Someone pointed to Blizzard being the shittiest gaming company? Even more so than EA?

As I see it, they are becoming as bas as the other gaming companies, but still, I do not really see them as being as bad as EA. My problem with EA is buying out other companies and shit all over their franchises. Also the fact that they made Origin and all their DLC crap. Blizzard does stay away from Steam and GoG, but I EA actually took games AWAY from Steam that they had released on Steam.

Companies I avoid these days are EA and Ubisoft... maybe a few more, but I cannot remember which ones they are anymore. I guess I have not begun avoiding Square Enix yet. I guess they remain okay for me.Microsoft... now sure. No idea what they have even released recently? Bethesda I also recently bought Fallout 4 and DOOM from. They are starting a trend to release physical collectors editions of games without the full game in the box though, which is not a trend I want to support, even though I very rarely buy physical games. I might begin to avoid Blizzard soon as well. Starcraft 2 is not exactly easy to play offline, and in my book you should be able to play single player games without an Internet connection if you want. Diablo 3 even more so.

Originally, EA (Electronic Arts) was founded much like Activision was: to give content creators an avenue to create games AND claim credit for those games. Their original lineup of stuff like M.U.L.E., Hardhat Mack, Bill Budge, etc, were all packaged like records, complete with artwork, pictures of the staff that worked on it, along with a few other "feelies," as they were known back then. Trip Hawkins felt that game makers were the new rock stars and wanted to treat them as such. (This was prior to the Madden chasing.)

Even though the games lost their unique look in their packaging over the coming years, they still continued putting out good games. Centurion, Starflight series, Earl Weaver, Chuck Yeager, Bard's Tale, Neuromancer, Powerdrome, Sentinel Worlds, Wasteland, Populous, Hard Nova, Powermonger, King's Bounty, Road Rash.

Also, much like Activision, success and corporate culture can be a motherfucker. I would say that peoples' perceptions changed when they started gobbling up companies like Westwood, Origin and Bullfrog, then allegations of unpaid overtime and heinous working conditions also began to surface. I think that's probably the major point at which gamers started to turn on them. They also never really found a relateable CEO to replace Trip with, making it much harder to change that perception. When the public faces of your company are generally regarded as the worst douchebags in an industry, that's not going to make people rally to support what you do.

I used to try separating the company from the games they publish, but it's not really something I do mental gymnastics to support monetarily anymore. I just don't buy their games, unless I can get them used, or extremely cheaply. Other peoples' mileages may vary.

Reading this thread feels like listening to a debate about which kind of fiend is worse; devils, demons, or yugoloths?

this refutes his every single claim :)

Hmmm, earlier I wrote
"My point was that its not really Activision anymore. I guess some people who worked at Activision might still be there, but its essentially Infogrames with a "new" name."

and I was wondering how Infogrames became so big. I think the problem is I remembered wrong, the company Infogrames bought and changed its name to was Atari, not Activision... :P Woops.

what about catdemons?

But...but I'm a cat. :`(

If your description is true? Probably around 2005.

I don't see them as evil, but I guess I haven't played a game from them for a long time. I still hear the "EA Challenge everything" quite often whenever I start one of my good old games.

Thats a simple one. Yugoloths; Tanar'ri & Batezu have redeeming eyecandy (Succubi & Erinyes).

I never got past Act IV. I feel like I should finish it since I've had it for nigh ten years...

I bought Diablo 3 for my PS3 because it had couch co-op and my wife likes some of those games. I'd rather get her to play Gauntlet: Dark Legacy again or finish Champions of Norrath on the PS2 though...

When they started buying out talented groups and promising projects, only to kill them off their own way and milk them off mercilessly. Had those groups and games been completely independent and irrelevant, without any ties to EA whatsoever (at least only their funding, not their directorship and game/economy model decisions...), now they would still be around and highly recognized/praised/established, too... I myself still mourn Bullfrog and Westwood, to this very day...

My wife and I did play BG:DA on our Gamecube at some point in our past. I don't recall if we ever finished it, though.

Gauntlet: Dark Legacy is a simplified ARPG, but I still enjoy it to this day with its varied worlds and bosses. CoN is much like BG:DA but my wife has to be in an orc-killing mood to actually want to play :P

"Electronic Arts. ARTS. Arrrts. If there was ever a name that illustrated a need for some kind of verbal equivalent of social services who come and forcibly take words away if they're being misused -- then again, they do mainly go by "EA" these days, so maybe they quietly changed their name to "Extruding Arseholes" so as not to offend reality. My point is if there ever was a time where artistry was important enough to the company to be eponymous, then that is not a time in which we are currently living! Now, they're just all about money and being a dick about things. Perhaps "EA" now stands for "Expel All. (Your Money. From Your Wallet. So That We Can Have It. And Then Be A Dick About It)" - Yahtzee on SimCity