EA is not evil.

[Apollo45]

As for Westwood, first game they made after EA bought them was Tiberian Sun, which became the fastest selling EA game to date. The second? Red Alert 2.

What you fail to mention is that very shortly after making those two games they made Westwood push out Renegade as an attempted response to Halo. The failure of that game - not at all surprising to anyone who gave the market for C&C games three seconds of their time - led to the downsizing and liquidation of Westwood. Since then the Command and Conquer games, what Westwood was known for, have been markedly worse than those that came before.

The same thing happens with the other studios. Sure, they might have a few unsuccessful games before being acquired, but after being milked dry EA just shuts them down and lets the IPs rot. Look at the Medal of Honor IP, the progression of the Dead Space IP, and so on. Original or not, as IPs move on EA continuously attempts to make them more "universally appealing", and in doing so kills them off. If they don't do that then they rush deadlines and end up ruining games that way (Mass Effect 3? Or, more telling, Dragon Age 2?) Their insistence on adding multiplayer modes that no one really wants takes away time that could be spent making the core game better, and that only furthers the degradation of the games they're making/pushing.

 

[rob_simple]

I have always tried to point out to people that if these companies were so successful they wouldn't let a bigger company buy them (even if the top brass did it for the money, the actual talent at the company could easily go and start their own company,) it's nice to see I'm not alone.

I think one of EA's problems is that it's just too big, and the more money you make means the more money you need to spend to continue to grow and as soon as decisions are based on money and not the quality of the product it's the gamers that suffer.

And what do we do? Continue to lap up everything EA puts out, all the while shouting, 'you people are evil! You should be ashamed! I'll never buy your games again!'

 

[Smeatza]

I agree with those who say it's incompetence rather than evil.

Mainly because the company (or at least the higher ups) seem to be aware of the mistakes it persistently makes. Yet seem to keep making them.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/181974/ea-we-blew-it-with-bullfrog-westwood/#

 

[Yopaz]

You say EA is daft for not seeing the error of their ways due to falling stock prices, the truth of it is that they do what they have done for decades, more than 20 years using a business model one year with losses (except the finance crisis which wasn't their fault) means they have had 19 years of success for this one year with loss. Clearly this business model is working.

oh it works but what happens is that, as publicly floated "publishers" with shareholders who they are expected to provide year on year profit increases to in order to maintain their "confidence" in the company they are drawn to produce product that in their opinion (and cutting filtering by a market of opinion and demand before a product even gets to them) will turn a them more of a constant and reliable profit for as cheap as possible...and a corporate set up like that produces products that you could quite easily collectively call "pulp".

but a lot of the market for entertainment values "originality" and other such subjective manners and doesn't appreciate homogeneous corporate efficiency aimed at appeasing the folks with a share in the companies fortunes.

so far, in the birth of all the entertainment mediums, this has pretty much always happened.

that's what rock and roll was

and so ultimately a parallel distribution networks set up. some of whom will be closer to the original distribution of "publisher". Steam and the other digital distribution channels that are open to other developers (and even to a certain extent the console online services) are truer to the what a "Publisher" should actually be.

this is how you can listen to obscure metal or rap or Karen Boyle or Hungarian polka bands or whatever, see independently produced films at the cinema and read non "mainstream" novels while also being the same reason people can read "shades of grey".

Uhm, thanks for the information, but I already know all of that. I was trying to point out that their fall in stock prices is connected to that kind of thing rather than evil business practice. Your post made for an interesting read nevertheless and I agree with everything you said.

 

[At_The_Gates]

The thing that really amuses me about this is how poorly this companies stock price has performed over the last 5 years.

 

[Wolfhowl the shadow lurker]

Want to know why people don't like EA? watch jims videos, if you don't hate EA now you soon will

and no EA is not evil, they are just Arrogant fuckwits, you know who eise is a corporation? Valve and no one hates them

so people can and should hate EA, if they do something bad they should be called out on it

 

[Charli]

I'm still not 100% on EA but I know for a fact I want whoever does their PR to get their nuts/tits trapped in an elevator door. Inciting that much public ire is a talent that needs breeding out of the gene pool.

 

[Pearwood]

They're not evil, they are quite ruthless with their business practices and there are arguments for and against that. On one hand they get results; on the other their reputation suffers as do the smaller developers who rely on them.

and no EA is not evil, they are just Arrogant fuckwits, you know who eise is a corporation? Valve and no one hates them

There's a lot of bad things to say about Valve. Their development time should not be that long. I don't like the way Steam has such a huge influence on Indie gaming Valve's terms and conditions essentially put rules on what people can or can't put in their game if they ever plan on selling it.

 

[vun]

Oh, I know EA is in it only for the money, which is why I don't buy their games. I don't call them evil because they're not doing it to piss people off, they're just doing it for the money. And when a game is made for the sole purpose of bringing in cash I see no reason to buy it.
Sure, most people do it for money, but that's not the sole reason for many, it's a way to make a living doing something they love. I'm sure this also goes for a lot of game devs working under EA and they probably do their best to make good games and are passionate about it.

Also, to the above poster saying nobody hates Valve; plenty of people hate Valve, you just don't find too many on The Escapist, but they exist.
Personally I like what Valve does as a publisher but I'm a bit scared about the whole monopoly thing.
As a developer; not that impressed. HL games were good and I like the attitude they have towards making games, it's just that most of their games aren't really theirs.

 

[Thoric485]

So, the first point is that EA is a business that only seeks to make money and please shareholders. The second is that all those studios they acquired, were failing in the first place and they just bought them out of the goodness of their hearts.

Amazing. I guess once they close Bioware, you'll give Jade Empire as a sign the company was doomed.

And for the record, nobody thinks EA is evil. Just incompetent, unscrupulous and ignorant of the fact creative work is not susceptible to assembly line production methods.

 

[veloper]

This thread lacks a poll.
EA being evil or not isn't the real point. It's about EA's impopularity.

There's no point in arguing with the OP and the common opinion on these boards would make the case.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Of course they aren't evil, they just don't mind sacrificing anything for a quick buck, nothing wrong with that.

 

[bafrali]

They are just hopelessly capitalist suits who hurt the industry a lot whether intentionally or not. It would require lots of time and charity work for EA to be viewed as a NEUTRAL company, not to mention resurrection of several deceased developers whose team members have scattered all over the industry and several IP's whose artistic and financial value have been run into the ground.

But let's keep it simple and kill the EA. Less pain for everyone involved.

 

[Bobic]

Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

I disagree. I don't really have much of an opinion on EA, but I'm pretty sure doing stuff for personal gain at the expense of other people is perfectly evil. Can you really turn around to me and say that Bernie Madoff ripping off all of his family and friends for the sake of being rich wasn't evil? Or hell, that Banana company that, when their pesticide of choice was found to be poisonous to their workers and was banned in America, continued to use it in countries other than the USA because it'd cost a bit of cash to swap pesticides (and not irreparably damage their employees), that's pretty evil. Or slavery, that's got to be evil right?

Yes, EA isn't anywhere near that bad. But saying the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others is never evil seems a bit ridiculous.

Edit: Oh, and to those saying they need to do it to make money, wasn't there a news article on the escapist a while ago saying their stock was falling? It's clearly not working for them, perhaps they should be less daft. (unless of course I made this up to make myself laugh and to be able to make a point.)

I still don't think this or any of the examples you provided can be considered evil. All of them are morally bad and frankly the things some fruit plantations, fireworks producers, car companies and some companies producing hardware is actually disgusting. Workers getting serious injuries or health issues just because a company wants to save money by not providing proper protective gear. It's morally despicable. However evil is about intentions rather than the act itself. I am currently taking higher education order to get a job that pays better than what I could get without it. Thus I am doing it for personal gain, is that evil? People take jobs for personal gain rather than because they feel like they're saving the world. Yes, this is taking it out of a context and most people wont hurt others by simply taking a job, but the question stands. When does doing something for personal gain become evil? Is it when others suffer from it? Because getting hired for a job where 100 people applied means 99 people wont get a job because you got it. My goal for getting this job was personal gain, not to cause 99 people o not get the job. Evil would be if I was deliberately trying to prevent those people from getting a job just for for the hell of it.

Outside of fiction, by that logic, there is no evil. Even the psychopath torturing someone they've only just met is doing so for the personal gain of the thrill of doing it. Where you draw the line in this situation is always up for debate, a debate I don't feel like partaking in.

All of this is irrelevant though, if you go back through the thread you'll find the guy that posted a dictionary definition of evil. Personal gain at the expense of others is right there. You can't argue with dictionaries.

 

[Stavros Dimou]

I can say that EA holds a large piece of responsibility for today's game homogenization.
They are not the only ones who are responsible,but they do their part.

One thing I don't like about them is the limits on creativity they force on studios.
EA strictly states it won't publish any single player games,and demand from developers to tack on online multiplayer on games they don't need it,just for being able to connect each game with an account / console to fight used game sales and control piracy (supposedly).
Gems like Skyrim,Darksiders 2,or L.A. Noire would have never been released if everyone was like EA.

The other thing I don't like about EA is that for some reason they charge their PC games 10 euros more than the standard price all other publishers price their games.

 

[Yopaz]

Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

I disagree. I don't really have much of an opinion on EA, but I'm pretty sure doing stuff for personal gain at the expense of other people is perfectly evil. Can you really turn around to me and say that Bernie Madoff ripping off all of his family and friends for the sake of being rich wasn't evil? Or hell, that Banana company that, when their pesticide of choice was found to be poisonous to their workers and was banned in America, continued to use it in countries other than the USA because it'd cost a bit of cash to swap pesticides (and not irreparably damage their employees), that's pretty evil. Or slavery, that's got to be evil right?

Yes, EA isn't anywhere near that bad. But saying the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others is never evil seems a bit ridiculous.

Edit: Oh, and to those saying they need to do it to make money, wasn't there a news article on the escapist a while ago saying their stock was falling? It's clearly not working for them, perhaps they should be less daft. (unless of course I made this up to make myself laugh and to be able to make a point.)

I still don't think this or any of the examples you provided can be considered evil. All of them are morally bad and frankly the things some fruit plantations, fireworks producers, car companies and some companies producing hardware is actually disgusting. Workers getting serious injuries or health issues just because a company wants to save money by not providing proper protective gear. It's morally despicable. However evil is about intentions rather than the act itself. I am currently taking higher education order to get a job that pays better than what I could get without it. Thus I am doing it for personal gain, is that evil? People take jobs for personal gain rather than because they feel like they're saving the world. Yes, this is taking it out of a context and most people wont hurt others by simply taking a job, but the question stands. When does doing something for personal gain become evil? Is it when others suffer from it? Because getting hired for a job where 100 people applied means 99 people wont get a job because you got it. My goal for getting this job was personal gain, not to cause 99 people o not get the job. Evil would be if I was deliberately trying to prevent those people from getting a job just for for the hell of it.

Outside of fiction, by that logic, there is no evil. Even the psychopath torturing someone they've only just met is doing so for the personal gain of the thrill of doing it. Where you draw the line in this situation is always up for debate, a debate I don't feel like partaking in.

All of this is irrelevant though, if you go back through the thread you'll find the guy that posted a dictionary definition of evil. Personal gain at the expense of others is right there. You can't argue with dictionaries.

Evil is defined by deliberately causing harm. Someone torturing someone is deliberately causing harm. That is what I picked up from Wikipedia before I made my first post. I am way ahead of your dictionary definition and correction of my definition.

Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.

Can't argue with dictionaries you say? Well obviously, I can. Deliberate harm=evil.
Personal gain on others expence= Being a dick, being a bad person, being a big company.

 

[Radoh]

By the way, I just wanted to drop in a post thanking you guys. Even if you disagreed with my points, you kept it mostly civil. Only two people actually attacked me directly, which was a lot fewer than I expected. So, good job, Escapist.

Two is not enough.
You suck.
Okay but seriously though, evil is shorthand for what they do. They continuously display an economic ideal that leaves them in a very bad place, as they've been making an enemy of the consumer.

My argument will be focusing on Origin, just a heads up.

They've come out saying that sales and such cheapen the IP of a particular game, and that they'd avoid doing that at all cost, thus gaining ill will with the consumer.
A single infraction (albeit somewhat severe) in the forums there can result in them taking away the ability to play any games on Origin, thus gaining them ill will with the consumer.
In the actual terms and conditions, there is a clause that says they are allowed to take away any games you have in your library in the first year (or two years, I don't remember) with no other specification to say why they would do such a thing, thus creating ill will with the consumer.

All they seem to do is try and make the consumer an enemy, and since I'm a consumer I feel they are the villain of the piece, since I am not the villain in my own story. That is why they are 'evil'. Because saying evil is just easier than listing what they do and why I don't like them for it.

 

[Acton Hank]

snip

I'm not trying to be rude with the snip. It's just saves others from reading through a long quote if they want to see my response.

First off, EA is not too risk-averse. They do take risks. They took one with Mirror's Edge, they took one with the Ghostbusters game, they took one with Brutal Legend, and they took one with Saboteur. Now, how many of those risks actually paid off? Well, Mirror's Edge got decent reviews, but sold below expectations (they were projecting 3 million sales, but only got two million). Ghostbusters was, again, well received, and sold a bit better, having, in three years, sold just over 3 million copies. Brutal Legend was reviewed well, but as of February 2011, had only sold 1.4 million copies. Saboteur was received with average reviews, but has yet to even break the million sales mark.

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 91

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

There's my Bioware example. Oh, and despite the hate-on for ME3, it has a Metacritic score of 93. Worst of the series, true, but many developers would be ecstatic over breaking 90.

As for Westwood, first game they made after EA bought them was Tiberian Sun, which became the fastest selling EA game to date. The second? Red Alert 2.

Oh, and System Shock 2? The developers are on record as saying it never would have happened without EA. See, Looking Glass approached Irrational Studios, planning to make a game similar to "System Shock", which the developers were fans of. While searching for a publisher, EA said that they'd publish the game, but under the condition that it be made a full sequel, which EA had the rights to. They accepted, and the rest is history.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 91 (360) 89 (Pc)

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96 (360) 94 (Pc)

Fixed that for you.

 

[Acton Hank]

snip

I'm not trying to be rude with the snip. It's just saves others from reading through a long quote if they want to see my response.

First off, EA is not too risk-averse. They do take risks. They took one with Mirror's Edge, they took one with the Ghostbusters game, they took one with Brutal Legend, and they took one with Saboteur. Now, how many of those risks actually paid off? Well, Mirror's Edge got decent reviews, but sold below expectations (they were projecting 3 million sales, but only got two million). Ghostbusters was, again, well received, and sold a bit better, having, in three years, sold just over 3 million copies. Brutal Legend was reviewed well, but as of February 2011, had only sold 1.4 million copies. Saboteur was received with average reviews, but has yet to even break the million sales mark.

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 91

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

There's my Bioware example. Oh, and despite the hate-on for ME3, it has a Metacritic score of 93. Second best of the series.

As for Westwood, first game they made after EA bought them was Tiberian Sun, which became the fastest selling EA game to date. The second? Red Alert 2.

Oh, and System Shock 2? The developers are on record as saying it never would have happened without EA. See, Looking Glass approached Irrational Studios, planning to make a game similar to "System Shock", which the developers were fans of. While searching for a publisher, EA said that they'd publish the game, but under the condition that it be made a full sequel, which EA had the rights to. They accepted, and the rest is history.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 91 (360) 89 (Pc)

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96 (360) 94 (Pc)

Fixed that for you.

Sorry for the accidental double post.

Please do not ban me.

 

[Bobic]

Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing. EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

I disagree. I don't really have much of an opinion on EA, but I'm pretty sure doing stuff for personal gain at the expense of other people is perfectly evil. Can you really turn around to me and say that Bernie Madoff ripping off all of his family and friends for the sake of being rich wasn't evil? Or hell, that Banana company that, when their pesticide of choice was found to be poisonous to their workers and was banned in America, continued to use it in countries other than the USA because it'd cost a bit of cash to swap pesticides (and not irreparably damage their employees), that's pretty evil. Or slavery, that's got to be evil right?

Yes, EA isn't anywhere near that bad. But saying the pursuit of personal gain at the expense of others is never evil seems a bit ridiculous.

Edit: Oh, and to those saying they need to do it to make money, wasn't there a news article on the escapist a while ago saying their stock was falling? It's clearly not working for them, perhaps they should be less daft. (unless of course I made this up to make myself laugh and to be able to make a point.)

I still don't think this or any of the examples you provided can be considered evil. All of them are morally bad and frankly the things some fruit plantations, fireworks producers, car companies and some companies producing hardware is actually disgusting. Workers getting serious injuries or health issues just because a company wants to save money by not providing proper protective gear. It's morally despicable. However evil is about intentions rather than the act itself. I am currently taking higher education order to get a job that pays better than what I could get without it. Thus I am doing it for personal gain, is that evil? People take jobs for personal gain rather than because they feel like they're saving the world. Yes, this is taking it out of a context and most people wont hurt others by simply taking a job, but the question stands. When does doing something for personal gain become evil? Is it when others suffer from it? Because getting hired for a job where 100 people applied means 99 people wont get a job because you got it. My goal for getting this job was personal gain, not to cause 99 people o not get the job. Evil would be if I was deliberately trying to prevent those people from getting a job just for for the hell of it.

Outside of fiction, by that logic, there is no evil. Even the psychopath torturing someone they've only just met is doing so for the personal gain of the thrill of doing it. Where you draw the line in this situation is always up for debate, a debate I don't feel like partaking in.

All of this is irrelevant though, if you go back through the thread you'll find the guy that posted a dictionary definition of evil. Personal gain at the expense of others is right there. You can't argue with dictionaries.

Evil is defined by deliberately causing harm. Someone torturing someone is deliberately causing harm. That is what I picked up from Wikipedia before I made my first post. I am way ahead of your dictionary definition and correction of my definition.

Definitions of evil vary, as does the analysis of its root motives and causes; however, evil is commonly associated with conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, discrimination designed to harm others, humiliation of people designed to diminish their psychological well-being and dignity, destructiveness, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, and acts of unnecessary or indiscriminate violence.

Can't argue with dictionaries you say? Well obviously, I can. Deliberate harm=evil.
Personal gain on others expence= Being a dick, being a bad person, being a big company.

Yes, but why is he causing harm? For personal gain, which your original statement counts as not evil. Same with the banana company, muggers and other violent assclowns.

Also, motives of causing pain or suffering for selfish or malicious intentions, it's right there in wikipedia's definition too.