Origin Being Re-branded to "EA Accounts"

[Doom972]

Damn, that right there is a catchy name for a snazzy service.

Steam!
Galaxy!
..Accounts.

I like it when companies pick a name for their service and stick with it. Rebranding is a thing that frightens and confuses my doddery old fart brain.

Edit: Hey, thanks for stealth-editing my post to resize the image.. don't you think it's a little small though? Kinda hard to read the "Neh"s now.

As I understand it, the service is still called Origin. It's just that Origin accounts will from now on be referred to as EA accounts. It makes sense, because you use your credentials to log in to EA services other than Origin, like the Bioware Social Network.

 

[Grimh]

So the client's still gonna be named "Origin" it's just that you won't have an Origin account but an EA account since Origin's only really relevant on PC (I think) and thus they think it isn't really a good account name on say consoles?
Or is it a complete rebranding of the client?

 

[JCAll]

So you've created something shit. Do you a) Flush the shit, b) Fix the shit, or c) Endlessly rebrand the shit and hope nobody notices?

 

[Stillgard]

As I recall it was originally EA Accounts was it not? Then they rebranded as Origin a while back ago to handle there digital sales. Now there going back to EA? Anyone else slightly confused? Also not giving them any more of my money then I absolutely have too.

 

[Ticklefist]

How cool the name is isn't relevant to me. The bottom line is. Companies like this don't make frivolous changes so I look forward to finding out why. Neither the email or links contained within gave any hints.

Hopefully it means they're ready to begin distributing their games on other platforms again.

 

[thewatergamer]

Great, because I'd love to be reminded of who is behind Origin, *sigh* just seems silly to me, I like Origin as a service, it does alot of things better than steam, but I am not a fan of having my Origin account be rebranded to my "EA Account" people still hate you EA and for good reason may I add... Just makes me worry what else they are going to change

 

[Pyrian]

Companies like this don't make frivolous changes so I look forward to finding out why.

Companies like this have whole departments devoted to making frivolous changes. Often with a lot of clout. Odds are decent this was approved all the way up to the CEO. There were meetings, ROI analyses, mission statements, project managers, and more. They probably called it a "branding initiative".

 

[Ticklefist]

Companies like this don't make frivolous changes so I look forward to finding out why.

Companies like this have whole departments devoted to making frivolous changes. Often with a lot of clout. Odds are decent this was approved all the way up to the CEO. There were meetings, ROI analyses, mission statements, project managers, and more. They probably called it a "branding initiative".

Frivolous means the opposite of what you just described.

 

[shintakie10]

Companies like this don't make frivolous changes so I look forward to finding out why.

Companies like this have whole departments devoted to making frivolous changes. Often with a lot of clout. Odds are decent this was approved all the way up to the CEO. There were meetings, ROI analyses, mission statements, project managers, and more. They probably called it a "branding initiative".

Frivolous means the opposite of what you just described.

Not really. At my job there was a gigantic discussion going on for at least a year and a half about a change to the uniform policy. Thousands of man hours went into this. There were focus groups involved in this. Everyone from corporate egg heads all the way down to managerial grunts (cause the actual work force obviously doesn't matter in the decision process) weighed in on this topic.

Eventually the company spent 8 million dollars to update their uniforms. The change? They went with a slightly lighter shade of blue. That's it. Millions of dollars and countless man hours wasted on changing the uniform from dark blue to navy blue.

Regardless of how much investment went into the change, a frivolous change is still a frivolous change.

 

[Ticklefist]

Sigh I'm sitting here discussing the word frivolous. How pointless.

I wanted to discuss how a company doesn't spend half a decade and millions of dollars establishing a brand, only to change it after it has finally done so. I'm not so blinded by my hatred of EA that I think they'd do this on a whim. There's a reason and I want to know it.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

Creativy level -9000.

Seriously... THIS was the best you could come up with?

 

[Strazdas]

Oh, so we are going back to the name that made EA suffer digitally for years? Well, at least i didnt got the email yet so i can pretend its still called Origin.

 

[MeatMachine]

If everybody hates you, just change your name - that way, when total newcomers meet you, they get the chance to learn to hate you without any prior-informed bias.

 

[FalloutJack]

Sigh I'm sitting here discussing the word frivolous. How pointless.

I wanted to discuss how a company doesn't spend half a decade and millions of dollars establishing a brand, only to change it after it has finally done so. I'm not so blinded by my hatred of EA that I think they'd do this on a whim. There's a reason and I want to know it.

I feel you are setting yourself up for disappointment. What the others are trying to explain is that companies have made many pointless and frivolous decisions and changes in their everything PLUS, in a manner defies logic, they manage to waste time, money, and resources doing it. You see, Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) has always gotten a great deal of his comic material from real and actual business and company-related situations. They've only been ramped up in ridiculousless to a certain degree. It's not only possible that EA simply did this on a whim, it's likely AND there was probably a committee about it.

OT: As for me, I have decided to get ahead of the game and beat EA to the punch. From now on, I'm calling it 'Bob'.

 

[Beetlebum]

They probably called it a "branding initiative".

Revitalising the market image to increase customer inflow through proactive branding by re-enforcing the corporate image.

 

[FoolKiller]

Weren't our EA accounts converted to Origin accounts five-six years ago or something? I wonder if it really was similarity to Origin PC that made them change it back.

Yes!!!!

Yes it was. I had an EA account of some sort for registering my Dragon Age: Origins on Xbox 360. They then notified me that it was changed to an Origin account. I guess its coming full circle.

 

[Elementary - Dear Watson]

I get it... they had a bad rep, so they work on their service, and change the name when they are happy that they are delivering more...

But why, EA? Why on earth did you then stick your 2 letter acronym name that have become synonymous with your poor service back on your product? Why not go for something better... something metaphorical? Why not Phoenix? To symbolise a rebirth of the system... it's catchy, sounds cool, and comes with an Orange/Black theming that is different to it's competitors.

Nevermind, EA. Accounts it is.

 

[gorfias]

The first time I read this news I was hoping that EA had given up on Origin. And was going to go back to selling their games on Steam. Then I realized that sounded too good to ever be true.

We could dream.

This is stupid. I don't buy more "Origin" stuff because their games tend to cost $60. $5 will get you a truck load at Steam.