Didn't EA ask Respawn if they needed more time for Jedi Survivor and Respawn was basically, "Nah, fam, we good,"? EA even let them delay it. I don't think we can pin this one on the publisher.
Responsiblity for poor port quality *spawn
- Thread starter Below2D
- Start date
Great video, and I'm glad they sort of called out EA. All of their PC ports have been trash... let's not even get into their shitty sports game ports. FIFA and Madden are HUGE stutter-fests..
They really do need to continually be called out after every new release like this.. perhaps some day they will give enough of a damn to do a proper job.
They really do need to continually be called out after every new release like this.. perhaps some day they will give enough of a damn to do a proper job.
EA is in control of the game's release. If I'm EA and I'm looking at the quality of what Respawn put on my lap... I'd send it right back and say you're not done until this is fixed. PERIOD.
I don't think this works. Respawn is the developer who knows the game. If they tell EA the game is ready, then EA will trust their judgment and release it. EA asked them if they needed more time and Respawn declined. How are we still pinning this on EA?
I think it does. It's their responsibility to know what they are putting out. When it's a publisher wide issue across multiple games and multiple studios within and without.... yeah, you can't point the finger right at EA specifically. It's their job to demand quality product for the money they are spending. Clearly they are the ones not doing their job.
No. It doesn’t work. The blame is on Respawn. I’m all for dumping on EA when they mess up but you’re doing mental gymnastics to shift the blame onto the publisher when we know for a fact it’s on the developers.
arandomguy
Veteran
Wouldn't this assume more developer and publisher operational separation then there actually is in many situations? Especially for publisher owned developers which is the case for EA and Remedy? EA for example for awhile famously mandated it's developers to use Frostbite I believe, which suggests they do are definitely not hands off.
Also being an EA branded game there should be onus on them to mandate a certain level of QA. Much like how customers aren't going to blame the suppliers for the company they actually deal with. For instance if PS5's start to frequently break down from bad capacitors, would the responsibility from the consumer perspective fall on Sony or the capacitor manufacturer?
We have the studio lead stating EA offered them 3 months to get the game up to speed but they said the only needed a month. I think even close to the release date, EA once again offered them more time but they declined. At what point does the developer take responsibility?
If the consumer didn’t know any better, they would blame Sony, but we DO know better in this case and we know Respawn are the ones who screwed up. No need for a hypothetical scenario. We know what happened.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
EA was the publisher, they bankrolled the game, they marketed the game and they were the party who ultimately decided to release the game. Are you suggesting that EA had no agency in the matter, that they didn't play the game and had no idea how messy it was?
If something comes out of the kitchen half-cooked, you don't serve it to the customer, you send it back to the chef.
Is it a certainty that EA even QAs the games externally from its developing studios? I can easily envision a reality where they don't; outside of issues being reported to them WRT meeting a deadline.EA was the publisher, they bankrolled the game, they marketed the game and they were the party who ultimately decided to release the game. Are you suggesting that EA had no agency in the matter, that they didn't play the game and had no idea how messy it was?
If something comes out of the kitchen half-cooked, you don't serve it to the customer, you send it back to the chef.
Last edited:
EA was the publisher, they bankrolled the game, they marketed the game and they were the party who ultimately decided to release the game. Are you suggesting that EA had no agency in the matter, that they didn't play the game and had no idea how messy it was?
If something comes out of the kitchen half-cooked, you don't serve it to the customer, you send it back to the chef.
I would be extremely surprised if publishers independently play and test games prior to release. That’s not part of their job description.
Respawn literally made the game and knew every single thing about it yet still decided to tell EA that it was fine. Are EA even the ones doing the QA? Or is it done internally by Respawn and the publisher is none-the-wiser?EA was the publisher, they bankrolled the game, they marketed the game and they were the party who ultimately decided to release the game. Are you suggesting that EA had no agency in the matter, that they didn't play the game and had no idea how messy it was?
If something comes out of the kitchen half-cooked, you don't serve it to the customer, you send it back to the chef.
This discussion is just bizarre. Accusing the publisher when we know for a fact they tried to help the developer as much as possible by offering to extend the deadline and as a result, increase the budget. EA didn't rush it out the door and told Respawn that it was time to release it. They offered 3 months and trusted a well-known and historically competent developer. We're supposed to blame a bunch of suits instead of developers who damn well knew what the issues were?
Ridiculous.
EA Playtesting - About - Official EA Site
Help us make great games, join our Playtesting program. Electronic Arts is a leading publisher of games on Console, PC and Mobile.
www.ea.com
Blame both. Respawn shouldn't have gone ahead knowing the state the game was in. They should have asked for more time. EA shouldn't have green-lit a game that wasn't good enough.
Ordinarily we blame the publisher as pushing for a game to be released even when the devs know it's cack. If we have it on record that EA offered more time and Respawn declined, that moves that responsibility squarely onto Respawn. However, it's still EA's reputation that's spoiled (maybe they consider their reputation so low that it can't get any worse?!). Like if you employ a chef at a restaurant and they say the food is good and it goes out and the customers complain, it's the chef's fault for being crap and your fault for employing them and not checking what they are serving. Those 1* Google reviews go on your restaurant reputation though, not the chef's.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Bankrolling and releasing a title untested would be a stupid move for any publisher, it's their investment and as the party releasing the title, they are responsible for the technical state it is released in and it's their reputation and their pocket that fill refunds.
Microsoft recently delayed Starfield's release twice, and Sony have delayed a bunch of games - pretty much everything Naughty Dog has released since the PS3-era, Driveclub and others. The recent Insomniac hack has showed the dynamic between an industry-leading publisher and internal studios. Why would EA be any different?
Last edited by a moderator:
Because people want to believe EA is just this completely incompetent publisher that has no idea what it's doing and doesn't actually care about the games it releases. It's not at all true, but it's a popular perception nonetheless.
This is not how the real world works. Have you guys never heard of delegation? It is very reasonable for EA to hold developers accountable for the quality of their software without needing to play big brother and independently verify the developer’s claims.
What exactly are you suggesting? That publishers should do code reviews and independently QA every piece of software they fund?
Publishers having dedicated QA teams to test their bigger releases is extremely common.
Yes. EA should be testing the quality of the software they're going to publish throughout development. If they're funding it and releasing it under their brand they should be ensuring then product they're releasing isn't a turd performance wise. Perhaps EA should have insisted on more time in the oven instead of taking the dev at their word. But. Yes. It is entirely reasonable for EA to be involved in the QA process with a project it is funding.
You do understand that because EA delegates the job to someone else doesn't change the fact that they are ultimately responsible for the quality right?......
It's entirely reasonable for EA to hold the developers accountable... that's literally what we're asking them to do a better job of....
We hold EA accountable, they hold the developers responsible. That's how this chain works. After these shitty releases and people started to complain, EA should have immediately held these developers accountable and have them fix the games. That's what a responsible publisher would do.. and they would hold the studios accountable.. since they delegated the responsibility to them. That would incentivize studios to do a better job.
Yes I agree with all of that. What I’m questioning is the suggestion that EA should independently verify the quality of the games and not rely on / trust the developers to do so.
Similar threads
- Locked
