Horrifying News -1 reply

Please wait...

Smooth BM

Django shoots first

50 XP

14th May 2004

0 Uploads

106 Posts

0 Threads

#31 15 years ago

EA isn't that bad. How can the company that brought us the Road Rash and Mutant League series for Sega Genesis be bad?




schoolkid

your mother is a beaver

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#32 15 years ago
DICE Canada made SW and BF:V... 'nough said.

Secret Weapons is 10 times better than Road to Rome, and I consider it well worth the money I payed. As for BFV, the sole problem with it is that it lacked something new, something original, that could set it apart from BF1942. It' still a solid and fun game - just not fresh.

I know. Look what happened to the C&C series.

Which is still going strong. The only problem with Generals is that it lacks certain C&C aspects. It's still a great game, and plays true to the series.

Then dont post, maybe?

He's sharing his opinion on the subject at hand. Is that much of a crime?

Does this mean we will be getting a new (aka: update costing 40 Euros) BF game every year ?

Uh, we already do. Look at the timespan between Battlefield titles.




[BC] Tex Arcana

Smokey Smith kicked butt!

50 XP

1st June 2004

0 Uploads

401 Posts

0 Threads

#33 15 years ago
Arisakacan you come with some documentation of the above? it might change my personal view of dice.se considerably. although by now they've probably adapted the EA-style completely.

I attempted to help by some "googling" but was unable to find some of the articles that I had read from 2-3 years ago. I DO remember commentary reflecting EA's poor influence on DICE as far as rushing BF to the shelves before it was polished to DICE's standards (at that time). The rush-pressure is really evidenced in BFV: As EA excercised greater pressure (due to increased influence) on DICE (BOTH Branches. NOT just Canada). And the product suffered. I would argue about the quality of SWeapons. It wasn't everyone's "cup of tea", but the overall content was cool. The most unfoutunate thing is that EA was, at one time, a reputable Canadian-based-Company. Building their franchise on their Sports-Titles. As soon as success, and the rampant marketing-obsessed model began to go to their corporate "heads"; content began to suffer. Now the Big-Wigs are sitting in San Francisco (the new Head-Office; The Burnaby, British Columbia building is a ghostly satellite now), trying to figure out how to get ALOT, by doing as LITTLE as possible. Or have a bunch of Automatons with NO lives do it for them. I DO hope BF2 is everything that the Marketers (or BS-Artists, as I like to call them) say it will be; but (and I know most of the Peeps here realize this) DON'T BUY THE HYPE -If you do you are a SHEEP. Buy on MERIT ONLY. The only influence left to us when it comes to this kind of issue, is our WALLETS. I will continue to play FH#1. -And until BF2 PROVES it isn't going to be a buggy, patch-laden, piece of POO. I won't touch it. And even then: I'm into the WW2 "genre" anyway. (DC is just Vanilla in modern clothing). -Hopefully it's Engine is worth the FHDevs time to "tweak". So: Gimme FH. Or give me DEATH:smokin: !! PS- When will EA, and Microsoft merge to become the BIGGEST pile of POOP on the Planet I wonderses my Precious?




[BC] Tex Arcana

Smokey Smith kicked butt!

50 XP

1st June 2004

0 Uploads

401 Posts

0 Threads

#34 15 years ago
Gobo12Being Canadian myself i sometimes kind of take offense to ppl pissing on DICE Canada. Like it's implying that the Canadians did a shitty job. Remember EA's the one who was always holding the reigns on these projects.

Roger THAT- And DICE Sweden was STILL the Head-Office (Tex offers the "Top-Down" theory for inspection).




Azik«¤»Blaze

GO FLAMES GO!!

50 XP

1st November 2003

0 Uploads

95 Posts

0 Threads

#35 15 years ago

[size=+1][/size]Most of you have NO IDEA how bad it is... Taken from HERE --> http://www.livejournal.com/users/ea_spouse/

EA: The Human Story My significant other works for Electronic Arts, and I'm what you might call a disgruntled spouse. EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm. To any EA executive that happens to read this, I have a good challenge for you: how about safe and sane labor practices for the people on whose backs you walk for your millions? I am retaining some anonymity here because I have no illusions about what the consequences would be for my family if I was explicit. However, I also feel no impetus to shy away from sharing our story, because I know that it is too common to stick out among those of the thousands of engineers, artists, and designers that EA employs. Our adventures with Electronic Arts began less than a year ago. The small game studio that my partner worked for collapsed as a result of foul play on the part of a big publisher -- another common story. Electronic Arts offered a job, the salary was right and the benefits were good, so my SO took it. I remember that they asked him in one of the interviews: "how do you feel about working long hours?" It's just a part of the game industry -- few studios can avoid a crunch as deadlines loom, so we thought nothing of it. When asked for specifics about what "working long hours" meant, the interviewers coughed and glossed on to the next question; now we know why. Within weeks production had accelerated into a 'mild' crunch: eight hours six days a week. Not bad. Months remained until any real crunch would start, and the team was told that this "pre-crunch" was to prevent a big crunch toward the end; at this point any other need for a crunch seemed unlikely, as the project was dead on schedule. I don't know how many of the developers bought EA's explanation for the extended hours; we were new and naive so we did. The producers even set a deadline; they gave a specific date for the end of the crunch, which was still months away from the title's shipping date, so it seemed safe. That date came and went. And went, and went. When the next news came it was not about a reprieve; it was another acceleration: twelve hours six days a week, 9am to 10pm. Weeks passed. Again the producers had given a termination date on this crunch that again they failed. Throughout this period the project remained on schedule. The long hours started to take its toll on the team; people grew irritable and some started to get ill. People dropped out in droves for a couple of days at a time, but then the team seemed to reach equilibrium again and they plowed ahead. The managers stopped even talking about a day when the hours would go back to normal. Now, it seems, is the "real" crunch, the one that the producers of this title so wisely prepared their team for by running them into the ground ahead of time. The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm -- seven days a week -- with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm). This averages out to an eighty-five hour work week. Complaints that these once more extended hours combined with the team's existing fatigue would result in a greater number of mistakes made and an even greater amount of wasted energy were ignored. The stress is taking its toll. After a certain number of hours spent working the eyes start to lose focus; after a certain number of weeks with only one day off fatigue starts to accrue and accumulate exponentially. There is a reason why there are two days in a weekend -- bad things happen to one's physical, emotional, and mental health if these days are cut short. The team is rapidly beginning to introduce as many flaws as they are removing. And the kicker: for the honor of this treatment EA salaried employees receive a) no overtime; b) no compensation time! ('comp' time is the equalization of time off for overtime -- any hours spent during a crunch accrue into days off after the product has shipped); c) no additional sick or vacation leave. The time just goes away. Additionally, EA recently announced that, although in the past they have offered essentially a type of comp time in the form of a few weeks off at the end of a project, they no longer wish to do this, and employees shouldn't expect it. Further, since the production of various games is scattered, there was a concern on the part of the employees that developers would leave one crunch only to join another. EA's response was that they would attempt to minimize this, but would make no guarantees. This is unthinkable; they are pushing the team to individual physical health limits, and literally giving them nothing for it. Comp time is a staple in this industry, but EA as a corporation wishes to "minimize" this reprieve. One would think that the proper way to minimize comp time is to avoid crunch, but this brutal crunch has been on for months, and nary a whisper about any compensation leave, nor indeed of any end of this treatment. This crunch also differs from crunch time in a smaller studio in that it was not an emergency effort to save a project from failure. Every step of the way, the project remained on schedule. Crunching neither accelerated this nor slowed it down; its effect on the actual product was not measurable. The extended hours were deliberate and planned; the management knew what they were doing as they did it. The love of my life comes home late at night complaining of a headache that will not go away and a chronically upset stomach, and my happy supportive smile is running out. No one works in the game industry unless they love what they do. No one on that team is interested in producing an inferior product. My heart bleeds for this team precisely BECAUSE they are brilliant, talented individuals out to create something great. They are and were more than willing to work hard for the success of the title. But that good will has only been met with abuse. Amazingly, Electronic Arts was listed #91 on Fortune magazine's "100 Best Companies to Work For" in 2003. EA's attitude toward this -- which is actually a part of company policy, it now appears -- has been (in an anonymous quotation that I've heard repeated by multiple managers), "If they don't like it, they can work someplace else." Put up or shut up and leave: this is the core of EA's Human Resources policy. The concept of ethics or compassion or even intelligence with regard to getting the most out of one's workforce never enters the equation: if they don't want to sacrifice their lives and their health and their talent so that a multibillion dollar corporation can continue its Godzilla-stomp through the game industry, they can work someplace else. But can they? The EA Mambo, paired with other giants such as Vivendi, Sony, and Microsoft, is rapidly either crushing or absorbing the vast majority of the business in game development. A few standalone studios that made their fortunes in previous eras -- Blizzard, Bioware, and Id come to mind -- manage to still survive, but 2004 saw the collapse of dozens of small game studios, no longer able to acquire contracts in the face of rapid and massive consolidation of game publishing companies. This is an epidemic hardly unfamiliar to anyone working in the industry. Though, of course, it is always the option of talent to go outside the industry, perhaps venturing into the booming commercial software development arena. (Read my tired attempt at sarcasm.) To put some of this in perspective, I myself consider some figures. If EA truly believes that it needs to push its employees this hard -- I actually believe that they don't, and that it is a skewed operations perspective alone that results in the severity of their crunching, coupled with a certain expected amount of the inefficiency involved in running an enterprise as large as theirs -- the solution therefore should be to hire more engineers, or artists, or designers, as the case may be. Never should it be an option to punish one's workforce with ninety hour weeks; in any other industry the company in question would find itself sued out of business so fast its stock wouldn't even have time to tank. In its first weekend, Madden 2005 grossed $65 million. EA's annual revenue is approximately $2.5 billion. This company is not strapped for cash; their labor practices are inexcusable. The interesting thing about this is an assumption that most of the employees seem to be operating under. Whenever the subject of hours come up, inevitably, it seems, someone mentions 'exemption'. They refer to a California law that supposedly exempts businesses from having to pay overtime to certain 'specialty' employees, including software programmers. This is Senate Bill 88. However, Senate Bill 88 specifically does not apply to the entertainment industry -- television, motion picture, and theater industries are specifically mentioned. Further, even in software, there is a pay minimum on the exemption: those exempt must be paid at least $90,000 annually. I can assure you that the majority of EA employees are in fact not in this pay bracket; ergo, these practices are not only unethical, they are illegal. I look at our situation and I ask 'us': why do you stay? And the answer is that in all likelihood we won't; and in all likelihood if we had known that this would be the result of working for EA, we would have stayed far away in the first place. But all along the way there were deceptions, there were promises, there were assurances -- there was a big fancy office building with an expensive fish tank -- all of which in the end look like an elaborate scheme to keep a crop of employees on the project just long enough to get it shipped. And then if they need to, they hire in a new batch, fresh and ready to hear more promises that will not be kept; EA's turnover rate in engineering is approximately 50%. This is how EA works. So now we know, now we can move on, right? That seems to be what happens to everyone else. But it's not enough. Because in the end, regardless of what happens with our particular situation, this kind of "business" isn't right, and people need to know about it, which is why I write this today. If I could get EA CEO Larry Probst on the phone, there are a few things I would ask him. "What's your salary?" would be merely a point of curiosity. The main thing I want to know is, Larry: you do realize what you're doing to your people, right? And you do realize that they ARE people, with physical limits, emotional lives, and families, right? Voices and talents and senses of humor and all that? That when you keep our husbands and wives and children in the office for ninety hours a week, sending them home exhausted and numb and frustrated with their lives, it's not just them you're hurting, but everyone around them, everyone who loves them? When you make your profit calculations and your cost analyses, you know that a great measure of that cost is being paid in raw human dignity, right? Right?




Azik«¤»Blaze

GO FLAMES GO!!

50 XP

1st November 2003

0 Uploads

95 Posts

0 Threads

#36 15 years ago

Battlefield 2, the upcoming next game in the multiplayer shooter franchise, has been pushed back from a March release to a release in EA's first fiscal 2006 quarter (April-June 2005).

In his exacts words; "We now expect Battlefield 2 to be shipped in the first quarter of fiscal 2006" Note: Fiscal 2006 starts April 1st 2005

Didn't take the bastards long did it? Already they are ******* with the project.

edited for language




striderx2048

DiCE/EA: Ambiguously Gay Duo

50 XP

16th May 2002

0 Uploads

2,073 Posts

0 Threads

#37 15 years ago

its going to take that extra month to dumb down the game to EA's low standards and to insure the game appeals the LOWEST common denominator. anything removed will be added back in in the expansion packs.




schoolkid

your mother is a beaver

50 XP

3rd June 2004

0 Uploads

1,134 Posts

0 Threads

#38 15 years ago
Didn't take the bastards long did it? Already they are ******* with the project.
its going to take that extra month to dumb down the game to EA's low standards and to insure the game appeals the LOWEST common denominator. anything removed will be added back in in the expansion packs.

This is retarded. EA has only delayed it one month (most likely to give the team more time to fix bugs and stuff), and suddenly it's because EA is evil. If EA were not to delay, the game might have a few minor bugs here and there and it'd be because EA is evil. Either way, EA is evil. Talk about lose-lose situation - no matter what EA does, EA is evil...




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#39 15 years ago

I have done the 12 hour days 7 days a week for week after week before. After awhile you get to the point where you cant think, days run together, and you start having trouble sleeping. You actually reach a mental point where you say "The money doesnt matter anymore" You have a whopping paycheck but you dont have time to go anywhere except to grab dinner or hit grocery store on way home, eat, and go to bed. And your too tired to go anywhere to spend it.

There is no way in hades that anyone would realistically work 90 hours a week and not expect compensation.

Schoolkid your quite naive. A company will not delay the game by a month to improve it, they will release as is and tell you to download a patch. There have been games in the past that I had to d/l a patch and install it before I could even play the game.

When Battlecrusier 3000 was first released the game designer flat out told the gaming community not to buy the game because it would not run. The game and designer were sold to different publishers and he was given a due date. But Derek Smart would not release the game until it was finished. It was finally sold to IIRC Take-2 studios who grabbed what was done and published it as is against Derek Smarts wishes. The publishing studio attempted to put out a sub standard game with the hope that enough sales would be generated to cover the companies cost to purchase the game.

There were alot of features left out of BF1942 that DICE wanted to put in but didnt because EA said to "dumb it down" to appeal to the largest common denominator. The ONLY thing that has kept BF1942 successful as long as it has is due to the mods, not the expansion packs.




Admiral Donutz Advanced Member

Wanna go Double Dutch?

735,271 XP

9th December 2003

0 Uploads

71,460 Posts

0 Threads

#40 15 years ago

heh i truely hope that the above article is fake, working 90 hours a week without compensation (for the 30-!!- hours you work extra) is illegal last time i checked.

I don't like EA, i much more prefer games by Bioware for example, the only reason i will buy bf2 is if FH will move to it.

Bigger, bigger and better? I don't think so...