EA is officially the worst company in America

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/04/04/ea-is-the-worst-company-in-america-now-what/
Can't believe it beat Bank of American and AT&T though.
http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=815820http://i39.tinypic.com/2s92iva.png

Seriously though, EA has a habit of devouring smaller, well-loved, developers, forcing insane production deadlines on them and then if that game fails, they immediately gut said company, all while keeping the intellectual rights to anything those companies created.

And from what I heard with what they do with people in Origins, they really are bad.

[blueangel06661]

What did they do with Maxis? I didn't even notice that Maxis was no longer involved with the latest Sims3. It's name slowly started to fade during the Sims 2 era. Is this argument here the reason why there isn't Sims City in the Sims 3 [which I find utter BS]

I love the Sims series. Yet they did away with a lot of what I loved with Sims 3.

[Light Buster]

I kinda agree with you on this but I find Activision even worse than EA. Activision is more corrupted than EA.

[Munchman]

AHAHAHA , they really had it coming! That will teach them to ruin every single good game they put their hands on.

[Vintniv]

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratulations-ea-you-are-the-worst-company-in-america-for-2012.html


Its actually receiving an award for being the worst. A golden piece of poop.

http://static1.consumerist.com/EAGoldenPooWCIA.png

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratulations-ea-you-are-the-worst-company-in-america-for-2012.html


Its actually receiving an award for being the worst. A golden piece of poop.

http://static1.consumerist.com/EAGoldenPooWCIA.png

What made me laugh is that the light is red and not green.

That was kind of genius.

[Explorer Oak]

EA<Activision<Everything else. But dont misunderstand, they are gready assholes, not the people who make Battlefield and COD. Now that BF is more mainstream, you can expect EA to rush Dice to making a game every year just like Activision. T^T so sad *sob*

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I kinda agree with you on this but I find Activision even worse than EA. Activision is more corrupted than EA.

Not even. They are greedy and like to milk crap but they aren't a horrible company as EA...but still horrible.

I bet your complains are about Call of Duty ELITE? They doesn't put them on EA"s Level...that just means they suck.

[Velvet_Nightmare]

I kinda agree with you on this but I find Activision even worse than EA. Activision is more corrupted than EA.

http://i.imgur.com/zFrTB.jpg

[Light Buster]

Not even. They are greedy and like to milk crap but they aren't a horrible company as EA...but still horrible.

I bet your complains are about Call of Duty ELITE? They doesn't put them on EA"s Level...that just means they suck.

My issue isn't about ELITE (Hell no, ELITE is completely fine to me). The fact that Activision terminated their contract with Infinity Ward to keep the money for themselves is my reason why.

[FluffyDango]

Just downloaded the FREE mp dlc to ME3.
Guessing EA know they're the shittiest company in USA now and trying to redeem themselfs abit. The Extended Cut dlc will probably cost more now :P

[.:neuko:.]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/04/04/ea-is-the-worst-company-in-america-now-what/
Can't believe it beat Bank of American and AT&T though.
http://www.narutoforums.com/showthread.php?t=815820http://i39.tinypic.com/2s92iva.png

Seriously though, EA has a habit of devouring smaller, well-loved, developers, forcing insane production deadlines on them and then if that game fails, they immediately gut said company, all while keeping the intellectual rights to anything those companies created.

And from what I heard with what they do with people in Origins, they really are bad.

I noticed what EA were doing years ago, and that's partially why I skipped the 360/PS3 generation. It's a similar story with Rare, who produced some fine games until they were snapped up by Microsoft.

I hate EA so much that I can't be bothered to write an intelligent comment about them. If you took all the poop in the world and condensed it into one cubic inch, that'd sum up my sentiments of this loathsome company empire.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I noticed what EA were doing years ago, and that's partially why I skipped the 360/PS3 generation. It's a similar story with Rare, who produced some fine games until they were snapped up by Microsoft.

I hate EA so much that I can't be bothered to write an intelligent comment about them. If you took all the poop in the world and condensed it into one cubic inch, that'd sum up my sentiments of this loathsome company empire.

Why? The 7th generation started on 2006 while the DLC/Passes started on Late 2010.

That's the only reason why I could roughly understand why someone would skip on those consoles (then again, buy your games new!).

If you're talking how bad they screwed up companies (like Bioware) then you might as well just quit gaming, because that will go all around...even on PC Gaming (since it would pretty much be the same as PS360)

[Meteorkeeper]

Ya EA is a cancer on the gaming community that's for shore...you know Bioware has also been ticking me off as of late.

[.:neuko:.]

Why? The 7th generation started on 2006 while the DLC/Passes started on Late 2010.

That's the only reason why I could roughly understand why someone would skip on those consoles (then again, buy your games new!).

Unfortunately, I do have one weakness when it comes to games and it's the fact that I'm a collector (and I think like a collector), so if I bought one game that was designed as an installment of a series, I'd be bound to buy all the subsequent games as well. Suppose then that I had purchased Mass Effect 1 (launched in 2007, so essentially before DLC raised controversy to this level) and 2; then of course I'd want ME3 as well to complete the collection, which means I'm kinda screwed if it's highly DLC dependent. Since I did not want to get into that trap, I considered the thought of skipping the entire 7th generation as far back as its establishment, and yes, even subsequent generations altogether should future games be playable only through DLC. Furthermore, the numerous releases of dissapointing games (imo) between 2006-2010 turned that thought into a firm decision from 2008 (although, don't get me wrong, I've felt occasionally tempted to plump for a PS3, but I think it's too late now and ultimately I'd be wasting my money). But in any case, I don't feel like I've essentially missed out on anything, except what might have been 8 years of self-induced stress.

So I purposely chose to avoid the DLC era from 2006 so as to avoid becoming a potential victim of the very controversial issues referenced in this thread, especially those orchestrated by the likes of EA (I might as well tie a shackle to my foot). As far back as the 6th generation I suspected that DLC would be heavily pushed by the biggest games publishers and be used as an opportunity to assume full control of end-user access to games (and low and behold... look what's happening). The end result would be a reality where consumers no longer buy games of real substance in boxes, but simply endless digital keys (or passes) that "grant" pinpointed access to server-restricted game content, thereby allowing absolute control in the hands of game publishers - a future I'd neither want nor support. Providing DLC for multiplayer's sake is fair enough (e.g. a multiplayer map independant of storyline), but forcing gamers to pay extra for DLC in order to update/complete the main story of a game is blatantly taking the biscuit tin. Anyway, they say that they're doing this to protect "interlectual rights" and combat piracy, and yes arguably, they are fair defenses - but the methods being employed also have unregulated loopholes through which game publishers like EA and Activision can take advantage of their huge profits to kill off competition (i.e. buy up all the talented game developers and ultimately take ownership of their interlectual properties). Not only does this eliminate the threat of releases more competant than their own, but it ultimately leads to lack of consumer choice. The notion of a single path where all access to games is controlled by a single publisher is not that far from reality imo (the technology is certainly in place).



If you're talking how bad they screwed up companies (like Bioware) then you might as well just quit gaming, because that will go all around...even on PC Gaming (since it would pretty much be the same as PS360)

Well let's just say that I'm not going to entertain any arrogant publisher's delusion; that gamers are so helplessly addicted to (online) gaming that they'll pay and do anything to get their fix (At least, I seriously hope that's not the case with gamers in general reality, otherwise the publishers have already won). That's having said, I'm glad that EA have now been flushed out as the "worst games company in the world" and I only hope they'll now start thinking less about the size of their coffers and more about the real interests of their markets. Still, I won't be holding my breath...

Regarding the suggestion that I "might as well just quit gaming", well I've practically limited myself to playing only Nintendo games now, so you could say that I've already set one foot on that path - nonetheless I've felt much happier in gaming since making that decision. As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is the only existant company that seems to have not forgotten the essential point of games - but that said, I'm quite preparred to quit gaming indefinitely (barring currently owned titles of course) if Nintendo ever attempt to do an EA on me.

Arguably perhaps, my attitude to gaming is old fashioned, as I'm starting to think that my golden era of gaming has passed (namely the 6th generation), but I believe that every gamer will feel the same at some point, including those who are happy with the DLC nature of curent games.

[FluffyDango]

Ya EA is a cancer on the gaming community that's for shore...you know Bioware has also been ticking me off as of late.

Bioware only does what their bosses(EA) tells them to do. If they were to go against that, EA would stop supporting them and Bioware needs the money.
Though Bioware starts to annoy me to now, with those Operation weekends in ME3.
This weekend there is +10% xp on the 2 new maps, but for some weird reason they can't host these events on PS3, blames it on restrictions on PSN. Which probably is true, BUT Activision manages to have double xp in CoD many weekends.
So I'm thinking that Bioware is just lazy, and are not actually trying to convice Sony to let them have the operations on PS3(there are more evidence of Bioware`s lazyness in ME3).

The Sony support service have no clue what people are talking about when PS3 gamers ask them why these operations can't be arranged on PS3. And the Sony support would very likely know if Bioware had been in conversations with Bioware about it. Wouldn't they? :P

Some people on the Bioware forum seems to be quite naive too, like Bioware would never lie :P

[Ravin]

That's why I only play games by Blizzard like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3

[Meteorkeeper]

Bioware only does what their bosses(EA) tells them to do. If they were to go against that, EA would stop supporting them and Bioware needs the money.
Though Bioware starts to annoy me to now, with those Operation weekends in ME3.
This weekend there is +10% xp on the 2 new maps, but for some weird reason they can't host these events on PS3, blames it on restrictions on PSN. Which probably is true, BUT Activision manages to have double xp in CoD many weekends.
So I'm thinking that Bioware is just lazy, and are not actually trying to convice Sony to let them have the operations on PS3(there are more evidence of Bioware`s lazyness in ME3).

The Sony support service have no clue what people are talking about when PS3 gamers ask them why these operations can't be arranged on PS3. And the Sony support would very likely know if Bioware had been in conversations with Bioware about it. Wouldn't they? :P

Some people on the Bioware forum seems to be quite naive too, like Bioware would never lie :P


I thought the same thing at first Bioware cant help being terrible EA forces them to do dumb things but then they will do things on there own that show how they truly are witch is pretty much just a I don't really care type of attitude or a you will buy it anyway so why put effort into it.
And yes there are still diehard fans out there who think Bioware can do no wrong. You should never really completely trust any company and certainly not one who has shown that they don't really care about anything but there bottom line.

[Velvet_Nightmare]

That's why I only play games by Blizzard like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3

lol

That is all.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

That's why I only play games by Blizzard like Starcraft 2 and Warcraft 3

Well, Blizzard was acquired but Craptivision. Although Blizzard was indeed one of the best gaming company out there pre-Activistion.


Unfortunately, I do have one weakness when it comes to games and it's the fact that I'm a collector (and I think like a collector), so if I bought one game that was designed as an installment of a series, I'd be bound to buy all the subsequent games as well. Suppose then that I had purchased Mass Effect 1 (launched in 2007, so essentially before DLC raised controversy to this level) and 2; then of course I'd want ME3 as well to complete the collection, which means I'm kinda screwed if it's highly DLC dependent. Since I did not want to get into that trap, I considered the thought of skipping the entire 7th generation as far back as its establishment, and yes, even subsequent generations altogether should future games be playable only through DLC. Furthermore, the numerous releases of dissapointing games (imo) between 2006-2010 turned that thought into a firm decision from 2008 (although, don't get me wrong, I've felt occasionally tempted to plump for a PS3, but I think it's too late now and ultimately I'd be wasting my money). But in any case, I don't feel like I've essentially missed out on anything, except what might have been 8 years of self-induced stress.

So I purposely chose to avoid the DLC era from 2006 so as to avoid becoming a potential victim of the very controversial issues referenced in this thread, especially those orchestrated by the likes of EA (I might as well tie a shackle to my foot). As far back as the 6th generation I suspected that DLC would be heavily pushed by the biggest games publishers and be used as an opportunity to assume full control of end-user access to games (and low and behold... look what's happening). The end result would be a reality where consumers no longer buy games of real substance in boxes, but simply endless digital keys (or passes) that "grant" pinpointed access to server-restricted game content, thereby allowing absolute control in the hands of game publishers - a future I'd neither want nor support. Providing DLC for multiplayer's sake is fair enough (e.g. a multiplayer map independant of storyline), but forcing gamers to pay extra for DLC in order to update/complete the main story of a game is blatantly taking the biscuit tin. Anyway, they say that they're doing this to protect "interlectual rights" and combat piracy, and yes arguably, they are fair defenses - but the methods being employed also have unregulated loopholes through which game publishers like EA and Activision can take advantage of their huge profits to kill off competition (i.e. buy up all the talented game developers and ultimately take ownership of their interlectual properties). Not only does this eliminate the threat of releases more competant than their own, but it ultimately leads to lack of consumer choice. The notion of a single path where all access to games is controlled by a single publisher is not that far from reality imo (the technology is certainly in place).




Well let's just say that I'm not going to entertain any arrogant publisher's delusion; that gamers are so helplessly addicted to (online) gaming that they'll pay and do anything to get their fix (At least, I seriously hope that's not the case with gamers in general reality, otherwise the publishers have already won). That's having said, I'm glad that EA have now been flushed out as the "worst games company in the world" and I only hope they'll now start thinking less about the size of their coffers and more about the real interests of their markets. Still, I won't be holding my breath...

Regarding the suggestion that I "might as well just quit gaming", well I've practically limited myself to playing only Nintendo games now, so you could say that I've already set one foot on that path - nonetheless I've felt much happier in gaming since making that decision. As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo is the only existant company that seems to have not forgotten the essential point of games - but that said, I'm quite preparred to quit gaming indefinitely (barring currently owned titles of course) if Nintendo ever attempt to do an EA on me.

Arguably perhaps, my attitude to gaming is old fashioned, as I'm starting to think that my golden era of gaming has passed (namely the 6th generation), but I believe that every gamer will feel the same at some point, including those who are happy with the DLC nature of curent games.

Well, Nintendo doesn't approve on DLC (aside from the RB games and some games multiplat like Megaman 9/10) so you don't really have to worry.

However, considering how the WiiU will be advancing then it will also support DLC.

I mean no one supports DLC like EA or Capcom does it but people will buy those games anyways because they still look good and the games are good regardless.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

http://kotaku.com/5902190/ea-sort-of-fixes-origin-allows-banned-users-access-to-the-games-they-paid-for

Yup

[FluffyDango]

Hehe, they're scared now :P
Giving free map packs in Mass Effect 3 and this xD

We consumers should milk it hehe.

[GameGeeks]

Still wont buy their games.

[FluffyDango]

I posted this news article on another forum, and a girl who lives near the EA in Orlando says that they have a ball pit in their meeting room :P
She was there for school stuff.


I actually find this funny...I've never played an EA game before since I don't have a console (well, I have a PS2 for DDR....) and I don't buy games. The game I'm looking forward to right now though is co-publishing the game :P

I visited EA games for school since it's in Orlando, and it looks like one of the funnest places to work so it's my dream job.

Even though everyone says they suck, you gotta admit they are decently successful...


Not in Orlando though. EA games have very strong connections with the college I want to go, and they have an amazing work area! THEY HAVE A MEETING ROOM WITH A BALL PIT!

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I live in Orlando. xD

[FluffyDango]

I live in Orlando. xD

I'd rather go to Valve or Naughty Dog(and pet their naughty dogs) :P
Where are they? :P

And I would rather work at a gaming company that couldn't fire 1k people like EA just did.

[Hanamaru Kunikida]

I'd rather go to Valve or Naughty Dog(and pet their naughty dogs) :P
Where are they? :P

I know ND its located in Cali so..