EA Wins Another Award....they don't want.

[yankeesgiants]

“Many continue to claim the always-on function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It’s not. People still want to argue about it. We can’t be any clearer: it’s not. Period.” - Peter Moore



and then there is the truth.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...e-know-so-far/

[mestevo]

Quote: Originally Posted by yankeesgiants

“Many continue to claim the always-on function in SimCity is a DRM scheme. It’s not. People still want to argue about it. We can’t be any clearer: it’s not. Period.” - Peter Moore and then there is the truth. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...e-know-so-far/

Playing simcity offline is like playing Call of Duty multiplayer by yourself, designed to be played with others from the ground up - and by Maxis, not EA.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by rootofalleli

So just to be clear, past winners like Halliburton, the RIAA, Comcast, AIG, BP, and the now-defunct Countrywide Financial (acquired by annual Worst Company competitor Bank of America) are likewise victims of sampling bias?

Assuming the poll was set up in the same manner when those companies "won" (a voluntary internet poll which is essentially a reverse popularity contest), yes. A flawed survey is a flawed survey.

Quote:

Why didn't those readers get Activision/Blizzard in there to make things exciting?

At least in part because the internet game community has an aggressive pack mentality and piles on anything they don't like. EA is the flavor of the month thanks to a few high-profile failures, those failures being the actual actionable items for the company to address. The flawed survey is nothing.

I can't and won't say EA is being solely singled out by the game community at-large; gamers they pile on anything they don't like with ruthless aggression, be it Diablo 3's DRM, Durango's rumored always-on requirement, DLC in general, GameStop's trade-in business, or what have you. I will say EA is just the current focus, however, and that all AAA publishers do the exact same things EA is doing. If you have a problem with EA, you should by extension have a problem with most of the video games industry.

Quote:

And that's the point: companies should look harder at their practices, not brush this off as a random attack or a publicity stunt or an absurd attempt to label them black-hearted villains. I'm sure EA executives are really eager to rationalize and deflect and spin. I'm sure it's comforting for them to dig up some friendly reviews or good sales figures. Instead, they should realize that these reactions are the problem, not the solution.

There are things EA could stand to do better, that's obvious. I wasn't particularly happy with the design decisions they made for SimCity 2013 with regard to always-online, city size, and lack of prior features, and as a result I haven't and won't be purchasing the game. That's the easiest way for me to let EA know that I'm not happy with how they approached that product. (To be clear, this doesn't excuse the unmitigated disaster that the post-launch period was for that game).

In contrast, given sales figures and review scores of every single one of EA's most "controversial" games (be it for DRM, DLC, or whatever else Consumerist cites) - Mass Effect 3, Sim City 2013, Madden NFL 13, FIFA 13, Battlefield 3 - it's reasonable for EA to conclude that the vast majority of their target customer base is happy with the high-profile products EA releases, regardless how much noise and negativity on the internet emerges about those products. If gamers at-large truly weren't happy with EA's products and practices, they wouldn't buy said products or participate in the DLC purchases (thus enabling EA to continue them). If gamers were truly unhappy with EA, they'd simply start ignoring EA altogether.

[Big FN Deal]

I had pretty much left this discussion be until the last comment because it is something that gets repeated to the point where it seems some believe if they state it enough, it will some how become true. The notion that people who are dissatisfied with a product, service, company or any other entity they have the right to voice their concern about and/or take action to do something about, should just passively protest by not supporting it and STFU is ludicrous. This is not how any substantial change in the history of mankind that I can think of has taken place, by people making a personal decision to have no affiliation with what the don't approve of and sitting quietly by while others potentially get caught unaware.

If this stance where truly the standard for how dissatisfied persons should act, which it is of course not, then the same thing would logically apply to those other entities, in the case of PR, marketing, negative press against competitors, etc, they should just put out what they have to offer, STFU and let the people decide what they want.

Of course that's not how America or the free market works, a business has the right to try to entice as many people as they can to interest them in what they are offering, which is great. Also just as great is the right for consumers and public citizens to not only speak with their individual wallets but encourage others to do the same, by informing others about their dissatisfaction and perception of a business's practices. Consumers speaking up and potentially organizing is fine when they are word of mouth advertising, using social media, forums, etc for positive press for EA but suddenly when those same methods are used to voice concerns or dissatisfaction, that's somehow unfair and mostly irrelevant?

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by Big FN Deal

I had pretty much left this discussion be until the last comment because it is something that gets repeated to the point where it seems some believe if they state it enough, it will some how become true. The notion that people who are dissatisfied with a product, service, company or any other entity they have the right to voice their concern about and/or take action to do something about, should just passively protest by not supporting it and STFU is ludicrous. This is not how any substantial change in the history of mankind that I can think of has taken place, by people making a personal decision to have no affiliation with what the don't approve of and sitting quietly by while others potentially get caught unaware. If this stance where truly the standard for how dissatisfied persons should act, which it is of course not, then the same thing would logically apply to those other entities, in the case of PR, marketing, negative press against competitors, etc, they should just put out what they have to offer, STFU and let the people decide what they want. Of course that's not how America or the free market works, a business has the right to try to entice as many people as they can to interest them in what they are offering, which is great. Also just as great is the right for consumers and public citizens to not only speak with their individual wallets but encourage others to do the same, by informing others about their dissatisfaction and perception of a business's practices. Consumers speaking up and potentially organizing is fine when they are word of mouth advertising, using social media, forums, etc for positive press for EA but suddenly when those same methods are used to voice concerns or dissatisfaction, that's somehow unfair and mostly irrelevant?

It's pretty obvious who this is directed at, and you've missed my point.

Nowhere have I attacked a person's ability to comment constructively about the Madden video games. I myself have offered plenty of constructive criticism of the Madden video games. It would be hypocritical for me to attack a person's ability to comment about Madden, because I've certainly done that plenty.

What I have attempted to do in this thread, however, is question the legitimacy of poll in the topic post and openly doubt whether it is a true impetus for change for EA. I don't feel that this poll will force EA to do anything. I don't feel it will is because foremost I don't think that this poll is a reasonable representation of consumers at-large, or even video game consumers at-large. Further, regardless of the amount of vitriol cast towards EA in this poll, people still keep buying EA games, people still keep buying EA's DLC, people continue to participate in EA's always-online DRM, so the hate of EA obviously is not of great magnitude; if it were so offensive, people would avoid EA products with such features.

The bottom line - if you're truly dissatisfied with EA Sports, make the active choice to not buy their products. Spend your time and money on something else, anything else. Money out of pocket is the one language EA is sure to understand and the one action by a consumer which will guarantee a reaction.

[Big FN Deal]

My post wasn't directed at you the poster but at the general sentiment you expressed in that post;

"If gamers were truly unhappy with EA, they'd simply start ignoring EA altogether."

As if that was the lone and/or best means to achieve this;

"Money out of pocket is the one language EA is sure to understand and the one action by a consumer which will guarantee a reaction."

Drawing more attention to EA and it's business practices is a far more potentially effective way to achieve the action of "money out of pocket" for EA and promote change, either directly by EA or consequently, than just "ignoring" them altogether, like you stated earlier.

That said, this a message board and it's easy for anyone of us to make a misstatement, so if that's what you did, no biggie.

[Unlucky 13]

Quote:

The Civilization game series hasn't been developed or published by EA. I don't know what you're referring to?

I was thinking wrong, sorry. It was 2k that screwed Civ up. Same problem, different company.

[BezO]

Congratulations EA!

Don't mind those protesting your victory. You won fair & square.