EA Gives $1.65 Million To American Cancer Society

[Hadrys]

The Human Rights Campaign was the beneficiary. The Human Rights Foundation is another organization entirely.

 

[Tactical Pause]

Gotta love how, if another company were to do the exact same thing, they would be rightly praised for it. This is EA, however, so it is apparently nothing more than a, and I quote, "slimy publicity stunt". I mean, come on, people! Was their primary motivation to improve their public image? Yeah, probably. Before we grab the pitchforks though, how about another couple questions:

First, did they have to do it? Nope, not at all. Secondly... Did they donate over ten million dollars to charity? Yes. Yes they did. Regardless of what you think of EA, you can't realistically twist donating $10.5 million to charity into a bad thing.

I'm not saying we should all immediately begin worshiping EA, but can we maybe stop trying to paint this as some kind of crime against humanity?

 

[Rattja]

Oh, ok, that's nice and all but it does not really help with the real problem, which is the games now does it?
I'll forgive EA the moment they make a game worthy of forgivness.

 

[Racecarlock]

Ok, you donated to charity. Fantastic.

So, did you do anything to actually fix the way you publish games? If not, you're just doing this charity donation thing to put out fires instead of a place of actual niceness. I don't want to be cynical about this, but that's how it comes off. It just seems like they're saying "We donated to charity so now you have to like us.". But it just doesn't work like that.

 

[lacktheknack]

Well if you're going to get your corporate tax breaks, you may as well try and get some good publicity out of it.

This right here is the whole problem with these responses. Because you don't like EA, you carefully removed the actually important "Contributed over a million dollars to cancer research" part and left in the incidental tax breaks and publicity side. That way, you don't have to feel so bad about attacking a freaking charity donor.

Okay... thinking really hard... really reeeaaaallllly hard. Yes, actually. That's, in fact, the biggest problem I have with charity events. If you have to attach incentives to a charity (ie. offering products at a discount or making you look good in the media) then everyone involved really needs to reevaluate what "doing the right thing" means.

Besides, those charities were around before and if EA didn't get involved until they had an image problem, it says more about how they're only doing this for personal gain... like an investment... than it does about them giving to the needy.

The people being helped by the charity need help, true enough, but if EA can't be bothered to help until they can personally benefit from the suffering of others... then yes, it makes me want to puke.

Fine, if donating to charity only gets EA attacked, let's have them never donate again because they have an unfixable reputation, so it doesn't matter what their motives are.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/charity.png

I'm posting a question here and now that no one has adequately answered for me. Here. I'll make it utter unmissable.

<color=red>EA said they want to be seen as a better company.

<color=red>What. The hell. Do you WANT from them?

If anyone answers this question with "fix/remove Origin", "release good games" or "they can't be", then don't bother answering, because you've been boycotting so hard and long that you can't even see these things happening before your eyes.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Please explain why.

Seriously. Is charity only useful if it doesn't affect people's view of you at all?

Think reeeeeally carefully.

Okay... thinking really hard... really reeeaaaallllly hard. Yes, actually. That's, in fact, the biggest problem I have with charity events. If you have to attach incentives to a charity (ie. offering products at a discount or making you look good in the media) then everyone involved really needs to reevaluate what "doing the right thing" means.

Besides, those charities were around before and if EA didn't get involved until they had an image problem, it says more about how they're only doing this for personal gain... like an investment... than it does about them giving to the needy.

The people being helped by the charity need help, true enough, but if EA can't be bothered to help until they can personally benefit from the suffering of others... then yes, it makes me want to puke.

Can you tell us then if EA has ever given to charity before and not publicized it? Can you tell me any of the CEO's haven't, or any of their other execs? Do they have to give to chartiy? No. They don't and even if they do they don't have to advertise it at all.
Y'know, this is typical of people to spit on anything certain people or companies do that is a good thing and shouldn't be mocked or hated on. Nothing requires them to give to charity and tax deductions to charity don't get put back in their pocket, what 1.65 million is just subtracted from what the Fed takes into account when calculating the taxes for the year or quarter, depending on when a company or person pays. And there's limits on deductions depending on what type of donation it is, cash is up to 50% of AGI, Property 30% of AGI and appreciated capital gains assets is about 20%, and all that does is lower the taxes paid at the end of the year, it doesn't put money back in their pockets. Either you pay taxes and hope the government puts it to good use or you donate money knowing that its more likely the money gets put to good use on things you actually support.
Sure its good PR, but its still not something that should be bashed because it helps people who actually need it. And yeah maybe they'll get some goodwill and profit later because of that goodwill. There's nothing wrong with it, because it doesn't detract from those people getting help.
But hey, if you want to be sour about it then there's nothing EA can do to make you happy because you and people like you will always have a negative view. I really don't understand how people can live with that viewpoint.
Meh, EA hasn't always done great things but downing on them when they do something good is just petty.

 

[Pebkio]

Fine, if donating to charity only gets EA attacked, let's have them never donate again because they have an unfixable reputation, so it doesn't matter what their motives are.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/charity.png

I'm posting a question here and now that no one has adequately answered for me. Here. I'll make it utter unmissable.

<color=red>EA said they want to be seen as a better company.

<color=red>What. The hell. Do you WANT from them?

If anyone answers this question with "fix/remove Origin", "release good games" or "they can't be", then don't bother answering, because you've been boycotting so hard and long that you can't even see these things happening before your eyes.

Yeah, I don't really care so much that it is it's EA doing this beyond that fact that they're having an image problem. My problem is EXACTLY why you just ranted about. This entire idea that Charity is only worth it if there's some benefit for the people who are giving.

"If it doesn't have a direct benefit for someone," your argument tells me, "then there is no point to being charitable." And it bugs me that THAT is so acceptable that you'd defend the practice. That's the problem. We have grown so complacent that not only is it acceptable to be greedy about charity... it's actually something you're defending.

It's nice to say "at least they're doing some good", but on the same coin, you're defending the practice of demanding that "charity" be rewarded. It's charity. Not an opportunity to make more money in the long run.

---

Can you tell us then if EA has ever given to charity before and not publicized it? Can you tell me any of the CEO's haven't, or any of their other execs? Do they have to give to chartiy? No. They don't and even if they do they don't have to advertise it at all.
Y'know, this is typical of people to spit on anything certain people or companies do that is a good thing and shouldn't be mocked or hated on. Nothing requires them to give to charity and tax deductions to charity don't get put back in their pocket, what 1.65 million is just subtracted from what the Fed takes into account when calculating the taxes for the year or quarter, depending on when a company or person pays. And there's limits on deductions depending on what type of donation it is, cash is up to 50% of AGI, Property 30% of AGI and appreciated capital gains assets is about 20%, and all that does is lower the taxes paid at the end of the year, it doesn't put money back in their pockets. Either you pay taxes and hope the government puts it to good use or you donate money knowing that its more likely the money gets put to good use on things you actually support.
Sure its good PR, but its still not something that should be bashed because it helps people who actually need it. And yeah maybe they'll get some goodwill and profit later because of that goodwill. There's nothing wrong with it, because it doesn't detract from those people getting help.
But hey, if you want to be sour about it then there's nothing EA can do to make you happy because you and people like you will always have a negative view. I really don't understand how people can live with that viewpoint.
Meh, EA hasn't always done great things but downing on them when they do something good is just petty.

Well, I had orignally said it as a "what if". What you're quoting is my explanation as to WHY I would be disgusted. I never that's what they WERE doing. So if you're going to jump into the middle of a conversation, it would best to read up on the rest of that conversation. Just saying.

You know what would make me happy for EA? If they actually followed business practices that could be viewed as decent, and fair for everyone. Which they aren't. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/130255-EA-CEO-People-Need-DLC-To-Tide-Them-Over-Between-Releases] Yes, I'm very cynical, and when I see a company trying to buy it's way into good graces with their money instead of their actions... I'm going to call that out. I can't just accept the whole idea of "money=good".

 

[lacktheknack]

Fine, if donating to charity only gets EA attacked, let's have them never donate again because they have an unfixable reputation, so it doesn't matter what their motives are.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/charity.png

I'm posting a question here and now that no one has adequately answered for me. Here. I'll make it utter unmissable.

<color=red>EA said they want to be seen as a better company.

<color=red>What. The hell. Do you WANT from them?

If anyone answers this question with "fix/remove Origin", "release good games" or "they can't be", then don't bother answering, because you've been boycotting so hard and long that you can't even see these things happening before your eyes.

Yeah, I don't really care so much that it is it's EA doing this beyond that fact that they're having an image problem. My problem is EXACTLY why you just ranted about. This entire idea that Charity is only worth it if there's some benefit for the people who are giving.

"If it doesn't have a direct benefit for someone," your argument tells me, "then there is no point to being charitable." And it bugs me that THAT is so acceptable that you'd defend the practice. That's the problem. We have grown so complacent that not only is it acceptable to be greedy about charity... it's actually something you're defending.

It's nice to say "at least they're doing some good", but on the same coin, you're defending the practice of demanding that "charity" be rewarded. It's charity. Not an opportunity to make more money in the long run.

No one likes being attacked, especially when they haven't even said anything that deserves it in this case.

Your abject refusal to believe that it could actually be a genuine act of charity from the CEO that happened to have benefits will only drive even the most charitable soul away from ever doing it again. And regardless of intent, we could ALWAYS use acts of charity like this.

My statement was not a defense of abandoning charity, it was a prediction of EA's future attitude towards massive charitable donations if people keep acting the way you do.

The problem with the internet is that people hear "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you", and they believe that shit. Your words DO affect these corporations. They DO influence their decisions. And your words are currently driving EA away from ever doing this ever again. If, at any point, they state that they won't be doing any more charitable donations because "it doesn't seem appropriate" or whatever, I will be directly blaming YOU.

 

[Pebkio]

No one likes being attacked, especially when they haven't even said anything that deserves it in this case.

Your abject refusal to believe that it could actually be a genuine act of charity from the CEO that happened to have benefits will only drive even the most charitable soul away from ever doing it again. And regardless of intent, we could ALWAYS use acts of charity like this.

My statement was not a defense of abandoning charity, it was a prediction of EA's future attitude towards massive charitable donations if people keep acting the way you do.

The problem with the internet is that people hear "sticks and stones will break your bones but words will never hurt you", and they believe that shit. Your words DO affect these corporations. They DO influence their decisions. And your words are currently driving EA away from ever doing this ever again. If, at any point, they state that they won't be doing any more charitable donations because "it doesn't seem appropriate" or whatever, I will be directly blaming YOU.

And I'm saying, that blaming ME, and not EA themselves, for chosing to not be charitable because it doens't help them is a problem. That' what charity events do to you and pretty much everyone else: Make you believe that Charity HAS TO ABSOLUTELY GIVE BENEFIT. They shouldn't care what charity does (or doesn't do) to their image. It's charity, they should do it because it's the right thing to do.

Now, they might've already been doing the charity thing... nothing in this story suggests otherwise. That's why, in my original post, that you quoted, I said:

Unless this is the first time, in three years, that EA decided to participate.

And if that's the case, the obviousness of why they did this (for their image over doing something good) is so disgusting it would make me want to puke.

Note the words "if" and "unless". You're the one who took it on this tangent of demanding I explain why that WOULD digust me. Well I explained it to you, even going so far as to point out that I only said this in EA's case because they've been having an obvious image problem. Your continuous white-knighting against my arguments are, now, less for EA and more for greed in charity.

 

[lacktheknack]

And I'm saying, that blaming ME, and not EA themselves, for chosing to not be charitable because it doens't help them is a problem. That' what charity events do to you and pretty much everyone else: Make you believe that Charity HAS TO ABSOLUTELY GIVE BENEFIT. They shouldn't care what charity does (or doesn't do) to their image. It's charity, they should do it because it's the right thing to do.

Now, they might've already been doing the charity thing... nothing in this story suggests otherwise. That's why, in my original post, that you quoted, I said:

Unless this is the first time, in three years, that EA decided to participate.

And if that's the case, the obviousness of why they did this (for their image over doing something good) is so disgusting it would make me want to puke.

Note the words "if" and "unless". You're the one who took it on this tangent of demanding I explain why that WOULD digust me. Well I explained it to you, even going so far as to point out that I only said this in EA's case because they've been having an obvious image problem. Your continuous white-knighting against my arguments are, now, less for EA and more for greed in charity.

Sorry. I'm used to people using "if" and "unless" in extremely unsubtle and rhetorical context. If that wasn't your intent, then just pretend I never quoted you.

 

[Pebkio]

Sorry. I'm used to people using "if" and "unless" in extremely unsubtle and rhetorical context. If that wasn't your intent, then just pretend I never quoted you.

Nope, I was using them because I really don't know if EA has been or not. I know of the humble bundle. It just seems to me that EA had their participation in it called the Humble Origin Bundle. But how long they've been doing it, no clue. I don't really use Origin...

Do you know? Or anyone else looking in? How many years has the Origin Bundle been running for?

 

[lacktheknack]

Sorry. I'm used to people using "if" and "unless" in extremely unsubtle and rhetorical context. If that wasn't your intent, then just pretend I never quoted you.

Nope, I was using them because I really don't know if EA has been or not. I know of the humble bundle. It just seems to me that EA had their participation in it called the Humble Origin Bundle. But how long they've been doing it, no clue. I don't really use Origin...

Do you know? Or anyone else looking in? How many years has the Origin Bundle been running for?

Humble Origin Bundle only ran once. The Humble Bundle guys don't really let you go in over and over, so they've not had opportunity to do it again (especially since it seems that the original round two months ago only just got sorted out).

I, for one, would love to see them doing it again, but we'll see.

 

[KazeAizen]

Did they cure it? Else gtfo!

But seriously well done /golfclap for EA.


$10.5 million raised. The buyers get to decide where the profits go to right? ugh it feels weak when the buyers most likely donated over 50% of those sales to charity and EA comes out the hero with their 10% donation. Dont get me wrong any donation to charity is an amazing thing, I wish I could be as charitable yet my expenses dont allow it. Just annoys me that people praise a company that is so morally bankrupt for 1 act of kindness when there a plenty of companies that every day donate millions to charities, when there are hard working people that donate what little they have to charity.
1 Right simply does not correct what seems like a century of wrongs.

They actually put all those games in the bundle and purchasers didn't have an option to give any to EA.

So... about 90% of the money went to charity (the rest went to the Humble Bundle guys) and EA didn't take a cut at all.

Also, "what feels like a century of wrongs"? Jesus Christ, they only started their infamous studio-eating less than a decade ago. And that's really the worst they've done. They're not irredeemable child murders, they're a publisher that dabbled in franchise milking (not as bad as Activision), archaic DRM schemes (not as bad as Ubisoft) and release medium-to-high quality games. But everyone acts as if EA literally ate their mother and wiped its lips with their dog.

New CEO, new goals, new year, new everything, their distribution platform <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/326.825489-So-I-got-Origin-from-EA-A-Review-Image-Heavy>isn't even a fraction as bad as people say it is, and a massive act of charity to kick it off. Can we, as gamers, PLEASE leave the infamous masses of baggage that people laugh at us for lugging around and acknowledge when they do something good in literally every way, shape and form?

Seriously. These days for their operational policies and such I see 5 specific companies come up over and over again. Capcom, Activision, Ubisoft, Square Enix, EA. Out of those five, two of them seem to be turning around. I'm of course more aware of what EA has done but I heard Square did some bad shit and were just downright terrible at getting good games. Look at what Square did after they got new management. Completely rebuilt their crap MMO from the ground up, pushing a 6 year old game out of development hell and into real development, working on KH 3 a title that fans have been begging for for about 5-6 years now. In other words they've started releasing products that fans want. They are just short of appeasing everybody by not remaking/re-releasing HD versions of FF 6 and 7 yet. Now look at EA. They seem to be actively trying to change their company image. Other than new management I honestly wouldn't be surprised if their new partnership with Disney is now also affecting this change in some small way. Its also not like they make bad games either. They have several high quality teams under them like DICE who last I heard is working on Battlefront 3. I'm not Battlefield fan but even I can't deny that they are solid games with good mechanics and obviously a lot of effort put into them. So DICE and Star Wars is like a match made in heaven.

So the people have spoken and its not to say we shouldn't completely let EA off the hook just yet but maybe can we try and redirect some of that fire at say Capcom? I mean didn't they pretty much drive away Keiji Inafune and Hideki Kamiya otherwise known as the creators of two of their biggest franchises? Hell those guys left and both of them are giving us spiritual successors to their original games and doing a tremendous job of it with the Bayonetta franchise and what I assume Mighty No. 9 will be. I mean really Mighty No. 9 cannot possibly be bad. Its basically the same guys that made Mega Man 2 except now with a couple decades of experience under their belts. Point is let's possibly bring one of those other guys under our scopes for a while and maybe we'll start to actually like the big names in gaming again.

 

[Avalanche91]

Well, it sure helps their corporate image and it's probably tax deductable and whatnot, but I applaud it. It doesn't make them good people but it certainly doesn't make them evil.

I forgot who said it but I think it counts;"I'll take an insincere gesture of charity over a sincere gesture of cruelty any day."

 

[Quellist]

Yeah yeah, EA have profits coming out of their arses and this is a drop in the ocean for them, i heard it and i dont care. Ask the charities if they care if the money came from EA, ask them if they care that EA is rich beyond belief, Pretty sure they dont.

 

[Glaice]

Charity is a nice thing to slightly improve your image but it doesn't change your horrendous business practices, EA. Until then, you are on my purchase blacklist.

CAPCHA: Always Ready. Yes, always ready to avoid EA's bullcrap.

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

What I say actually applies to all corporations who donate to charity for tax breaks. And, incidentally, I have said that about more than one company in the past. It's not just EA.