EA won

[pico22]

No idea where this thread should go; it's not really on but it's not off either. Maybe it should be moved to the blooper section.

Anyway ...

EA was voted "worst company" in America (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-04-04-ea-responds-to-worst-company-label-from-consumerist)

[bassoon_crazy]

I'm so happy for EA, they totally deserved it! :D

[Louma37]

go brilliant people!

[PoisonFrog]

Yeah, I posted it earlier. Didn't know where to put it either...

http://www.modthesims.info/showthread.php?p=3824669#post3824669

Congrats EA...you beat out some real dirt bags to win this!

[cameranutz2]

""We're sure that bank presidents, oil, tobacco and weapons companies are all relieved they weren't on the list this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide," said John Reseburg in EA Corporate Communications."

What a dick wad.

Yes, please do continue to make games that are released prematurely so that players world wide can vote for your greedy asses again next year because you'd rather make a buck than a quality product.

Any company would take that as a sign that they need to take another look at the game plan. Sounds as if they are just gonna blow it off and continue their search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...once they move the Unicorn out of the way!

[EmotedLlama]

""We're sure that bank presidents, oil, tobacco and weapons companies are all relieved they weren't on the list this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide," said John Reseburg in EA Corporate Communications."

What a dick wad.

Yes, please do continue to make games that are released prematurely so that players world wide can vote for your greedy asses again next year because you'd rather make a buck than a quality product.

Any company would take that as a sign that they need to take another look at the game plan. Sounds as if they are just gonna blow it off and continue their search for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow...once they move the Unicorn out of the way!

O_O

PLEASE tell me that isn't a real quote.

PLEASE.

EDIT: Derp, 'twas in the article. Honestly, that is just too stupid. It doesn't matter if 300 million people are using your services; if a significant enough amount vote you WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA, something is wrong.

Not to mention that this forum proves that just because people are buying and using the games don't mean they're fully (if at all) satisfied--I mean, look at the Inheritance book series, and how the fourth one got such great sales on opening day... and yet, a lot of those people were those who hate it. Same principle here: sales do not equate consumer love.

[PunkyBreester]

I have to agree that BoA is a bit more evil, just because they really can ruin people's lives (as quoted in the last paragraph).. BUT, EA definitely deserves the votes and I'm not at all surprised by this ranking. Unfortunately, I'm also not surprised that they don't seem to care.. :(

[BlackjackGabbiani]

I honestly think "nickel and diming" is a far less serious offense than bringing down international economies. Is it annoying? Is it terrible business? Of course. But it's also like naming a thief the worst criminal when there are so many worse crimes.

[writerchick]

There are laws regarding the kinds of things BoA and other banks have done to consumers. So if you have complaints, take them up with your representatives. Oh wait... in that situation, the problem isn't just the banks, it's also the politicians who accept their campaign contributions, allow them to screw us over, and then bail them out with OUR money. Do NOT get me started on banks!

My point though is that banks aren't evil in and among themselves. They need political help to reach truly evil status...

Meanwhile, with EA, there's no consumer organization to appeal to. Politicians couldn't care less if we get screwed by some game company; so the laws and courts offer no protection. There's nothing for us to do but withhold our money. Of course, we're addicted like crack hos to the game, so.. yeah. We keep on giving them money, regardless.

EA is evil all on their own selling buggy products they often don't bother to fix. Why should they? The modding community will fix it (and probably better than EA ever could). Overcharging for additional content that either doesn't work or breaks something else when it's installed.

Seriously... if you bought a car which didn't start half the time and broke down the rest, would the government do something about that? Damned straight they would. But selling a computer game that doesn't work? DC will tell you to cry me a river... After all, it's just a GAME, for crying out loud! It's not like it'll ruin anyone's life!

That's how they not only keep getting away with their crap, but why it's getting worse.

[zigersimmer]

It seems that James Brightman ain't all that bright.

"EA may not be liked by some, but it's worth noting that the company has been very progressive in its support of LGBT content, offering players of its BioWare games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic the option to engage in same-sex relationships."

Same gender is in Mass Effect 3 (and Dragonage 2), but was not even on the BioWare radar for SWTOR as of August 2011, was actually banned as a topic of discussion on BioWare forums in the years the game was in developement, was given a very lame acknowledgment in September 2011, and BioWare has intentionally been entirely silent on the subject ever since, and has done absolutely no work to bring it into the game.

James Brightman, if you are going to write for a video gaming web site, you might try pulling your ignorant head out of your fat ass first.

Meanwhile, this award could not possibly have been given to a more deserving company.

[zigersimmer]

There are laws regarding the kinds of things BoA and other banks have done to consumers. So if you have complaints, take them up with your representatives. Oh wait... in that situation, the problem isn't just the banks, it's also the politicians who accept their campaign contributions, allow them to screw us over, and then bail them out with OUR money. Do NOT get me started on banks!


Let's not forget about the greedy morons who thought they could buy a McMansion with no money down and pay for it with their lower class incomes.

[coltraz]

CONGRATS EA! *cheers*

Seriously though, maybe this sort of thing will inspire them to change. I'm betting they were surprised to have won, considering how clueless they always seem to be. Getting voted the worst company in America is pretty bad publicity. Surely they'll have to do more than whine.

[DigitalSympathies]

*gets out six-pack, pint glasses and crushed ice*

Who's up for a round to good ol' EA games?! :beer:

[XTS]

They are running so fast that they are tripping over their own feet.

It's a shame because (this is going to sound juvenile) when I was little, I always dreamed of a game like Sims. The closest I found as a kid was "hide and seek" for nintendo? lol

[Shhh]

I knew they could do it if they tried hard enough!

They are so stupid that they don't realise if we had good quality EPs they might not win titles like these. Idiots.

[Firelira78]

Somehow, I feel it should have been Zynga. Their CEO even openly admitted to unethical tactics/practices.

[purexevil666]

i think simmers actually voted for them :) i didn't vote but i'm glad they won..

[ButchSims]

CONGRATS EA! *cheers*

Seriously though, maybe this sort of thing will inspire them to change. I'm betting they were surprised to have won, considering how clueless they always seem to be. Getting voted the worst company in America is pretty bad publicity. Surely they'll have to do more than whine.Sadly, as long as people keep buying their products, they probably won't change. As long as the money keeps rolling in, that seems to be all EA cares about anymore. Case in point, the new Katy Perry CrapPack. I was told I wasn't a "true simmer" because I said I didn't like it and said I wouldn't buy it. It is people like that that EA is after, because they know that some people will buy whatever they put out.

[pico22]

Yeah, I posted it earlier. Didn't know where to put it either...
My apologies. I did not follow the thread close enough - I despaired of the Sims future a while ago.

As for BoA & Co., I liked Kanjin's answer from the Eurogamer discussion (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-04-ea-brushes-off-worst-company-in-america-award): "Everyone expects the companies in charge of money, weapons and oil to be complete cunts. It's jarring when the people in charge of entertainment are douchebags as well, especially to their customers." - After all, they are supposed to take us away from our woes, at least for a moment, not to add to them.

[PoisonFrog]

My apologies. I did not follow the thread close enough - I despaired of the Sims future a while ago.

As for BoA & Co., I liked Kanjin's answer from the Eurogamer discussion (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-04-ea-brushes-off-worst-company-in-america-award): "Everyone expects the companies in charge of money, weapons and oil to be complete cunts. It's jarring when the people in charge of entertainment are douchebags as well, especially to their customers." - After all, they are supposed to take us away from our woes, at least for a moment, not to add to them.

That's okay..I couldn't expect you to see it tucked away in another thread like it was. I'm just glad EA is finally being outed as the corporate carnivores they are...
;)

[Petchy]

EA may not be liked by some, but it's worth noting that the company has been very progressive in its support of LGBT content, offering players of its BioWare games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic the option to engage in same-sex relationships.

Really? That's your Final Paragraph? The only redeeming feature of EA is them enabling a box for both genders to be flirtable and have relationships with? That's not the company, that's the game designers. Sure, they may have been defending their decision, that makes them respectable to a degree - showing someone high up knows what's right - but I wouldn't stick that on the end as a little redeeming post-it. Something like "Yeah, EA may be bad but they have like totally made some good games in their time and just like screw up every so often lol let's hope this makes them less twits and we know that they've listened because the spokesperson was all passive-agressive-defensive kk"

[Kathwynn]

EA sent me one of their TOS violations for having the audacity to say what is on my mind.. It is all good. Honest discourse is not what EA is looking for there. I do understand when I post, I will keep that in mind.. :deal:

Yes, Ea proving customer service is at the bottom of their list of things not to improve... :faceslap:

The email with my post in the body....

Hello

Your Electronic Arts account has been issued a warning for violating the terms of service for Electronic Arts Online. This is your (1st warning) hidden post for TOS violations. Further violations of the terms of service could lead to additional action, including suspension of services.

Violation:

Subject: Reinforcing the Reputation much, EA?
Well here is my 2 cents..

EA the votes are in.. You can ignore them.. Or you can do right..

Ignoring them is not wise.. Bottom line and all that will eventually get you..

Or doing right.. Pays off in the long run..

Think about this EA You beat out a bank that is the worse one in America. Came close to wrecking the economy. Been known to screw its own customers with out apologies..

$5.00 Fees on your debit cards any one?

[rian90]

Let's not forget about the greedy morons who thought they could buy a McMansion with no money down and pay for it with their lower class incomes.

Or the greedy morons who think they can hide much of their income overseas and not pay taxes. Or the rich folks who make up most of the housing defaults who don't want to lose money with after the bubble..interesting, but most defaults are on huge expensive houses.

And we must not forget the poor folks who lost their homes due to rising medical costs from for-profit insurance companies.

The world is full of greedy people, huh?

Wow..wish we could just leave American politics off the forums. It is so divisive and if you were a person affected by some bad stuff lately, it could hurt to read this. I come here to read about a game, not to listen to political party talking points..regardless of the party. Don't we have a forum for this sort of stuff here? Especially since I don't like to see us airing our dirty laundry for our European and Asian (and others) friends.

As for EA, until they have real competition..and they seem to own all their former competition, they have no incentive to change their customer service attitudes.

[Dramamine]

...they have no incentive to change their customer service attitudes.

I totally agree with everything you said here, I just wanted to say that I think it's sad that they need an incentive to provide a good experience, not to "customers" but to the real live people they're talking to on the phone, or even deeper to the real live people building up anticipation to buy something you're designing for their entertainment.

I'm a ballet dancer, and when I'm rehearsing and getting ready for a performance, I'm doing it so that I can give every member of the audience, who each buy their ticket and get excited, the best possible show that I can. I want to be able to take pride in myself for creating that experience for other people. Should that really be a hard thing to do?

[EmotedLlama]

It seems that James Brightman ain't all that bright.

"EA may not be liked by some, but it's worth noting that the company has been very progressive in its support of LGBT content, offering players of its BioWare games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: The Old Republic the option to engage in same-sex relationships."

Same gender is in Mass Effect 3 (and Dragonage 2), but was not even on the BioWare radar for SWTOR as of August 2011, was actually banned as a topic of discussion on BioWare forums in the years the game was in developement, was given a very lame acknowledgment in September 2011, and BioWare has intentionally been entirely silent on the subject ever since, and has done absolutely no work to bring it into the game.

James Brightman, if you are going to write for a video gaming web site, you might try pulling your ignorant head out of your fat ass first.

Meanwhile, this award could not possibly have been given to a more deserving company.

...

Whaaaaat. In what way does having games that allow same-sex pairings make a company overall good?

[Arisuka]

...

Whaaaaat. In what way does having games that allow same-sex pairings make a company overall good?

Yeah if THAT is the best argument they could come up with... :faceslap:

EA just plain sucks.

[minimogut]

EA voted worst company? Hmm, not surprising...

[calisims]

i think simmers actually voted for them :) i didn't vote but i'm glad they won..

Simmers and disgruntled Dragon Age fans.

[rian90]

...

Whaaaaat. In what way does having games that allow same-sex pairings make a company overall good?

Yeah, especially since it is a life simulator and same sex partners are a part of life, like it or not. What they did was expected, not special.

[fraroc]

The thing that DEFINETLY contributed to EA winning that "accolade" is the fact that they worship the almighty dollar.

Showtime and Sweet Temptations are possible the two most blantant money grab attempts by EA. Instead of making another EP worth getting, They made a BS EP and now a BS Stuff Pack endorsed by a pop star that worships candy, just so they can make a quick buck. IMHO we need another "Pets" style EP, that, Generations and Late Night were probably the only Sims 3 EPs made from the heart, for the fans. WA and Ambitions would have been better if they were more functional, BUT Showtime and Katy Perry's Sweet Temptations were made for one purpose. Money.

I know these are desperate times, but it shouldn't have to be THIS desperate.

[Tempscire]

Yes, please do continue to make games that are released prematurely so that players world wide can vote for your greedy asses again next year because you'd rather make a buck than a quality product.
Not to mention that this forum proves that just because people are buying and using the games don't mean they're fully (if at all) satisfied-- ... Same principle here: sales do not equate consumer love.
People vote with their wallets. They may also come online and vote in polls like these, but what the company really cares about is how people vote with their wallets... and the wallet-poll shows very different results than the online poll. Corporations are legally obligated to make profit. If their shoddy service and poor online publicity does not, in fact, reduce profits, what incentive do they actually have to improve?

(Note also, lest someone veiled remark about taking away the wallet voting via piracy: piracy is another form of approval, one that takes away your moral high ground as a consumer. It tells EA--or whomever-- that their stuff is desirable and they are awesome, but you are just a lazy/broke/unethical cretin who steals their IP. Moar SecuROM et al!)

Anyway, at least it shows us exactly where we stand with EA and exactly what their corporate culture is like: money uber alles, workmanship somewhere near the bottom.

It doesn't matter if 300 million people are using your services; if a significant enough amount vote you WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA, something is wrong.
On the other hand, it's not like internet voting systems aren't known for being troll-heavy and biased. And people never bother to circumvent 1-vote restrictions, let alone write little scripts that repeatedly spam the poll results, nosiree. And it's not like this thing was shared across all kinds of EA-loathing gaming communities, speaking to a potentially small but vocal group (the problem with internet polls is that only the people who care enough about the topic participate). How many other companies have thousands of online networks and forums dedicated to discussing their services and products?

The official response was surprisingly blithe (and definitely defensive in the deflection to more notoriously "evil," though not uncalled for, either), but you really can't be surprised by a spokesperson a)saying only good things about the company they're paid to say good things about, and b)not giving a huge amount of credence to such a thing in the first place, given all the aforementioned Wallet and Internet unreliability factors.

Yeah, especially since it is a life simulator and same sex partners are a part of life, like it or not. What they did was expected, not special.
I dunno, there's still not exactly a welcoming atmosphere in the US towards same-sex relationships. Orientation is still not a protected class against discrimination, lots of states don't just avoid same-sex marriage but actively reject it--enshrined in their state constitutions, no less, and so on. It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.

[rian90]

It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.

EA is in California and most of its employees are young people. I also suspect that most of it's customers are under 40...although there are a lot of older Sim players. Those demographics are in the US consistently poll as in favor of marriage rights for same-sex partners. So EA allowing this in the game is not altruistic. It is expected as well as good business. I don't give them accolades for this since it is something they just should do. I would not be happy if they put something in the game to disallow it...but that doesn't mean they are 'better' because they do. To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.

[calisims]

EA is in California and most of its employees are young people. I also suspect that most of it's customers are under 40...although there are a lot of older Sim players. Those demographics are in the US consistently poll as in favor of marriage rights for same-sex partners. So EA allowing this in the game is not altruistic. It is expected as well as good business. I don't give them accolades for this since it is something they just should do. I would not be happy if they put something in the game to disallow it...but that doesn't mean they are 'better' because they do. To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.

Brightman didn't mention Sims in his comment about same sex relationships in EA games, he just cited BioWare titles like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and SWTOR. And for what it's worth, those same sex relationships were in ME and DA before EA took over BioWare, so the credit for that belongs to them, not EA.
Even so, it does take some guts for a game company to include same sex relationships when they could just as easily not. Even if a majority of their customers are for same sex marriage, those customers won't be offended enough by games that only include hetero relationships to not buy them. Whereas there is a vocal minority who will boycott a game if it includes gay relationships.
Again, none of this excuses anything else EA does or makes them a 'good' company. But I think they deserve some credit for doing something progressive that a lot of other games just don't bother with for fear of alienating customers.

[PoisonFrog]

While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/05/ea-in-full-damage-control-mode-points-to-anti-gay-hate-mail/

[Mootilda]

Indeed. There's no evidence that they were voted for (against?) because of their tolerant attitudes towards gays. But it sure does make them sound like the heroes of the story, doesn't it?

Great spin. I hope that it doesn't work.

[calisims]

While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/05/ea-in-full-damage-control-mode-points-to-anti-gay-hate-mail/

Wow, I was not aware of that, and that does truly suck of EA to try to spin this that way. While they have taken some heat for including gay characters and relationships, there's no way they won the worst company of the year for it. If you go to the BioWare forum right now, the whole Mass Effect section is full of people screaming about the ending of the game, and not a peep about the gay characters.
I was just responding to the conversation that was going on about how having same sex relationships in games is no big deal and is to be expected, because I don't think we've come that far yet.

[EmotedLlama]

People vote with their wallets. They may also come online and vote in polls like these, but what the company really cares about is how people vote with their wallets... and the wallet-poll shows very different results than the online poll. Corporations are legally obligated to make profit. If their shoddy service and poor online publicity does not, in fact, reduce profits, what incentive do they actually have to improve?

The incentive of being, you know, decent and honest people. As far as I can tell, the whole point of a "worst company" poll is to find what company is least liked, not what company is least profitable.

(Note also, lest someone veiled remark about taking away the wallet voting via piracy: piracy is another form of approval, one that takes away your moral high ground as a consumer. It tells EA--or whomever-- that their stuff is desirable and they are awesome, but you are just a lazy/broke/unethical cretin who steals their IP. Moar SecuROM et al!)

Anyway, at least it shows us exactly where we stand with EA and exactly what their corporate culture is like: money uber alles, workmanship somewhere near the bottom.

Including this just to prove I'm not ignoring it; I don't see anything I don't agree with, and it doesn't seem to be arguing against me.

On the other hand, it's not like internet voting systems aren't known for being troll-heavy and biased. And people never bother to circumvent 1-vote restrictions, let alone write little scripts that repeatedly spam the poll results, nosiree. And it's not like this thing was shared across all kinds of EA-loathing gaming communities, speaking to a potentially small but vocal group (the problem with internet polls is that only the people who care enough about the topic participate). How many other companies have thousands of online networks and forums dedicated to discussing their services and products?

So the reasonable response to a large internet poll ranking you worst company is "oh, votes can be faked and also might not be the majority" as opposed to "okay, let's see where these guys are coming from and analyze why people might think this way"?

The official response was surprisingly blithe (and definitely defensive in the deflection to more notoriously "evil," though not uncalled for, either), but you really can't be surprised by a spokesperson a)saying only good things about the company they're paid to say good things about, and b)not giving a huge amount of credence to such a thing in the first place, given all the aforementioned Wallet and Internet unreliability factors.

Maybe it's just me, but the sarcastic "haha these people are so silly, so many people love us" response is just out of line. They don't have to go "oh man we so deserve this!", but the response gives no indication that they care in the least about the poll, which is wrong--if a large poll votes you worst company in America, there is somereason for it and to outwardly dismiss it is a poor attitude.

I dunno, there's still not exactly a welcoming atmosphere in the US towards same-sex relationships. Orientation is still not a protected class against discrimination, lots of states don't just avoid same-sex marriage but actively reject it--enshrined in their state constitutions, no less, and so on. It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.

Admirable views /=/ good games, good customer service, etc. etc. It's a good thing to have games with same-sex relationships, but that doesn't mean the games are not shoddily made. It's like saying "ooh, we have great graphics!" when someone asks if the game is fun.

[Tempscire]

EA is in California and most of its employees are young people.
California...the state that by popular vote removed the right to gay marriage in 2008 and has not yet actually restored it. :|

To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.
Who's saying that it makes them better than other companies? Or even "good" overall? It's one positive thing that the author in the original link felt was worth mentioning as an aside. I guess EA themselves might be trying to imply that by publicizing the anti-gay hatemail they've been receiving, but I can't blame them for trying to do damage control, and if there's anything good or decent they've done (in the vast sea of their terrible bullshit), they deserve credit for it. Giving them that credit in no way negates any of the other very valid criticisms leveled against them, nor does it remove from them the burden of actually addressing any of that criticism (thus far they haven't even been shown to take it seriously).

ETA
The incentive of being, you know, decent and honest people. As far as I can tell, the whole point of a "worst company" poll is to find what company is least liked, not what company is least profitable. ... So the reasonable response to a large internet poll ranking you worst company is "oh, votes can be faked and also might not be the majority" as opposed to "okay, let's see where these guys are coming from and analyze why people might think this way"?
No, their response to this was still inadequate, I think. I'm just saying that from their POV, it's not unreasonable to figure: "profit = people buying our games = people approving of our company (at least enough that they aren't boycotting) = keep on trucking." So they apparently aren't liked-- actively hated, in fact. Yet those who say they hate EA must apparently keep buying games from them. If (love of game) < (hate of EA), they still come out ahead and have no motivation to change.

There are some financial incentives to behaving in a good and decent way (like tax breaks for charitable donations), but corporations have 1 function in life: maximize shareholder value. They are legally required to do everything they (legally) can to fulfill this. If being good and decent out of the goodness of their hearts cuts into the bottom line, then being good is actually bad for the company. Now, ideally, when they act like jerks, their bottom line would go down and they'd be incentivized to be good to bring it back up. However, if that doesn't happen, is it any surprise when they keep on being jerks? And no, that's not an excuse, and that does not make it acceptable behavior on their parts. But it's easy to say "why don't corporations just ...!" without recognizing the larger system they are part of that actively discourages them from doing such things, as well as ignoring the role consumers can play in shaping corporate behavior and policy.

I don't see anything I don't agree with, and it doesn't seem to be arguing against me.
I was just trying to preemptively address that argument before anyone tried making it, since there's usually at least one person who likes to wink-nudge about how they haven't been paying. :)

Admirable views /=/ good games, good customer service, etc. etc. It's a good thing to have games with same-sex relationships, but that doesn't mean the games are not shoddily made. It's like saying "ooh, we have great graphics!" when someone asks if the game is fun.
I agree. I just didn't feel that an aside given in the final paragraph was an attempt at whitewashing EA's deeds or distracting from their terrible service record. If I were writing an article on how much EA sucks, I'd probably throw that in, too, just to show I'm not deliberately ignoring anything positive in order to better demonize them, if nothing else. :p

[ButchSims]

While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/05/ea-in-full-damage-control-mode-points-to-anti-gay-hate-mail/Interesting article. But one has to wonder, did Maxis recieve any hate mail for including same sex relationships in the original Sims? Even if they did receive some, they still didn't use it as an excuse to talk away some bad press by trying to make themselves a victim.

[jeffrompas]

Ha! EA covering their shoddy bums by pulling the LGBT card. EA, I'm genuinely offended.

[EmotedLlama]

No, their response to this was still inadequate, I think. I'm just saying that from their POV, it's not unreasonable to figure: "profit = people buying our games = people approving of our company (at least enough that they aren't boycotting) = keep on trucking." So they apparently aren't liked-- actively hated, in fact. Yet those who say they hate EA must apparently keep buying games from them. If (love of game) < (hate of EA), they still come out ahead and have no motivation to change.

There are some financial incentives to behaving in a good and decent way (like tax breaks for charitable donations), but corporations have 1 function in life: maximize shareholder value. They are legally required to do everything they (legally) can to fulfill this. If being good and decent out of the goodness of their hearts cuts into the bottom line, then being good is actually bad for the company. Now, ideally, when they act like jerks, their bottom line would go down and they'd be incentivized to be good to bring it back up. However, if that doesn't happen, is it any surprise when they keep on being jerks? And no, that's not an excuse, and that does not make it acceptable behavior on their parts. But it's easy to say "why don't corporations just ...!" without recognizing the larger system they are part of that actively discourages them from doing such things, as well as ignoring the role consumers can play in shaping corporate behavior and policy.

It seems we are coming from different perspectives, then: I'm more concerned with EA should be acting from a moral standpoint, as opposed to the business standpoint.




Ah, okay.


[quote]I agree. I just didn't feel that an aside given in the final paragraph was an attempt at whitewashing EA's deeds or distracting from their terrible service record. If I were writing an article on how much EA sucks, I'd probably throw that in, too, just to show I'm not deliberately ignoring anything positive in order to better demonize them, if nothing else. :p

Probably me being stupid because my heads not wrapping itself around what you mean here. As far as I can tell, though, I agree.

[StardustX]

Because allowing same-sex relationships in games makes up for all the crap EA has done... Right.

I just laughed when my husband told me about this earlier. Well done, EA. You definitely deserve it! :3

[Zokugai]

Not to mention that this forum proves that just because people are buying and using the games don't mean they're fully (if at all) satisfied

No kidding. The people who bought and paid for Mass Effect 3 and then LOST THEIR FREAKING MINDS at the ending are counted in that 300 million and I'd bet they'd vote for EA being the worst company right now.

[Tempscire]

It seems we are coming from different perspectives, then: I'm more concerned with EA should be acting from a moral standpoint, as opposed to the business standpoint.
I agree that they should be acting in a more ethical way. I'm just not surprised when they (general 'they'...pretty much any big corporation) don't, and in fact pretty much expect them not to because a lot of the time, it doesn't really make sense for them to do so. Plenty of other big companies obviously manage to better than EA at so many things, so it's not even as if "ethical/polite/considerate" behavior has to be at odds with a company's financial responsibilities.

In conclusion, there are reasons why EA is the way it is and its spokespeople say what they say beyond just "what a conglomeration of incompetent a-holes." It doesn't excuse them, of course, but it's a slightly more complex system overall than it's usually treated as in discussions of this ilk.

Probably me being stupid because my heads not wrapping itself around what you mean here. As far as I can tell, though, I agree.
It sounded to me like some people were of the opinion that the article linked to in the very first post of the thread ended with a note about EA's GLBT stance in an effort to excuse EA's dickery. I was just saying that it didn't seem to have that much emphasis or intent to excuse, and in any event, acknowledging that they're 98% fail instead of 100% fail is not a terribly insulting thing. Somewhere in there people shared other article links about EA trying to do spin on their reputation by bringing up their good record in one other area. *shrug* :)

[calisims]

No kidding. The people who bought and paid for Mass Effect 3 and then LOST THEIR FREAKING MINDS at the ending are counted in that 300 million and I'd bet they'd vote for EA being the worst company right now.

It's pretty sad that with all the dickery EA is guilty of, the thing that would motivate people to vote them worst company evah would be their outrage at a lame ending for a game. It really trivializes the issue.

[rian90]

California...the state that by popular vote removed the right to gay marriage in 2008 and has not yet actually restored it. :|

Learn where the money came back for that 'vote'. It did not come from California. ;)

[EmotedLlama]

I agree that they should be acting in a more ethical way. I'm just not surprised when they (general 'they'...pretty much any big corporation) don't, and in fact pretty much expect them not to because a lot of the time, it doesn't really make sense for them to do so. Plenty of other big companies obviously manage to better than EA at so many things, so it's not even as if "ethical/polite/considerate" behavior has to be at odds with a company's financial responsibilities.

In conclusion, there are reasons why EA is the way it is and its spokespeople say what they say beyond just "what a conglomeration of incompetent a-holes." It doesn't excuse them, of course, but it's a slightly more complex system overall than it's usually treated as in discussions of this ilk.

Definitely. It's really a shame it isn't simpler.


It sounded to me like some people were of the opinion that the article linked to in the very first post of the thread ended with a note about EA's GLBT stance in an effort to excuse EA's dickery. I was just saying that it didn't seem to have that much emphasis or intent to excuse, and in any event, acknowledging that they're 98% fail instead of 100% fail is not a terribly insulting thing. Somewhere in there people shared other article links about EA trying to do spin on their reputation by bringing up their good record in one other area. *shrug* :)

I see that, and agree with it, but personally I don't think that's important enough to excuse much at all, due to its overall difference. (Like the whole graphics/gameplay analogy I made--good graphics are great, but aren't going to largely sway my opinion when it gets down to it.)

[christmas fear]

lmfao that's hilarious. I do think that EA takes too much credit for the Sims though. At this point they are just milking the hell out of a huge franchise and ripping people off really badly.

[Drakesecaravdis]

I wonder is Comcast on their list..what they do is just as bad as EA (also apparently illegal but of course the govt doesn't care so why should they care about what EA does)
how bout Virgin Mobile..I don't know if they've improved but last I checked they were right there with them.

if anything EA probly likes this publicity. they would be dumb like that..they might even think that somehow it would get them more money.

[vhanster]

So I'm assuming that EA would rather create trashy games and watch as the dumb haters with too much cash in hand purchase their products to complain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HateDumb), rather than making something good that people would actually LIKE.

[Misanthrope]

"We're sure that bank presidents, oil, tobacco and weapons companies are all relieved they weren't on the list this year."
-EA

Lol. But they're right, you know. There are companies out there that are a LOT worse than EA.

But no. People are just mad about their videogames. And they'll bitch on the internetz about the mass effect ending.

/first world problems

[HarVee]

I wonder how long EA can keep fooling themselves into thinking their all fine and almighty. I think the Chief Executive Officer of EA needs a reality check to be honest.

[smorbie1]

So I'm assuming that EA would rather create trashy games and watch as the dumb haters with too much cash in hand purchase their products to complain (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HateDumb), rather than making something good that people would actually LIKE.

Really, why should they care? Once you've bought it, they have the money whether you like it or not. And most people will continue buying all the sps and eps to try to make the game better, anyway,

[Mootilda]

smorbie1 makes a lot of sense. People will always have complaints, even about wonderful games. The best metric that EA can use to rate their games is how much money they can make from those games. As long as people buy the games, EA has to assume that people are happy "enough" with the games.

[clynnc19]

After seeing the ending in Mass Effect 3 I would've voted for them too. Dragon Age 2 was horrible compared to Origins. Ever since EA got involved Bioware is no longer my favorite gaming company. Rockstar and Capcom make some pretty good games though.