EA is not evil.

[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).

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

To be fair, they never said that. They did say that all their games have (and will have) an some online service. This is a very far fetch from "no singleplayer" and I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place. The original quote could be somewhat misleading but very little reading comprehension is needed to notice that single player is still alive. Also, "online service" does not even mean bolted on multiplayer as I've seen other people suggest. Here, however, the original quote even makes it clear - it can be any sort of thing that requires online connection - leaderboards, DLC, ME2's Ceberus Network, social networking integration - these all count as online services.

Now, I don't really like it but to say "no singleplayer" is just false.

You're right about the meaning of the quote, but the reason for the confusion is very, very clear. The quote doesn't literally mean EA does not make single player games, which is why the guy shouldn't have literally said that exact thing. Whatever the guy was trying to say it was a very badly worded comment that also demonstrated a lack of concern for or understanding of gamers' sensibilities. At least for the type of gamers that rant of message boards. As I tried to argue below that news post, the reaction isn't really about the literal meaning of the quote. It's about the direction EA has been taking which that quote represents, and the motivation behind it.

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

 

[Yopaz]

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).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

 

[Judgment90]

yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?

 

[ThunderCavalier]

My problem with EA is not that they're a ruthless corporation that will do most anything to get money. Hell, you have to respect them for doing some drastic measures to keep them afloat and competing with Activision-Blizzard.

But that's also why I despise them. Their practices are good for business, but you can't deny that they're not at all considering the well-being of a developer's creative vision, nor a gamer's convenience.

The only thing EA sees is a dollar sign, which is good for the employees' jobs and for the company's future, but it's certainly not a future I want to be part of.

 

[DoPo]

'We aren't going to make single players games any more' *smug face like they think they are the coolest*

To be fair, they never said that. They did say that all their games have (and will have) an some online service. This is a very far fetch from "no singleplayer" and I am not quite sure how that misconception came to be in the first place. The original quote could be somewhat misleading but very little reading comprehension is needed to notice that single player is still alive. Also, "online service" does not even mean bolted on multiplayer as I've seen other people suggest. Here, however, the original quote even makes it clear - it can be any sort of thing that requires online connection - leaderboards, DLC, ME2's Ceberus Network, social networking integration - these all count as online services.

Now, I don't really like it but to say "no singleplayer" is just false.

You're right about the meaning of the quote, but the reason for the confusion is very, very clear. The quote doesn't literally mean EA does not make single player games, which is why the guy shouldn't have literally said that exact thing. Whatever the guy was trying to say it was a very badly worded comment that also demonstrated a lack of concern for or understanding of gamers' sensibilities. At least for the type of gamers that rant of message boards. As I tried to argue below that news post, the reaction isn't really about the literal meaning of the quote. It's about the direction EA has been taking which that quote represents, and the motivation behind it.

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

Yeah, he worded it badly. He meant "offline" rather than "single player", or more precisely, the intersection between the two. However, reading the very next sentences does reveal what he meant by the words. There was even a clarification later that day (or maybe the next one) for the those,who didn't catch on, and yet all that is meaningless if they are going to disregard the entire thing entirely. It's like people don't want to know stuff, but instead believe things they make up. I thought the rational human being would at least double check, if their information is correct, rather than spread out the falseness.

 

[Bobic]

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).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Yeah, this seems like a good place to end it. You are right, both of our definitions are different and (while trying to objectively remove myself from my opinions and everything said in this discussion) neither of them are wrong. Admittedly it's probably impossible to perfectly define something like evil, it's not gravity, it's not a physical concept. It's a deeply subjective judgement on the actions and motives of humans. So yeah, agree to disagree. It's been fun.

 

[Yopaz]

Stop sidestepping the issue. Bottom line is: doing things for profit can be deliberate wrongdoing, and arguing otherwise in defense of EA is not a convincing thing to say. If you're not going to see that there's no reason in going further here.

I am not arguing that EA is doing something good here. I am not defending their business practice. I am simply stating that they're not evil.

Their business practice is reckless, it's unethical and all that. It leaves lesser employees in fear of when they'll have to search for a new job.

If you have any actual evidence of EA deliberately harming companies you shouldn't be here. You should report EA's violations.

EA has done a lot of nasty shit, but I am not going to waste my time discussing conspiracy theories with you on EA's evil empire. I have better things to do. Like watching the grass grow.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365?

I am sorry I find fault not with the guy saying it, but with the people who want to perpetuate the reputation that you are saying right here. Journalism at its worst. Mob news tell them what they want to hear. There is a reason the quote is cut of at "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience." In the article. Quotemining in order to to rile up the masses.

The escapist article did not cut off the quote.

I don't deny that sort of thing happens, but the quote you just posted is a gaffe. It's badly worded. If the escapist put that quote in an article describing EA you would say it is intentionally inflammatory. The reputation I'm describing is well deserved. And it's not only about the exact meaning of the text. It's what the quote means in the grand scheme of things. It's indicative of an attitude that a lot of people don't like, so they are raging about the issues they associate with that attitude.

Yeah, he worded it badly. He meant "offline" rather than "single player", or more precisely, the intersection between the two. However, reading the very next sentences does reveal what he meant by the words. There was even a clarification later that day (or maybe the next one) for the those,who didn't catch on, and yet all that is meaningless if they are going to disregard the entire thing entirely. It's like people don't want to know stuff, but instead believe things they make up. I thought the rational human being would at least double check, if their information is correct, rather than spread out the falseness.

Even knowing what he was trying to say, I still find it reasonable cause for complaint. Even though Mr. Romney has never declared "I hereby disrespect the underprivileged" it's something I infer from his meaning and the context of events.

I do agree that having your biases confirmed is way more fun than learning the truth lol.

 

[Subscriptism]

An EA apologist...GET HIM!

 

[trouble_gum]

I don't actually know, to be honest. It's my primary gaming shame that I simply can't get past the opening segment of KOTOR 2. The whole mining platform thing just bores me to tears. I've tried to play it at least 3 separate times, get probably about 3/4 of the way through the mining station before I just can't take anymore and give up.

Don't worry, you're not the only person who just cannot get into KOTOR the way some folks seem to. I've tried, time and time again to play my way through both games and I...just...can't. They just don't grab me for some reason. I can't quite put my finger on it, but KOTOR just doesn't engage me as a player and I find myself gritting my teeth at the tedious business of running back and forth through the same corridors and elevator rides. At least the ME series, whilst retaining these aspects, managed to provide me with a more engaging story to follow.

Really, I can't quantify what exactly it was about KOTOR that put me off of it. It just seems to fall flat for me. It's just one of those things.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365?

I am sorry I find fault not with the guy saying it, but with the people who want to perpetuate the reputation that you are saying right here. Journalism at its worst. Mob news tell them what they want to hear. There is a reason the quote is cut of at "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience." In the article. Quotemining in order to to rile up the masses.

The escapist article did not cut off the quote.

I don't deny that sort of thing happens, but the quote you just posted is a gaffe. It's badly worded. If the escapist put that quote in an article describing EA you would say it is intentionally inflammatory. The reputation I'm describing is well deserved. And it's not only about the exact meaning of the text. It's what the quote means in the grand scheme of things. It's indicative of an attitude that a lot of people don't like, so they are raging about the issues they associate with that attitude.

Escapist downright missrepresented the quote by running the headline

EA Turns Its Back on Single-Player Games

And off course Eurogamer who ran with the headline of

EA's Gibeau: "I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single-player experience

No. the fault doesn't fall with him for being quotemined in an attempt to stir up shit.

But he's sooo quoteminable lol. You're the one who posted the quote I said was a gaffe. If that's quotemining blame yourself. I really don't care if they are trying to make the guy look bad. I'm more concerned with how the quote should be interpreted and I've said my piece about that.

I mean we're talking about EA, right?

 

[thesilentman]

yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?

That's one way of looking at it; EA is so greedy and incompetent that they really have no fucking clue what they're doing. So, no, I hate the business practices of EA, but not EA itself.

EDIT- For word choice. Thank God for the SATs.

 

[Yopaz]

Ah yes and that brings it back to my stance. While Profit can be the motive for wrongdoing, it is in it self not evidence of wrongdoing.

And saying that a company just does things for profit is not excusing it from being called evil. Stop trying to drag me into a discussion I have no interest in.

snip

No conspiracy theories here. My problem was with how you expressed your argument and that's all.
As for unethical [http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unethical], since we're going by definitions, one of them is "wrong". That itself can qualify as deliberate wrongdoing. Point is, you called whoever thinks EA is evil ignorant. Is it truly ignorant to assume that an unethical company is evil, as long as evil's definition is inherently flexible?

For the first time you actually look up a definition. It did not mention deliberate wrongdoing, nor did it say evil. Are you trying to make a point or are you just unwilling to give up. We aren't discussing unethical business practice here. We are discussing evil. Well, I am discussing evil at least, you are just throwing out conspiracy theories having nothing to show for that EA is actually evil.

Again I am not defending EA's choices, I am simply not using evil about anything I don't agree with.

Edit: Also you complaining about someone dragging you into a discussion you don't have interest in. At least you've got the definition of irony right.

 

[Judgment90]

yes, EA wants to make money to stay afloat.

But isn't money the root of all evil?

That's one way of looking at it; EA is so greedy and incompetent that they really have no fucking clue what they're doing. So, no, I hate the business practices of EA, but not EA itself.

EDIT- For word choice. Thank God for the SATs.

That's exactly what I think. EA can produce some decent stuff, DA series (hell, I'll even admit I kinda liked DA2), ME series, etc.

but what they do corporate-wise is nothing short of being a complete dickhole.

 

[chiggerwood]

My response to you is thus:

Spoiler

Try justifying this particular piece of fuck.