EA Wins Title of "Worst Company in America"

[mjcabooseblu]

So the problem is that they make amazing games, and people are expected to pay for additional content?

A spectacular example of the inverse law of averages: The more people you have angry about a topic, the lower their total intelligence is.

That's not the only reason they are hated, maybe you should actually read the thread before you go on about other peoples intelligence.

From the original post:

Consumerist.com cites the reasons for EA's victory as being its attempts to "to nickel and dime consumers to death" and "deliberately hold back game content with the sole intent of charging a fee for it at a later date."

Maybe you could elaborate on how the above text is not what they said? I must be missing something, like an extra paragraph at the end of the article or something like that.

 

[-|-]

I keep seeing references to EA's so-called "shady" business practices? What exactly have they done that is illegal? Another thing I see posted a lot is how they are "holding gaming back" without any explanation of what this actually means. I suspect the people that say these things don't actually know what they are talking about and are just engaging in typical hackneyed gamer rhetoric.

Personally, I think they are a decent company; they sell products I like at a price I am willing to pay. Obviously others might not like the games they produce, but that just means they don't buy them doesn't it? Maybe some people actually believe that EA is coercing people into parting with their cash and that's why they got this vote. Well there's no accounting for idiocy I suppose.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

I think EA could put a virus on their next game that deletes any non EA saves and people would rage about it, then still buy the DLC for that game, which includes a virus that starts to delete any non EA content at all.

Why stop there?

If they delete the EA games, too, they might get us to buy them again.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

You can cheat your way through an economic system and cause it to crash, spill oil across the entire Gulf of Mexico, or take advantage of countless helpless children overseas, but you do NOT piss off the fanboys.

 

[RazielXT]

I know Ill be alone on this, but as long as EA insists on releasing Mirrors Edge 2 they are my best buddies

 

[lapan]

So the problem is that they make amazing games, and people are expected to pay for additional content?

A spectacular example of the inverse law of averages: The more people you have angry about a topic, the lower their total intelligence is.

That's not the only reason they are hated, maybe you should actually read the thread before you go on about other peoples intelligence.

From the original post:

Consumerist.com cites the reasons for EA's victory as being its attempts to "to nickel and dime consumers to death" and "deliberately hold back game content with the sole intent of charging a fee for it at a later date."

Maybe you could elaborate on how the above text is not what they said? I must be missing something, like an extra paragraph at the end of the article or something like that.

The article itself didn't mention more reasons, but if you had read the thread you would have known they are also hated for their horrible customer support, employee treatment, one guy died because he got his electricity shut of because he got billed multiple times and they bought and later closed multiple companies that were beloved by gamers.

 

[Abedeus]

Wow, so people say EA's attempts "to nickel and dime consumers to death" overshadow WalMart's inhuman sweatshops in China?

Congratulations, internet: you've indirectly placed the ending of a game series above the well-being of human life. Stay classy.

Yeah, that's just about one game. Sure. Whatever makes you feel superior to us all.

I voted for EA because frankly I never even encountered a Walmart. I know there's one in my COUNTRY, and few on this side of Europe, but I simply had no contact with them. EA has been ruining my childhood's series for a while now.

So you voted EA over Walmart purely because Walmart's sweatshops don't directly affect you. The fact that Walmart (or Apple, for that matter) has treated millions of people like animals and pays them less than minimum wage while doing it so that they can lower prices on goods isn't as bad as DLC and allowing a game studio to release a crappy ending, because you don't ever actually have to see a Walmart, but you have had to deal with having to pay an extra $10-20 for content that you believe should have been in the game in the first place, or because you paid $50-80 for a game in which about ten minutes out of at least 15-20 hours were terrible.

Please, explain to me how your excuse makes your vote any less depressing.

Well, I could go into a long, dwindling argument with you about why your opinion is superior to yours, but I don't give a crap.

I kinda wish you did give a crap, because I would love to hear that one.

But on a more serious note, this isn't about anyone being superior to anyone else, so much as it's about you trying to act like the fact that you don't live near a lot of Walmarts is a valid counter-argument to the statement made by someone else about how depressing it is that people care more about their video games than about human rights.

It's like saying you're justified in caring more about the price of gas than about child labor in China, because you've never happened to stumble upon a pair of shoes made in China. The problem isn't that you care more about gas prices than child safety (well, that is a problem, but anyway); it's that you're trying to argue that the fact that you don't happen to be near the source of the problem means you're justified in not caring as much about the problem.

Well, as long as you feel superior to everyone who has different opinion I guess that's okay.

Again, it's not the opinion itself (that your games are more important than human rights), it's that your logic behind the opinion (because if you don't live near the problem, then it's okay to not care about it) is faulty.

But okay, keep obsessing over the idea of superiority. Because that's definitely making your logic seem even more intelligent.

I think you are stroking yourself too much in public with those posts. Stop that, it's unhealthy.

 

[minuialear]

Again, it's not the opinion itself (that your games are more important than human rights), it's that your logic behind the opinion (because if you don't live near the problem, then it's okay to not care about it) is faulty.

But okay, keep obsessing over the idea of superiority. Because that's definitely making your logic seem even more intelligent.

I think you are stroking yourself too much in public with those posts. Stop that, it's unhealthy.

So, you don't have any actual justification for your logic, and are either trolling or just terrible at discussing things.

Check.

 

[Abedeus]

Again, it's not the opinion itself (that your games are more important than human rights), it's that your logic behind the opinion (because if you don't live near the problem, then it's okay to not care about it) is faulty.

But okay, keep obsessing over the idea of superiority. Because that's definitely making your logic seem even more intelligent.

I think you are stroking yourself too much in public with those posts. Stop that, it's unhealthy.

So, you don't have any actual justification for your logic, and are either trolling or just terrible at discussing things.

Check.

Oh dear, I haven't realized I have to make logical justifications for every single opinion I have on every single thing some random guy on the Internet wants to talk about.

I thought those were called "opinions" because I DON'T have to explain them. You ask a non-religious homophobe why he hates gay people, he won't have a logical answer "they disgust me" or "it's unnatural" have no logic and aren't objective either. If someone is asked "why do you prefer redheads", he will ALSO have no logical answer.

Also - all that talking about people being abused in China... okay, take away those jobs. What do they gain? What do those people gain if you shut down all the factories? They... gain self-respect? How is that going to feed their families?

Like it or not, people are willing to do those jobs, they need them. Their situation is hard enough as it is - you take away those jobs, they are either reduced to begging for scraps or prostitution. Or thievery.

Yes they are treated barely better than talking machines, but it's better than alternative - death and starvation of their families.

 

[-|-]

Yes they are treated barely better than talking machines, but it's better than alternative - death and starvation of their families.

I agree with you. For a company to be worse than EA, it would actually have to start killing or starving chinese families to death. Don't listen to those who say otherwise - they are just fools with no sense of perspective.

 

[Abedeus]

Yes they are treated barely better than talking machines, but it's better than alternative - death and starvation of their families.

I agree with you. For a company to be worse than EA, it would actually have to start killing or starving chinese families to death. Don't listen to those who say otherwise - they are just fools with no sense of perspective.

Well, I guess your OPINION is better than everyone else's.

 

[-|-]

Yes they are treated barely better than talking machines, but it's better than alternative - death and starvation of their families.

I agree with you. For a company to be worse than EA, it would actually have to start killing or starving chinese families to death. Don't listen to those who say otherwise - they are just fools with no sense of perspective.

Well, I guess your OPINION is better than everyone else's.

Don't know why you are having a go at me - I was agreeing with you. You were right earlier, saying EA is the worst company in america is only the same as somebody saying they don't like redheads. No need to base your point of view on facts and observations or anything rational.

 

[notyouraveragejoe]

I think the results would have been quite different if only American citizens could vote in it. The reason being: EA fucks everyone while Bank of America only really directly fucks Americans. Why would you vote for a corporation that doesn't even have clients in your country?

I agree with this. Also the fact that this is being done online suggests that there may be a more gamer oriented proportion of voters. Also, despite my lack of American-ness I'd still call Bank of America the worst company. They deserve a turd on a pillow for sure.

EDIT:

I know Ill be alone on this, but as long as EA insists on releasing Mirrors Edge 2 they are my best buddies

I'm with you buddy *raises glass*

 

[MaxwellEdison]

(Didn't even know a subdivision of EA created Mass Effect..how the fuck did that happen?)

I probably would have voted for someone else - compared to other companies, they're not so bad.
I do think EA might pay a bit more attention, though. Their quote seems to imply that Consumerist is this new thing that just came here to shit on EA and has absolutely no relation to the people who actually buy their games.
How does an entire company not understand why piracy occurs while constantly acting like this?

 

[minuialear]

Oh dear, I haven't realized I have to make logical justifications for every single opinion I have on every single thing some random guy on the Internet wants to talk about.

Heaven forbid someone actually expect you to use stuff like rationality and logic when it comes to having opinions, and heaven forbid they then ask you what said rationality and logic are! What a horrific burden I've placed on you!

I thought those were called "opinions" because I DON'T have to explain them.

Show me a definition of "opinion" that includes "that is unexplainable/that is not based on any sort of logic or rationality."

I'll wait.

You ask a non-religious homophobe why he hates gay people, he won't have a logical answer "they disgust me" or "it's unnatural" have no logic and aren't objective either.

There's a difference between asking for or expecting a person's opinion to be based on "good" logic, and asking to know the logic behind the person's opinion. I asked you for the latter. Keep trying the strawman arguments, though.

Also - all that talking about people being abused in China... okay, take away those jobs. What do they gain? What do those people gain if you shut down all the factories? They... gain self-respect? How is that going to feed their families?

Like it or not, people are willing to do those jobs, they need them. Their situation is hard enough as it is - you take away those jobs, they are either reduced to begging for scraps or prostitution. Or thievery.

Yes they are treated barely better than talking machines, but it's better than alternative - death and starvation of their families.

See, now was that so hard?

Except your response is still missing the point of my actual question which, for the third time now, has nothing to do with why you think EA is worse than Walmart when comparing their records (although I would argue even this response doesn't actually address that--but I'm not getting into that yet).

My problem with the rationale you offered was that it essentially amounted to "I voted for EA over Walmart, as I have never been to a Walmart, and don't live near one." What I have been asking you for is the rationale behind stating that because you don't live near or shop at a Walmart, whatever Walmart's doing isn't as bad as what EA's doing. Given the fact that you seem so obsessed with the concept of people getting off their high horses, I really want you to explain what that rationale is.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

So the problem is that they make amazing games, and people are expected to pay for additional content?

A spectacular example of the inverse law of averages: The more people you have angry about a topic, the lower their total intelligence is.

That's not the only reason they are hated, maybe you should actually read the thread before you go on about other peoples intelligence.

From the original post:

Consumerist.com cites the reasons for EA's victory as being its attempts to "to nickel and dime consumers to death" and "deliberately hold back game content with the sole intent of charging a fee for it at a later date."

Maybe you could elaborate on how the above text is not what they said? I must be missing something, like an extra paragraph at the end of the article or something like that.

The article itself didn't mention more reasons, but if you had read the thread you would have known they are also hated for their horrible customer support, employee treatment, one guy died because he got his electricity shut of because he got billed multiple times and they bought and later closed multiple companies that were beloved by gamers.

Since I was commenting on the article, not the raw sewage you call a thread, I still don't see your point. If you're saying the Escapist's reporting isn't thorough enough, I can accept that opinion.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Corporations, generally speaking, aren't popular. We lambast them for inhuman lending practices, faceless and faulty customer service, stagnant pay rates, and a wide variety of other perceived misdemeanors.

Stagnant PRODUCTIONS with RISING pay rates for the consumer. More of the same, for more.

Is EA really worse than Bank of America and WalMart? I'm beseiged by questions, Escapists. Help a sister out.

I hope that's sarcasm. EA cannot even begin to compare to the horrors Bank of America has committed. Last I checked, EA never had someone's house demolished while they were away on a tour of duty in Iraq just because they didn't think the owner was likely to return.

 

[lapan]

So the problem is that they make amazing games, and people are expected to pay for additional content?

A spectacular example of the inverse law of averages: The more people you have angry about a topic, the lower their total intelligence is.

That's not the only reason they are hated, maybe you should actually read the thread before you go on about other peoples intelligence.

From the original post:

Consumerist.com cites the reasons for EA's victory as being its attempts to "to nickel and dime consumers to death" and "deliberately hold back game content with the sole intent of charging a fee for it at a later date."

Maybe you could elaborate on how the above text is not what they said? I must be missing something, like an extra paragraph at the end of the article or something like that.

The article itself didn't mention more reasons, but if you had read the thread you would have known they are also hated for their horrible customer support, employee treatment, one guy died because he got his electricity shut of because he got billed multiple times and they bought and later closed multiple companies that were beloved by gamers.

Since I was commenting on the article, not the raw sewage you call a thread, I still don't see your point. If you're saying the Escapist's reporting isn't thorough enough, I can accept that opinion.

So you insulted a whole lot of people based upon just the article itself which doesn't even mention the reasons, when even just reading the source listed in it would already cite some more valid reasons. Really classy.

 

[mjcabooseblu]

So the problem is that they make amazing games, and people are expected to pay for additional content?

A spectacular example of the inverse law of averages: The more people you have angry about a topic, the lower their total intelligence is.

That's not the only reason they are hated, maybe you should actually read the thread before you go on about other peoples intelligence.

From the original post:

Consumerist.com cites the reasons for EA's victory as being its attempts to "to nickel and dime consumers to death" and "deliberately hold back game content with the sole intent of charging a fee for it at a later date."

Maybe you could elaborate on how the above text is not what they said? I must be missing something, like an extra paragraph at the end of the article or something like that.

The article itself didn't mention more reasons, but if you had read the thread you would have known they are also hated for their horrible customer support, employee treatment, one guy died because he got his electricity shut of because he got billed multiple times and they bought and later closed multiple companies that were beloved by gamers.

Since I was commenting on the article, not the raw sewage you call a thread, I still don't see your point. If you're saying the Escapist's reporting isn't thorough enough, I can accept that opinion.

So you insulted a whole lot of people based upon just the article itself which doesn't even mention the reasons, when even just reading the source listed in it would already cite some more valid reasons. Really classy.

Calling threads like these terrible isn't an insult, it's an immutable fact of the universe. And I apologize for not reading the source, in the future I will simply assume the article is not giving the full picture. Thank you for your insight.