EA is not evil.

[Yopaz]

I see no connection between deliberate wrongdoing and being unethical even if unethical means wrong

K, bro. This is getting ridiculous. Remind me to call people out and just leave it at that next time, too much of a hassle trying to explain when they can just hide behind their finger and pretend they're not there.

Not even daring to use my actual post I see. I guess I can understand you. Here are the definitions you referred to:

Adj. 1. unethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behaviorunethical - not conforming to approved standards of social or professional behavior; "unethical business practices"
wrong - contrary to conscience or morality or law; "it is wrong for the rich to take advantage of the poor"; "cheating is wrong"; "it is wrong to lie"
ethical - conforming to accepted standards of social or professional behavior; "an ethical lawyer"; "ethical medical practice"; "an ethical problem"; "had no ethical objection to drinking"; "Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants"- Omar N. Bradley

My original definition of evil stated deliberate harm, not wrongdoing as you translated it to. you have misquoted me every step of the way trying to make a point here and now you actually edit what I said because that's the only way you can get a grasp on this.

Bold out either the word evil, harm or deliberate from your personal definition here. This time I dare you to actually quote my post rather than reply to it or most recently obscure it. You accused me of hiding things I pretend isn't there behind my fingers. That is exactly what you did with this post.

As I said, the only definition you seem to master is the one for irony.

 

[mrhateful]

They aren't evil they are just incredible short sighted that's what makes me the most sad, of cause I can understand that a corporation needs to generate growth but every move they make is only for the benefit of the immediate future and not for the contingency of their corporation's long term prosperity. For instance they want people to use Origin but the way they go about it is having prices as high as any store and removing their wares from other on-line stores such as steam. Now this might in the short run work since their product is new and thus people still have an attachment to the products they monopolized. However this won't last and it's only end in sight is the downfall of the entire company and this is why I despise EA. Because they ruin everything in their way and nothing will come of it in the end.

 

[PhiMed]

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.

This is an excellent retort to the OP.
The OP makes several mistakes, but the biggest is the statement that the only reason a company would be bought out is because they were seeking help.
The world of hostile takeovers, capital mergers, and big payoffs would beg to differ. In fact, this is probably the least common reason for a company's acquisition by another. This post demonstrates that expertly.

 

[Mortamus]

All of this aside, I feel that several of the Escapists themselves have elaborated before on why EA is evil. It has nothing to do with either or your primary arguments. Yes, companies need to make money, but EA doesn't really care about you as a consumer. They care about their income. That isn't how business should work.

Day one DLC
On-Disc DLC
DRM
Online Passes
Hashed-In Multiplayer

The list goes on. These are not only things that EA is constantly including in their games, but openly states that is needed otherwise their game will suck. "A necessary evil of gaming." No it isn't EA, because you're the one who put it there. We didn't ask for it.

If you still believe that these are acceptable practices and that we should be ok with it, I would advise you to go compare Battlefield 3's sales and reception v.s. Skyrim's sales and reception. In a fair argument, Skyrim had considerably higher development costs, and was a much more massive success than Battlefield 3. Not to mention, Skyrim did not have a single one of these awful practices in it. Not one.

Tell me again how EA is not a money-grubbing pool of evil that doesn't understand how our industry really works.

 

[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?

And that is the very issue I have.
Actions will talk for themselves. PR bullshit has both crippled what can be said and what I can believe.

My problem is more or less you right now.

You are more or going "It EA. Who cares we made this up about them. We know they are bad" and that is where I have a problem. And it is not an uncommon thing to see. It is what allowed this story to run like this in the first place. It is intellectually dishonest.

I will judge actions on a base of their actions. Not on "I mean we are talking EA". It was not a gaffe. It was a pretty strait forward quote that were deliberately taken out of its context in order to generate outrage. It shouldn't have happened. If Ea is supposed to have this reputation then you can find evidence that isn't made up to support it.

And you're a corporate stooge who explains away obvious gaffes with explanations about "blah people". I don't really believe that, I just want you to see how annoying it is. I know you have a problem with news outlets that make EA look bad but I wish you would leave me the fuck out of it. I did find non-made-up evidence. You posted it. Why the fuck you are accusing me of dishonesty for headlines posted by popular websites whose content I have no input on, I have no idea. Unless you're going to tell me you made up the quote you posted by Frank Gibeau, I have not made anything up or said anything dishonest. I hope you will feel welcome to stop associating me with things other people have done that you object to.

If you want to talk about the validity, honesty or merit of something I said or did, not some website, I'm more than open to that discussion. Everything I have said on this issue so far, I stand behind. You're trying to smear people as dishonest for doing no more than reading between the lines and considering EA's words in the context of their pattern of behavior. It's not what I'm doing that's the problem here, it's how it reflects on EA that has you hurling these ridiculous accusations.

 

[th3_aVengeR]

So, at the end of the day we managed to discover that EA is greedy, not evil. Isn't it bad is a company is too greedy? And the excuse "EA, as a corporation, needs to make money" is not really a good one. If a serial killer needs to kill to stop the voices in his head, should we just let them go cause you know, the voices. EA doesn't need to be as greedy as it is. A reasonable company wouldn't try and buy out IP's if they already held a large amount of the gaming market, instead they should have simply created sequels every now and then instead of rushing the final product (see mass effect 3). I am not as well informed as most people are, but i still hate EA because i was a huge Battlezone fan both one and two.
EA has no faith in it's devs and yet they forcefully rush them and blame them. EA's most recent stance, saying how they haven't greenlighted a single player game puts restrictions on the dev's ability to create good games. You can make the game, what ever you want, but it must have multiplayer despite the fact LoL and CoD are currently dominating the multiplayer market and if you can't you get canned.

 

[Mortamus]

TL;DR: I will simply let Jim take it from here.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5946-Why-Do-People-Hate-EA

Thank god for Jim.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

EA are successful company, and there is a reason for that. We might not like some of the things they do, but then EA's main concern is their shareholders, not us. Plus, all these people who moan, how do we know that ME3 was rushed? For all we know they made a contract as to when it would be released, and Bioware fucked it up. EA spend money buying a company to make games, if those games dont sell then off course EA should shut them down or sell them. Why would they keep a money losing franchise going? If i run a game business i would do the same thing.

 

[Yopaz]

My original definition of evil stated deliberate harm, not wrongdoing as you translated it to.

Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing.

=>

they can just hide behind their finger and pretend they're not there.

*shrug*

This time I dare you to actually quote my post

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. [HEADING=1]Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing.[/HEADING] EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

Too many quotes. I don't know why I even bother anymore. WAAH YOU DARED QUOTE ME LIKE THAT LET ME SCRAMBLE TO MY RIGHT-BACK-ATCHA MACHINE WITHOUT ANYTHING I SAY ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE
You know what? You're free to argue with yourself as much as you want.

But why are you telling this here because as far as I can tell no one you quote has done that.

I disagree.

I haven't made any changes to any of the posts from you. I see you still choose not to quote me entire post proving my point for me. You quoted me entirely out of context in this post too as if you wanted to prove my point for you.

I changed harm to wrongdoing because you referred to it as wrongdoing when you replied to my post. I stated I was referring to my original post, you ignored that. I asked you to quote my full post, you ignored that and accused me of doing the same to you. I haven't once made alterations to your posts. and unless you edit them just to prove me wrong the evidence is quite clearly found.

Now I will repeat what I said in my last post. Using your definition of unethical, where do you draw the connection to my definition of evil? It says wrong, but so does the definition for incorrect so that hardly proves anything. I am trying to play this by your rules and using your definition here. You wont even acknowledge your own definition it seems.

 

[Durgiun]

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first. [/quote]

I disagree, Mass Effect 1 was a boring exercise in going through the BioWare storytelling motions, whereas Mass Effect 2 was more charcter centered allowing for a story where characters were leading the plot, not the other way around as was the case with ME1.

The lack of RPG mechanics that were present in the first can be used as a legitimate point of complaining, but if that's the case, why isn't ME1 considered a watered down piece of crap like ME2 since the RPGness in 1 wasn't all that deep to begin with.

 

[Nannernade]

I never considered them necessarily "evil" but some of the games they produce... they're just awful, decent but awful. I'll give you the common example, Dragon Age: Origins, it had non linear exploration, the characters were loveable and the combat was ok. Then Dragon Age 2 comes along they spend so much time making Hawke have a voice that they got rid of the different areas replaced by reusing a map over and over and over again, the combat was much more blah the only thing that survived was the character development. You'd think somebody would have spoke up or something.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I pointed directly to where the Quote is cut.

I put out direct examples of where they did it.

Cut by who? Who is "they"? I'm being rhetorical, I don't want to know. What does this have to do with me? You accused me of dishonesty, maybe you should use something done by me as an example. Like I said, I know you have a fatwa out on anyone who criticizes EA, and I want to be left out of things that have nothing to do with me.

And you already said

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.

That is intellectual dishonesty on the highest lvl. You dont care what is being said, just care what it should be interpreted. And it just so happens it should be interpreted into a reputation that you are already seem to believe.

How the fuck do you take from that that I don't care what was actually said, or that I think it's OK to misrepresent? You're imagining everyone is a liar and you're seeing it everywhere. I am not interested in discussing whether or not the escapist is actively trying to get it's users to hate EA. That is not an endorsement of dishonesty for fuck's sake. I'm describing how the quote fits an existing pattern of behavior. Accusing me of self-delusion is begging the question. It doesn't "just so happen" anything.

I specifically said I am concerned about how the quote should be interpreted as in, the best and most accurate way to interpret it. You're not taking the most obvious possible meaning of my words, you're reading dishonest intentions into everything. This is bordering on paranoia. I even went so far as to explicitly acknowledge the literal meaning of the words is exactly what you say it is. So what are you accusing me of, exactly? What is the problem here? What can I possibly do in addition to admitting you are right about the meaning of the text? What more is there?

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.

Dont get all angry with me just because I pointed out that your biases appear to be what is the correct interpretation according to you.

You should deal with what being said. Not what you want it to mean.

That's not why I'm angry and you know it. I'm angry because you keep calling me a goddamned liar.

The fact that I don't like EA does not demonstrate that I am wrong about their pattern of behavior. Basically your argument is "you just don't like EA" and I'm not finding that very compelling.

You want to argue that other people are liars who want to make EA look bad. I didn't take the bait, and now I find all that shit dumped in my lap. I'm not even sure any more what you think my interpretation of the quote in question is. It seems to have been morphed by you into something totally unrelated to what I described. I don't even know what we are arguing about any more except for you calling me a liar for things that have nothing to do with me.

 

[LoneWanderer19]

A lot of people hat EA because they are TOLD to hate them. EA isn't evil, I grew up playing their games, and I still do.

 

[lowhat]

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.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

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.

Sorry, I missed this post. I'll respond to it the best I can.

As far as takeovers go, you are correct that there are other types of takeover. However, in this business, no takeover is possible without the consent of the owners, unless you can prove EA forged some signatures.

RE: Origin, that is a bit unethical, if it happened. I'm not saying it didn't, but every bit of information I could find was Origin employees calling EA's head at the time "the antichrist", and some hearsay evidence from Origin employees. I'm not saying they are lying. But I'd like some evidence from a neutral source.

RE: Westwood, all right, they were doing well in the market. That doesn't change the fact that they agreed to a buyout, and it doesn't change the fact that Red Alert 2 (ignoring Tiberium, on account of everyone saying that it was in development beforehand) was well received, as was the expansion pack. Renegade...was a bad idea. However, from a marketing standpoint, it made sense. Halo is a first person shooter, let's make a first person shooter. They didn't have a company under them making first person shooters, so they took an established franchise, hoping to sell on namepower. It didn't work, to say the least.

RE: Bioware/Pandemic: You're right, that is shady, and I'll admit it. I won't be using that as an example in the future, that's for sure, because there is no reason to buy a company with no intention to use it. But saying that it is "corrupt" because he made some money through the sale legally is a weakening of the word "corrupt". As for Bioware, I just want to point out the company behind "The Old Republic" is not the main Bioware studio, but is instead a side studio given the Bioware name for name recognition. The main Bioware studio is, at last report, working on Dragon Age III.

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

 

[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.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

I am using Wikipedia because contrary to your beliefs making changes based on nothing gets deleted and the original text often gets restored within hours unless you cite a source for the change. I have tested this myself and I often check the sources listed at the end to make sure the article is based on something solid. Wikipedia also provides explanations rather than plain definitions. So do the changes you want. Change the entire article to say that evil means cake. All that will happen is that an administrator will check it, see there's been made some changes lacking citation, see that this is probably made as a joke or some such. Give you a warning about not doing so and that they will block your IP from making changes if they see a pattern.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first.

I disagree, Mass Effect 1 was a boring exercise in going through the BioWare storytelling motions, whereas Mass Effect 2 was more charcter centered allowing for a story where characters were leading the plot, not the other way around as was the case with ME1.

The lack of RPG mechanics that were present in the first can be used as a legitimate point of complaining, but if that's the case, why isn't ME1 considered a watered down piece of crap like ME2 since the RPGness in 1 wasn't all that deep to begin with.

Mass Effect was my first Bioware game, so the difference in perspective might have something to do with it. But that's not the only reason I thought the story in Mass Effect 2 was terrible. None of the big set-pieces made sense or fit well into the plot. Everything you accomplished in the first game was just kind of ignored so we could go through the same motions all over again. I thought there was a big shift in atmosphere from creepy, spine-tingling science fiction to action music and explosions. I didn't think the characters were very likable or believable. The RPG mechanics in the first game were not done terribly well, it's true. But I was interested in Mass Effect as an action-RPG, not as an action game. And as an action game, I didn't think the second installment held up terribly well.

 

[FalloutJack]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

 

[The White Hunter]

Another person who doesn't hate EA? I thought I was alone!!!...or is this a trick? You're just trying to draw me out for the ambush!

Spoiler

...alright, I'll play nicely.

I like EA. I don't agree with everything that they do but they've released more original IP's than most other companies and seems to be one of the few big companies that is actually willing to try something new either through development or publishing (see Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Army of Two, Bulletstorm, etc). While their PR department could certainly use a bit more sense (ideally just stop talking; they seem to love inserting foot into mouth), the company itself isn't the giant monster that rapes and pillages with one hand while flipping customers the bird with the other; they're a business.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs. I don't mind that they buy out companies (they've never done a hostile take-over; these companies are choosing to be bought out). I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin. I completely reject the argument that they just release the same sports games every year (seriously, anyone using that argument is instantly branded as a moron by me).

That does not mean I support everything mind you (I hate the sports exclusivity deal and the "multi-player in everything!!!" philosophy) but all the big check-marks people put against the company I think are either invalid or completely overblown.

EDIT: Took out Darksiders after it was pointed out that it wasn't an EA title. Not sure why I thought that but Dead Space has now replaced it.

I don't hate EA either. I won't defend online passes and shit but I don't hate them.
They try to maximise profit, that's fair, if I owned a business I would too. Tbh I enjoy a lot of EA games; I love the Crysis series, I loved the Bad Company games (especially 2 but I'm gonna have to not gush about how great that game is), I love the Medal of Honor reboot and I'm really looking forward to the sequel, which from what I've seen and read is doing some fairly interesting and new things with the genre.

I'm not a fan of all their stuff, like I can't stand Dead Space, for example. But generally I enjoy their products so I can't hate them. Bad Company 2 brought me and a friend many weeks of very fun gameplay and entertained me for well over a year, and still does to this day.

So yeah, I don't hate EA. I hate some of EA's business practices. But not EA itself.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

Fair point, but I feel that if I have shown one person that EA is a business, nothing more, nothing less, and that their actions to make money are, for the most part (excepting things like Pandemic) ethical, I have accomplished something.

Of course, if I get a chance to point out the hypocrisy of slamming EA for actions other companies get away with doing with little more than a finger shaking (Rockstar Wives, anyone?), that's a bonus.

And what better place to do it than somewhere where you will get verbally lynched for not hating EA?