Jump to content


EA worest company on the planet - I learn to appreciate WG


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
78 replies to this topic

Metallic #1 Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:53 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16408 battles
  • 808
  • [ZER0] ZER0
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011
So EA was chosen twice as the worst company in the US by some anonymous organization (at least to me).

Before I came to this game I used to play the Free-to-Play game Battlefield Heroes and than Battlefield play4free (BF3 clone). These two games are THE example of pay-to-win games, there are super overpowered weapons you can buy for only real cash and give you insane and unparalleled advantage in the game.
BF Heroes was a first experiment by EA so the P2W was weaker but the BF3 clone that followed later showed weapons almost x2-x3 stronger compared to non-premium weapons... P2W at it's best.

Because of my history with these two HIGHLY UNRECOMMENDED shitty ass games, I'm still getting e-mails from them and the last one made me laugh and cements further the fact that EA is the worst gaming company on the planet. WG are several several levels above, no competition at all.

My e-mail:

Posted Image

which made me think of this:

Posted Image

WG are not perfect, but these little e-mails by EA remind me that there are FAR worse companies around.

Edit:

I'll explain for those not knowing the game.
In the past you could purchase P2W weapons from the in-game store.
Now they added premium to give access to an even more exclusive store with even stronger P2W weapons.

So basically you need to pay to get premium and pay again for the weapon. and all this BS is wrapped up like it's a good and nice thing they are doing.
Making even stronger P2W content and making it even more exclusive for the "Double Premium" payers. So nice of them.

The point is that out of all F2P games around I have never seen this double premium shit going on. Maybe except Plantside2 but look how well they are managing to fail with the game (not because of the premium thou).

Edited by Metallic, 18 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.


Hopeinen #2 Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:56 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 43670 battles
  • 412
  • Member since:
    10-26-2010
USA = The world?
****.  :ohmy:

I agree that WG is not that bad.

Edited by Hopeinen, 18 April 2013 - 09:57 AM.


kuschmau #3 Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:58 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33549 battles
  • 309
  • Member since:
    05-18-2012
They want and need to make money as a company, strange strange world, they pay their staff and give them a good living. FU capitalism.

Metallic #4 Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:59 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16408 battles
  • 808
  • [ZER0] ZER0
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View PostHopeinen, on 18 April 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

USA = The world?
****.
I agree that WG is not that bad.

Shit, are only the reading challenged are here?
You can understand from any post anything your mind wishes and that's nice, that's the creativity in us.
Or someone is butthurt about the US, don't know which.

But why do you think this was the point or even hinted at?

View Postkuschmau, on 18 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

They want and need to make money as a company, strange strange world, they pay their staff and give them a good living. FU capitalism.

Yes, and your understanding of what's written is also impeccable.

Edited by Metallic, 18 April 2013 - 10:02 AM.


kuschmau #5 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:01 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33549 battles
  • 309
  • Member since:
    05-18-2012

View PostMetallic, on 18 April 2013 - 09:59 AM, said:

Yes, and your understanding of what's written is also impeccable.

I guess you proved urself false the second time now.

No_One001 #6 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:03 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 32384 battles
  • 287
  • Member since:
    05-03-2012
I think WOT is a free to pay MMO not realy free to play, premium user getting better by using premium they get more credits experience etc.
Using credits for gold ammo makes the game even less accesible for free players.

So yes pay for win

playec1992 #7 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:04 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11483 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011
I got a free game from EA Games because og bought Sim City 5 with i always loved to play.
I got myself Deadspace 3 with does not even work on my PC regardless of my Hardware.

Edited by playec1992, 18 April 2013 - 10:05 AM.


playec1992 #8 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:06 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 11483 battles
  • 961
  • Member since:
    05-21-2011

View PostNo_One001, on 18 April 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:


Using credits for gold ammo makes the game even less accesible for free players.

???
explain that please

lonigus #9 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:13 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32631 battles
  • 7,996
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011
EA shutting down Simcity social from FB which had even more players then the actual PC game... They screwed Simcity so much that almost the whole lead including the CEO got sacked.

Ppl spend like 500+ USD on that game and now they just shut it down showing the middle finger to all those millions that play and pay for the game on FB. Thats hilarious...

So yeah pretty much the worst company for a reason... Twice in a row lol.

orzel286 #10 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:14 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 18094 battles
  • 1,195
  • Member since:
    01-20-2012

View PostNo_One001, on 18 April 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

Using credits for gold ammo makes the game even less accesible for free players.
What?

Playing 5-10 or more matches with tier 5-6 moneymakers without using gold rounds to sustain tier 7-10 that uses them is not a big bang theory FFS. And it seems that people still don't get this concept.


/facedesk

Supernashwan #11 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:19 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9497 battles
  • 687
  • Member since:
    08-03-2011

View PostNo_One001, on 18 April 2013 - 10:03 AM, said:

I think WOT is a free to pay MMO not realy free to play, premium user getting better by using premium they get more credits experience etc.
Using credits for gold ammo makes the game even less accesible for free players.

So yes pay for win

Yeah sorry about that, lets all not pay then there is no game at all, oh wait you want others to pay but get no benefit, just as long you don't have to put your hand in your pocket?

WoT premium system is not perfect but its not that bad, yes premium players will have more silver, more gold ammo, better crews, less time in stock tanks...
But every single one of those advantages merely switches time for money, if your a jobless scrote living with your parents then you can play all day and earn the same.. time = money.

For me I don't have a huge amount of free play time in the week, so its a good trade-off as, to put it bluntly 8 quid a month is not much more than small change compared to other forms of entertainment (me + wife, good cinema tickets almost 30 quid!!, f***k off!)

Metallic #12 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:24 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 16408 battles
  • 808
  • [ZER0] ZER0
  • Member since:
    04-20-2011

View Postlonigus, on 18 April 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

EA shutting down Simcity social from FB which had even more players then the actual PC game... They screwed Simcity so much that almost the whole lead including the CEO got sacked.

Ppl spend like 500+ USD on that game and now they just shut it down showing the middle finger to all those millions that play and pay for the game on FB. Thats hilarious...

So yeah pretty much the worst company for a reason... Twice in a row lol.

Who were sacked? the CEO of EA or the division that made SimCity?

SeerEast #13 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:25 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 8109 battles
  • 259
  • Member since:
    11-01-2011
EA is a great company compared to Wargaming.

Nethraniel #14 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:26 AM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 12834 battles
  • 1,912
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    05-30-2012
Exactly... in comparison to the mentioned EA game WOT offers nothing for real money that gives you a really significant advantage above non-paying players. You get more comfort and faster gains but no extra uber power weapons.

So, yes, WG's pay model is quite nice.

Fedajkin1989 #15 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 20892 battles
  • 679
  • Member since:
    05-16-2011
WoT might not be pay to win, but WG did throw away game balance in order to make more money, instead of making OP tanks that can only be bought with real cash they introduce OP tanks that anyone can get, but because of the grind it encourages people to buy premium and convert xp to get them faster, and then there is the gold ammo credit sink which once again encourages people to buy premium and premium tanks so they can afford spamming gold ammo when they lack the skill to pen with normal shell, which once again unbalances the game, you work hard to get yourself in a position where only the strongest part of your armor is showing and then some monkey in IS4 just lobs a 400mm penetration gold shell at you.

Hippopotamus_Rex #16 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 20607 battles
  • 1,377
  • [ETOH] ETOH
  • Member since:
    04-10-2011
There are different types of "pay2win" concepts, and it is true that WoT smartly uses one which is rather mild and indirect one in comparison to most other f2p games.

lonigus #17 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:53 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32631 battles
  • 7,996
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011

View PostMetallic, on 18 April 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

Who were sacked? the CEO of EA or the division that made SimCity?

Everyone responsible for the SimCity franchise.

Apash #18 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:54 AM

    Corporal

  • Beta Tester
  • 29695 battles
  • 143
  • [CRANG] CRANG
  • Member since:
    09-17-2010
Wot is at the moment one of the best f2p out there. What i stiil hold against WG is not the bussiness model but the slightly russian biass when we talked about tank balance, and the disregard for some ww2 legends that are just some sort of ingame joke..

l3ull #19 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:54 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 24043 battles
  • 1,025
  • Member since:
    09-17-2011
I'm not a fan of EA, far from it. Worst game publisher, sure.
But worst company? I liked their response:

Posted Image

lonigus #20 Posted 18 April 2013 - 10:59 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 32631 battles
  • 7,996
  • Member since:
    09-26-2011

View Postl3ull, on 18 April 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

I'm not a fan of EA, far from it. Worst game publisher, sure.
But worst company? I liked their response:

Posted Image

If that response is legit it is awkward to say the least...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users