Why Do People "Hate" EA - IGN post
- Thread starter The-Traveling-Bard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
That...that is epic! I wish more people had that honesty and wit when dealing with things. It might dig EA out of the hole their in.Kopikatsu said:
That's all that really needs to be said on the matter. I mean, really. EA winning worst company in America twice? It's just so...out there.
I personally don't hate EA. I don't even dislike them. I bought all three Mass Effect games (twice), both Dragon Age games, and all three Dead Space games--plus the story content DLC for each series. I know they all have their flaws, I know that things could have been better, but I still enjoy the games. I just see EA as the type of person who's always trying to catch up, but ends up tripping and causing me to just shake my head.
My reaction towards EA is less the angry fist-shaking and "You are the killing the industry!" that quite a few Escapist members seem to have, and more of this.
He's right you know. Games have been trying to take elements from all genres for years now, in an effort not to diversify its expereince, but to diversify its audience. Just look at the Bioshock series. What started as a spiritual successor to System Shock, a game that was a shooter and RPG, ended up being a shooter with some RPG elements. Your sense of choice and character "skills" boiled down just buying more slots to equip certain perks into. That's not what RPG character building is about.Akalabeth said:
Fast forward to BS:I, and now they don't even give us an arsenal to hold onto. Sure, you can upgrade your weapons still, but there is no guarantee that you're going to be holding onto the weapons you've spent money on upgrading. It's a sad combination of mechanics that are meant to cater to a crowd of gamers that normally wouldn't have cared to play the game, while trying to appease the fans of the older Bioshocks by still allowing upgrades. There is literally no reason they couldn't have had a radial weapon menu as the Vigors do. They just didn't because that would be more weapons than what the Halo and CoD gamers are used to handling.
The-Traveling-Bard's point is that games are all becoming a homogenous mess, and none of them are willing to actually cater to a niche. You got that part right when talking to Zachary Amaranth. AAA games are not exploiting niches anymore, they are trying to shotgun the whole market and hope they have enough for everyone in their game.
While he has a good point...wow, way to look really fucking butthurt, not to mention further alienating your consumer base.Kopikatsu said:
That's all that really needs to be said on the matter. I mean, really. EA winning worst company in America twice? It's just so...out there.
Also, he said that not buying their games would send them a message that the bosses would hear, but here we are, reading a letter from the CEO himself, who has clearly gotten the message that people don't particularly care for their business practices.
I'll remind you this is one of EA's head honchos after the CEO got the boot(yeah, officially he 'stepped down', but I'd say that was probably after some 'convincing'. Or he was just realizing shit was going tits-up) due to the company losing a shit-ton of money and doing badly financially, partly because of hugely inflated sales projections with no grounding in reality whatsoever, and partly because, oh, maybe people have started not buying their games?
And hell, he seems to understand what gamers want, even (I.E. fuck madden and call of battlehonor and make a new Grim Fandango or something equally awesome), but seems disgusted at the thought of going through with it.
Why?
It might have been a flawed way, but at least gamers managed to get the point across loud and clear, so that should be something to act on, or at least consider, instead of throwing a bitter little tantrum about it.
That said, yes, gamers have fucked-up priorities. Hopefully, EA will take the message and stop doing incredibly retarded business and not provoke the ire of gamers, so that next year a truly horrid company can win. That sound okay? It's not like we can take back those votes now anyway.
Yea the thing is that the Consumerist based the decision on how the companies treat their customers. If it was decided on bad safety and environmental policies then yes Exxon would have won, or rather lost, easily. What it comes down to is that EA treats it's customers worse than any other company in the US.Kopikatsu said:
That's all that really needs to be said on the matter. I mean, really. EA winning worst company in America twice? It's just so...out there.
Yeah, still kind of bullshit. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud_n_2009791.html]Al-Bundy-da-G said:Yea the thing is that the Consumerist based the decision on how the companies treat their customers. If it was decided on bad safety and environmental policies then yes Exxon would have won, or rather lost, easily. What it comes down to is that EA treats it's customers worse than any other company in the US.Kopikatsu said:
That's all that really needs to be said on the matter. I mean, really. EA winning worst company in America twice? It's just so...out there.
People hype themselves up and demonize EA to the point where they start to believe their own propaganda. There's no legitimate reason for EA being voted the worst company in America under any category.
Eh, my view of EA is more of being a dickish company over being actively evil. Monsanto is evil, De Beers is evil, EA is just that guy that keeps annoying his customers to the point thay they're going away, and EA has no one to poke with sticks any more.
I think complete and total distrust and hate of their customer base is a pretty good place to start.
Except you were the one who had to redefine niche to make things fit. And now you are relying on semantics.Akalabeth said:
I personally hate EA, but I do not think they are the worst company in the world. However I think that them winning it two times in a row should wake their ass up and take huge steps to improve their customer relations. Its the way they handle their source of money that makes them the worst. They do not have the player first in their mind and that is why I hate them. It seems like they don't listen to their audience and pull moves that if brought up else where would be horrible ideas. Should they stop with new things? No, thats how we progress, but they shouldnt make it standard on all their games with out testing it. (i.e. Origins, day 1 DLC and micro-transactions). And to me they do ruin some games purely for making a quick buck. Right now I have an embargo on all EA products, will it do any good? Not, but I personally won't spend any of money supporting such a company until it makes some changes.
I said it before, I'll say it again.Kopikatsu said:Yeah, still kind of bullshit. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/bank-of-america-mortgage-fraud_n_2009791.html]Al-Bundy-da-G said:Yea the thing is that the Consumerist based the decision on how the companies treat their customers. If it was decided on bad safety and environmental policies then yes Exxon would have won, or rather lost, easily. What it comes down to is that EA treats it's customers worse than any other company in the US.Kopikatsu said:
That's all that really needs to be said on the matter. I mean, really. EA winning worst company in America twice? It's just so...out there.
People hype themselves up and demonize EA to the point where they start to believe their own propaganda. There's no legitimate reason for EA being voted the worst company in America under any category.
Bank Of America screwed over their clients with false advice that they used to capitalize on. Horrendous and somewhat very illegal. Federal Bank Regulator thought so. Ordered them to pay our 8.5 billion (or at least help pay that out)
EA screwed over their consumers with bait and switch trailers and hype, EULAs that strips it's consumers of all their rights while doubling their own, Products that barely even work right, and passing the buck and throwing development houses under the bus like it has a sick fetish. I know that doesn't seem like it hits the consumers, but these were companies that were popular for giving people what they wanted, and EA acquired them just to get the fandom of said company. For all the screwing around and shipping out faulty products... EA is it's own Judge and Jury, and will strip you of games that work perfectly well just because they don't like your conduct. Because they can.
Bank of America ruined lives. That is horrible. My brother is wheeling from what happened to him with Bank of America. And while I know it was enough people in Bank of America to actually be able to touch my family, it was not Bank of America as a whole. There were some judgement calls, a lot of them... some employees of BoA fell in line and did what the higher ups ask, some didn't. That's why Everyone who Banks with BoA isn't in the same situation.
Everyone who does business with EA is in the same situation. There are no judgement calls that this Copy of Mass Effect 3 will actually have your choices matter, or this EULA will allow the recipient to retain legal rights. EA is now a company dedicated to champion and increasing their rights while stripping us of our own... then calling us babies and liars when we're calling them out of their bullshit.
Let me get this set in stone; Other companies hurt their consumers more in terms of their livelihood. There should be no one arguing that point. But in terms of the Consumerist Magazine asking people which company has one of the worst track records of screwing over the consumer... do we really have that far to look when we have a company who made it legal to screw us by making us sign away our rights before we can even load the product to see if it works?
Yeah, the thing is that the Consumerist didn't really decide anything.Al-Bundy-da-G said:
Also, their restrictions, should they exist, are completely arbitrary. The US Government took third place in the first year of the poll. The US Government is not even a company.
Keep in mind that, for your statement to be true, then groups like BP and Bank of America wouldn't be so close to the top so damn often.
The biggest problem here is more that Moore is basically bashing the consumer base. This is a really bad idea from a consumer relations point of view. EA gets a message from the consumer base, apt or not, and decides to respond with "well, screw you."
This is a somewhat disturbing in scope. I don't expect them to suddenly change their entire business model, but to display you have awareness of the issues and don't want to do do anything. What's the implication here? They understand the problems, so are they not addressing it because...Spite? They WANT to be reviled? Is Peter Moore trolling us?Mr.Squishy said:
If not, it's probably for the best that he shuts up right about now.
I mean, it's my belief that gamers will continue to support EA even with the increased abuse, because we collectively can't go without our precious games, but I'm not gambling the future of my company on it.
So why did BP win out a couple years ago? Haliburton? AIG? Why was Diebold a runner up?ObsidianJones said:
*shrugs* Anger over what happened in those cases. Just like Anger ruled these cases. I see reasons for all of the nominations. I don't particularly agree with them all. I didn't fucking love the accident in 2010, but it was not a malicious attempt to jack up prices or to control the market share of oil. BP is still probably losing money off of that. But people vote with anger.Zachary Amaranth said:
What I'm saying is, there were winners in every nomination. Multiple winners through out the years. Again, I would get why Bank of America won this year. Hell, looking back, they seem to be a major contender for this award each year...
But even though people voted with their anger does not make them necessarily wrong. I personally like the idea of people sending up reg flags to the rest of the companies in the world before they get the idea of putting EULA's on everything. I also personally like the idea of Ticketmaster learning that people will not take outrageous charges for literally no reason other than we would like to make more money off of this transaction. Bank of America goes without saying. All are good for the top seat.
What's to stop me from Maligning people's choices if they did pick Ticketmaster, saying "Come on, do you know how hard Comcast tries to screw me out of my money?" What's to stop you from saying "Comcast? That's just cable! you can switch cable companies!"
There will always be different perceptions. There will always be different ideas. One will warrant more Anger in your eyes due to how you view things. That same one might not even register on my radar. What I suggest, though, instead of everyone fighting about it, use each victory as a springboard for your own ideas. Make the rally cry that we won't accept this kind of treatment in EA, and we won't accept it in you, Ticketmaster! Or Comcast. Or Bank Of America.
Because what the companies are seeing right now is that we're a fractured bunch of whiners who can't even agree on who should be hated, not one force that they should be worried about or even cater to. We back one for now, use the solidarity to make EA actually stand up and take notice instead of shrugging their shoulders and saying 'It's just a bunch of angry nerds on the nets'... which Peter basically did before winning... and then use that one company as a galvanizing force for the others. Make them say shit to themselves, that they can't just do what they want to us.
And yeah, I know it'll never happen. In front of each Computer sits it's own nation of ideas, Mores, and beliefs. And never shall each nation walk as one to fucking end all the stuff we're annoyed with, because the individual nation is the only nation that has it right...
What about turning computers that have Origin installed into a botnet to beef up votes on a poll about supporting EA's LGBT stance?Lily Venus said:
Poll in question: http://www.allout.org/en/actions/theforce
Proof of botnet:
Proof leading back to EA's Origin: http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=233354
(It shows that Kaspersky detected Origin requesting access to the exact webpage of the poll at the time it was running.
Is that included in Origins Terms of Service?
You know how I just said that you were relying on semantics?Akalabeth said:
This is exactly what I meant.
And even worse, you have to ignore more suitable definitions to get there.
for example.
a distinct segment of a market.
This is the third definition given at dictionary.reference.com, the second at the Oxford English Dictionary online, the fourth at the Merriam-Webster online dictionary, etc.
Huh. That actually looks like a pretty good fit. Further, I'm certain that you are capable of discerning the more appropriate meaning from multiple definitions, so I'm baffled as to why you would choose an ill-fitting one to demonstrate it. Why not proclaim that games are not recesses in walls, and therefore cannot be niche while you're at it?
Technically, the proper definition could technically be applied to broad as to be meaningless, but that's not how we, as a culture, apply it.