Originally posted by hammarus Oh, and by the way. Is the question originally the OP's? Or is the OP pulling the question from another source and reposting here without all the details.
The quesstion is from EA Chief Operating Officer, Peter Moore, Who asked “Are we really the “Worst Company in America?””
The details were provided from the link from post one.
Originally posted by niceguy3978 There are companies blowing the freaking tops off of mountains. Does a game company using shitty DRM really come close?
The way I view most of those is that the Government and others are stepping in. Some get hit with fines, jail time, sanctions, regulations, etc. They end up having to make public appologies and compensate those they have effected. They are in many cases required to fund clean up and restoration efforts.
On the other hand, no one is regulating companies like EA. Its just a gaming company, they are just games seems to be the mentality of many. EA and others like them get free reign to do as they please and its left up to gamers to file lawsuits and such if they feel up to it.
They don't make public appologies, they try and pass off their failings as the fault of the consumer. They don't like to reimburse players even when they have stripped them of the right to play games they have purchased without cause. There is no one stepping in and saying "Hey, thats a bit to far. Keep it up and there will be repricussions".
Companies blowing the tops off of mountains are being bombarded by legal battles and law makers and congressmen are being preasured to take action against them.
Carnival is about to get hit bad because they pissed off a couple of Senators which are in talks about the 4.2mil its cost the coast guard and the navy to step in on 90 serious events.
All these companies have people watching them and holding them accountable.
Companies like EA don't.
Those companies have people watching them and taking notice because they've crossed lines. What are they supposed to go after EA for, making money? You're also confusing me a bit with that "they don't make public apologies line", what do you call sending out letters/notices to gamers saying -hey we're sorry, here take your pick of these free AAA games-?
Like the latest EA fiasco, in a lot of these cases it's players doing something that no one allows (as an example unsubstantiated charge-backs) and getting pissed EA is having none of it, just as steam or any other major publisher operates. What makes it different is the stigma that permeates the EA logo.
I just have to say gamers are beginning to stomp on my last nerve with their selective reasoning. Take just about everything EA does, there's very little in that pile that couldn't be found in some other publishers trash. Yet they operate without such titles, or insults being aimed at them.
In the end, this is a matter of consumer vs dstributer, distributer continues to operate because consumer supports them. Until that changes nothing else will. That support also shows acceptance of action.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I already said it's one of the worst game companies, if not the worst. But the "poll" doesn't say that. *shrug*
EA is not the worst company in America, is all I'm saying. OP's title is misleading and I'm not the only person who noticed.
Its not my title. To be honest it is Forbes title. If you chk out the link I provided you would of seen this and so would they.
Er... no it isn't. Their title is
EA Responds To Worst Company In America Contest: 'We Can Do Better'
Yours is a completely different declarative statement. Besides, Forbes would be wrong if they said it anyway. If you actually READ the article, the author says he doesn't even think EA should still be in the running, instead placing behind Carnival.
And to the poster above me, in short: nope.
TY It was not my attention to have a declarative statement from the start. That is why after you brought this to my attention I did see my error in my title in how it could be so. With this in mind I was only to happy to change the title of this thread to pose a Qustion instead of a statement. Again I apoligize if I inderctly offended you or anyone else in our community.
Hmm, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, because I KNOW I'm probably being pedantic (when am I not though?) Either way, no, you didn't offend me and I'd hope you didn't offend anyone (I doubt EA is reading this). Again, I mostly agree that EA is a very poor example of a company in regards to the way they rush games etc., and had this been the question all along, I'd have no problem agreeing with it. My life just seems to be made much more difficult by other companies listed. Either way, thanks for entertaining my anal retentive attitude. The thread has produced some good responses.
Some people here are arguing that oil companies or financial companies or some such are worse than EA largely because they're more consequential. While acknowledging that it's an apples and oranges comparison, here's one way to compare.
What if EA had never existed? There would be other gaming companies to take their place, of course. For that matter, a number of companies that EA has bought out and run into the ground might still exist and still be making good games. Maybe some other company would have bought them out, but even if they bought out Maxis or Westwood or Mythic or whatever and then didn't proceed to run the company into the ground, wouldn't that be an improvement? Maybe some other company would have stepped up and replaced EA's shenanigans; one could argue that there's enough money to be made from EA's mistreatment of gamers that someone else might have filled that niche even if EA never existed. But there's a good chance that the world would be a better place.
Now what if ExxonMobil had never existed? The oil they've produced would have been produced by someone else instead. Maybe it would have been done by Chevron or British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell or some such. Would the world be all that different if the same employees using the same methods dug up the same oil under the banner of a different parent company? If some of ExxonMobil's oil didn't get dug up, most likely it would have been replaced by other oil production elsewhere in the world--and likely in places that are less careful about environmental damage. Would that make the world a better place? Or would it make it a worse place? If ExxonMobil never existed, the world would as likely be a worse place for it as better. So are they really that evil?
Someone who thinks all oil companies are evil might answer "yes" to that. So let's back up the question further. What if the oil industry never existed? What if humans never noticed that burning fossil fuels is a highly efficient way to produce energy? In that case, the bulk of modern industrialization would probably never have happened. We wouldn't be here having this discussion because the Internet wouldn't exist. We would work harder to be poorer, we'd be sicker because many diseases wouldn't have been cured, and we'd die younger. Would that really be a better world? Are the companies that ward off that fate really so evil for doing so?
The environment wouldn't necessarily be better off for it, either, as people who aren't sure whether they will have enough food to eat tend not to be terribly concerned about the environment. Smokestacks are today seen as a symbol of pollution and environmental degradation, but they were once seen primarily as a symbol of technological progress and the promise of a better life. Ford once needed four smokestacks on a factory, but built a fifth non-functional one as a decoration.
So yes, if EA never existed, the world would be a better place, as the other companies that would exist instead would probably be better. How many other companies can we say that about with any reasonable certainty? I'd argue that if we can't credibly argue that the world would be better if this or that particular company never existed, it shouldn't be in the running for worst company in America.
The only reason people aren't dying from EA is because their industry is inherently harmless. EA shows horrible contempt for its customers and if they were in another industry, they would be downright dangerous. I judge them on how they run their business, not how much damage their chosen industry can cause.
The fact that they defended themselves by saying "This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies responsible for the biggest oil spill in history" shows their contempt. They might only be the worst gaming company in America, and that somehow makes it better?
Or "Some claim there’s no room for Origin as a competitor to Steam. 45 million registered users are proving that wrong." If people want to play Mass Effect 3, they HAVE to become a registered user of Origin. Customers forced into your service by exclusive games, is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Or "Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It’s not. " It IS. Period. It has been proven by users.
EA lies their ass off. They treat customers like garbage and try to PR it all away, assuming all their customers are idiots.
i assume all the yes' are Europeans or gamers that don't get out much. Banks and Investment companies drove this country into the ground. not a video game company.
Some people here are arguing that oil companies or financial companies or some such are worse than EA largely because they're more consequential. While acknowledging that it's an apples and oranges comparison, here's one way to compare.
What if EA had never existed? There would be other gaming companies to take their place, of course. For that matter, a number of companies that EA has bought out and run into the ground might still exist and still be making good games. Maybe some other company would have bought them out, but even if they bought out Maxis or Westwood or Mythic or whatever and then didn't proceed to run the company into the ground, wouldn't that be an improvement? Maybe some other company would have stepped up and replaced EA's shenanigans; one could argue that there's enough money to be made from EA's mistreatment of gamers that someone else might have filled that niche even if EA never existed. But there's a good chance that the world would be a better place.
Now what if ExxonMobil had never existed? The oil they've produced would have been produced by someone else instead. Maybe it would have been done by Chevron or British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell or some such. Would the world be all that different if the same employees using the same methods dug up the same oil under the banner of a different parent company? If some of ExxonMobil's oil didn't get dug up, most likely it would have been replaced by other oil production elsewhere in the world--and likely in places that are less careful about environmental damage. Would that make the world a better place? Or would it make it a worse place? If ExxonMobil never existed, the world would as likely be a worse place for it as better. So are they really that evil?
Someone who thinks all oil companies are evil might answer "yes" to that. So let's back up the question further. What if the oil industry never existed? What if humans never noticed that burning fossil fuels is a highly efficient way to produce energy? In that case, the bulk of modern industrialization would probably never have happened. We wouldn't be here having this discussion because the Internet wouldn't exist. We would work harder to be poorer, we'd be sicker because many diseases wouldn't have been cured, and we'd die younger. Would that really be a better world? Are the companies that ward off that fate really so evil for doing so?
The environment wouldn't necessarily be better off for it, either, as people who aren't sure whether they will have enough food to eat tend not to be terribly concerned about the environment. Smokestacks are today seen as a symbol of pollution and environmental degradation, but they were once seen primarily as a symbol of technological progress and the promise of a better life. Ford once needed four smokestacks on a factory, but built a fifth non-functional one as a decoration.
So yes, if EA never existed, the world would be a better place, as the other companies that would exist instead would probably be better. How many other companies can we say that about with any reasonable certainty? I'd argue that if we can't credibly argue that the world would be better if this or that particular company never existed, it shouldn't be in the running for worst company in America.
So basically the whole discussion of which companies are horrible or inconsequential or good is meaningless as there would always conceivably be another to take their place, possible for the better or worse. However, we do have to deal with realities. This or that company did and does exist. To me this whole discussion isn't worth taking place on this website, as evidenced by many of the posts within this thread.
And here all this came from whether or not a video game company is a pos or not. C'mon man! Who the...cares? grumble grumble. Don't buy their games if they are a shit company!
Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
Some people here are arguing that oil companies or financial companies or some such are worse than EA largely because they're more consequential. While acknowledging that it's an apples and oranges comparison, here's one way to compare.
What if EA had never existed? There would be other gaming companies to take their place, of course. For that matter, a number of companies that EA has bought out and run into the ground might still exist and still be making good games. Maybe some other company would have bought them out, but even if they bought out Maxis or Westwood or Mythic or whatever and then didn't proceed to run the company into the ground, wouldn't that be an improvement? Maybe some other company would have stepped up and replaced EA's shenanigans; one could argue that there's enough money to be made from EA's mistreatment of gamers that someone else might have filled that niche even if EA never existed. But there's a good chance that the world would be a better place.
So yes, if EA never existed, the world would be a better place, as the other companies that would exist instead would probably be better. How many other companies can we say that about with any reasonable certainty? I'd argue that if we can't credibly argue that the world would be better if this or that particular company never existed, it shouldn't be in the running for worst company in America.
That's the thing though, I don't think the world would be a different place with no EA. The devil would just be known as another name. As they're not the only publisher that purchases studios and runs them into the dirt, many of those studios would have been bought out by some other soulless entity, as they sold themeselves to the devil to begin with, the old saying "selling your soul" applies fairly well to these situations; whether we're talking about Earth and Beyond, Bioware, Bullfrog, etc.... These studios had an option and they chose it, the rest is history.
For the rest of the evils EA is known for (mostly nickle and diming, DRM). The next great offender would replace the EA logo in a thread just like this, or possibly even a company far worse.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I hardly think it is fair to label a video game company as the worst company in America! It is not like they are responsible for aggressive foreign politics like energy companies, or trying as hard as possible to deny people healthcare like HMOs.
EA has made some great games and still can; if only they would treat their staff a bit better and avoid ridiculous DRM they could get back to the glory days of the '90s.
Originally posted by NecromanticD Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
I mean this question honestly, as I can think of some things I've personally experienced in gaming that were far worse than anything I've ever heard of EA doing.
What criteria dictates worst of the worse? Greed? Monetization? Actions toward the public? or is this more of an all of the above type of thing? No matter the criteria, I can think of a decent up and runner for the title of setting the worst precedents in gaming.
SOE for starters, this is just a small entity governing over a spcefic niche within it's overall parent company, and they've done some seriously horrible things over the years. Of note to mention are their complete and utter disservice to fans of VG:SOH over years and years of paying a sub. Their fiasco early on with EQ2 (which required complete rewrites to a live product), SWG need I even explain this one? The first few years of SOE F2P; which pioneered a lot of these monetization schemes for F2P transitions everyone loves to hate on EA for today. If these were the people running the Ps3 instead of MMO's who do you think would be gracing this poll option with their name?
As MMO gamers I'd think we'd be far more worried about what this company does in the future over EA. Even considering we've heard the word sandbox out of them a few times, which oddly enough seemed to quiet much of the SOE hate around here. Kind of makes me ask myself, what would reaction be to this article , had EA/Bioware made SWG2.?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Some people here are arguing that oil companies or financial companies or some such are worse than EA largely because they're more consequential. While acknowledging that it's an apples and oranges comparison, here's one way to compare.
What if EA had never existed? There would be other gaming companies to take their place, of course. For that matter, a number of companies that EA has bought out and run into the ground might still exist and still be making good games. Maybe some other company would have bought them out, but even if they bought out Maxis or Westwood or Mythic or whatever and then didn't proceed to run the company into the ground, wouldn't that be an improvement? Maybe some other company would have stepped up and replaced EA's shenanigans; one could argue that there's enough money to be made from EA's mistreatment of gamers that someone else might have filled that niche even if EA never existed. But there's a good chance that the world would be a better place.
Now what if ExxonMobil had never existed? The oil they've produced would have been produced by someone else instead. Maybe it would have been done by Chevron or British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell or some such. Would the world be all that different if the same employees using the same methods dug up the same oil under the banner of a different parent company? If some of ExxonMobil's oil didn't get dug up, most likely it would have been replaced by other oil production elsewhere in the world--and likely in places that are less careful about environmental damage. Would that make the world a better place? Or would it make it a worse place? If ExxonMobil never existed, the world would as likely be a worse place for it as better. So are they really that evil?
Someone who thinks all oil companies are evil might answer "yes" to that. So let's back up the question further. What if the oil industry never existed? What if humans never noticed that burning fossil fuels is a highly efficient way to produce energy? In that case, the bulk of modern industrialization would probably never have happened. We wouldn't be here having this discussion because the Internet wouldn't exist. We would work harder to be poorer, we'd be sicker because many diseases wouldn't have been cured, and we'd die younger. Would that really be a better world? Are the companies that ward off that fate really so evil for doing so?
The environment wouldn't necessarily be better off for it, either, as people who aren't sure whether they will have enough food to eat tend not to be terribly concerned about the environment. Smokestacks are today seen as a symbol of pollution and environmental degradation, but they were once seen primarily as a symbol of technological progress and the promise of a better life. Ford once needed four smokestacks on a factory, but built a fifth non-functional one as a decoration.
So yes, if EA never existed, the world would be a better place, as the other companies that would exist instead would probably be better. How many other companies can we say that about with any reasonable certainty? I'd argue that if we can't credibly argue that the world would be better if this or that particular company never existed, it shouldn't be in the running for worst company in America.
Man Quiz your a deep thinker. My head hurts now reading yourt post. After all you do make good points. TY
It is amazing in how someone can word things. I do appoligize to anyone and or to EA who may feel that I was attacking EA in a nagative way. Looking back I did not mean to indirctly imply that EA is the worst company in America. I simply just wanted to get a honest opinion from posters of this comunity in if they agree or disagree if EA should win the contest of being "The Worst company in America" award.
So I changed the title of this thread to "Is EA the worst company in America?" This of course is my attention from the start to pose this question from post one. After all my poll did convay that.
I have no problem attacking EA in a negative way. I think they are the worst gaming company in America, that is just my opinion of course. I however, don't think they would break the top 50 worst companies in America. The banking industry, private prison industry, corporate farms, all rank worse as far as worst companies go. I just don't see how a bad game company (even the worst) could be considered the worse company over industries that have so much more of a negative impact on the environment, the economy, the criminal justice system, or society as a whole. I get that this is a gaming site and people are going to vote for what they no, so it is expected that due to name recognition alone they would win on a gaming site. But some of the responses are, interesting. Especially those who seem to claim that people saying that EA isn't the worst company in America are somehow defending EA.
Originally posted by NecromanticD Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
So being the worst games industry company has nothing to do with whether the games are fun?
If I was stuck on a magical deserted island with a one-company-only firewall, EA might not be my first choice, but it would absolutely be way above many minor poorly-known companies who haven't ever released anything fun.
It's interesting that gameplay isn't all that matters for many players in this discussion, and that gamers so easily fall for the Big Scapegoat Company rather than voting for companies which are truly bad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by NecromanticD Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
So being the worst games industry company has nothing to do with whether the games are fun?
If I was stuck on a magical deserted island with a one-company-only firewall, EA might not be my first choice, but it would absolutely be way above many minor poorly-known companies who haven't ever released anything fun.
It's interesting that gameplay isn't all that matters for many players in this discussion, and that gamers so easily fall for the Big Scapegoat Company rather than voting for companies which are truly bad.
That's an argument for quantity over quality.
I've only played two EA games, and they were both astoundingly awful. As in, whoever thought that this game was ready to release should be fired awful. And they were console games, so you can't just update them later. Well, EA kind of updated them later, by selling the updated version as an entirely new game that you'd have to pay for all over again. Speaking of which, EA was the pioneer in trying to convince people to rebuy the same game with only minor tweaks every single year, which is yet another reason why they deserve the award.
Originally posted by NecromanticD Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
So being the worst games industry company has nothing to do with whether the games are fun?
If I was stuck on a magical deserted island with a one-company-only firewall, EA might not be my first choice, but it would absolutely be way above many minor poorly-known companies who haven't ever released anything fun.
It's interesting that gameplay isn't all that matters for many players in this discussion, and that gamers so easily fall for the Big Scapegoat Company rather than voting for companies which are truly bad.
That's an argument for quantity over quality.
I've only played two EA games, and they were both astoundingly awful. As in, whoever thought that this game was ready to release should be fired awful. And they were console games, so you can't just update them later. Well, EA kind of updated them later, by selling the updated version as an entirely new game that you'd have to pay for all over again. Speaking of which, EA was the pioneer in trying to convince people to rebuy the same game with only minor tweaks every single year, which is yet another reason why they deserve the award.
Well I don't know about that as there are a number of studios that have done this since the NES era, many of those titles were essentially the same game with different skins, I'd be quicker to hand such an award to Activision as they're a huge offender in this and always have been. Look at Koei they've been making the same damn game for what feels like decades.
Besides doesn't this describe this very genre fairly well, at least since 04?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I've only played two EA games, and they were both astoundingly awful. As in, whoever thought that this game was ready to release should be fired awful. And they were console games, so you can't just update them later. Well, EA kind of updated them later, by selling the updated version as an entirely new game that you'd have to pay for all over again. Speaking of which, EA was the pioneer in trying to convince people to rebuy the same game with only minor tweaks every single year, which is yet another reason why they deserve the award.
Well then let's say the deserted island only allows the best 2 games from a company. EA still comes out near the top of the list (if anything it does better in that scenario.)
"Best 2" is actually closer to how gamers view games anyway. If a company takes 30 shots on goal or 2, all that matters to players is whether the games they opt into are high quality.
Perhaps most gamers are simply unaware of the sheer magnitude of poorly-known companies out there who put out terrible games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Calling a gaming company the "worst in America" really shows just how close to the edge our society is. Is it the worst tech company in America? Maybe. Is it the worst entertainment company in America? Probably.
Is it worse than Congress? Probably not. Is it worse than any of the Big Oil companies out there? Not in the slightest.
People care about what directly affects them so gamers naturally care about gaming more than some oil spill they only read about in the news. Common sense.
Gamers are also more likely to vote in online polls than mr and mrs America sitting at home with a lot of opinions
Originally posted by NecromanticD Short answer is, EA is the wost -gaming related- company. as for overall, not even close. as others have posted other companies have caused alot more devestation on a worldwide scale. EA just screws gaming.
So being the worst games industry company has nothing to do with whether the games are fun?
If I was stuck on a magical deserted island with a one-company-only firewall, EA might not be my first choice, but it would absolutely be way above many minor poorly-known companies who haven't ever released anything fun.
It's interesting that gameplay isn't all that matters for many players in this discussion, and that gamers so easily fall for the Big Scapegoat Company rather than voting for companies which are truly bad.
That's an argument for quantity over quality.
I've only played two EA games, and they were both astoundingly awful. As in, whoever thought that this game was ready to release should be fired awful. And they were console games, so you can't just update them later. Well, EA kind of updated them later, by selling the updated version as an entirely new game that you'd have to pay for all over again. Speaking of which, EA was the pioneer in trying to convince people to rebuy the same game with only minor tweaks every single year, which is yet another reason why they deserve the award.
Well I don't know about that as there are a number of studios that have done this since the NES era, many of those titles were essentially the same game with different skins, I'd be quicker to hand such an award to Activision as they're a huge offender in this and always have been. Look at Koei they've been making the same damn game for what feels like decades.
Besides doesn't this describe this very genre fairly well, at least since 04?
Making fairly similar games is one thing.
Making almost exactly the same game except that you updated the player rosters to be a year more recent, as EA has so often done with its sports games, is quite another.
I'm actually somewhat puzzled by the number of people saying "but the oil companies are worse" without picking out a particular oil company that is much worse than the rest.
I've avoided anything EA made for about 18 years or so now. Have the people who say that the oil companies are worse avoided buying anything made from or using oil in the last year? How about the last week? The last five seconds, even? In many places, the electricity you're using right now to read this forces an answer of "no" to that last one.
You might say, but you can't because so many things use oil. But that's just it: the big oil companies make so much of modern technology possible. Take away the fossil fuels (and if you hate oil companies, you should probably hate coal companies for about the same reasons) and most of modern industrialization never happens. The only major energy sources other than burning fossil fuels are hydroelectric (which is limited by geography) and nuclear (which is advanced enough that humanity may not have discovered it yet without fossil fuels to help us along).
I'd be open to an argument along the lines of, "This particular oil company is worse than EA, because just like EA is so much worse than most gaming companies, this particular oil company is so much worse than most other oil companies for these reasons." But no one seems to be making that argument. If you want to make the argument that all oil companies are evil but you'll help fund them anyway because you like the products that they make possible, then either you're a hypocrite or claiming to be evil yourself.
If any thing this thread has prove that EA is not the best game company in America. It should prove intreasting if EA wins tomorrow. If they do win will they care? Will they try to be a better company? Give us better customer care? Give us better games and not just redone games? Prob not.
I'm actually somewhat puzzled by the number of people saying "but the oil companies are worse" without picking out a particular oil company that is much worse than the rest.
I've avoided anything EA made for about 18 years or so now. Have the people who say that the oil companies are worse avoided buying anything made from or using oil in the last year? How about the last week? The last five seconds, even? In many places, the electricity you're using right now to read this forces an answer of "no" to that last one.
You might say, but you can't because so many things use oil. But that's just it: the big oil companies make so much of modern technology possible. Take away the fossil fuels (and if you hate oil companies, you should probably hate coal companies for about the same reasons) and most of modern industrialization never happens. The only major energy sources other than burning fossil fuels are hydroelectric (which is limited by geography) and nuclear (which is advanced enough that humanity may not have discovered it yet without fossil fuels to help us along).
I'd be open to an argument along the lines of, "This particular oil company is worse than EA, because just like EA is so much worse than most gaming companies, this particular oil company is so much worse than most other oil companies for these reasons." But no one seems to be making that argument. If you want to make the argument that all oil companies are evil but you'll help fund them anyway because you like the products that they make possible, then either you're a hypocrite or claiming to be evil yourself.
And if those same people who say that the oil companies are worse will they still buy oil for their cars?
Comments
As I suspected! The OP pulled the question from the yearly Forbes list. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/04/05/ea-responds-to-worst-company-in-america-contest-we-can-do-better/
... and as I suspected the critieria are NOT based off pouring billions of gallons of oil into the ocean or wrecking the worlds financial system.
So, whether your a gamer or not, EA certainly qualifies to be on the list of worst "run" companies. Does it deserve worst? I don't know.
The quesstion is from EA Chief Operating Officer, Peter Moore, Who asked “Are we really the “Worst Company in America?””
The details were provided from the link from post one.
Those companies have people watching them and taking notice because they've crossed lines. What are they supposed to go after EA for, making money? You're also confusing me a bit with that "they don't make public apologies line", what do you call sending out letters/notices to gamers saying -hey we're sorry, here take your pick of these free AAA games-?
Like the latest EA fiasco, in a lot of these cases it's players doing something that no one allows (as an example unsubstantiated charge-backs) and getting pissed EA is having none of it, just as steam or any other major publisher operates. What makes it different is the stigma that permeates the EA logo.
I just have to say gamers are beginning to stomp on my last nerve with their selective reasoning. Take just about everything EA does, there's very little in that pile that couldn't be found in some other publishers trash. Yet they operate without such titles, or insults being aimed at them.
In the end, this is a matter of consumer vs dstributer, distributer continues to operate because consumer supports them. Until that changes nothing else will. That support also shows acceptance of action.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Hmm, I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic, because I KNOW I'm probably being pedantic (when am I not though?) Either way, no, you didn't offend me and I'd hope you didn't offend anyone (I doubt EA is reading this). Again, I mostly agree that EA is a very poor example of a company in regards to the way they rush games etc., and had this been the question all along, I'd have no problem agreeing with it. My life just seems to be made much more difficult by other companies listed. Either way, thanks for entertaining my anal retentive attitude. The thread has produced some good responses.
Some people here are arguing that oil companies or financial companies or some such are worse than EA largely because they're more consequential. While acknowledging that it's an apples and oranges comparison, here's one way to compare.
What if EA had never existed? There would be other gaming companies to take their place, of course. For that matter, a number of companies that EA has bought out and run into the ground might still exist and still be making good games. Maybe some other company would have bought them out, but even if they bought out Maxis or Westwood or Mythic or whatever and then didn't proceed to run the company into the ground, wouldn't that be an improvement? Maybe some other company would have stepped up and replaced EA's shenanigans; one could argue that there's enough money to be made from EA's mistreatment of gamers that someone else might have filled that niche even if EA never existed. But there's a good chance that the world would be a better place.
Now what if ExxonMobil had never existed? The oil they've produced would have been produced by someone else instead. Maybe it would have been done by Chevron or British Petroleum or Royal Dutch Shell or some such. Would the world be all that different if the same employees using the same methods dug up the same oil under the banner of a different parent company? If some of ExxonMobil's oil didn't get dug up, most likely it would have been replaced by other oil production elsewhere in the world--and likely in places that are less careful about environmental damage. Would that make the world a better place? Or would it make it a worse place? If ExxonMobil never existed, the world would as likely be a worse place for it as better. So are they really that evil?
Someone who thinks all oil companies are evil might answer "yes" to that. So let's back up the question further. What if the oil industry never existed? What if humans never noticed that burning fossil fuels is a highly efficient way to produce energy? In that case, the bulk of modern industrialization would probably never have happened. We wouldn't be here having this discussion because the Internet wouldn't exist. We would work harder to be poorer, we'd be sicker because many diseases wouldn't have been cured, and we'd die younger. Would that really be a better world? Are the companies that ward off that fate really so evil for doing so?
The environment wouldn't necessarily be better off for it, either, as people who aren't sure whether they will have enough food to eat tend not to be terribly concerned about the environment. Smokestacks are today seen as a symbol of pollution and environmental degradation, but they were once seen primarily as a symbol of technological progress and the promise of a better life. Ford once needed four smokestacks on a factory, but built a fifth non-functional one as a decoration.
So yes, if EA never existed, the world would be a better place, as the other companies that would exist instead would probably be better. How many other companies can we say that about with any reasonable certainty? I'd argue that if we can't credibly argue that the world would be better if this or that particular company never existed, it shouldn't be in the running for worst company in America.
The only reason people aren't dying from EA is because their industry is inherently harmless. EA shows horrible contempt for its customers and if they were in another industry, they would be downright dangerous. I judge them on how they run their business, not how much damage their chosen industry can cause.
The fact that they defended themselves by saying "This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies responsible for the biggest oil spill in history" shows their contempt. They might only be the worst gaming company in America, and that somehow makes it better?
Or "Some claim there’s no room for Origin as a competitor to Steam. 45 million registered users are proving that wrong." If people want to play Mass Effect 3, they HAVE to become a registered user of Origin. Customers forced into your service by exclusive games, is hardly a ringing endorsement.
Or "Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It’s not. " It IS. Period. It has been proven by users.
EA lies their ass off. They treat customers like garbage and try to PR it all away, assuming all their customers are idiots.
So basically the whole discussion of which companies are horrible or inconsequential or good is meaningless as there would always conceivably be another to take their place, possible for the better or worse. However, we do have to deal with realities. This or that company did and does exist. To me this whole discussion isn't worth taking place on this website, as evidenced by many of the posts within this thread.
And here all this came from whether or not a video game company is a pos or not. C'mon man! Who the...cares? grumble grumble. Don't buy their games if they are a shit company!
That's the thing though, I don't think the world would be a different place with no EA. The devil would just be known as another name. As they're not the only publisher that purchases studios and runs them into the dirt, many of those studios would have been bought out by some other soulless entity, as they sold themeselves to the devil to begin with, the old saying "selling your soul" applies fairly well to these situations; whether we're talking about Earth and Beyond, Bioware, Bullfrog, etc.... These studios had an option and they chose it, the rest is history.
For the rest of the evils EA is known for (mostly nickle and diming, DRM). The next great offender would replace the EA logo in a thread just like this, or possibly even a company far worse.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I hardly think it is fair to label a video game company as the worst company in America! It is not like they are responsible for aggressive foreign politics like energy companies, or trying as hard as possible to deny people healthcare like HMOs.
EA has made some great games and still can; if only they would treat their staff a bit better and avoid ridiculous DRM they could get back to the glory days of the '90s.
I mean this question honestly, as I can think of some things I've personally experienced in gaming that were far worse than anything I've ever heard of EA doing.
What criteria dictates worst of the worse? Greed? Monetization? Actions toward the public? or is this more of an all of the above type of thing? No matter the criteria, I can think of a decent up and runner for the title of setting the worst precedents in gaming.
SOE for starters, this is just a small entity governing over a spcefic niche within it's overall parent company, and they've done some seriously horrible things over the years. Of note to mention are their complete and utter disservice to fans of VG:SOH over years and years of paying a sub. Their fiasco early on with EQ2 (which required complete rewrites to a live product), SWG need I even explain this one? The first few years of SOE F2P; which pioneered a lot of these monetization schemes for F2P transitions everyone loves to hate on EA for today. If these were the people running the Ps3 instead of MMO's who do you think would be gracing this poll option with their name?
As MMO gamers I'd think we'd be far more worried about what this company does in the future over EA. Even considering we've heard the word sandbox out of them a few times, which oddly enough seemed to quiet much of the SOE hate around here. Kind of makes me ask myself, what would reaction be to this article , had EA/Bioware made SWG2.?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Man Quiz your a deep thinker. My head hurts now reading yourt post. After all you do make good points. TY
I have no problem attacking EA in a negative way. I think they are the worst gaming company in America, that is just my opinion of course. I however, don't think they would break the top 50 worst companies in America. The banking industry, private prison industry, corporate farms, all rank worse as far as worst companies go. I just don't see how a bad game company (even the worst) could be considered the worse company over industries that have so much more of a negative impact on the environment, the economy, the criminal justice system, or society as a whole. I get that this is a gaming site and people are going to vote for what they no, so it is expected that due to name recognition alone they would win on a gaming site. But some of the responses are, interesting. Especially those who seem to claim that people saying that EA isn't the worst company in America are somehow defending EA.
So being the worst games industry company has nothing to do with whether the games are fun?
If I was stuck on a magical deserted island with a one-company-only firewall, EA might not be my first choice, but it would absolutely be way above many minor poorly-known companies who haven't ever released anything fun.
It's interesting that gameplay isn't all that matters for many players in this discussion, and that gamers so easily fall for the Big Scapegoat Company rather than voting for companies which are truly bad.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
That's an argument for quantity over quality.
I've only played two EA games, and they were both astoundingly awful. As in, whoever thought that this game was ready to release should be fired awful. And they were console games, so you can't just update them later. Well, EA kind of updated them later, by selling the updated version as an entirely new game that you'd have to pay for all over again. Speaking of which, EA was the pioneer in trying to convince people to rebuy the same game with only minor tweaks every single year, which is yet another reason why they deserve the award.
Well I don't know about that as there are a number of studios that have done this since the NES era, many of those titles were essentially the same game with different skins, I'd be quicker to hand such an award to Activision as they're a huge offender in this and always have been. Look at Koei they've been making the same damn game for what feels like decades.
Besides doesn't this describe this very genre fairly well, at least since 04?
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well then let's say the deserted island only allows the best 2 games from a company. EA still comes out near the top of the list (if anything it does better in that scenario.)
"Best 2" is actually closer to how gamers view games anyway. If a company takes 30 shots on goal or 2, all that matters to players is whether the games they opt into are high quality.
Perhaps most gamers are simply unaware of the sheer magnitude of poorly-known companies out there who put out terrible games.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Calling a gaming company the "worst in America" really shows just how close to the edge our society is. Is it the worst tech company in America? Maybe. Is it the worst entertainment company in America? Probably.
Is it worse than Congress? Probably not. Is it worse than any of the Big Oil companies out there? Not in the slightest.
You make me like charity
People care about what directly affects them so gamers naturally care about gaming more than some oil spill they only read about in the news. Common sense.
Gamers are also more likely to vote in online polls than mr and mrs America sitting at home with a lot of opinions
Butthurt gamers trumphs all
Making fairly similar games is one thing.
Making almost exactly the same game except that you updated the player rosters to be a year more recent, as EA has so often done with its sports games, is quite another.
I'm actually somewhat puzzled by the number of people saying "but the oil companies are worse" without picking out a particular oil company that is much worse than the rest.
I've avoided anything EA made for about 18 years or so now. Have the people who say that the oil companies are worse avoided buying anything made from or using oil in the last year? How about the last week? The last five seconds, even? In many places, the electricity you're using right now to read this forces an answer of "no" to that last one.
You might say, but you can't because so many things use oil. But that's just it: the big oil companies make so much of modern technology possible. Take away the fossil fuels (and if you hate oil companies, you should probably hate coal companies for about the same reasons) and most of modern industrialization never happens. The only major energy sources other than burning fossil fuels are hydroelectric (which is limited by geography) and nuclear (which is advanced enough that humanity may not have discovered it yet without fossil fuels to help us along).
I'd be open to an argument along the lines of, "This particular oil company is worse than EA, because just like EA is so much worse than most gaming companies, this particular oil company is so much worse than most other oil companies for these reasons." But no one seems to be making that argument. If you want to make the argument that all oil companies are evil but you'll help fund them anyway because you like the products that they make possible, then either you're a hypocrite or claiming to be evil yourself.
And if those same people who say that the oil companies are worse will they still buy oil for their cars?