Do you Think E.A is the worst company?

[SageRuffin]

I think the higher-ups are fucking idiots, but worse company? Hardly.

Activision, however? Yeah, fuck them in ass with a serrated Masamune. Twice.

 

[Canadish]

Certainly not. Not by a LONG shot.

However, they did get my vote for the Golden Poo.

Mostly because I really don't see the Bank of America or Monsanto getting upset over an internet poll. Never mind have it effect on their stocks.

Meanwhile, EA is positively booty-blistered over this and it's hilarious to watch. It might even inspire them to make some change.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

They're not the WORST Company... they just happen to be a company that makes a large number of internet savvy consumers VERY angry and in an Online Poll on a Consumer Website... I'm not surprised they take the cake for "Worst Company" in regards to how they treat their customers.

 

[Lunar Templar]

+1 to "EA sucks but there are far worse companies out there deserving of this prize and EA only get it because it's an online poll."

^
this.

EA is hardly the worst company, even in the games industry, they are just the most visible.

case in point;

Still think Nexon Na should be on that list. They very technically and frequently break Federal Law.

 

[likalaruku]

Worst "American" game publisher perhaps, but you take the voting for Worst Company off the internet & into the real world & EA will drop out early in the game. I voted for Sallie Mae, which was crushed early in the game because most of the people who voted have no experience with college.

You know, maybe 5 years ago or so, Ubisoft could have been on that list, were they not French. Bought out all my favorite little German independants & slapped the worsts kinds of DRM on everything. They've managed to stay off gamer's shitlists these past two years, with Capcom & Konami raising more ire.

If I had made that list, UPS, Google, & Facebook would have been replaced with Disney, Apple, & AOL.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Not even close. It isn't even the worst publisher. Ubisoft has them beat by a mile.

 

[FavouriteDream]

That's a very dangerous way of thinking, because what you maybe don't realise is, just because we accept it now through indifference, EA will most likely eventually start to see that as acceptance and that's when they'll start with mandatory DLC and micro-transactions, and we'll have absolutely no right to complain because we all sat by, idly, and watched it happen.

What? There is no accepting through "indifference". You either support what they do (buy their games) or don't support what they do (don't buy their games). No one is being indifferent here.

I have no problem with EA's actions, that's why I still buy their games. If I really had a problem with their approach I sure as shit wouldn't be giving them money.

And that's what a lot of people don't realise, from EA's end - their actions are being justified. Why? Because people are paying for it.

 

[Rattja]

Not worst no, not by far, but this is what happens when you piss off gamers.

Eh. EA gets a lot of unfair heat for "pissing off gamers". Part of the problem is the gamers themselves, who have created an environment of entitlement that I simply have never witnessed when it comes to entertainment products. Nothing EA has done, whether it's Day 1 DLC or microtransactions or even their often bizarre marketing ideas, is bad. Entitled whiners turned those into negatives. People who believe they deserve all the content that's ever developed for a game once they pay their $60 (or usually less, since a lot of these clowns only buy used.)

EA has a target on its back because it's a huge company, and because it's actively trying new business models. Both of these are somehow unforgivable crimes in the eyes of many people.

Hehe, here is the thing, it's not entitlement, it's expectation. If someone has given you good products for a long time, then change things up to something you don't agree with, people will get upset. It's just how it works, the difference here is that most of these people are internet dwellers.
I never said it was right or wrong, good or bad, and you can claim one or the other all day, it won't change anything. Angry people are angry.

You will always piss someone off no matter what you do in life, someone will always disagree. When you don't agree with something you can do one of two things, let it go and move on, or try to do something about it. If it is something you care a lot about, you most likely want to do something, and this is what the "gamers/haters" did in this case.

Also, think about all the things that gamers have tried to change things, petitions, letters, whathaveyou. None of that worked, so I'd call this more of a desperation move.

Deserved or not, it still happened, and everything that happens, happens for a reason.

Personally I don't agree with what they do, so I just stopped buying their games, voting for them as "worst" is a bit much I think.
That being said, I doubt this will change anything, and in a month or two it will be more or less forgotten.

 

[rob_simple]

That's a very dangerous way of thinking, because what you maybe don't realise is, just because we accept it now through indifference, EA will most likely eventually start to see that as acceptance and that's when they'll start with mandatory DLC and micro-transactions, and we'll have absolutely no right to complain because we all sat by, idly, and watched it happen.

What? There is no accepting through "indifference". You either support what they do (buy their games) or don't support what they do (don't buy their games). No one is being indifferent here.

I have no problem with EA's actions, that's why I still buy their games. If I really had a problem with their approach I sure as shit wouldn't be giving them money.

And that's what a lot of people don't realise, from EA's end - their actions are being justified. Why? Because people are paying for it.

You are making the situation black and white when it is not. I buy EA games because I like the development teams/franchises; not because I support EA's business methods.

At the moment, the majority of people are buying their games while ignoring practices like micro-transactions because, as you quite rightly say, they are only used with consent. How EA sees this as 'none of our customers have a problem with micro-transactions' which means there is a very real chance they will become gradually more prominent in the games to the point where you actually need them to progress.

And again, you're right: at that point we can stop buying the games, but it won't change the fact that we only got to that stage because we continued to buy EA's games while they were implementing these nickel-and-diming strategies. I like a lot of the games EA make, and I don't want it to get to the point where I have to stop playing them because EA decide it's alright to charge me £1 for every bullet I want to fire.

The onus here shouldn't lie with us; we shouldn't have to boycott a game to show EA how stupid it's practices are. We shouldn't have to boycott good games (which only punishes the development teams) to prove the point that we don't want EA forcing micro-transactions down our throats; they shouldn't be in the games in the first place. We shouldn't have to boycott their games because they force an always-online DRM that anyone with a brain knew would absolutely not work; it shouldn't have been used in the first place.

If you have no problem with EA charging money for shit we used to get for free; if you think it's alright for them to sell broken products and then refuse refunds when they absolutely do not work; if you think it's okay for them to buy out smaller, popular developers, force them to squeeze out designed-by-committee homogenous crap that eventually leads to those smaller studios being shut down then that's up to you.

The whole 'if you don't like it don't buy it' thing will never work, because we all know that, for all their idle braying, gamers are a weak-willed bunch who will instantly buy any product featuring their beloved mascot/franchise, no matter how many months they spend before or after saying they'll never buy a product from said company again.

EA aren't doing anything because they think we're alright with it, they are doing it because they know they can get away with it.

 

[everythingbeeps]

Not worst no, not by far, but this is what happens when you piss off gamers.

Eh. EA gets a lot of unfair heat for "pissing off gamers". Part of the problem is the gamers themselves, who have created an environment of entitlement that I simply have never witnessed when it comes to entertainment products. Nothing EA has done, whether it's Day 1 DLC or microtransactions or even their often bizarre marketing ideas, is bad. Entitled whiners turned those into negatives. People who believe they deserve all the content that's ever developed for a game once they pay their $60 (or usually less, since a lot of these clowns only buy used.)

EA has a target on its back because it's a huge company, and because it's actively trying new business models. Both of these are somehow unforgivable crimes in the eyes of many people.

Hehe, here is the thing, it's not entitlement, it's expectation. If someone has given you good products for a long time, then change things up to something you don't agree with, people will get upset. It's just how it works, the difference here is that most of these people are internet dwellers.
I never said it was right or wrong, good or bad, and you can claim one or the other all day, it won't change anything. Angry people are angry.

You will always piss someone off no matter what you do in life, someone will always disagree. When you don't agree with something you can do one of two things, let it go and move on, or try to do something about it. If it is something you care a lot about, you most likely want to do something, and this is what the "gamers/haters" did in this case.

Also, think about all the things that gamers have tried to change things, petitions, letters, whathaveyou. None of that worked, so I'd call this more of a desperation move.

Deserved or not, it still happened, and everything that happens, happens for a reason.

Personally I don't agree with what they do, so I just stopped buying their games, voting for them as "worst" is a bit much I think.
That being said, I doubt this will change anything, and in a month or two it will be more or less forgotten.

You say it's "not entitlement, it's expectation", but it's the same thing. The expectation leads to entitlement. People believing that just because they've always gotten something a certain way, they deserve to always get it that way. How else do you explain this bizarre opposition to DLC? (I'm not talking about day-1 DLC, which I'll get to in a minute, I'm talking about the stuff that used to be known as "expansion packs".) Rather than seeing it as extra optional content for the game, they see it as stuff that should have been in the core game but was ripped out to be sold separately. I acknowledge this has actually been the case more than a couple times, mostly by Capcom, but that's not enough to condemn the entire practice. But everywhere you look, people whine constantly about DLC. They whine about season passes, they whine about cost, they whine when they don't get DLC they want. Like I said, they think that once they buy a game, they're entitled to everything that's ever developed for that game in the future.

As for Day-1 DLC, there's no secret: it's a way to boost new sales. It's incentive. But instead, it gets twisted around so that it's instead a "punishment" for those who buy used. Those used gamers think they're entitled to all the content that new buyers get. They aren't. They're entitled to exactly what they're told they're entitled to, which in the case of most EA games, is the core game minus the day-1 DLC.

As I said, EA has a target because they're exploring new business models that you, by your own words, "don't agree with". But the issue isn't really EA. It's you, and your reasons for "not agreeing with" what they're doing. And the answer to that is expectation/entitlement. Anything that might require you to shell out a few extra bucks than you'd like is automatically evil.

 

[Continuity]

worst company that impacts me directly: yes, worst company overall? no.

 

[Rattja]

Snip

I don't expect to convince you, but I feel entiteled to voice my opinion.
The two words may be connected, but they do not mean the same thing, look it up.

What I got from your post was basically this.
I am the problem, becuse I do not agree with something that you do.
You do not agree with something I do, but you are not a problem.

That hardly seems fair to me.

I never said what I didn't agree with, so why are you bringing up DLC? I see more hate on DRM.
But since you did bring it up let me see if I can explain.
People are upset as it did not use to be like that. The difference between DLC and expansion packs is that instead of one big one, you get many small ones. This can be good or bad depending on how you see it.
Say.. If Diablo 2: Lord of Destruction was devided up in many smaller DLCs I would most likely never have bothered with half of it, and I would never had liked the game as much as I did.
But since it was all in one pack, I explored most of it just cause it was there, and I had a lot of fun doing so. Fun I never would have had otherwise.
I do however see the benefits, and why people like em.

If you are used to something being a certain way, and it then changes, you will have a reaction. It can be positive or negative, but it will happen. The main problem with that is that people like to point out negative things rather then positive, so this is what you hear the most.
I don't think I have ever seen anyone go "Oh holy crap, I just love this new DLC and DRM thing, it's totally awesome!"
However I'm guessing some might think just that for whatever reason.

But all of this is not what my original post was about.
You have a group of people that get pissed off over things EA does, they have the power to tip a vote like this, so they did just that. I am not in this group, but I understand them.
You may not agree with this, so then you are a problem in their eyes.
See how that works?

I am sure there is something in this world that pisses you off as well, and if someone came to you and said "Don't be mad" I don't think that would help.

Oh, and mainly what I don't agree with is their attitude, and it's not just EA. They see potential customers as problems and blame them, which just rubs me the wrong way.
I also don't like liars and rude people, and if that is so wrong of me, then I don't want to be right.

 

[Callate]

Of course not, for all the usual reasons that get brought up-- they haven't killed anyone, haven't thrown anyone out of their home, didn't play a significant part in the greater financial downturn, etc.

But let's not mince words, here- EA in its current incarnation is a wretched company. It's bad for the medium, bad for the industry, and- surprisingly, and contrary to both certain conventional wisdom and its own apparent internalized corporate philosophy- bad for itself. The only real question anymore- assuming no one with the judgement and will to turn the boat around takes the helm- is how much damage will its asinine and reprehensible ideas of what the world of video games "should" look like do to the scene before it completely implodes.

 

[everythingbeeps]

words words words

I didn't say they mean the same thing, I said they are the same thing. You have to be exceedingly literal to miss what I was trying to say.

This expectation you speak of manifests as entitlement. Like I said (I think), this sense of entitlement people have comes from the idea that things have always been done a certain way, and therefore they always should be done the same way. People are used to buy a DRM-free game with all the content delivered at once. They expect that. And because they do, they feel they are entitled to it. So when a big company starts shaking things up, trying to make DRM more standard, offering up more DLC, Day 1 DLC and multiplayer passes for new buyers, these people feel they are not getting what they're entitled to.

I'm not saying you're the problem because you don't agree with me. I'm saying you (and by "you" I really mean "anyone who has a huge issue with EA's recent changes", which in fact may not even be "you", but since you're the one arguing on behalf of those people, "you" will have to do) are the problem because you're the one refusing to accept that EA may have some valid reasons for doing what they're doing beyond simply grabbing for more money (which is a part of it, of course! But is that not their singular goal as a business?) Business practices always change. Companies always have to explore new ways of maximizing profit. Some people just don't accept that.

Honestly, the things EA is doing are positively harmless compared to what they could be doing. They aren't punishing new buyers in any way. And do people really think they should be trying to look out for used buyers? Do you think that's good business?

Nobody's ever going to like DRM. But companies have decided they need to start implementing DRM, and until they find the holy grail of that DRM system which is completely unnoticeable and unobtrusive, they're going to have some poor systems. They're trying different things, and so far they haven't worked very well. That's how things go. DRM is the future, and these are the first awkward steps in that process.

On the other hand, people do gush over DLC all the time. The negative people say "this should have been in the final game, I shouldn't have to pay extra for it." But for better or worse, those days are gone. The sooner these people come to terms with it, the sooner they can stop being miserable grouches and go back to enjoying video games like they used to. Personally, I rather like having an excuse to go back to a game months after it came out and see something new. Yes, sometimes the wait can be too long, but usually I'd say it's fine.

My problem isn't really the fact that people get pissed off over things EA does. It's more that I think many of their complaints are just idiotic, misguided, and selfish. I just don't understand why these people can't accept that there's nothing unreasonable about incentivizing new purchases as opposed to used with stuff like Day 1 DLC or multiplayer passes.

Mainly this is all because I'm not one of those people who believes that simply because the Used Game Industry has always existed, that it always should. I don't believe people are entitled to be able to buy games used. I think game companies are perfectly within their rights to take steps to abolish it. And to be perfectly honest, I'm not even opposed to used games, I'm normally a live and let live kind of person. I don't buy games used, but I don't have a problem with other people being able to. However, I don't think game companies are obligated to let them continue to do so.

But if I seem invested in defending game companies' rights in maximizing profit, abolishing used games, and exploring DRM, a lot of that is an admittedly disproportionate reaction to all the entitled whiners I see everywhere. I see people complain about Day 1 DLC, and that childish voice in my head says "Good. I hope they do more shit to piss you people off". I'll filter that in discussion, but I won't deny it's in my head.

 

[kickyourass]

Worst company, ohh hell no, worst game company, definitly yes. There are too many other companies who've done massive damage to our planet or who've done business with terrorist groups for me to say EA is the worse company in general, but in terms of game producers, they are completely awful. It actually kind of amazes me that for all the shitty things EA has done none of it has been illegal (As far as I know, please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

Absolutely not.
You know why they've managed to win this 'award' two years in a row?
Because of the platform that the poll is offered on. It's the internet, folks. A large number of people who saw this poll are people familiar with the gaming culture who wanted to make a point known.

The thing is, the people who would have been heavily affected by the other nominees (such as Bank of America) probably aren't in a position to use the internet, because one of those other nominees fucked them over really badly, and now they either can't afford it, or don't have a home in which to use it.
I think it's a stupid poll to have in the first place. The second the SimCity launch happened, we knew disgruntled gamers were going to band together to send their message. That golden poo, in their mind, is well-earned.

I don't begrudge people who used the poll as a soapbox to get their thoughts on EA out. They have made some undeniably shortsighted business decisions, and they need to be shown that we, as an audience, won't take it. But by making this an internet poll, you're kind of cutting out a large part of the population who would have taken it seriously, rather than just using it as a kind of shorthand message board.

I'm willing to bet a huge number of people who voted for EA in that poll don't actually know what's so bad about the other companies who were nominated, and had no interesting in learning, which is a shame.