Ubisoft has quite a lot of crap too though.
Just like Capcom.
EA just seems to have refined the art of mediocrity.
Analyst: "Poor reviews and quality are beginning to tarnish the EA brand"
- Thread starter Farid
- Start date
Ubisoft has quite a lot of crap too though.
Just like Capcom.
EA just seems to have refined the art of mediocrity.
scooby_dooby
Legend
Well they have a little bit of crap, alot of good games, and a decent amount of really excellent games.
EA is missing the latter.
I remember Battlefield 1942, its expansions, and Vietnam having fairly poor code as well, but they didn't reach critical mass nearly as fast so not as many were experienced with the problems before patches came out. And a lot of what makes bf2 buggier is related to anti-piracy and cheating code, isn't it? (haven't played 2142)
In my experience the BF2 bugs are related almost entirely to the gameplay bugs, I've personally had no anti-piracy nor cheating code issues (and know of only a few compared to the gameplay issues). There's tons of bugs, with patches constantly introducing new bugs. That's very very sad.
I try to keep in-house stuff and stuff they simply published (though of course they now own DICE) separate. The poor coding on BF:2 says more about the people who assess the quality of games they publish than the programmers and devs inside EA, though the internal studios do seem to have mediocrity down to an art, as previously mentioned
Well i have some really good news for you. Valve will fix that. Crysis is delayed as well. So theres at least two for your list.
Last edited by a moderator:
2k is coming back with a unlicensed football game supposedly.
BTW, NBA2k7 looks INCREDIBLE, far better than EA's offering.
Couple good new EA interviews:
http://ncroal.talk.newsweek.com/default.asp?item=345486
Talks about "new direction", more focus on original IP's:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=21443
Army of Two looks neat though. It's graphics are excellent, basically like Gears made ultra shiny.
________
EroticMermaid
Last edited by a moderator:
Mintmaster
Veteran
Hmm, maybe I'll check that out.
For me, one of my favourite childhood games was NHL 97. That was the first 3D version and it just felt quite natural. Then for many years they screwed it up. It felt cartoony, with stupidly huge skates and bad animation transition.
The FIFA series felt pretty real as well with good animation transition.
Other than these I never really liked EA sports games. The lighting was always quite horrible also.
Didn't Madden 07 break records?
Ice hockey on the NES, son. The last hockey game worth playing.
I pity you who think stuff like NHL 97 is the epitomy of simple, barebones gameplay..you cannot beat the NES for that in all genres..
________
EFFECTS OF ZOLOFT
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course, it's the only NFL game.
But they didn't put much effort in that game. EA has several enhancements they can put in Madden but hold off on them every year. With no competition they can set a limit on what new features they want to introduce, how far they want to push the graphics.
Speng.
"Nerve-Damage"
Regular
EA is the McDonalds of the gaming industry. Cheap, fast, easy, and gives you the crapps, yet enjoyed by millions.
Well, if you look here http://www.vgcharts.org/usayearlysum.php it seems that EA has been growing in the last few years, so i'm not sure what the analyst is talking about. Please note that the 2006 figure is lower than the 2005 figure, but that is obviously not taking into account November and December 2006, so it will increase. Not to 2005 levels of course, it seems 2006 was just a worse year for everyone than 2005 was.
EA are still the biggest publisher in the world, and they're there for a reason: lots of kids who care more about the names on footballers shirts than the quality of the games themselves buy them. And also because EA has bought half their competition, but anyway
EA are still the biggest publisher in the world, and they're there for a reason: lots of kids who care more about the names on footballers shirts than the quality of the games themselves buy them. And also because EA has bought half their competition, but anyway
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
The funny part is "beginning to tarnish"... Beginning???
Everybody hates EA and everybody has for quite some time.
But the thing to remember is that their competition screwed themselves. Back when the Xbox was first released, I didn't have one.. but my neighbors did. I wanted to get some football on, so I actually bought the Sega Football game to bring it over to my neighbors so we could play it.
It had vastly superior graphics to Madden.. We played it for a month or so before we got completely bored with it because it didn't have the franchise features of Madden. So guess what? I had to go buy Madden so we could play THAT game and build franchises and play a more in-depth game for a longer period of (game) time.
The ESPN game was the same way. It had better graphics, and the gameplay was about on par (some aspects were worse, some were better), but it lacked the "historical" feature set that Madden has.
People were just dying to flee from Madden to a better alternative, except there wasn't one. You wouldn't think it'd be too difficult to put in a franchise mode and keep 'best of' stats and such, but apparently this was too much for any of the 2k games... so they failed.
And then they missed their window when EA bought the exclusive rights to the NFL.
People are willing to buy a new madden version each year which offers little more than roster updates. Do you really think people are going to buy another football game that doesn't have actual teams and players in it? Of course not.
It's one of the biggest problems with the NCAA series... except that isn't the fault of EA, it's the fault of the NCAA not allowing players to be named. Most of the 'hardcore' players have to spend three days changing their rosters from player numbers to player names before they can even begin to play.
Whoever said that EA is like McDonalds is completely correct. Anybody who buys an EA game expecting to get a steak instead of a hamburger is an idiot.
Everybody hates EA and everybody has for quite some time.
But the thing to remember is that their competition screwed themselves. Back when the Xbox was first released, I didn't have one.. but my neighbors did. I wanted to get some football on, so I actually bought the Sega Football game to bring it over to my neighbors so we could play it.
It had vastly superior graphics to Madden.. We played it for a month or so before we got completely bored with it because it didn't have the franchise features of Madden. So guess what? I had to go buy Madden so we could play THAT game and build franchises and play a more in-depth game for a longer period of (game) time.
The ESPN game was the same way. It had better graphics, and the gameplay was about on par (some aspects were worse, some were better), but it lacked the "historical" feature set that Madden has.
People were just dying to flee from Madden to a better alternative, except there wasn't one. You wouldn't think it'd be too difficult to put in a franchise mode and keep 'best of' stats and such, but apparently this was too much for any of the 2k games... so they failed.
And then they missed their window when EA bought the exclusive rights to the NFL.
People are willing to buy a new madden version each year which offers little more than roster updates. Do you really think people are going to buy another football game that doesn't have actual teams and players in it? Of course not.
It's one of the biggest problems with the NCAA series... except that isn't the fault of EA, it's the fault of the NCAA not allowing players to be named. Most of the 'hardcore' players have to spend three days changing their rosters from player numbers to player names before they can even begin to play.
Whoever said that EA is like McDonalds is completely correct. Anybody who buys an EA game expecting to get a steak instead of a hamburger is an idiot.
1. Duh!
2. EA noted themselves last year that sequals were beginning to dead end and they were developing some new franchises like Army of Two and Spore and developing some new twists to known franchises like Battlefield Bad Company.
3. The lack of any AAA quality games really draws ones attention to their load of ick.
4. Their sports titles have really, really dropped off. Sports were a corner stone, now they feel tacked on and lack vision.
5. They have beat down good licenses with far too many rushed titles & sequals. Their committment to release dates and maintaining short/medium term profits lowers the overall value of their products. The idea of B+ games is killing them; similarly the idea of pushing sequals/expansions to "correct" game issues. They frequently put significant corrections to game bugs and imbalances in sequals instead of either releasing a game right the first time or patching it. Of relevant note many of their expansion/sequal products like BF:V and BF2142 are not only lacking, but are extremely buggy and reflect poorly on the franchise.
6. EA is not listening to consumers. Take booster packs. Free content to drive more sales? No, divide and marginalize online communties for $10. Ditto putting things in expansions and booster packs or pay-per-downloadable content to nickle and dime consumers. They are emphasizing their bad image while at the same time under delivering.
EA has destroyed a lot of good franchises. And many are shadows of their former selves (like C&C). With the lack of GREAT AAA games from them and the demise of their sports franchises just underlines who they are. Moves like the NFL/NCAA/AFL exclusives, threating a hostile takeover of DICE, buying 20% of Ubi, etc doesn't help their image either.
EA appears to be a company that is too top heavy on management, large enough to treat peeps right and doesn't, doesn't invest well enough in innovation and thus stifling creativity and employee motivation, and allows bean counters and PR people to direct the company instead of taking a philosophy of quality (with good martket placement and timing) sell. Obviously they need to be responsible and careful with their investments, but considering their size and resources they seem to be significantly lacking. They should have been the first with a "next gen" engine product to market--especially with early access to MS and Sony hardware--and should have their entire staff up to pace on such and being the trend setter for the industry. None of their released products thus far is remotely interesting. Sure the entire industry is having these issues, but that is why they should be leading the way to continue their market lead and also sustaining the industry itself.
Their general philosophy paid nice returns for them in the past but now is rearing its ugly head in regards to the side effects. They need a significant shake up, especially in terms to product quality. Some EA studios make great games, but in general EA doesn't excite me at all. Crysis sounds neat, but then again Crytek is currently an independant. And if they were bought it is hard to believe they would be any different than DICE, Westwood, Criterion, etc
Yeah, if you believe EA and the NFL... although these are the same two parties who sued a journalist for releasing the news in the Spring about an EA/NFL agreement and categorically denying there any such intent for 6 months later for the deal to be signed.
Oh, and the fact EA didn't stop at the NFL but also obtained exclusivity to NCAA football as well as the AFL.
Lieing/threatening the press and chasing every other football exclusive on the market casts them in a pretty shady light if you ask me. It is one thing to get an artistic license (e.g. James Bond, Lord of the Rings, and so forth) but it is another to categorically seal up exclusive contracts with every licensable expression of the most popular and successful sport in NA. It is also relevant to note that the NFL is a monopoly in its own right.
I doubt the 2K rumors, but if they go this route the only options I can think of being worthwhile and sucessful would be a High School or Hall of Fame game. The later being difficult because EA has, shock!, signed exclusives with many HoF members.
On the other hand the Madden/2K games are a testiment to consumer will, about broadly scoped software that appeals to a wide variety of gamers, and bringing forth deep sim elements in an easy to pick of action oriented game. The problem is there are plenty of areas of evolution to continue to improve the product SIGNIFICANTLY and in the short term of no competition none of these areas have been touched as well as the typical, "Cut a TON of features, and slowly re-integrate them in the new versions as selling points" has grown old and without any competition it destroys the value of the entire product line.
NFL football is one of the MOST important game genres on the consoles and lackluster titles in this genre hurt the entire industry and gamers.
And I don't necessarily hate Madden. I prefer it over NFL2K in most ways and is my primary NFL game of choice. I liked how they added minicamps and play training modes for newbs and to let people learn more about football and how to best play Madden and their used of speedburst is much more realistic than NFL2Ks implimentation (90% run speed w/o burst; burst is 100% and unlimited but you lose agility).
2. EA noted themselves last year that sequals were beginning to dead end and they were developing some new franchises like Army of Two and Spore and developing some new twists to known franchises like Battlefield Bad Company.
3. The lack of any AAA quality games really draws ones attention to their load of ick.
4. Their sports titles have really, really dropped off. Sports were a corner stone, now they feel tacked on and lack vision.
5. They have beat down good licenses with far too many rushed titles & sequals. Their committment to release dates and maintaining short/medium term profits lowers the overall value of their products. The idea of B+ games is killing them; similarly the idea of pushing sequals/expansions to "correct" game issues. They frequently put significant corrections to game bugs and imbalances in sequals instead of either releasing a game right the first time or patching it. Of relevant note many of their expansion/sequal products like BF:V and BF2142 are not only lacking, but are extremely buggy and reflect poorly on the franchise.
6. EA is not listening to consumers. Take booster packs. Free content to drive more sales? No, divide and marginalize online communties for $10. Ditto putting things in expansions and booster packs or pay-per-downloadable content to nickle and dime consumers. They are emphasizing their bad image while at the same time under delivering.
EA has destroyed a lot of good franchises. And many are shadows of their former selves (like C&C). With the lack of GREAT AAA games from them and the demise of their sports franchises just underlines who they are. Moves like the NFL/NCAA/AFL exclusives, threating a hostile takeover of DICE, buying 20% of Ubi, etc doesn't help their image either.
EA appears to be a company that is too top heavy on management, large enough to treat peeps right and doesn't, doesn't invest well enough in innovation and thus stifling creativity and employee motivation, and allows bean counters and PR people to direct the company instead of taking a philosophy of quality (with good martket placement and timing) sell. Obviously they need to be responsible and careful with their investments, but considering their size and resources they seem to be significantly lacking. They should have been the first with a "next gen" engine product to market--especially with early access to MS and Sony hardware--and should have their entire staff up to pace on such and being the trend setter for the industry. None of their released products thus far is remotely interesting. Sure the entire industry is having these issues, but that is why they should be leading the way to continue their market lead and also sustaining the industry itself.
Their general philosophy paid nice returns for them in the past but now is rearing its ugly head in regards to the side effects. They need a significant shake up, especially in terms to product quality. Some EA studios make great games, but in general EA doesn't excite me at all. Crysis sounds neat, but then again Crytek is currently an independant. And if they were bought it is hard to believe they would be any different than DICE, Westwood, Criterion, etc
Yeah, if you believe EA and the NFL... although these are the same two parties who sued a journalist for releasing the news in the Spring about an EA/NFL agreement and categorically denying there any such intent for 6 months later for the deal to be signed.
Oh, and the fact EA didn't stop at the NFL but also obtained exclusivity to NCAA football as well as the AFL.
Lieing/threatening the press and chasing every other football exclusive on the market casts them in a pretty shady light if you ask me. It is one thing to get an artistic license (e.g. James Bond, Lord of the Rings, and so forth) but it is another to categorically seal up exclusive contracts with every licensable expression of the most popular and successful sport in NA. It is also relevant to note that the NFL is a monopoly in its own right.
I doubt the 2K rumors, but if they go this route the only options I can think of being worthwhile and sucessful would be a High School or Hall of Fame game. The later being difficult because EA has, shock!, signed exclusives with many HoF members.
On the other hand the Madden/2K games are a testiment to consumer will, about broadly scoped software that appeals to a wide variety of gamers, and bringing forth deep sim elements in an easy to pick of action oriented game. The problem is there are plenty of areas of evolution to continue to improve the product SIGNIFICANTLY and in the short term of no competition none of these areas have been touched as well as the typical, "Cut a TON of features, and slowly re-integrate them in the new versions as selling points" has grown old and without any competition it destroys the value of the entire product line.
NFL football is one of the MOST important game genres on the consoles and lackluster titles in this genre hurt the entire industry and gamers.
And I don't necessarily hate Madden. I prefer it over NFL2K in most ways and is my primary NFL game of choice. I liked how they added minicamps and play training modes for newbs and to let people learn more about football and how to best play Madden and their used of speedburst is much more realistic than NFL2Ks implimentation (90% run speed w/o burst; burst is 100% and unlimited but you lose agility).
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Acert93;885279 NFL football is one of the MOST important game genres on the consoles and lackluster titles in this genre hurt the entire industry and gamers. And I don't necessarily hate Madden. I prefer it over NFL2K in most ways and is my primary NFL game of choice. I liked how they added minicamps and play training modes for newbs and to let people learn more about football and how to best play Madden and their used of speedburst is much more realistic than NFL2Ks implimentation (90% run speed w/o burst; burst is 100% and unlimited but you lose agility).[/QUOTE said:
Gamers are perturbed by EA but not simply for the reason for putting out crap games. Its not a question of simply avoiding a publisher who has a history of putting out less than stellar games.
EA is highly profitable and serves as a model of how to run a publisher. But do you want a company to serves a popular model or success when they promote deadlines over quality, which results games lacking in polish? Furthermore, a role model whose strategy includes buying up well respected game developers only to subject to tight schedules and deadlines, which results in popular franchises being driven into the ground.
No one cares about a EA putting out crap games. What we are worried about is a great number of well respected developers or publishers becoming EA-like in their business practices.
EA is highly profitable and serves as a model of how to run a publisher. But do you want a company to serves a popular model or success when they promote deadlines over quality, which results games lacking in polish? Furthermore, a role model whose strategy includes buying up well respected game developers only to subject to tight schedules and deadlines, which results in popular franchises being driven into the ground.
No one cares about a EA putting out crap games. What we are worried about is a great number of well respected developers or publishers becoming EA-like in their business practices.
Ok, maybe I can clarify. I never said Madden was vastly superior
That would be the first thing. I actually think in regards to a total package NFL 2K is better, at least was.What I noted was I prefer Madden, and why. Call in wonkey, but sometimes a core feature is so important to you that everything else, even if done right, can be overshadowed by this issue. Running is a core mechanic to football, and I think it is one of the things Madden has right. 85-90% run speed with good agility, unlimited burst that deminishes agility. The charge turbo boost in NFL2K is a glaring weakness from a SIM standpoint--although the impact on gameplay is beautiful. NFL2K has a running game that Madden could only dream of in many ways.
I would call it a preference because I am more interested in the dynamic of watching blocks and knowing when to, and not to, hit the jets. NFL2K rewards more agile fingers and knowing when and how to charge your moves and when to "sprint". Maddens blocking, tackling, and moves are steps below NFL2K in many ways so it becomes an issue of lesser evils. Do I go with a more hands on system that rewards skill and has blocking, tackling, and balance right or do I go with a system that is easier, more familiar (started with Madden 1 on the PC), and in case of running is more accurate while lacking in the other areas.
As you can tell I am a prima donna and blocking and tackling take a back seat to running :| True, NFL2K has an excellent juking system, but the simplicity of Madden is very nice in this regards. This and the passing cone (which people hate!) are the two best features in Madden. If your are gonna criticize a game you should also be able to note what it does well--and I think most people would agree Madden does some things well. BUT... Madden is very, VERY unrealistic in many ways (gang tackling for one--which is HORRENDOUS in Madden) and does many things below par -- enough so to justify NOT calling it the best on the market IMO -- but for my personal tastes I find that the execution of speed burst is more to my liking and important enough to stick with it. NFL2K is, in many ways, a superior product. But I have a hard time overlooking the speed burst issue, even if the running game and defense are superior to the competition. Some people love how Madden's passing game works, others dislike it. Certain things are preferences. In this case Madden does quite a few things well that cater to my preferences, but I would not call it superior. In general the consensus seems to be Madden is not superior--although the margin of error is enough to be a taste issue.
My point on Madden was that I don't hate EA or their products and there are some good things in them. If 2K had a similar speed burst mechanic I think I would have never touched Madden again
But that single feature is so important to me, personally, that I cannot get over it You are welcome to that opinion, but "best NFL game around" seems to be a preference issue that leans slightly toward NFL 2K series. In the last 3 years each competed:
Xbox -- GameRankings.com
NFL 2K3 90.1% Madden 2003 89.6%
NFL 2K4 89.5% Madden 2004 88.9%
NFL 2K5 89.9% Madden 2005 89.4%
Xbox.IGN.com
NFL 2K3 9.1 Madden 2003 8.8
NFL 2K4 9.3 Madden 2004 9.4
NFL 2K5 9.4 Madden 2005 9.5
GameSpot Xbox reviews
NFL 2K3 9.1 Madden 2003 8.6
NFL 2K4 9.3 Madden 2004 9.1
NFL 2K5 9.2 Madden 2005 9.0
Critically NFL 2K held its own and then some. The reason NFL 2K never "beat" EA/Madden in sales are pretty straight forward IMO (and they play off of eachother):
1. John Madden is an icon. Every time he did an Ace commercial, every time he did an NFL pregame or color commentated a game he was giving his game exposure. John Madden is a household name in America. Football fans know his past (SuperBowl coach), know he knows his X's and O's (commentating), and when they go to buy a football game and see John Madden it just clicks. He is the best pitchman EA could have ever gotten. Football players retire. Coaches get fired. John Madden? He went to the playoffs ever year! He played EVER Thanksgiving game.
NFL 2K? No on, although at the end they did get ESPN (who EA promptly bought out!)
2. Madden was one of the first NFL games on the market. It has significant mindshare. Not looking at the PC side (where it was first), Madden has been on all the major consoles starting with the SNES/Genesis, PS1/N64, and PS2/Xbox/GCN. It is the only unbroken NFL series left. All the others died out. So Madden has history as well as persistance.
NFL 2K? Started on the illfated Dreamcast and then moved over to the PS2/Xbox/GCN. They didn't even get a full generation in on those platforms to get mindshare from Day 1--something that EA made sure would not happen this generation.
3. Madden Football = Video Football. While that can change, it takes many years to break such synonmyns. It is like Playstation is synonymous with Consoles. "Lets play Madden" is as effortless as "Lets play some Nintendo" was back in the early 90s--even if you were playing a Genesis!
NFL2K? They kept changing publishers and name conventions, which can hurt. They were working their way into the market, and had a LOT of fans, but it takes time.
4. Madden is familiar, but not necessarily better. The entire industry is snake bitten by this trend. Gamers tend towards familiarity--and buy it in mass--even if it isn't great. A quick glance at what games sell and which don't tells a lot about such.
NFL2K? Newer series that started off on a smaller platform (DC). But every year it maintained it core base and was growing.
5. Madden has a faithful user base who dislikes change, even if for the better. People (gulp) like me buy the game for their NFL fix even when they know something else is better. Why? Because it is familiar and the "broken" stuff I already adjusted to. Competitors have to not only fix the bad stuff but replicate (not necessarily improve) core areas that gamers like. Unfamiliarity breeds distaste, especially in a competition based product.
NFL2K? Some years it blew Madden out of the water. Even I picked it up. But as many things NFL2K fixed, they also did some things different that not everyone liked. They were stuck fixing all of EA's shortcomings while sticking to the stuff people liked... you win some, you lose some. It is the same reason some people prefer Halo 1 over Halo 2 and vice versa. If Halo 2, was say, Timesplitters it would be hard to get the converts from Halo 1. It is what it is.
5. EA pushed Madden into the market ways VC could not through advertising (both financially and using ingame ads, eg. EA advertises their games in their other products) and in terms of outlet exposure (EA is the worlds largest 3rd party publisher and has more access to shelf space and promotional material leveraging). Ditto magazine space.
NFL2K? Sega was tanking and there was a change in hands in regards to publisher. EA not only had marketing advantage, but EA could also leverage their complete and robust sports lineup to advertise the product, something NFL2K never had the advantage of.
That said NFL2K was holding their own in critical reviews and inching up in market share. EA was afraid. And 2005 done them in. VC had a great product and then did EXACTLY what they needed to -- exposed hundreds of thousands of new gamers to their game. They got a LOT of converts. It is hard to convert gamers if they NEVER give you a try. I know a LOT of Madden gamers who bag NFL2K but have NEVER, EVER played it. By moving to $20 they got a ton of exposure and a LOT of converts. EA would have nothing of that--Madden is their biggest annual seller and they are now looking at doubling annual sales to nearly 6M to offset the investment made in licenses. NFL2K hit at EA's heart--sales. Even though Madden had their best sales to that point, seeing NFL2K break 1M copies indicated that there was finally real competition around.
Football is very important to EA and their moves (NFL exclusive, NCAA exclusive, AFL exclusive, ESPN) are all indicative of cutting out the competition by not even playing on the same field. If the competition cannot compete on ability you don't spend the money because it isn't worth it. EA thought it was worth a lot because everything indicates NFL2K was competing on the field, both in product and also in marketshare.
You may disagree--some people hate the NFL2K product--but the product was a critical success and was positioning itself for a big Next-Gen push. New generations can make or break a product. This would have been NFL2Ks chance to be head to head with EA's Madden on the PS3 and Xbox 360 from day 1.
Competition is good. I know a ton of gamers who were ticked that the NFL/EA took away a great game--and it was great.
Even more, I know more NOW who are even more mad, because frankly Madden on the PS3 and Xbox 360 isn't even as good as the Xbox/PS2 versions--which are also $10 cheaper.
Just looking at NBA 2K6/7 compared to Live and I think it is fair to say NFL2K6/7 on the 360/PS3 would be blowing away Madden Next-Gen.
Personally, I cannot see how after playing the new Maddens how it can be argued that NFL2K out of the picture was good for gamers. EA has resorted to shovelware and upselling old features and the product is floundering to compete with Xbox/PS2 games.
Even though I prefer Madden's gameplay in some areas I am really pissed I don't have the option to tell EA "SCREW YOU!" for the horrible NFL product they have put out the last 2 years. I would do this by buying the competition.
At least when NFL2K was around Madden got better. They had to improve their AI, especially DB AI, and added new gameplay mechanics. They also began matching certain 2K features. Everyone was winning--consumers and EA. Now?
No one wins.
I want to choose Madden when it is the better product, and when it is not (like now) I want to choose otherwise. And I want other companies coming up with good ideas that force rethinking and evolution in the product. For those reasons alone it is worth rooting for competition. (same reason I won't root for Sony leaving the console market as the recent news piece rumor--that would be horrible for gamers!)
Hate is a strong word. But I don't think that there is any doubt that EA in general has quality control issues. That may be fine for many consumers, but as the market broadens the cream floats to the top. Just off the top of my head I look at their franchises and what they did with them and shake my head.
Battlefield? C&C? NFS?
They have some great IPs that should be at the top of the industry -- because that is where they started. EA *does* have some great games (Burnout anyone?) and has done more with some games than some others would do (looking at you Activision, TH*Q, etc). Take BFMEII as an example of a licensed game that plays well.
EA isn't all bad and most of us are not saying that. But they do have more than their fair share of crap, they have shifted in quality downward, have lacked AAA games for a while, and their corner stones (like Madden) are poor on next gen.
If you contrast Ubisoft, for example, the picture is very different. GRAW and Rainbow Six: Vegas both are excellent licensed games and build up the genre a lot, Assassin's Creed looks to build on the great PoP series. SP: D A is a good game, if not evolutionary. BiA2 was very good and BiA3 should be good as well, and Haze should also be very good. While Ubi has some middle of the road stuff (King Kong, which was decent) their top titles so far have nice graphics as well as innovative gameplay.
I think most of us are expecting EA, the 3rd party leader, to take a much more commanding role in the market. Better graphics, better gameplay, and better games. They have more money than everyone else, they also have the ability to pool more resources. Instead we see EA in dissarray in many ways. Live is a mess for example. DICE isn't focused enough to polish games (which is vital in the online space). MoH series has lost a lot of polish and appeal. Burnout has yet to come out in next-gen style and NFS just cannot compare to more polished racers.
Based on the products EA is putting out compared it is discouraging because there is a distinctive lack of high quality. Most of us want to buy really high quality games and don't want to waste our time on mediocrity.
EA has in the past had both, but the trend recently has been more mediocrity.
NFL2K5 @ $20 ! The issue is EA is now charging more ($60) and their next gen products -- look at MADDEN -- offer LESS than their $50 last gen product.
That said, as the OP covers, it isn't necessarily More for Less. It is the lack of quality and a brand becoming muddied with the cloak of mediocrity. EA themselves have noted the issues they face with sequalities, the need for innovation and new Ips, etc.
The question is will they right the ship and how soon?
Because everyone griping is still buying the games?
As this thread shows, many people dislike EA's quality etc., but at the same time pay them lots of money for these 'substandard' games. If everyone hates bad quality that much, why do they still buy the games? The old voting dollar seems to be in EA's favour, and as such they can carry on as normal if they're happy with their current profitability.