Well, two schools of thought here.
A) You don't like what the company is doing, so boycott everything the company does
B) You don't like what the company is doing with specific things, so boycott only those specific things.
I agree that EA does a lot of things poorly and I do generally stay away from their titles. But for me, personally, if they put out a decent product I won't ~not~ buy it just because it was published by EA. Punish bad behavior, but reward good.
Rewarding good behavior
is a good thing, but this "good" behavior is driven by greed and the not the intent to actually be fair or truthful to its customers; how are they going to prove that they're trying to be better towards their customers? Maybe a good start is not hiring psychiatrists to implement features that prey on addictions and impulses? By not having random chance loot boxes and instead offering direct items to buy? There are several things they could do to continue making money through microtransactions that don't involve shady and downright vile practices that prey on human psychological weakness/impairments; so I pick option A until they show some concrete, verifiable proof that they are actually trying to be better. This title was a step in the right direction, but not enough to show that they've learned a lesson and are trying to be better.
IF they can continue the trend they've done with this game, then maybe I would consider an EA title again at some point, but 1 or 2 titles later is not the time. I really do hope EA makes changes, and I'll just have to be ok with the fact that the changes are made out of greed and not out of good nature or fairness to their customers.
I'm not sure what you are going on about. People DID vote with their wallets. EA only approved the title to show people that there was no money in single player games. Clearly, that was false. The public voted and clearly told EA: "If you make a quality single player game, we will buy it." It's that simple. The game was a success because it was well made. It used a popular franchise license to great effect. It told a good story. It wasn't too short and it wasn't too long. It was the kind of Star Wars game we'd been wanting for more than a decade now.
If it was said this was approved only to show people that there was no money in single player games, someone lied. First, Respawn makes quality games that, so far, have been polished and work as intended, at least more-so than a lot of other studios these days. Second, it's a Star Wars single player game, people who are fans of the franchise have been waiting for this for a LONG time. If they were going to try to make a power move to prove that single player games aren't worth making, why use this combo?
This is purely speculation, but personally I say this was a power move all together. EA knew they were on thin ice with its customers, so if the title didn't do well out of people insisting they won't partake in EA titles, the game fails and they stop focusing on single player at all; on the other hand, it's a beloved franchise using a quality studio, regardless of the outcome, they win. Either people boycott with their wallets and the game fails as well as single player prospects from EA, or impulsiveness wins because its Star Wars and single player.
I'm glad it was a good title, I'm glad Respawn lived up to their reputation, and I'm glad EA kept their promise to keep it microtransaction free. Hopefully they can keep this type of behavior a standard, and hopefully they finally learned a simple fact, if you make a quality game, it sells itself.
