| oniyide said:
|
You asked for evidence of wrong-doing. Those example prove that EA has been willing to sacrifice potential profits for the sake of scumbaggery many times in the past. They show no signs of halting this practice.
Especially the Dreamcast example. You mean to tell me that not publishing their games on Dreamcast was a profit-driven decision? Nah, they made an outrageous ultimatum, and Sega didn't cave. EA had to save face. They refused to publish on Dreamcast, in spite of the easy profit they would have made from simple ports of games like Madden and Need for Speed, just to prove that they weren't bluffing. They could easily have said, "You know what, that no-third-pary-sports-games offer sounds like a good deal." They still would have had very little competition on the console, and more than enough sales to justify the cost of porting. EA made a business decision that lost them potential profits out of spite. They absolutely did, there is no arguing that point. If it has been proven that they did that in the past, then there is reason to believe they would do that in the present.
This is an essential part of the case against EA. ME3 is NOT the first time they've done something like this, so arguing against the principal of the matter is pointless. EA has acted this way before.
And I happen to believe that making a business decision rooted in pure greed is, in fact, "wrong." You can make hefty profits without sticking it to your customers that way. Compare Valve's TF2 model (was that decision made to make Valve money? Absolutely. Does it also please their fans? You bet it does.) to Capcom's extensive use of on-disc DLC. There's a difference between good business and greed.
