xbox exclusives ported to PC, because those games have to be good to be a selling point of the console.
Halo Infinite and Forza Motorsport say hello
Meanwhile most other ports wave happily back, although quite a few had a rough start
Have they addressed the issues with the Multiplayer in Forza Motorsport? FH5s Multiplayer was unplayable
Small and self published devs are the way forward, capitalist corps can and will eventually optimize the fun out of every game they touch in search of profit margins.
I’ll see if i can get a refund. Made the poor decision to re-buy the game on Steam after owning it on Origin (a lot easier to store it on an external drive on steamdeck)
Kinda evident to how badly Battlefield 2048 is going that they’re still even bothering to update BFV.
Now that helldivers works, I care less, even as a big battlefield player
That’s why I didn’t buy Battlefield 2042. If I’m in the mood, I play Battlefield 4. Works on Linux
Wait that company still exists?? Huh TIL!
I thought the company died once people got the shits with them and stopped buying anything from them.
I wish things worked that way, but I suspect EA will continue to persist as a tumor.
What company, EA? When did people stop buying their games?
Idk for me it was around the time of Battlefield 1.
Oh no, leopards ate your face!? Tell me more
Lmao another person who doesn’t know what that phrase means
