..You know, somebody must stick a thread explaining that WC3,4, Priv and P2 were created thanks to EA.
Every year some new poster comes and complaints about that
The shit hit the fan and someone is banned.
Maybe I'm not up on all the WC history surrounding EA and Origin, etc, but what are people complaining about? And what's wrong with EA? I figured NONE of the WC games would have been made without EA, or some big software coroporation, backing the makers up. That's the way the world works.
On the corporation thing in general...
A lot of people are anti-big corporation for very good reasons. However, it's a much more complex issue than just "big = bad, small = good". Large corporations are allowed to exist because they are capable of doing things that smaller companies/individuals are not...certain R&D development efforts can only take place when bankrolled by a very large firm, certain projects or products requires such a large scope of resources from many locations that they are only possible because of large corporations, certain business breakthroughs can only occur when a large corporations peforms system-level integrations of improvements to things like supply chains, etc.
However, large corporations MUST be carefully monitored and regulated by governments in order to actually contribute to the general good. Now here's where pro-big business advocates start screaming "laissez-faire" (sp?) and "Milton Friedman" and "free market", but the fact is that large corporations, almost by definition, are the antithesis of a laissez-faire free market--they are artificial entities that only exist because special government laws allow them to (the whole concept of a corporation having liability and owning assets, instead of its people), and they have the power to squash the free market. This is where a lot of animosity towards them comes from. Frequently, some very visible large corporations (Wal-Mart, Microsoft, etc.) use their power to advance their own cause (or their stockholders') at the cost of their employees or the consumers. This generally occurs when their goals begin to cease to align with the goals of society (which frequently happens when they achieve oligopoly or monopoly status). This is when they deserve animosity, and when the government should step in.
The software market is a good example, of both large corporations doing good when their interests align with the public, and bad when they don't. EA's interest is to make money, and in the game distributor market, you make money by finding smaller companies that make good, bug-free, fun games, and backing them. Hence, a good chunk of Wing Commander, and other great games. Sometimes they make mistakes or misjudgements, and then they are published by people buying from their competition who found better written or funner games.
Microsoft, on the other hand, has near monopoly status with its operating systems. They no longer have incentive to improve their own product, since there are very few other choices available to consumers, and hence consumers are stuck with whatever Microsoft engineers think makes a good operating system. Meanwhile, they have incentives to actually try to crush better ideas than they have, because they want to protect this state of being.
Sorry for the rant. I just get annoyed by people who mindlessly argue pro- or anit-corporate slogans without any real depth of thought behind the issue, and was trying to head that off. And also, it's a Friday afternoon and I'd really rather not be at work...