EA is the 'Worst Company In America'

[ubernoob]

You act like you need an NFL video game to survive.

Would I like an awesome NFL game to play? FACT.

Are there plenty of other great games for me to spend my money on instead of wasting it on Madden? FACT.

[Fresh Tendrils]

Hmm...this is fun.

Rocksteady/WB Games version of Batman sucks. I want a more realistic, character driven game! But no - those bastards have a monopoly over there and could care less what us true comic book fans want. FACT.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by ubernoob

You act like you need an NFL video game to survive. Would I like an awesome NFL game to play? FACT. Are there plenty of other great games for me to spend my money on instead of wasting it on Madden? FACT.

I haven't been spending on Madden either. The fact that I don't spend the money on Madden doesn't automatically lesson my desire for a quality NFL Video Football game. Doesn't make it a need either. Me not spending money on Madden doesn't make EA/Tib a better company or Madden a better game. So I'm not sure what the point of your post is except I agree, don't like it, don't buy it. I haven't.

But I thought the issue was the article and the poll with the discussion being about Peter Moore's interview and EA as a company, good or bad? To me, Madden, this console gen, has been one of the major black eyes for EA and Mr. Moore's interview being even more of a black eye.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

When all I'm looking for is an NFL Video Football game, then that is exactly how competition works.

Again, what do your purchasing preferences have to do with EA's ability to develop and publish a game, seek content licensing agreements for said game, or the reality that whatever game EA makes must compete in the marketplace against games from other publishers? Considering competition from a perspective other than that of one of the competing entities strikes me as wildly inappropriate.

Further, what part of any of the above is anti-consumer to the point of violating the law, and why is it anti-consumer for EA to partake in such practices and yet perfectly fine when any other video game publishing house or any property not named the National Football League is involved?

I could go to the 007 example again, but Fresh Tendrils' Batman example is another good one. It's the exact same situation, but it doesn't involve the NFL so I suppose the exact same practice is suddenly okay, nevermind the unfair travesty that no video game studio not named Rocksteady may make a Batman game.

[CM Hooe]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Nice word play wording. "not anti-competitive" followed with "any more than". What does Activision removing 007 competition have to do with EA removing competition? Mentioning Activision doesn't make EA less of an NFL Video Game pseudo monopoly. Why are you trying to deflect instead of hitting the issue head on?

The point is that there is still competition in the marketplace. The 007 games compete with other shooters (Halo, Call of Duty, etc.), they compete with sandbox games (Grand Theft Auto, Saints Row, etc), and they even compete with Madden (as well as NBA 2K, MLB The Show, Backbreaker, etc.)

Likewise, the Madden games similarly compete with the Halos, Call of Duties, GTAs, Batmans, etc. of the world, regardless of any exclusive content agreements. You appear to be completely unwilling to concede this point because for whatever reason you are framing the idea of competition from a perspective other than that of one of the many competing entities, a position which makes no sense to me.

[bucky60]

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Again, what do your purchasing preferences have to do with EA's ability to develop and publish a game

Never said it did. But the bugs, unrealistic game play, removing features then adding them back as new, etc, etc does say something about their ability to make a game and about it's business practices. Why are you mentioning my purchasing preferences? More deflection?

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

, seek content licensing agreements for said game, or the reality that whatever game EA makes must compete in the marketplace against games from other publishers?

You seem to be expanding the scope of competition to fit your own agenda. It's like saying one and only one choice for pickup trucks doesn't matter cause you can still by a sub-compact smart car. Do pickup trucks compete with smart cars? Your definition they do. But not if you want to put a plow in front and haul a bunch of cargo. I'm actually using a reasonable scope of competition. Only one NFL Video Football game. I can't play football with Skyrim.

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Considering competition from a perspective other than that of one of the competing entities strikes me as wildly inappropriate.

Expanding competition to things that are even close to comparable strikes me as wildly inappropriate.

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

Further, what part of any of the above is anti-consumer to the point of violating the law,

Again, more word play? "anti-consumer" "to the point of violating the law". Why does it have to be violating a law to be anti-consumer? Doesn't defining "anti-consumer" only by litigation seem wildly inappropriate?

Quote: Originally Posted by CM Hooe

and why is it anti-consumer for EA to partake in such practices and yet perfectly fine when any other video game publishing house or any property not named the National Football League is involved?

Who said it was perfectly fine for others? More deflection? This thread isn't about a poll with EA winning the worst company and about the article with Peter Moore's comments? If there are any other companies performing the same anti-consumer, anti-competition business practices, it doesn't excuse EA. Again, more deflection?

[Fresh Tendrils]

Quote: Originally Posted by bucky60

Never said it did. But the bugs, unrealistic game play, removing features then adding them back as new, etc, etc does say something about their ability to make a game and about it's business practices. Why are you mentioning my purchasing preferences? More deflection?

You act as if EA has invented and are the only company doing these practices. Its a trademark of countless product industries to scale, scale, and scale back and then re-introduce previous features. Do you really think you're actually getting 30% more of a Snickers bar when they put that new wrapper on meanwhile not noticing they've actually gotten smaller previously.

Quote:

You seem to be expanding the scope of competition to fit your own agenda. It's like saying one and only one choice for pickup trucks doesn't matter cause you can still by a sub-compact smart car. Do pickup trucks compete with smart cars? Your definition they do. But not if you want to put a plow in front and haul a bunch of cargo. I'm actually using a reasonable scope of competition. Only one NFL Video Football game. I can't play football with Skyrim.

And you're diminishing the scope of competition to fit your agenda. Just because YOU, one consumer in the market, wants another choice for a football does not mean that your neighbor doesn't have Madden in one hand and Batman in another - they're still competitors of each other. There's different levels, but all titles compete with each other.

Its not a monopoly. If EA was the only maker of video games that would be a monopoly. Its not a monopoly simply because a company only licenses out their IP to one manufacturer. That is a partnership - not a monopoly. Dislike it all you want, but it doesn't inherently make either entity terrible or a bad company.

Quote:

This thread isn't about a poll with EA winning the worst company and about the article with Peter Moore's comments. If there are any other companies performing the same anti-consumer, anti-competition business practices, it doesn't excuse EA. Again, more deflection?

So far that has been the primary discussion of the thread.

[rootofalleli]

Quote: Originally Posted by swiftychampleone

But in a way it does. It's like bashing your girlfriend/wife constantly and moaning about how unhappy you are with her but you're STILL with her. If people don't buy the games, it'll speak volumes. I'm sorry, but I'm not buying something that I'm not happy with.

So let's say a sports team sells tickets and jerseys but posts a losing record year after year. Your logic says that the team owner/management are doing fine. If people didn't enjoy hoping for a turnaround, they'd stop going to games, right? Maybe those fans with paper bags on their heads are actually having *more fun* than they would if the team had a good GM, a professional scout team, a quarterback, and a good coach. This must be their twisted brand of fun, or else they wouldn't be at the games. How odd that so many masochists have decided to settle in cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Oakland, and Buffalo!