EA in a nutshell?

[UltraRobbie]

I thought I would share this, as I agree with a few of the points. I'll be honest though; I don't know enough to actually hate them, or feel they are evil (maybe I have Stockholm syndrome, I don't know) but a lot of people have reacted well to the video; and as I know we aren't particularly lovers of EA at the moment, maybe you guys will enjoy this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ&feature=g-all-f

[acid_paradox]

Yeah, I think they got the basic idea of it.

But really, I agree with a lot of the points. EA has ruined a lot of my favorite franchises other than the Sims (Mass Effect and Dragon Age to name a few). I mean, this crap is just getting ridiculous. They even won Worst Company of the Year instead of Bank of America. Now that should really be a warning sign that maybe, just maybe, they are doing something wrong. But they probably won't quit with their insane business tactics until a majority of the consumers wise up. Until then, they're just gonna keep exploiting us, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it except for ceasing to buy their games.

I'm not making that sacrifice, though, because like you, I have Stockholm's Syndrome. This is probably gonna be me when another installment to my favorite EA franchises comes out: "Ooh, shiny! Oh, no, the horror, the horror! Why does this keep happening to me?!"

[UltraRobbie]

It's quite hard to dislike a company when they have done good things recently. I mean they took a stand against anti-gay campaigns, which I am very pleased to see http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/122/1222404p1.html

Agh. I'm not great at disliking people lol

[kiwi_tea]

Yes, but how can you imagine their stance against anti-gay campaigns is anything more than a cynical opportunistic attempt to recover some of their brand's tanked prestige. Probably it's also genuine from many of their staff, but I'm gay, and their support for gay rights does not make me like the company even marginally more. Businesses don't take ideological stances unless there is a gain from it - in this case, gay investors and simply appearing to be on the right side of history as a company. But what the hell do gay rights mean when EA's coalface workers - gay, bi, or straight; black, white, or asian - have crap conditions and tight deadlines? And when EA's consumers are nickel and dimed and DRMed into the ground? And when EA controls a lot of what the gaming journalism says (or is willing to say) about a project? And when consumer expectations are managed down to such a low point where some factions will defend very low quality produce as if it were the best we could expect?

There's the whole problem with identity politics for you. Sure, gay people deserve equal rights, but there also far more universal and fundamental rights under attack here.

[HarVee]

4:15 is undoubtedly my favorite part of that video.

[olomaya]

"Why does this keep happening to me?"

Uh, because you let it.

On the one hand, yes, EA sucks, they are taking advantage of consumers and peddling crap products.

But on the other, this video is making the implicit argument that we are so gullible/stupid/desperate/pathetic/willing that we need a business to basically look out for our best interests because we won't do it ourselves. What I take away from that video, entertaining as it was, was we are mindless sheep or like children who don't know any better for ourselves and so it's EA's responsibility to not feed us crap because they know we will eat whatever they give us.

If they want to make crap games, that's their choice and you can choose to respond by not buying their games. The fact that they refer to the person not buying the game as "sane" says a lot. So the rest who make up the billions in revenue the gaming industry accrues every year are just simple-minded junkies willing to pay for something shiny even if we know (or are likely to suspect that) it's crap underneath.

And if that's the argument you (and by you, I mean whoever posted the video) are making then EA isn't alone in continuing that cycle. If people held them to certain standards and didn't buy games that didn't meet them, wouldn't they naturally try to meet those standards because it's in their best interest to get your money? Maybe that's simplistic but companies can and do change the way they do business because of declining customer sales.

From the comments on YouTube, it seems like most people are taking away from it is the general "EA is evil" platform. But it sounds to me like the video is complaining that people can't stop buying these games and jumping in the pile with the rest and instead of having the self-control to stop or start boycotting the games, EA should make it easier for them by just not making crap so people don't have to take a stand and stop buying games to call them out on their crap. I don't know if it was intended but I definitely get a very negative view of the typical EA consumer from that video.

[UltraRobbie]

Yes, but how can you imagine their stance against anti-gay campaigns is anything more than a cynical opportunistic attempt to recover some of their brand's tanked prestige. Probably it's also genuine from many of their staff, but I'm gay, and their support for gay rights does not make me like the company even marginally more. Businesses don't take ideological stances unless there is a gain from it - in this case, gay investors and simply appearing to be on the right side of history as a company. But what the hell do gay rights mean when EA's coalface workers - gay, bi, or straight; black, white, or asian - have crap conditions and tight deadlines? And when EA's consumers are nickel and dimed and DRMed into the ground? And when EA controls a lot of what the gaming journalism says (or is willing to say) about a project? And when consumer expectations are managed down to such a low point where some factions will defend very low quality produce as if it were the best we could expect?

There's the whole problem with identity politics for you. Sure, gay people deserve equal rights, but there also far more universal and fundamental rights under attack here.

Guess I didn't think about it like that. Ugh, EA is such a fart.

[kiwi_tea]

olomaya

This is the typical economic argument about EA's products and consumer choice. It invariably ignores heaps of things - EA has a clear monopoly on this kind of project (the so-called "life simulator" genre) so for consumers its crap or naught for a start. Crap can at least be mitigated by third parties into something slightly playable, which is what the Sims community has settled for. EA has terrible profits and high production costs. Their reaction has not been to improve quality of retail games like The Sims 3, quite the opposite, it's been to move into Zynga-like low-cost micro-transactional games, only their pricing team doesn't understand what "micro" (or apparently "competitive") pricing means. A large portion of the Simming audience is hyper casual, too, and does not care about the low quality coding and the errors that come from long term play. They *do* represent a sizeable portion of the market, they are *not* "mindless sheep" - they are busy working people; workers, mothers, students - who don't have time for more than half-hour play sessions and casual engagement, nor time to learn about the fact that invisible taxis are accumulating in their neighbourhoods by the hundreds. The rabid players on the official boards who defend The Sims 3 are probably genuinely happy with the level of quality in the game, and who are we to rage at their low standards? Our concern is that the game is not meeting OUR standards, not that it is meeting the standards of some angry tween. Coherent arguments, vocal opposition, and a clear animosity towards the design decisions in The Sims 3 are options for us, but EA won't care about those either. Our problem is with the company, neither with satisfied customers, nor with those taken in by a multimillion dollar marketing machine that has gaming journalism in its pockets. EA is also preying on brand loyalty, a legacy of which Maxis built up legitimately, and that's a powerful thing that not every consumer is critical enough - educated enough - to simply break from. Many buy The Sims 3 longing to recapture old, good feelings from earlier in the franchise, and they have some right to feelings of betrayal.

Boycotts by individuals can do very little to solve the market-driven contradictions that have left us with crappy Sims 3 products, because I'm sorry, but the bulk The Sims 3 market are happy, and they are not mindless sheep, just seeking much more casual and inelegant gameplay than we are. The video takes a very anti-consumer "EA-players are idiots" line that is only very partially justified, and in the case of The Sims 3 I'm not convinced it's justified at all. The video at least lays out the anti-consumer system upon which EA is predicated (albeit the video also attacks consumers), and that is at least progressive and informative.

Edit: That's not to say we're helpless. Our role is to point out that a lot of the problems with the franchise are not fiscally-motivated, but the result of incompetence at the design level. They could make a much better game for the same amount of money, and *possibly* in the same amount of time.

[UltraRobbie]

The video takes a very anti-consumer "EA-players are idiots" line that is only very partially justified, and in the case of The Sims 3 I'm not convinced it's justified at all.

To be honest, I don't think the video maker was really thinking of us as a fan-base, more about other games like Battlefield, as shown in the video, but you are very right. I think the video maker did go over-the-top with the EA fan-base; hardly any of us are idiots, and his representation was very stereotypical (but hilarious).

[DaBoogadie]

There's the whole problem with identity politics for you. Sure, gay people deserve equal rights, but there also far more universal and fundamental rights under attack here.

What? My universal and fundamental rights are under attack? Which universal and fundamental rights are those?
All that I see is a simple 'yes' or 'no' ~ buy or don't.

I have that universal and fundamental right!

[Volvenom]

Liked and posted on facebook. Hopefully lots of people see it.

[kiwi_tea]

Aside from the entire notion of consumer rights post-purchase (gaming media, reviews, etc, do not prepare you for the bugfest of TS3 at all) you seem to be ignoring that EA's reputation as a bad company also encompasses their attitudes towards their employees, not just consumers.

The simple-minded idea that you either buy or not is fine. But if you don't complain as a consumer with knowledge about the product you just guarantee EA a completely pliant audience of hyper-casual gamers, and you gain nothing. The "don't buy" campaign relies heavily on the notion that some good might come of not buying, but it's often hard to see what. EA will happily forfeit a small minority of the market to consolidate its relationship with a majority more likely to accept its current practices.

There's obviously a whole discussion about piracy here that we can't have for good reasons. Suffice it to say my views on that subject can't be announced here, however I do think pirates tend to get carried away with some notion that they are mounting an effective campaign against bad games based on some pretty blinkered economics.

[Tempscire]

The simple-minded idea that you either buy or not is fine. But if you don't complain as a consumer with knowledge about the product you just guarantee EA a completely pliant audience of hyper-casual gamers, and you gain nothing. The "don't buy" campaign relies heavily on the notion that some good might come of not buying, but it's often hard to see what.
Generally agree with what you've been saying, but I'd like to point out that even if "don't buy" fails at any large change/awareness, at least for those few people, they aren't continuing to financially support something they disapprove of... which, as we've seen, is quite a feat in and of itself when you consider how many well-informed, otherwise conscientious people love to slag off on EA as the worst ever before meekly disclaiming that they're still going to buy anything and everything they want from them. At that point, anyone not buying is at least achieving a personal victory. :p (And if that group could ever actually achieve critical mass... and so on.)

[kiwi_tea]

Fair call. There's a lot going on here - I mean, I swore never to purchase a single Stuff Pack after the first two, but managed to get all of them except TL and MS at rates so absolutely reduced that they sat around the maximum I ever would pay for them without vomiting, and yet I still think their prices are insane and I never would have bought them at price. Likewise, basically the only reason I thought Showtime worth buying was that I got an SP bundled into that price. (I now regret that purchase, incidentally, due to the lack of solid gaming additions in SHT, and the fact that the town has some mystery lag problem). What happens with the prices can actually be the difference between more-money-than-sense hypocrisy and a real post-purchase gripe. I certainly won't be buying Sweet Treats, even on special. I'm mortified that some people WILL buy it simply because it's Sim-branded. [edit: But I don't think that category is very big, the group who will just buy it cos they're collectors of the brand]

[Periandre]

I have to agree with much that is being said in this thread. But the "Buy or Don't Buy", while working for the individual, I don't think impacts EA at all. They can't tell that they've lost a purchase because of substandard products. It doesn't send a message. At this point, probably the only thing that would have impact is demonstrated consumer flexing, for example, a scheduled day in which everyone boycotted purchasing from the store...

And while the support exhibited on the sims 3 site seems over the top, I think even the hard core fans are getting tired of, for instance, premium content that does not work.

[olomaya]

Kiwi_tea: I wasn't saying that consumers are mindless sheep but that was the impression I got from how the video portrayed EA consumers. My main issue with the video was this underlying idea that consumers are addicted and compelled to EA's crap when they know it's crap. I think that's a whole other categorization of consumer than completist (maybe masochist?) and the video basically does little to engender sympathy (on my part, at least) for the consumer in their "EA is evil" video. Like I said, I don't know if that was intentional or not.

I wasn't so much saying "just don't buy it" but more "why are you STILL buying it". Not buying the game isn't the only option and it's just one of many that you can do in tandem with letter campaigns, petitions, protests, etc. But I do think considering it's a company that sells video games, not buying video games is a very effective method.

I think I usually have realistic expectations when I buy EPs as well as use my money (I think) selectively in what Sims products I buy and since I only play the Sims, I can't speak to other EA gaming communities as to their sheep-like nature. I agree with you that most in the Sims community seem pretty pleased with the games save for a few (relatively speaking) vocal dissenters and of course, everyone has things they'd like to improve or change.

However, I disagree with your assessments of boycotts. Even if you are the only one boycotting why should it matter if you believe the game to be not worth purchasing? If you (the proverbial you) are not happy with the game, then you shouldn't buy it even if you are the only one of that fanbase who doesn't. I think, as Tempscire said, more than anything, it's a personal statement you are making and considering that no one is ever rarely alone in one idea or feeling or decision, if many people individually come to that decision to not buy something because it doesn't meet their standards, that can make a difference.

I consider myself in the "sane" category, I suppose, of that video and over time, my buying patterns for the Sims has changed as the game changed. The changes to TS3 from TS2 that have made me less of a rabid fan and as a result, I spend less time and money on TS3 than I did previous incarnations. For me, it's not a purposeful act but rather something that came naturally as the game doesn't hold my interest as much anymore than it used to. Granted that takes a much longer time than a mass boycott for EA to feel the effects but assuming they continue down this path, I'm sure I won't be the only one who eventually lets their love of the game die off in the next couple of years.

[Periandre]

...
I wasn't so much saying "just don't buy it" but more "why are you STILL buying it". Not buying the game isn't the only option and it's just one of many that you can do in tandem with letter campaigns, petitions, protests, etc. But I do think considering it's a company that sells video games, not buying video games is a very effective method...

I think you're right that if the product doesn't meet your approval you shouldn't buy it. But the concept of a boycott is by its very nature a concerted effort--not just one person. As an individual, not buying a product that you don't think worth your money, is a "win" for you, but if you are interested in the Sims franchise and what may come at a later date, it could, because no pressure was brought to bear on EA to change, be a "loss". There is no clear cause and effect in an individual not buying a Sims product, for the loss of your sale, EA has picked up a new player. And as long as EA can balance those numbers -- veteran players don't purchase, but they gain new player--they won't really feel the loss.

Not buying the video game is the most effective method... but it has to by a very sizeable amount of people with a clear message of why you're not buying the game.

[kiwi_tea]

I would fall into the "sane" category as portrayed by that video too, olomaya, and very naturally my buying patterns have changed too, even though I only started simming with TS3, every new product they release I want less and, helpfully, every new product they release also seems substantially less worthy of my money. I just don't appreciate the way the video portrays those that do buy.

(Want the DIESEL pack, though, and will pay reduced for it *if* it has a enough content).

[morphius1]

EA is doing what every other industry wants to do: Be on top.
We all helped them do it by buying their stuff.

[PunkyBreester]

This is amazing and hilarious and wonderful <3 I love the clips they used from Spongebob, ahahahaa... yay.

To the people who are saying "We (consumers/EA fanbase) aren't that mindless and stupid and blah blah"; Well no, not ALL of us are, but um.. have you been to the official forums? Because it makes me want to claw out my eyes and set all of humanity on fire.

[zigersimmer]

It's quite hard to dislike a company when they have done good things recently. I mean they took a stand against anti-gay campaigns, which I am very pleased to see http://uk.games.ign.com/articles/122/1222404p1.html

Agh. I'm not great at disliking people lol

It's easy for EA to ignore those letter campaigns, since the letters are obviously coming from people who don't play video games anyway.

[kiwi_tea]

EA is doing what every other industry wants to do: Be on top.

They're not on top. They're really, really struggling to pull a profit that satisfies investors.

[matrix54]

^Then they should satisfy their consumers. :)

[sunfromhere]

They're not on top. They're really, really struggling to pull a profit that satisfies investors.

If this is the case, I'm not surprised. Any company that just concentrates on the numbers and completely ignores the product will start to struggle. They're not asking "How can we better our product so we increase the sales?", they're asking: "How can we make people pay more?". This method will work out for a certain time, but then the decrease starts. If they had any serious (and better) competition on some fields, the decline would be even faster.

Also, someone above mentioned that they do not quite understand what a micro transaction is. :)

[matrix54]

Yeah, the whole "quick buck" thing can only last for so long. Franchises that are trying to be trends, or have mass appeal also don't go over well because people leave franchises. They should try working on getting people to like what they already have and build a strong consumer-business relationship. If they actually work on creating better products instead of trying to make money, they'll make money. I admit, cheat the costumer and doing underhanded tricks is profitable, but actually working with the consumer (the people who are will to invest over a long period of time - like us) will ensure business growth because we will pour money into their pockets over long periods of time. Lose us AND the "quick buck" market and... you have EA's current situation.

[kiwi_tea]

Lowering prices in NZ and Australia would certainly make them more profits. Even on Steam, the cost of the Sims 3 is 63% higher in Aussie dollars than the comparable US dollar price. They've priced working people out of the market charging AUS$79.99 then AUS$40/50 for stuff packs. Origin is no better. Retail is the same. That's one of the reasons I say I won't buy them except on sale. Even on sale they're majorly expensive to someone on a median wage. They could probably cut the price nearly in half and still make more money than at how it's priced now.

[rian90]

You know, EA does have a monopoly on games like The Sims but not on all game genres. I may buy The Sims games and EPs but when I buy games for my kids, I try to find alternatives to EA games and I have usually been successful. Since my kids don't follow what is popular, it is easy to find games that they like but are not made by EA. I think the last game I bought them that was made by EA was a My Sims game...and it is in a box somewhere, no longer played by my kids. Instead the popular games are Minecraft and anything by Square Enix in my house. :) My adult son occasionally buys EA games but he has had so many problems with them that he is also looking elsewhere first.

EA makes a lot of money on The Sims franchise but they need to be successful elsewhere too. I just went to Facebook and removed all notifications for those silly casual games so at least I am one Facebook customer EA won't get.

[Tempscire]

Granted that takes a much longer time than a mass boycott for EA to feel the effects but assuming they continue down this path, I'm sure I won't be the only one who eventually lets their love of the game die off in the next couple of years.
Of course, the problem with that course of (in)action, aside from speed, is that if/when it occurs, EA will just shrug its shoulders and say, "welp, that was fun. What's next?" The Sims stops being a money-maker? No more The Sims. And at this point, while it would be...stupid...to let a decade+ year old franchise that has claimed the spot of #1 seller before and is easily the flagship product of the entire Sims Division that arose from that reorganization they did... they could also just as easily figure that it was a decade+ year old franchise that had run its course and there was nothing to be done. It takes a concerted protest to point out that actually, no, We the Consumers feel it was run into the ground, not that it had run its course, and yes, we still care.

Lowering prices in NZ and Australia would certainly make them more profits. Even on Steam, the cost of the Sims 3 is 63% higher in Aussie dollars than the comparable US dollar price. They've priced working people out of the market charging AUS$79.99 then AUS$40/50 for stuff packs.
I feel so bad for Australian and Canadian consumers of American-produced media. At least back in the day, prices kind of made sense because of the exchange rates. Now that the US dollar is more or less equal to Australian and Canadian dollars, it's just highway robbery veering towards extortion. :(

[clay4kelly]

Lowering prices in NZ and Australia would certainly make them more profits. Even on Steam, the cost of the Sims 3 is 63% higher in Aussie dollars than the comparable US dollar price. They've priced working people out of the market charging AUS$79.99 then AUS$40/50 for stuff packs. Origin is no better. Retail is the same. That's one of the reasons I say I won't buy them except on sale. Even on sale they're majorly expensive to someone on a median wage. They could probably cut the price nearly in half and still make more money than at how it's priced now.
THIS.

Same goes for music and movies from iTunes.

[McChoclatey]

LOL, thanks for sharing that! :rofl: The video is as hilarious as it is true. But what did the Maxis employee say at 4:15?

[Simsdestroyer]

EA has already turned the Sims innto a crap franchise, but now they're working on securing GTA and buying Rockstar. I'm seriously starting to hate them.

[Simsica]

It took me years, but now I'm a customer that the EA has lost. If I could do it, anyone can. Just like many here, I was a loyal Simmer, mesmerized by this series that unlike any other game captured my attention over a long period of time. I was ready to buy TS17 whenever it came out, as I liked to joke back then, when it was the truth.

Then I heard about the trials involving underpayed and overworked workers. The death bell for my company loyalty started to toll that very day.

But I won't let anyone claim that it's all stupid customers' fault that they behave like this. What kiwi_tea said up to now - I agree with every word and every sentiment. EA is at the producing end of this. They produce their craptastic materials in a global economy that takes time to react and respond to exploitation simply because there is a mass of people involved. EA is abusing this. But it won't last forever. Just like I gave up, most will too, when the time comes. Or maybe I'm feeling a bit overly optimistic today.
However, I'd say that the people DO care about their expenses and that they will punish the company that gives very little back, eventually.

I'm an informed and principled person. Aside from that, for years I was working in the field of human sciences directly concerned with exploitation and capitalism. But then, back in my home, I sat at my PC and fired up my Sims to forget all about it. There is a *lot* to forget, let me tell you. My point is - even though I care about my principles and about the state of global economy in general, I missed it initially, the stuff EA was doing to increase its profits, maybe because it simply wasn't as bad as 500 million people not having drinking water and another 1,8 billion not working or working for a dollar a day. I can only imagine what it is like for those people that have no time or opportunity to notice this. In their case it will take more - more wasted money, more wasted time - to do what I've done - send them packing.

Here's one to you, fellow customers around the world - I believe in you, if everyone else is willing to tap you over the head and call you mindless consumers.

[joandsarah77]

I feel so bad for Australian and Canadian consumers of American-produced media. At least back in the day, prices kind of made sense because of the exchange rates. Now that the US dollar is more or less equal to Australian and Canadian dollars, it's just highway robbery veering towards extortion.

I try not to look at how cheaply Sim games sell for in the US. It's not the only things we get a hefty charge on. I like to tell myself we are paying the rowers to bring it across otherwise it's too easy to get mad as I have in the past. Amazon wanted $100 postage on a box of books, some party place wanted an astronomical amount on some paper party goods, so these days I am very careful to check where an online shop is from and just where they post to and how much that might be first. Sometimes buying things directly from America can work out cheaper if things are on sale and don't have exorbitant postage costs and the exchange rate is okay. (Of course good exchange rate for us is probably bad news for you-sorry :( ) It's not just the distance making things postage high as I had a packet of five videos sent to me from an American and she told me her postage costs were 1/3 of what the company were going to charge me had I got my videos directly from them. It was cheaper for me to pay them to send it to her and then to pay her costs for posting to me. So crazy. There are certain US companies I'd like to throttle and not just EA, for not being clear on where they post to. Nothing worse than filling out a form and then realizing it's an American company (You know a flag or something in this global market place would be nice) and finding out in the fine print that 'international shipping' does not include Australia.

[Miuki]

I agree with the points made in and below the video. I never buy EA games (except Sims), because I know that they'll be glitchy, overpriced or generally borked beyond repair and I know for sure, that I'm not the only one. I also became aware that very soon I'll skip sim games as well, if the quality and amount of playable content will keep declining. As for mindless fanbase, I'm not so sure that it's just the fact that most simplayers are extremely casual, it's that with glitter and celebrities EA converted quite a lot of kids to playing sim games, and that the general rule is - the IQ of the crowd equals the IQ of the stupidest person in that crowd divided into the number of people in the crowd. The official forum is a very upsetting to read, it's like getting into the mind of the stupidest person in the world and who can forget facebook comments?

P.S. I wonder if investors kids showed them this video on youtube and what do they think of growing hate and distrust towards the company's business practices and products?

[Mootilda]

Then I heard about the trials involving underpayed and overworked workers.I can understand refusing to buy a game because there are problems with the game. This is our right as consumers.

But, refusing to buy a game because programmers who live in a relatively free society choose to work long hours for very good pay at a job that they love just doesn't make any sense to me. People who work for EA want to work for EA. Most people who work for EA understand the working conditions that exist before they join the company, and those working conditions are quite common for the entire game development field in the U.S. and Canada.

Yes, I know that some judge or jury somewhere decided that EA employees are "underpaid". However, that doesn't match the reality of people that I know who work for EA. The logic seems to be that they are being paid a fixed salary but they are expected to work more than 40 hours a week, therefore they must be underpaid. The fact is, their salaries are often higher than they would have been had they been restricted to 40 hours a week. In addition, people are given time off in lieu of overtime worked and they have a generally good working environment.

Although it's possible to find jobs in computer science which do not require long hours, the more interesting the job, the more likely that it will require occasional overtime. In fact, when I was in high school and considering a job in computer science, I was specifically warned about the normal requirement for overtime.

Remember, EA is not a third world sweatshop. If programmers in the U.S. and Canada feel that they are underpaid, they can always leave and go to another company.

[LordOrochimaru]

Oh hey all. If you wanted another reason to hate EA, I found it.

Apparently there was a group on FB about people talking about how much EA fails to listen to problems and suggestions concerning Sims Social, and it was closed down.

No rule breaking, just discussion. And it was closed. And a friend of my was threatened with a ban from the Sims Social mods for her posts, which only consisted of LEGIT complaints and suggestions that loads of other people agreed with.

Guess EA hates criticism, huh?

On topic: I saw the video, and I agree 100%.

[rian90]

Remember, EA is not a third world sweatshop. If programmers in the U.S. and Canada feel that they are underpaid, they can always leave and go to another company.

I cannot speak specifically about EA's hiring practices, but I know it is becoming an industry standard to hire Interns for very little money and then keep them as Interns for several years. The field is very competitive because so many 'kids' want to be 'game designers' these days. They play so many games they figure they would be good at it. :)

EA and other companies have a responsibility to their workers, even in a free enterprise system. Remember, you pay a dozen interns for several years minimum wage and you are reducing the number of workers out there who can buy your games. Free enterprise only works if people have money to spend. Exploitation is not only sweat shops, it is also underpaying workers when the company is making profits. Go find out how much bonuses are to EA execs and compare that to the average salaries of the interns they hire.

As for leaving and going elsewhere, if it is an industry standard, then there is no where else to go.

[vhanster]

Guess EA hates criticism, huh?

And that is exactly the reason why the company sucks.

They produce shit, people complain, they don't care, and continue to produce shit.

[zigersimmer]

It took me years, but now I'm a customer that the EA has lost. If I could do it, anyone can. Just like many here, I was a loyal Simmer, mesmerized by this series that unlike any other game captured my attention over a long period of time. I was ready to buy TS17 whenever it came out, as I liked to joke back then, when it was the truth.

Then I heard about the trials involving underpayed and overworked workers. The death bell for my company loyalty started to toll that very day.

But I won't let anyone claim that it's all stupid customers' fault that they behave like this. What kiwi_tea said up to now - I agree with every word and every sentiment. EA is at the producing end of this. They produce their craptastic materials in a global economy that takes time to react and respond to exploitation simply because there is a mass of people involved. EA is abusing this. But it won't last forever. Just like I gave up, most will too, when the time comes. Or maybe I'm feeling a bit overly optimistic today.
However, I'd say that the people DO care about their expenses and that they will punish the company that gives very little back, eventually.

I'm an informed and principled person. Aside from that, for years I was working in the field of human sciences directly concerned with exploitation and capitalism. But then, back in my home, I sat at my PC and fired up my Sims to forget all about it. There is a *lot* to forget, let me tell you. My point is - even though I care about my principles and about the state of global economy in general, I missed it initially, the stuff EA was doing to increase its profits, maybe because it simply wasn't as bad as 500 million people not having drinking water and another 1,8 billion not working or working for a dollar a day. I can only imagine what it is like for those people that have no time or opportunity to notice this. In their case it will take more - more wasted money, more wasted time - to do what I've done - send them packing.

Here's one to you, fellow customers around the world - I believe in you, if everyone else is willing to tap you over the head and call you mindless consumers.

Exploit their employees? Get real. We're not talking about uneducated immigrants working in a sweat shop. EA is in the software business. Getting any job there does require some amount of education and training. If you're educated AND being exploited, you are as much to blame as the employer.
And that is exactly the reason why the company sucks.

They produce shit, people complain, they don't care, and continue to produce shit.
And people keep buying their shit. Who's to blame for that?

As for leaving and going elsewhere, if it is an industry standard, then there is no where else to go.

Of course there is somewhere else to go, unless those poor starving programmers can give the police a description of the man who held a gun to their heads to force them to choose to work in game development.

[mithrak_nl]

Hilarious video :) Well, I am the sane dude of course. I wised up and refused to buy new ep's! I'm cool and a rebel like that, rawr!
It has nothing to do with the fact that I'm currently preoccupied with a different game that satisfies my building needs at all!
I also don't keep checking this website every day, to see if EA released some miracle patch that would immediately make me buy the new eps regardless of how I despise EA as company!

Yeah, baby, I am strong! /flex .. *pulls a muscle* OUCH!

[Mootilda]

As for leaving and going elsewhere, if it is an industry standard, then there is no where else to go.There are lots of other places to go. Again, we are not discussing third-world sweatshops staffed by people with few options, few skills, little money, and no mobility.

Programmers are well-paid skilled knowledgeable professionals. They can work in a wide variety of industries, many of which work 9 to 5 Monday to Friday. Life Insurance, for example, is unlikely to ask you to work overtime. Government jobs are another alternative which is likely to be very regular, with little if any overtime. I'm sure that there are a lot of other fields where a programmer can work restricted hours.

Even if a programmer works in a field which is known for overtime, they can explain in their initial interview that they are unwilling to work overtime on a regular basis. A programmer can have a say in how and when they work. There's no guarantee that you'll be hired, but it can be done.

In one job interview, I was told that 80 hour weeks were the norm. I explained that I was unwilling to work more than 40 hours a week except in extreme cases. It turned out that their standard hours were even less than 40 hours a week. I got the job and kept it for years, working standard hours except when I decided to work longer, leaving only when the company folded. I wasn't pressured to work longer; I received regular promotions and pay raises; I did not feel discriminated against. Most of the people that I worked with worked long hours by choice, not necessity. Programming is a lot of fun.

In another job, I was told after I started that they expected me to carry a pager and work nights if necessary. I explained to them that I would not agree to those conditions and that they should have said something in the interviews. Again, they gave in to me and I was never forced to work overtime, carry a pager, or work nights. The fact that I had skills which were in demand in a lot of other companies helped me to negotiate working conditions which met my needs.

I know a game developer who's spouse is very ill. Although he has always worked tons of overtime, he went to his boss and explained the situation. After telling them, they agreed that he could work reduced hours and even take a few months off, if necessary. Again, his skills are in demand and his company is willing to be flexible to keep him loyal.

In addition, I've heard (although I can't verify) that game development in some other countries is likely to be regular with little or no overtime. Most software companies will fill out the paperwork necessary to get you into the country with a work visa, and will pay for your moving expenses.

Programmers are lucky. There are lots and lots of options available to them. If they choose to work in an industry which requires overtime, that's their choice.

Besides, didn't the courts force EA to resolve the situation? If so, then it should be fine to buy their games now.

[rian90]

Mootilda, we live in a time when there are more people looking for work than there are jobs. As in any supply and demand situation, this allows the companies to offer lower wages, fewer benefits, and longer working hours than in the past. Working overtime is no longer always an option when there are others ready to step in and fill the positions. I don't think this is always a bad thing but when companies make profits and pay out big bonuses, they need to remember the people who actually do the labor. They need to be ethical, even if forced not to be ethical in their business practices. I guess I am an old lady now but I remember when people worked for a company for a long time and the company felt loyalty to their skilled workers. It is nothing like that is most industries today.

I have plenty of friends in the gaming industry and I hear there stories. It is not what it used to be. Also..programmers are only a small fraction of the people required to make games. EA may take care of their programmers but I wonder about the rest of the people? I know they outsource a lot of the artwork.

[Mootilda]

Yes, that's all true. However, EA isn't unique in this environment. I cannot see boycotting EA unless you boycott all companies which treat their employees as bad or worse than EA. There are tons of tons of those companies. Look at everything that you eat, drink, wear, watch, ...

However, it's easy to see boycotting a company for making bad games, for spying on people, and for forcing advertising on them.

[kiwi_tea]

Yes, that's all true. However, EA isn't unique in this environment. I cannot see boycotting EA unless you boycott all companies which treat their employees as bad or worse than EA.

This is another reason why boycotts are faintly ridiculous. The only solution is a massive restructuring of the economy and social relations along democratic lines. Boycotts target individuals, who will be undercut by other individuals (especially now that pretty much all production is globalised), and ultimately the problem is with the economic system.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that highly educated people apparently can't be exploited in the workforce, too. Especially in a time of global financial crisis where there are more people than jobs in many, many countries.

[Mootilda]

During bad economic times, most companies have the advantage over their employees. However, some employees manage to make themselves indispensable, based on their skills and knowledge (which may or may not be related to their education). If you prove to your employer that you are worth keeping, they will be more likely to bend to your demands.

People just out of school are at a definite disadvantage right now. However, boycotting EA isn't going to change that. If there was a successful boycott, EA would probably have to get rid of more people than they already have in the last few years. People just out of school could be the first to go, unless they agree to worse working conditions than the long-term employees (such as lower pay and longer hours).

[DigitalSympathies]

EA reminds me of YouTube/Google in the way they handle things with consumers. And I'm speaking from firsthand experience on both the (crashy) Google Product Forums and on the (horribly hosted) TS3 site. People complain, they outright ignore you or threaten you with account termination for some bullshit reason, or remove your threads. They continue churning out cheaply made products (the new layout on YouTube would be a good comparison, NOBODY liked it and they forced it on us anyways to MUCH protest and leaving to other sites) and pretend people like them, pretend they're so fantastic, and then turn around and head-scratch as to why their numbers keep dropping or changing. We're all up in their faces with what we want, but they're too busy trying to make a buck or "keep up with the times" that they ignore the people who will actually be using it.

*sips tea* Case in point, EA isn't the only company that's turned into a foul, greedy cesspool, but that doesn't make the situation any brighter.

[Mootilda]

People complain, they outright ignore you or threaten you with account termination for some bullshit reason, or remove your threads.Another excellent reason to boycott EA. I really don't like the way that EA treats their customers.

[kiwi_tea]

I don't like the way any large gaming company treats their customers. EA is worse, but if I wanted to start boycotting horrible companies I'd be getting pretty hungry and naked right now.

[Undercovers_Agent]

It'll be a while but in my lifetime EA will crumble and fall into the dark void...

And cold is the void.

[Simsica]

Remember, EA is not a third world sweatshop. If programmers in the U.S. and Canada feel that they are underpaid, they can always leave and go to another company.

That's precisely what I'm remebering, and centuries of class strugle that brought us to the point where we're not third world countires so that our people doesn't work in sweatshops.

Of course, there are still sweatshops, some would say because there aren't any in the so called first world. And that is what I'm remembering too - all those people working for a dollar.

And there is nothing free if you *must* work for your living. You've also usually gone through a difiicult and long education process if you're a programmer and that also had its costs.

In any case -show me a free man and I'll point you to his hefty bank account. None other are free.

ETA: I'm neither naked nor hungry, and I do boycot all I deem unjust.

[kiwi_tea]

Then you have lower standards of justice than I. :giggler:

[Simsica]

Then you have lower standards of justice than I. :giggler:

Really? Prove it.

[kiwi_tea]

For a start, I'd have to demand a list of companies you don't boycott. In either case, Apple or Microsoft are very likely on such a list, given you're using a computer, so heck, there's a start - who can say with a straight face that Microsoft, Apple, and countless other day-to-day products are actually "just" in the way they treat their employees and consumers. By its very structure, a capitalist economic system strikes me as unjust - workers having the bulk of their labour's worth fund private profits strikes me as fundamentally unjust. I wouldn't have much access to basic technologies if I thought boycotting was a solution to the contradictions of capitalism. Perhaps I'd have to make my own clothes. Go live in a cave, because I'm not remotely confident the methods used to produce the materials in this house would pass ethical muster. As I said, naked and hungry.

But this really isn't the place, it was a joke. If you want to have a big argument about which of us is fundamentally more ethical, PT me with your credentials and I'll proceed not to reply.

[Simsica]

For a start, I'd have to demand a list of companies you don't boycott. In either case, Apple or Microsoft are very likely on such a list, given you're using a computer, so heck, there's a start - who can say with a straight face that Microsoft, Apple, and countless other day-to-day products are actually "just" in the way they treat their employees and consumers. By its very structure, a capitalist economic system strikes me as unjust - workers having the bulk of their labour's worth fund private profits strikes me as fundamentally unjust. I wouldn't have much access to basic technologies if I thought boycotting was a solution to the contradictions of capitalism. Perhaps I'd have to make my own clothes. Go live in a cave, because I'm not remotely confident the methods used to produce the materials in this house would pass ethical muster. As I said, naked and hungry.

But this really isn't the place, it was a joke. If you want to have a big argument about which of us is fundamentally more ethical, PT me with your credentials and I'll proceed not to reply.

Credentials? What would those be? Are people allowed to have opinions only if they have credentials? My credentials are my brains in my head - I don't care much about titles. They don't prove anything.
Also, don't shoo me away with "this isn't the place". It's a thread about EA, not any game feature. When discussing companies you'll end up discussing capitalism, which we only proved. Maybe this entire thread is at fault?

However, I agree that capitalist society isn't just. Period. Nothing redeems it in my eyes. If I could, I'd blow it out of existence in a milisecond, along with sexism, racism, homophobias, etc.
But no *one* person can change this injustice by doing *anything*. You can only hope to improve your own life with your actions, *if* the system will allow it. I'm not doing it as the means of opposing the system, I'm not superficial enough to think that any of my actions would be relevant in this sense. No matter what *I* do, it survives - it's a *system* (of course, "system" is only a concept helping us to understand the workings of a complex social phemonenon. You maybe use another concept or another term. About this I won't argue. It's simply not interesting to me as a subject.)
Whatever I'm doing in my life, I'm doing it because *I* feel better that way. It's strictly frustration relief, nothing else. I'm no revolutionary - I'm too cynical to be that, too old.

However, I'm intrigued: was I being chastized because I, an individual subjected to an insurmountable pressure of a system half a world couldn't take down in endless revolutions, can't fight it *effectively*? If that was the case, what would the purpose of such chastaizment be?

There's no "more ethical" in my view. *What* ethics are we talking about? I assure you, if there's only one, then I'm profoundly non-ethical, as a matter of principle. Cause the base for *my* ethics is a singular, individual being and its wellbeing. If you agree on this, we share ethics and we can compare them, but never evaluate them in such a manner as to say: my/yours is "more/less ethical". My ethics, as you can clearly see, allows for differences and weaknesses inherent to the singularity of human being.

[Drakesecaravdis]

This is another reason why boycotts are faintly ridiculous. The only solution is a massive restructuring of the economy and social relations along democratic lines. Boycotts target individuals, who will be undercut by other individuals (especially now that pretty much all production is globalised), and ultimately the problem is with the economic system.

I'm a bit surprised to hear that highly educated people apparently can't be exploited in the workforce, too. Especially in a time of global financial crisis where there are more people than jobs in many, many countries.

I agree. I don't like how EA does things as much as the next Simmer but EA is just a tiny mosquito in this game...the real threat would be the government.
I don't know what all we can do but someone needs to get Obama to stop spending on crap we don't need (not saying Obama doesn't care but he got into this as too inexperienced) but I hate politics in general and one reason is because either the people in charge don't care or don't know what they are doing. I just wish we had someone who was like us that run the country..someone with a lesser background in other words but anyway I'm not here to talk about politics as much as I'm angry at the govt for so many things (esp since if I talk about this with too much detail I will either get more angry or just bored) I just can't understand why we're placing all the blame on EA when there are bigger fish to fry.


For a start, I'd have to demand a list of companies you don't boycott. In either case, Apple or Microsoft are very likely on such a list, given you're using a computer, so heck, there's a start - who can say with a straight face that Microsoft, Apple, and countless other day-to-day products are actually "just" in the way they treat their employees and consumers. By its very structure, a capitalist economic system strikes me as unjust - workers having the bulk of their labour's worth fund private profits strikes me as fundamentally unjust. I wouldn't have much access to basic technologies if I thought boycotting was a solution to the contradictions of capitalism. Perhaps I'd have to make my own clothes. Go live in a cave, because I'm not remotely confident the methods used to produce the materials in this house would pass ethical muster. As I said, naked and hungry.

But this really isn't the place, it was a joke. If you want to have a big argument about which of us is fundamentally more ethical, PT me with your credentials and I'll proceed not to reply.

definitely not about Apple. I don't really understand the Microsoft hate though. I mean I do and I don't. I know Microsoft is buggy (so I love reading jokes about them) and have all those unnecessary updates but aren't computers supposed to be buggy in general? and are they really that bad about listening to their customers? maybe I'm just being a dumb blonde here (no I'm not blonde but I swear I should be, or half blonde at least. I have my moments) but they don't seem to be THAT bad...certainly not enough to mention them as if they're on the top of the list.

[olomaya]

Whoa, how did this turn into a neo-Marxist social revolution? Now we're going after capitalism? :blink:

I don't know much about the working conditions at EA in particular but work intensification has definitely gotten to be a problem for employees of MANY large companies over the past 20-30 years. I don't know if it's the capitalist system writ large to blame so much as it is the Anglo-American style of capitalism which, in my opinion, is much different than say continental European or Japanese-style capitalism and is the constitution from which most of the biggest companies today base their corporate structure on (since most of the biggest companies are American).

I very much disagree with the notion that "educated people don't get exploited". This happens every day and as kiwi_tea said, when the very system is built like this (exploiting the many for the sake of the few), educated and non-educated alike end up being victims. It is very easy to become trapped in a job that you hate simply because leaving a job without another job waiting for you is in general a risky move and especially now, even more so. Additionally, since many companies in competition with each other tend to adopt similar practices, there is no guarantee that the company you go to will not bear an uncanny resemblance to the one you just left. And the ones that don't and actually treat their employees with respect and dignity, they're often not hiring because their worker retention is high and people don't see a need to leave.

I thought it was interesting that the video highlighted (intentionally or not) a Maxis employee. It would definitely hold true that the tight deadlines EA has placed on game development has had a negative effective on the quality and quantity of content in EPs as of late. However, speaking for the Sims only since that's what I know, I thought Pets 3.0 was way better than Pets 2.0 and so far, my biggest issue with TS3 hasn't even been overall quality or bugs but a) the Store siphoning objects which I personally believe would have been included in EPs and SPs (that baby seat they have on the store was originally part of LN or AMB. I remember TSR had a photo of it when they went to preview the EP and then that photo mysteriously disappeared) and b) the game focusing more on RPG-like questing rather than the TS2-style storytelling.

My personal belief is that the system and EA will eventually crumble by virtue of it being unsustainable in the first place. Since games are a luxury and price is not the main competing factor, quality does matter and that seems to be the case since someone mentioned earlier the coming has been eating losses/barely making profits. Whether it's through a boycott, or the company ends up being bought and dismantled through a hostile takeover or a natural decline of status and profits, it will happen.

[HarVee]

But what did the Maxis employee say at 4:15?

He said: "Ah, excuse me sir, I've been working for awhile and could I ... please just go?"

why we're placing all the blame on EA when there are bigger fish to fry.

Because this topic is about EA - Electronic Arts - not Barack Obama.

[rian90]

I absolutely agree that boycotts do not work in this global day and age. But I do think we can support good companies, if we can find them. Supporting things we believe in is much more effective than boycotts. Gaming is a very competitive market and while EA has this habit of buying up everything they can't make themselves, there are still some companies out there that are worth the investment.

I would buy more games if more games were developed that I thought were worth my time and money. As it is, that includes very few games and the ones I do buy are usually from small companies. I don't boycott, but I do not buy the latest game because "everyone else is doing it'. Imagine if people just started reading reviews and simply skipping over games with a lot of problems, instead buying the well done games. I imagine we would see a change in the long term among the companies.

As for the political rants here, don't we get enough of that elsewhere? This forum is full of Europeans and others, yet I seldom see them ranting against specific politicians on these forums. The issues with the game companies (too many companies, not enough quality, revolving door for employees) are the results of many things, not just our economy, which by the way has been spiraling downward for more than 3.5 years. Remember those pesky banks? Don't lose sight of reality because we are in an election year.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

i think there's blame enough to go around.... everyone's a little bit guilty.

[Tempscire]

... (that baby seat they have on the store was originally part of LN or AMB. I remember TSR had a photo of it when they went to preview the EP and then that photo mysteriously disappeared) ...
Wait, that happened again? :wtf: That's exactly what happened in TS2 for the infant toys: they were depicted in TSR's preview of AL before they had to take down the pics/video for those 2 toys, and then they made their way into the Store, requiring a little piece of code found only in AL, M&G, or the Store Edition.

[Drakesecaravdis]

Because this topic is about EA - Electronic Arts - not Barack Obama.
yeah which is why I said in my post "then again I'm not here to talk about politics" but I mean...what I mean is EA is not the worst in the world and again I hate them as much as the next Simmer but I hardly perceive them to be much of a blame.
it all comes together. basically my point is on topic and that is if people want to stand up against EA they need to get higher on the corporate ladder until they get an answer. have you ever heard of that expression? (and no I'm not saying the government would care about the Sims but maybe having a bad economy helps EA to be aholes)

As for the political rants here, don't we get enough of that elsewhere? This forum is full of Europeans and others, yet I seldom see them ranting against specific politicians on these forums. The issues with the game companies (too many companies, not enough quality, revolving door for employees) are the results of many things, not just our economy, which by the way has been spiraling downward for more than 3.5 years. Remember those pesky banks? Don't lose sight of reality because we are in an election year.
I'm the last person to talk about politics since they mostly bore me so it wasn't a rant. it was a tangent (so it wasn't technically off topic) that didn't state a clear point. exactly MANY things so we need to find a way to fix as many of those things as we can that are a result.

[applefeather2]

The human race should be shot. Shot, I say!

[PunkyBreester]

The human race should be shot. Shot, I say!

Or zapped by aliens, which I fully expect any day now.