EA is not evil.

[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.

 

[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.

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.

My original statement said it was about deliberate harm. A person who tortures someone intends to cause harm, the only goal he's got is to cause harm. He may do it for pleasure, but there's no gain in pleasure. Pleasure is a feeling, nothing more. I don't gain anything from playing games, I get entertained, but it stops there.

You said I can't argue with the dictionary, Wikipedia says there's no clear definition so obviously the discussion is there. Faulty statement on your side there.

I use the definition that I consider accurate since there are several. Am I wrong for using a different definition than you? Using the definition you used we can clearly see that capitalism is evil. Steam gives us sales in order to earn money is evil. Taking part in the system that allows such a practice is evil. I enable EA and Valve to be evil and so do you. We are all evil by definition unless we support communism without expecting to gain anything on it.

In conclusion EA is evil I am evil you are evil. Thank you for opening my eyes to true evil.

 

[HellRaid]

Second point: Closing down studios.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood. This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help? They can't.

Ok, first thing: There is another reason companies merge: because they realise they will be stronger if they combine their assets. Look at Activision Blizzard, the result of a merger between two successful companies and five years later they're both doing fantastic. Some of EA's buyouts didn't last two years!
This is an important point, because some of the companies merged into EA did so to take advantage of working within a larger company, and found themselves suffocated.

So, let's take an adventure into the seedy underworld of EA's corporate buyouts!

I'm using hidden text to centre this gif!

We'll start with exhibit A, otherwise known as Origin Systems: Founded by now well-respected game designer Richard Gariott. one of the first EA buyouts, and one of the worst. You are right in saying that they did end up in financial difficulty, and had to either sell to EA or go bankrupt, but what you may not know is that EA put them there. With frivolous lawsuits and corporate bullying they wore them down until they were in debt, and had to settle. Then EA bought them out, and the founder of EA when asked about the tactics they used to aquire it said "This is just business. This is the way we're going to win."

Let's move on to exhibit B, Westwood Studios.

Westwood had 7% of the videogame market share at the time they were bought out, EA had 11%. They were not a floundering company, they were highly successful and doing very very well. In fact they were halfway through the next C&C game. The reason for the buyout lies in money. $122.5 million in cash to be exact, which was what the owners of Westwood were paid by EA for their company. It was a quick money grab, and many of Westwood's employees registered their personal feelings about being betrayed by the owners, and most of them quit their jobs in protest.
What happened to the "awesome C&C" game they were in the middle of developing after EA bought them?

Electronic Arts, who had acquired Westwood Studios in 1998 and published Tiberian Sun, and had no direct part in its development, pushed for Tiberian Sun's release ahead of schedule, resulting in a number of engine and gameplay features being omitted from the game, some of which were later included in Firestorm expansion pack.

Rushed deadlines and putting features meant for the main game in an expensive extra content pack? Start as you mean to go on, I suppose.

And now for Exhibit C, I refer, Your Honour, to the joint acquisition of Bioware/Pandemic, and this juicy tale of corruption runs right the way to the top of the house!

Pandemic were partnered with Bioware, due to them being owned by the same private equity fund (V.G Holdings). By the way, this is another perfect example of two companies merging not because one is on deaths door, but because they realise they can do better together, and it worked really well! Until...

A certain man by the name of John Riccitiello became CEO of EA. He had a very impressive C.V., including working in Haagen Dazs, several previous upper management positions in EA, and co-founding a company called Elevation Partners.

Hold on to your ass, because things are about to get corporate.

Elevation Partners was a large Investment firm, meaning it held a lot of private businesses. Among these businesses was a certain "V.G Holdings". Yes, the same V.G. Holdings that ran Bioware/Pandemic. One of the first acts John made when he became CEO of EA was to buy VG Holdings for $620 million. This gave EA two top quality companies that were just exploding onto the videogame scene.
However, John still held a huge personal interest in Elevation Partners, and so he personally pocketed a $5 million personal bonus by Elevation Partners through his official role there for the merger.

What happened after EA had bought the two companies? Bioware did well... for a while. Now the team that made fantastic singleplayer RPGs are stuck perpetually maintaining a failing MMO loosely based on one of their most successful IPs. Pandemic are... dead. Because EA didn't really have a plan for them.
They lasted one year and a month. How does a company get canned so quickly, especially one that creates such a long term product as a videogame? The Duke Nukem Forever developers lasted ten times as long and they weren't even doing any work!
It's because EA never had a plan for Pandemic, they never had any games reserved for them to make, and they didn't bother to use their talents or name. They didn't factor into EA's business plan, and were canned at the first excuse.
The reason for the merger was John Riccitiello's 5 million dollar handshake, and you know what? For that amount of money you can't really blame him.

It annoys me that this post hasn't been quoted more as it's really incredibly informative. It also proves (IMO) that if EA are not evil, they're really about as close to evil as they can get.

 

[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.

"evil is about deliberate wrongdoing"

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity. What's the most common reason for deliberate wrongdoing if not personal gain?

Evil is most commonly expressed by selfishness, i.e. personal gain. While I find the term itself repulsive and pretty much agree that people exaggerate, I don't think your argument works.

Please, I have defended this claim so much now. Go to a website called wikipedia.org and search for Evil. One of the definition for evil is causing deliberate harm, unlike you I decided to do research before I posted something.

 

[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.

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.

My original statement said it was about deliberate harm. A person who tortures someone intends to cause harm, the only goal he's got is to cause harm. He may do it for pleasure, but there's no gain in pleasure. Pleasure is a feeling, nothing more. I don't gain anything from playing games, I get entertained, but it stops there.

You said I can't argue with the dictionary, Wikipedia says there's no clear definition so obviously the discussion is there. Faulty statement on your side there.

I use the definition that I consider accurate since there are several. Am I wrong for using a different definition than you? Using the definition you used we can clearly see that capitalism is evil. Steam gives us sales in order to earn money is evil. Taking part in the system that allows such a practice is evil. I enable EA and Valve to be evil and so do you. We are all evil by definition unless we support communism without expecting to gain anything on it.

In conclusion EA is evil I am evil you are evil. Thank you for opening my eyes to true evil.

And this is why Evil is a pointless when talking trade.

Both sides are trying to get as much as possible out of their situation, at the expense of the other side. If one side is evil then both sides are.

Now you can however point to specifics actions while doing business say "Using unsafe materials in production" then you can point to it specifically and call those actions evil. I have yet see any actions from EA that could fall into the category. And like I already pointed out in previous posts, its not because it doesn't happen in our modern world.

Thank you! This is just what I have been trying to say, but your post really captured everything I lost in my rambling annoyance over this. It is pointless to discuss evil and point the finger at EA.

 

[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.

My original statement said it was about deliberate harm. A person who tortures someone intends to cause harm, the only goal he's got is to cause harm. He may do it for pleasure, but there's no gain in pleasure. Pleasure is a feeling, nothing more. I don't gain anything from playing games, I get entertained, but it stops there.

You said I can't argue with the dictionary, Wikipedia says there's no clear definition so obviously the discussion is there. Faulty statement on your side there.

I use the definition that I consider accurate since there are several. Am I wrong for using a different definition than you? Using the definition you used we can clearly see that capitalism is evil. Steam gives us sales in order to earn money is evil. Taking part in the system that allows such a practice is evil. I enable EA and Valve to be evil and so do you. We are all evil by definition unless we support communism without expecting to gain anything on it.

In conclusion EA is evil I am evil you are evil. Thank you for opening my eyes to true evil.

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).