Electronic Arts Wants To Be Voted Best Company In America

[CriticalMiss]

Either this is yet more PR bullshit or EA are completely out of touch with their consumers.

"...we started to realize that we are doing things that people don't like."

It took being voted worst company in America (twice) before they noticed they were doing stuff people didn't like?

"We looked at something as simple as the Online Pass," he continued. "People were telling us they didn't like that. So we weighed up the pros and cons and went, 'Okay. We will remove it.' These decisions need to be driven by what consumers want and tell us, and that is where we may have faltered a bit in the past."

Again, people have been complaining about Online Pass for a while. EA took no notice until they got publically shamed for the second year in a row.

Soderlund said it's inevitable that EA will make mistakes but suggested that the plan going forward will be a simple one: acknowledge that a mistake was made, and then fix it.

So can we expect an announcement from EA about how they fucked up SimCity and it didn't actually need to be always online?

 

[Saelune]

The first step to curing addiction is to admit you have a problem. I laughed when I read the title, but I am surprisingly taken aback that they actually are like "...maybe we should try to be a better company". I don't think they still fully understand why, but its nice to think they are trying. I look forward to hopefully seeing improvement...

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

And this ladies and gentlemen is a perfect example of why it's good that the award went to EA and not Bank of America or the other companies that are actually worse.

EA takes notice to this stuff. Even if the removal of the online passes is the only thing that comes out of it, it was still completely worth it.

Just because you don't it will make a change isn't a good reason to not vote for the company you actually think is the worst. That's like not voting for your preferred political party just because you don't think they'll win.

These are both completely reasonable things to do.

BofA or Monsanto or whatever wouldn't have given a single fuck about this award and nothing would have been accomplished other than a few people getting to feel superior to those silly internet people because they feel they're working toward a REAL cause.

 

[Mr. Q]

You tried to be 'the best company in America' back in 2007 and we all know how that turned out.

Face it EA, you're a soulless bureaucratic nightmare devoted to making money whose schemes range from 'incompetent' to 'what the fuck were they thinking.'

I think aiming a little lower would be more realistic, like beating Activision and Ubisoft.

That video pretty much sums up my reaction upon reading the title and then the article.

EA, if you are being genuine about becoming a better company, than you have a very large and very deep hole to climb out of. Your company has burned so many bridges in this industry, its no surprise that you're stuck in this predicament. So you better start extending the olive branch now and begin making better business decisions like yesterday.

If, however, you're saying this just to butter us up and sticking to your old business tactics, then you might as well paint the walls of your HQ with kerosine and light a road flare.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

Just because you don't it will make a change isn't a good reason to not vote for the company you actually think is the worst. That's like not voting for your preferred political party just because you don't think they'll win.

And now you're making a bad comparison. Let's think a little about Bank of America and use rationality (it's in my opinion, a far worse company), do you think that a golden poo would push them to being "better" ? Do you think they have regret for throwing people out of their homes ? Or exponentially increase their interest rates ?No, they don't care, like a lot of big companies they already have your money and don't care about what you think.

EA, on the hand was worried about being voted a second time, worst company.

Which one can you influence with an internet vote that, in fact, mean nothing ?

Almost all other companies are far worst than EA but with a golden poo, i can influence only one, so what choice can i made ? Think a little about it.

And for politic, i vote not for a party, for a personnality. I vote for a program (yes, i read them all) using the only tools really useful in this case: logic and rationality but it's not the subject here.
Thanks for reading.

 

[Arec Balrin]

That EA will make mistakes and that it is inevitable is irrelevant and precisely the kind of thing that demonstrates that they are not going to change.

Yes they will make mistakes- but people are angry at them for things that are not only completely avoidable, but seen by many people from very far away. Only EA seems to not notice looming disasters in their own future.

Insert your own list of examples here.

 

[lancar]

Omg, this article has got to be the funniest thing I've read all week

Seriously, EA... talk about setting the bar so high you can't even reach it with a spaceship.
Manage your expectations a little, yea?

 

[Sejborg]

"We looked at something as simple as the Online Pass," he continued. "People were telling us they didn't like that. So we weighed up the pros and cons and went, 'Okay. We will remove it.' These decisions need to be driven by what consumers want and tell us, and that is where we may have faltered a bit in the past."

So we weighed up the pros and cons and went, 'Okay. We will remove it.'

we weighed up the pros and cons

pros and cons

What pros EA? What were the pros? What?

Here's a tip for you EA. If you want to be voted the best company in USA, then stop being so mean all the time.

Eh. If you read the bit behind "Pros and cons" you'll probably come to the conclusions that there weren't that many pros.

My point exactly. But it was still introduced in the first place none the less... See how this fits together?

 

[lacktheknack]

As I said before, they earned a completely blank slate for me after the Humble EA Bundle.

They haven't wrecked it yet.

 

[II2]

Individuals have been known to say they'd like to climb Everest, too.

 

[JenSeven]

EA wants to be voted best company?
I want to be a multimillionaire rockstar.
Unfortantely I'm completely tonedeaf and living of welfare.
Seems like EA and I have something in common. Unrealistic wishes.

 

[The White Hunter]

I know it pains many to say it but they're doing a lot better (though they still have a lot more they can do).

-A lot less milking of franchises.
To just cherry pick the first thing off the top of my head:
Dragon Age to Dragon Age 2; 1.5 years between releases; DA2 to DA3 2.5 years assuming no delays

-Removal of the Online Pass

-As much flack as they get, FIFA and Madden have made HUGE improvements compared to earlier editions (especially Madden, which just stalled out after EA got the NFL exclusive rights)

-Instead of sticking with NCAA and their systematic exploitation of college athletes, EA stepped out. I suppose that could be more PR then because it's the right thing to do but a good deed is a good deed.

-I am not a PC gamer but I've heard that Origin has become much better compared to what it used to be. Still nowhere near Steam (again, just going off of what I've heard) but it's getting better

Still a lot more they can do ("Broader Audience" seems to get thrown around by them a lot, giving us watered down giants rather than smaller niche titles) but I think Ubisoft has stepped in to overtake EA as the worst game company.

Whilst that is true, kind sir, they did just confirm that we can't have another Bad Company game because a lot of dickheads didn't like the comedy and wanted something more "mature" and serious.

Because some people just can't enjoy whacky humour paired with the masterful art of blowing up shit.

 

[Legion]

For me to start liking them they need to stop trying to make every game cater to the same kind of crowd.

To use Mass Effect and Dragon Age as examples, the original games and their sequels are clearly not aimed at the same people. That isn't so say that they are bad, or that people who like the originals won't like the others, but the design of the games themselves make it very obvious that they were trying to draw in a new audience (primarily people who prefer action over other elements).

I'd like them to accept that not all games need to appeal to everybody, and that there is nothing wrong with picking a certain demographic and sticking with it. This goes for all kinds of games, such as how Dead Space started off as horror and then became action, or how they tried to make the newest C+C a F2P Online Only game.

Naturally games will stagnate without evolving, but this evolution doesn't really need to occur within a contained story. Halo and Gears of War did their original trilogies right. Each game felt like a natural progression where they kept the core mechanics the same, but added and improved upon it. Batman Arkham City did the same for Asylum. Where they went wrong is when they tried to do the same with a new and separate set of games. Halo 4 being the start of a new saga, Gears of War Judgement and Arkham Origins being prequels. That was the time to start being trying new things out.

If you want to tell a story, you should try and keep the people following it from the beginning the happiest, because they are the ones telling everybody they know to check it out, and the ones that allowed it to continue in the first place. Obviously this isn't the same as giving into every demand (some of the things Bioware fans often ask for scare/worry even me), but completely switching up the games core design halfway through a story in order gain a wider audience is just asking for a backlash.

This turned out a lot longer than I intended...

 

[Get_A_Grip_]

EA haven't been AWFUL this year as far as I can remember. (Apart from the dead space 3 micro-transaction nonsense, and the mess that was Plants vs. Zombies 2.)
They did do that rather awesome Humble Origin Bundle where all the money went to charity, and they gave Origin a functioning return system. It would be nice if other platforms had that, hey Valve!?

 

[Dr.Awkward]

So EA, you want to be the best company in America?

Well in order to achieve that you need to put your customer's needs over your desire for increasing profit margins.

You have to create a top quality product that people desire and can depend on to deliver, and when it doesn't, give full apologies and compensation.

You need to readdress your budgeting to get the most out of your companies earnings by creating an efficient workforce, not subsidising a top-heavy corporate structure by nickel and diming your customers.

You must provide a value for money service that customers are happy to purchase. You must not include shady or unpopular systems in your products that your customers vocally dislike (microtransactions, cut content being sold seperately as DLC, Always Online etc.)

That is what you must do if you truely want to be seen as the best company in America. It will cost you money. It will cost you shareholder confidence and reduce your profit margins. It will make your company more honest, more popular and better regarded.

Do you wish to continue?

You forgot one: Be willing to keep your investors' intentions in check. Do they want to finance a game of great quality, or do they just throw money at you and demand twice to three times the money back, not caring about the quality of the game? It should be common sense to figure out which investors you should ignore, and which ones really want to help you.

But here's also a bonus: Pull out of the public market. This will cost a lot, but that's only the beginning - As you do this, team up with other big gaming or entertainment corporations who's willing to do the same, and start a new stock market that is strictly focused on the entertainment and media business. Think of it as Kickstarter for huge corporations. Yet, how it works is different - Instead of stock shares, every authentic ticket, game, DVD/BR disc, or book takes the place of the share. How's that for making making the decisions and voices of consumers more meaningful?

 

[cerebus23]

EA, I'm not excusing your anti-consumer practices, but there's no way in hell you deserved to be voted 'Worst Company in America' two years in a row, that's a fact. The only reason you ever won that is because the internet is full of introverts who only focus on the smaller picture, ignoring mass corruption or downright illegal and manipulative actions in favor of focusing on online inconveniences and, arguably, lackluster products.

And because the internet also tends to be a vindictive ***** that LOVES to hold a grudge, I don't think you'll be digging yourself out of the hole anytime soon.

While it is true there are bigger fish out there that have more global impact, more people spend personal time and money dealing with EA, than halliburton or whoever you want to put in there as most evil mega corp.

And yes we are very vocal.

But ea could hardly do more to piss people off, from top down that company just excels at treating customers like garbage.

As I said, I'm not excusing EA's actions, but their BS absolutely PALES in comparison to some of the tactics employed by, say, some big oil companies or PMC contractors. Day-to-day interaction be damned. Even if I have to interact more with the guy who just kicks kittens, the guy who kills them is still worse.

Or the diamond industry or the cola industry that drains whole lakes in 3rd world countries to give us and myself personally the coke we all know and love may we all burn in hell.

Plenty of evil is done in the name of consumers and we keep consuming.