Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 23, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 23, 2014
PR Newswire
View All

If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:

EA brushes off 'Worst Company in America' label
EA brushes off 'Worst Company in America' label
April 4, 2012 | By Eric Caoili

Developer and publisher Electronic Arts has dismissed the "Worst Company in America" label it received from consumer affairs site The Consumerist, denying that it's disconnected with its users.

As part of a March Madness-style bracket competition, The Consumerist invited readers to vote on which company they believe is the worst in the country. After more than 250,000 people voted in the contest, EA beat out oft-criticized corporations like Bank of America and AT&T as the worst.

"Consumerist readers ultimately decided that the type of greed exhibited by EA, which is supposed to be making the world a more fun place, is worse than Bank of America's avarice, which some would argue is the entire point of operating a bank," said the blog in its post revealing the winner today.

In a statement provided to Gamasutra, EA's Corporate Communications senior director John Reseburg responded, "We're sure that bank presidents, oil, tobacco, and weapons companies are all relieved they weren't on the list this year. We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."

The Consumerist argued that people shouldn't take the contest lightly just because EA won: "To those who might sneer at something as 'non-essential' as a video game company winning the Worst Company In America vote: It's that exact kind of attitude that allows people to ignore the complaints as companies like EA to nickel and dime consumers to death."

It went on to cite complaints against EA for allegedly holding back game content to sell as DLC at a later date, and continuing to sell its games with premium prices while other media like movies and music have become more affordable over the years.

EA subsidiary BioWare is also suffering backlash over its handling of Mass Effect 3's endings. Many fans of the series have united to launch a campaign pressuring the company to produce a new ending.

Reseburg sought to provide evidence that EA is connected to consumers in meaningful ways, pointing out The Human Rights Campaign's petition supporting EA for including same-sex relationships in its games, BioWare's selection as a finalist in The Escapist's fan-voted "Best Developer" competition, and its various user-voted contests allowing fans to choose the cover athletes for its sports titles.

Related Jobs

Gameloft New Orleans
Gameloft New Orleans — New Orleans, Louisiana, United States

Lead Programmer — Hunt Valley, Maryland, United States

Graphics Software Engineer — Chicago, Illinois, United States

Graphics Software Engineer
BattleCry Studios
BattleCry Studios — Austin, Texas, United States

Senior VFX Artist


Stephen McCollins
profile image
More than a simple contest, this gave the opportunity to a community to show the world how intolerable gaming corporations practices have become. The news, which spread all over the Internet, allows non-gaming audiences to grasp what is at work in an industry worth billions of dollars. Of course, BofA's damage to households has no comparisons, but everyone already knows about it.

People might question the mean, but the result is enlightening.

Also, EA's reaction to the news is extremely childish.

Another interesting article from Forbes:

Brad Borne
profile image
Oh please, all this does is demonstrate what a bunch of whiny, entitled brats the current population has become.

WAH WAH for profit company is making money in ways that I don't like WAH while creating games that I love and continue buying WAH.

Ali Afshari
profile image
This is just sad...we have companies doing stuff like selling us ammonia treated meat by-products that make up the majority of the supermarket ground beef, and the laws protect these companies from having to tell us about the contents (or the prep process) of the meat! You can't even sue a pharmaceutical company if you develop health problems from taking generic meds. Yet, a small vocal group gets inspired enough to vote an entertainment company as the worst. Sure, EA has done some questionable things, but I won't vote them the worst until they start to pull crap like selling me a copy of a game using materials KNOWN to cause cancer, or a game sending out signals to melt my brain so I can be separated from my wallet more easily.

John McMahon
profile image
Or causing a catastrophe by not following safety protocols and releasing tons of oil into the water and shorelines of a country, resulting in the deaths of countless animals and damaging the economy of fishermen.

Ali Afshari
profile image
@ John: You're absolutely correct. The frustrating thing is that there are lots of examples out there :(

Nathaniel Marlow
profile image
I agree, this is a bit upsetting for a lot of reasons.

It's like, let me complain about DLC while being willfully ignorant of how people who's only mistake was being born in the wrong time and place suffocate silently and anonymously under a blanket of brushed aluminum cases that say "Designed by Apple in California. Assembled in China".

Justin Nearing
profile image
Lessons of Modern Concept of Evil:

Day One DLC > Creating and profiting from the systematic destruction of the housing market of the single largest economy in the world.

I think its the Consumerist voters that deserve this shit.

Jeffrey Crenshaw
profile image
Very odd. Activision became more evil than EA a long time ago, and Zynga is the new hate trend. This is almost objective, and this is just limiting ourselves to the game industry. I wonder if consumer opinion of companies lags behind a bit, or if this is just fallout from the overreaction to ME3's ending.

I don't think the worst companies in game development could possibly be the worst companies in America without branching into more vital markets such as banking or oil drilling.

Bob Stevens
profile image
I doubt you could point to anything Activision does that EA doesn't do as badly or worse.

I don't have an opinion on Zynga.

Jeffrey Crenshaw
profile image
Off the top of my head, PR (look for good Kotick quotes from the recent past) and relying too much on franchises and not taking risks on new IP (Activision is worse than EA in these regards), then getting upset when others want to use what they passed on (Brutal Legend). Also laying off core talent that doesn't want their franchise to be milked into a vegetative state, and holding bonuses (performance bonuses for a game that has already shipped) over the heads of anyone thinking of joining them (then still having a talent exodus despite that).

Off the top of my head. There is room for discussion here if anyone wants to correct me or add to either side of the EA/Activision divide, but I strongly believe as a gaming enthusiast/developer that Activision has taken the torch from EA to become the new Evil Empire in recent (say past five) years, both factually and in public perception. But it's kind of like comparing Hitler to Stalin I suppose; I don't particularly feel passionate about defending either against the other.

If you want to form an opinion on Zynga, I suggest starting here: Do your own research if this is too biased against Zynga, but good luck finding anything good about them beyond them raising a few millions of dollars for charity (which they used as a marketing stunt for one of their games and kept half the earnings of, so more like profiting off of others misfortunes, when compared to their other habits).

Patrick Davis
profile image
Activision and Zynga weren't nominated. So, EA has the current spotlight. Though it's also interesting there were no oil companies nominated either. In the end it's just a internet poll that got some instant popularity since they had EA listed. Serious business.

Travis Griggs
profile image
"and continuing to sell its games with premium prices while other media like movies and music have become more affordable over the years."

So apparently, EA now sets the price for every other game company in the entire world. $60 dollars is standard, and PDLC is not exclusive to EA either. This whole competition is full of fail. They should of had the Game Industry as a whole in the bracket, instead of a single company.

E Zachary Knight
profile image
I wouldn't dump all the games industry under the same umbrella. There are a lot of great companies out there that actually care about their customers and actually want to improve gaming. They don't deserve any of the flak that EA, Activision, Ubisoft and their ilk get.

E Zachary Knight
profile image
I wouldn't dump all the games industry under the same umbrella. There are a lot of great companies out there that actually care about their customers and actually want to improve gaming. They don't deserve any of the flak that EA, Activision, Ubisoft and their ilk get.

Bob Johnson
profile image
EA deserves it. Well earned.

Travis Griggs
profile image
And how exactly do they deserve it? Most of the claims against them are false or standard in the industry.

1. NFL Exclusivity - The NFL wanted to work with one partner, be it EA, 2K, or anyone else. There was always only going to be one company making NFL games.

2. Price Gouging - This one is extremely Laughable to me. If they Sold there games for 70 while everyone else was at 60, than you may have an argument. PDLC is also a standard in the industry now(Also no one forces you to buy it...).

You have a very high opinion of companies who are actually price gouging. Funny how Oil companies post record profits each year, while the price of gas goes up. Who's really stealing money from consumers?

Zach Grant
profile image
I remember not buying EA games for quite some time due to their shenanigans. Although I do think Activision has taken the evil crown (Short sighted anti-consumer actions to gain money > customers). EA is just the evil prince now. Just off the top of my head...

1. Treating their employees like garbage (EA Spouse)
2. Buying companies who make amazing games and destroying them (Maxis, Bullfrog, West Wood)
3. Crap DRM on PC games (Spore with 3 life-time activations, SecureRom)

Anyone else have more?

And just because other companies do/did these things doesn't give EA a pass.

Craig Dolphin
profile image
My reasons for agreeing ea deserve it?

Endless drm shenanigans since me1 and spore
Numerous public statements where execs insultingly misrepresent/spin genuine customer feedback and ignore the meat of the issues being raised
Mandatory origin client requirement for me3 and other recent games
No opt-out for information gathering in origin Eula
Forum bans removing the ability to play single player content for some players
Multiplayer impacting the single player experience in me3
No price reductions over time for older dlc content for bioware games
Unrealistic timelines for developers (looking at you da2)

Basically, they're scum in my book. They disrespect the customers at every turn and do everything in their power to mdermone consumer rights.

Jeffrey Crenshaw
profile image
"Numerous public statements where execs insultingly misrepresent/spin genuine customer feedback and ignore the meat of the issues being raised"

You mean like:

"We're going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."


Todd Boyd
profile image
...and gamers said aloud in one, united voice, unshaken by the will of their oppressors, "WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND REALITY."

Daniel Martinez
profile image
I was under the impression Activision had taken the reigns from EA in this aspect along time ago.

Ken Nakai
profile image
Funny how there's no mention about how a large game development company that's had a track record of working their employees to the bone is getting called out for doing business like a lot of other game companies...I guess that's the Internet for you. Democracy is not necessarily the solution...

Tomas Majernik
profile image
Congratulations EA, well deserved!

This is for Bullforg and Dungeon Keeper, for Westwood and Command & Conquer and for all other gaming studios you ruined, as well as for Dragon Age 2 disaster you force Bioware to.

Tomas Majernik
profile image
"We're sure that bank presidents, oil, tobacco, and weapons companies are all relieved they weren't on the list this year."

Is there something bad about oil companies, tabacco companies or weapons companies? As long as they obey the law, have their licences and trade fair, there is nothing bad about them. This is why they can be established in the first place. Does selling tabacco to people who want to smoke by their own will making you bad? Or does selling weapons to national armies who can then defend their citizens from terrorists bad thing? Or does owning a bank make you a bad person or your comapny bad just because you are a bank? So talking about them like they were doing something illegal or bad in general without any evidence is... well EA style.

Hakim Boukellif
profile image
Evil is not defined as "breaking the law" nor does not breaking the law necessarily make you not evil. While those kinds of companies may not be inherently evil, they do end up on lists like this for good reason.

Banks and oil companies tend be large and powerful (both financially and politically) because modern society is very dependent on them, but unlike something like, for example, produce, the nature of their products doesn't allow for a lot of competition. That alone doesn't make one evil, but it's pretty much an inevitability.

Tobacco companies are just plain evil. They sell goods that do more harm than good by taking advantage of people's weaknesses. Yes, they are offering something there's demand for, but so are assassins. At least assassins don't artificially create more demand for themselves.

The problem with weapons companies is that to them, peace is bad for business.

Tomas Majernik
profile image
Oil companies and banks could be powerful, yes. They could even be monopolies. And if they are, that doesn`t mean they can do whatever they want or that they are all responsible for gas prices for example. Let me explain you how it works in my country (I belive it works like this almost everywhere). If out national monopol wants to increase the gas price, it first has to have approval by state. It has to tell the government what are the reasons behind this proposal. And belive me, many times they are denied. This is one example of how monopolies work. So only because there is a monopoly, it doesn`t make it is bad per se.

Tobacco companies are selling what people want them to sell - it is called market. If you are stupid and want something that will hurt you but at the same time won`t affect anybody else, here you are. I myself have never smoked and my friends know that when we go out to let`s say a restaurant, they go smoke elsewhere (and not at the table we drink/eat). If there is demand, there will be someone selling. I belive it is more about how rich the companies behind tobacoo are... Does money make you a bad person? I doubt that. I am however not defending any tobacco company. I am only saying, it is legal, they sell what do people want and if it doesn`t affect anybody else, it is business between tobacco companies and smokers, not mine.

Peace isn`t bad for weapons companies. They sell weapons to police so that state can enforce the law, protect citizens, they sell weapons to sportsmen, they sell weapons to huntsmen and so on. And these are not small markets...

So once again, pointing fingers here isn`t right.

Hakim Boukellif
profile image
It's not whether or not it's theoretically possible for these kinds of companies to act in a morally sound manner that's important here. What matters is what usually happens in practice.

With great financial power comes great ability to affect legislation. Even more so in countries where government officials are allowed to accept corporate donations. This is especially problematic with banks, which have a lot of responsibilities that get in the way of maximizing profits, and oil companies, which have to address a lot of ecological concerns they'd rather not.

As for tobacco, just because there demand for it and it's legal to sell doesn't make it not evil. Once again, legality does not equal morality. Most of the demand for tobacco exists because of its addictiveness. It wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that if nicotine suddenly stopped being addictive, the tobacco industry as we know it would collapse. In other words, tobacco companies aren't successful because they sell a product that happens to be harmful, they're successful because the product they sell is harmful (granted, this kind of harm is a bit different from the direct harm it has on the smoker and people in the near vicinity, but still).

While there is a demand for weapons in times of peace, it's still but a fraction of the demand that exists during times of conflict. So a weapons company that grows considerably during a war due to the increase in demand, would, after the war is over, either have scale down again or find some way of increasing demand. If they choose to do the latter, their interests are no longer aligned with the rest of society's.
Also, I very much doubt there are many hunters and sportsmen that use missiles and bombers.

Wylie Garvin
profile image
@Tomas Majernik: Bank presidents get hate because of the financial crisis of the last few years. Oil companies because of things like the BP spill and perceived price gouging. OTOH weapons companies are great, I don't know why anyone would hate on them, if there's one thing we can always use its better ways to kill each other.

Tomas Majernik
profile image
So you are saying that companies around oil, tobacco, weapons and bank themselves are guilty of being bad and evil per se?

Sorry, I can`t agree with that.

Ian Uniacke
profile image
@tomas: But EA is the evilest company of them all? Your logic is astounding.

Tomas Majernik
profile image
I am saying that defending with "oil and weapons companies are bad per se, they are worse than us" should be what you call "astounding logic". If you want to defend yourself, name particular company and say, what have they done. Don`t say, someone is bad just because what he is doing (and what is legel, regulated and fair).

Secondly, it is about which bad moves you can do in a particular business, with this or that company. Let`s say, you own an ice cream shop. There is no way for you to ruin the environment, or cheat people and take their life savings, or create worlds economical crisis. This however doesn`t make you a good company, because you can still sell bad product, you can threat your emplyees bad, you can ruin other ice cream shops in the town (like you can pay homeless people to sit there all day long so other people wouldn`t go there). On the other hand, you can own a big industrial company, creating things we use daily, doing research on how could we improve the product so it does less harm to the environment and so on. And if you do a little harm to the environemt by doing this, it doesn`t make you bad. What is more, in some cases it is legal. So it is about how bad things can you do in the particular business field.

Thirdly, I belive the appropriate reaction would be "ok, we are doing something bad, because a lot of people think we are the worst company around" and not "look at the others, they are worse than us!". This is why people voted EA as the worst comapny in the first place - because of their attitude and because of how they deal with their fans and customers.

Lastly, it is called the worst company award, not the most evil company or most harmful company to the environment. So it is up to the voters to decide what they consider bad in a particular field. Don`t put in my mouth that EA is the most evil company, I have never said that! Thanks. ;)

Gord Cooper
profile image
EA obeys the law and goes about their business, just like every other business out there. You can't possibly connect a company that creates video games, no matter how poorly you think they treat their consumers, to companies that mass-produce weapons designed specifically to kill human beings in mass quantity whatsoever.

The poll was ridiculous, and the reactions to EA's response are ridiculous. Whether or not you, subjectively, believe in EA's business practices or stances, to actually agree that they are 'worse' than companies that are actually affecting not only human lives in the short term, but the quality of life on our entire planet, you are absolutely insane.

If the poll was more specific like 'Worst place to work' or 'Worst treatment of customer base', et al, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on. However, putting a company that follows all practices laid out by not only the law, but by 3rd parties such as the Better Business Bureau against other companies that do just that, but produce products that are absolutely and objectively destructive is absurd.

EA's response was not 'childish', it was factual. They were voted 'Worst Company in America', what do you expect? They respond with 'Oh man, 250,000 people that voted in an online poll can't be wrong, there's not any way that this could be anything other than a heavily studied poll we need to do something about this, oh and your new Mass Effect ending is incoming, along with some free DLC for NHL 2011 god sorry guys'?

Let's be real, our industry was attacked, and people that don't have anything to do with the industry will see that 'award' was handed out, and have yet another piece of negative ammunition to use against us. Fantastic. Let's celebrate.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Kyle Redd
profile image
"If the poll was more specific like 'Worst place to work' or 'Worst treatment of customer base', et al, maybe you'd have a leg to stand on."

Keep in mind that the website is, which specifically highlights infractions against consumers by companies. So even though the title says "Worst company in the world," it's intended as worst treatment of customer base, as you have said it should.

And by the way, don't be so quick to claim that EA simply obeys the law and goes about their business. Their history with Origin, particulary the practice of deleting entire game libraries of those who make rude forum comments, is legally murky at best.

On top of that, that they would take someone's money paying for an "online pass" only to shut the servers down 30 days later (along with a ridiculous excuse about how the maintenance costs are just too burdensome to bear), is pretty abusive behavior indeed.

Wylie Garvin
profile image
The constant complaining against day-one DLC is also stupid and short-sighted. The best time to release DLC is right after the game ships, when the most consumers are buying it and playing it. Not six months later when most players have already moved on to something else. In most cases, the alternative to day-one DLC would probably be "no DLC at all, because it wouldn't make enough in sales to pay for itself." People who don't want to spend $10 for that extra content are free to not buy it and not play it. Sheesh!

Jack Lee
profile image
As has been thoroughly mentioned, putting EA ahead of BoA and a slew of other companies is frankly ridiculous. Also, I like EA. They have some practices I don't agree with, and they're definitely trying to make their franchises have more mass-market appeal, but them's the times, you know? Those games cost a lot to make, and they need more people to buy them every time. They probably won't be making super-deep strategy games anymore, but you can always look for that somewhere else. JR's EA is not the same one from 10, or even really 5 years ago. I think they're making progress.

Dean Boytor
profile image
Personally I don't care for EA in many aspects.
They tend to buy out more creative companies and then do nothing with their games, much like a comic book enthusiast who buys stuff and never opens them. For instance I still talk about Dungeon Keeper 2, made by Bullfrog which is now owned by EA. That game had potential to go to a 3rd installment, but I guess def jam was more important at the time...
I often wonder since they now own Pop cap if there will actually be another plants vs zombies. Unfortunately I feel if there is, a lot of it would fall victim to their DLC nonsense.

Overall, I feel EA relies more on milking a game dry when they have so much more potential to work on other things. I'm not saying that have never made a good game, but a lot of the time their award winning recipe seems to take a complete game, slice it into several "affordable" pieces and sell it back to you.

Harlan Sumgui
profile image
umm, its a fun unpopularity contest, you know like voting for homecoming queen except in reverse. The contest means nothing at all and the world wouldnt have changed no matter who 'won'.


Albert T
profile image

Gamers and techies crowd the Internet population, so I'm not surprised that this result steered toward EA.

I did not hear about this vote, and I'm pretty sure neither did John Doe who just got his house foreclosed and his AT&T phone bills raked up.

William Johnson
profile image
Man, I was hating EA before it was cool. Now I'm going to lose all my snarky hipster gamer cred.

But I can't help but feel people missed the point on why to hate EA. My biggest complaint is how they buy out great developers then shut them down or just plain ruin them. Pandemic, Origin Systems, Bullfrog, Maxis, Visceral Games (kind of), and I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of them off the top of my head.

And of course aside from gutting talent and wasting IPs, they are also pretty anti-consumer. They have a laundry list of anti-consumer policies such as DRM, online passes, closing servers down, banning users and having them lose access to the games they've already paid for, pulling their games from Steam, a monopoly on the NFL (odd how that happened right after 2K5 released and was about to change the whole business model for sports games), nickel and dime DLC practices (Bioware Points are dumb), and I just don't like them...

I thought EA was turning around a bit, when they had some more experimental titles like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space and even saved Brutal Legends from the trash bin, but sadly consumers didn't agree so EA went straight back to being evil, where they've been happily making money since. But can I blame EA for wanting to make money? Yes...yes I can...

Anyway, it actually is silly for EA to beat out Bank of America. While EA ruins games, Bank of America ruins lives. But on the other hand, Bank of America has already won this award, so I guess its nice to see a "changing of the guard."

And lastly, this contest is an interesting look at "first world problems." Clearly we value our entertainment more then our technology, economic establishments, and retailers. Is that shallow? Yeah, but is that really a surprise? What do American's spend most of their time doing? Recreation. We hold this entertainment in high regard, so we expect more from it. I mean, isn't that what we actually want? People to think video games are a real and serious media on par with books, TV, and movies? And to also want more from this media? I guess there is always, is that a good or bad thing? But I've written a lot of non-sense just that's a short essay for another day...

Michael Rooney
profile image
@"I thought EA was turning around a bit, when they had some more experimental titles like Mirror's Edge and Dead Space and even saved Brutal Legends from the trash bin, but sadly consumers didn't agree so EA went straight back to being evil, where they've been happily making money since. But can I blame EA for wanting to make money? Yes...yes I can..."

That wasn't that long ago. EA is still doing heaps better than they were in the late 90s/early 00s. I haven't really seen anything indicating a slide toward their old practices other than financial constraints which every game company has had in the past years. They just resurrected SSX and released Dead Space 2, SWTOR, and Battlefield 3 last year. SimCity, CnC, and Syndicate are both coming back under them, and they published KOA. I don't see why you think they're doing so poorly now as opposed to 3 years ago (when Brutal Legends launched).

Compared to Activision or defunct Team Bondi, EA is shiny imo. Not perfect, but I wouldn't consider them any worse than any company their size.

William Johnson
profile image
Just because Activision is worse then EA, doesn't make EA a saint. And Team Bondi is a developer, and EA is a publisher, so it is a little bit of apples and oranges there.

And the games you've listed from EA I think are actually pretty good examples of what is wrong with EA (and publishers in general) today. Did Dead Space 2 REALLY need multiplayer? I think I'd have been a lot happier with scrapping multiplayer and bringing back boss fights and having less copy-&-pasted rooms.

And I haven't tried the new SSX, Syndicate, Battlefield, etc, just because EA used up all their good will on me. Its a real shame, 'cause I love Starbreeze, and I think that new Syndicate game is probably really good. But that ship has sailed.

I did play a week of SWTOR before it came out (preordered but never picked up the game). And while it was fun, I could feel the nickel and diming just around the corner. Maybe its just because I don't trust EA...but I really don't trust EA... So I'm very sure a pay to win model on top of the monthly fee is just around the corner. Odds are HK-51 will be paid DLC, I can already see EA wanting to monetise everything we have even the slightest emotional attachment too. And as a consumer, I don't like to be manipulated. And as a human being I don't like others to be manipulated.

So yeah, I'm not giving EA my money, and I do think I should tell people to not give their money to EA too. But will that have any real effect? Their stock prices have been going down for a few months now...but correlation is not always causation. But I'm pretty narcissistic, so I'd like to think I'm helping.

Craig Timpany
profile image
People voted for EA because the banks et al. acted according to people's low expectations. On the other hand, EA has been behind a number of unexpected and memorable annoyances.

One thing I've learned putting games on the app store is that you shouldn't expect a layperson's rating to have a sense of perspective. People rate based on their emotional response - whether a company or a game exceeds or fails to meet expectations.

There's a reason why we pay reviewers. It takes time and effort to form knowledge about every alternative and fit that into a framework for comparison. If it's not your speciality, you probably won't bother.

Patrik W
profile image
On a B2B level, my previous company did several joint projects with them and we never had any issues. We got paid in time - something that is everything but common these days and the work environment was always good. The EA VPs I dealt with have been very professional and correct and I have only good things to say about EA staff I met in person - and I met quite a few. As a consumer of EA's products I complained about a game that would not run on my PC after purchasing it from STEAM, EA/Popcap replaced it within 2 days. Yes, I think Ppl have reasons to complain, though I have none. Just my 2 cents

John Flush
profile image
I really think EA represents the direction gaming is taking in general. Micro-transactions, DLC price inflation of games, yearly (or more often if you count DLC) sequels... I wouldn't really chalk this up as pure EA hate, but more hate of the industry is attracting by pissing on gamers expectations and taking away the ability to play games on their own terms.

Is it as evil as a Bank that swindles people out of their houses? of course not, but the internet continues to speak out against EA's, and the industry's, business practices. Maybe someone will listen... maybe.

Jason Chen
profile image
Man, I didn't know EA is the only game company in this world.
you guys have nothing against over priced gas, evil banks, ,....etc.

Brett Williams
profile image
Assuming the majority of voters are 18-25 they probably have at most 10 years experience with EA. While having minimal years experience working with banks, loans, mortgages, gas prices, etc. Average age of driving is 15-16, most people don't purchase a house until they are in their 20s.

As Craig mentions it's a matter of emotional response based on expectations. People have different expectations due to more experience and time to build them.

Just my thoughts. I think EA is doing fine and have released and helped publish some very fun games so far this year.

Will Buck
profile image
Had a long discussion about this with a friend of mine. I don't by any means much like some of the DLC and DRM tactics being implemented these days (by EA or the other giants), but this really is a travesty of a poll.

Other corporations are *considerably* more evil than an entertainment business that customers loudly protest, yet regularly hand money over to. If you don't like it, stop buying it. It is not a necessity of life to have EA's games, there's plenty of other good games out there.

If you don't have enough of a problem with it to stop buying it, please be quiet so others have an opportunity to be loud about more pressing issues.

profile image
I don't like EA because of DRM, and Origin. I want to be able to play Sim City on STEAM and have DLC on STEAM. I don't want Origin plain and simple.

Bob Johnson
profile image
This isn't about who committed the worst crime in the annals of corporate history.

It is just recognition given to a company that always seems to fall on the shadey side of mediocrity both with its product and its attitude towards its customers.

EA just seems to use a different business model than a Valve or Blizzard or Nintendo.

EA uses business tactics to sell games instead of simply making great games and letting them breathe and building up goodwill so consumers come back to them again and again.

It is a subtle difference. It isn't black and white. Obviously they have purchased studios that made great games.

To EA though a game is just another slab of plastic on the shelf. They don't feel confident enough in making great games so they resort to marketing and monopolizing and retail relationships to sell their product. To EA a game is a golden goose that needs to be strangled until it dies in order to spit out as many golden eggs in as short amount of time as possible. When that goose dies they go on the prowl for another.

EA seems to lack the honor or history or .....well ....soul that a Blizzard, Valve or Nintendo have.

There was a time when EA was Electronic Arts. And they were revered. But no more.

Their culture is one of product. One of business. One of not trusting their customers so let us milk them now with every cheap tactic we can.

This doesn't mean we completely stay away. They bought Dice who makes my favorite game Battlefield. Luckily DICE is still in Sweden. Probably helps them stay away a bit from corporate. If I want to play that game I have to buy an EA game. So I do it even if I think they are light on the patch support and have some silly Origin requirements etc.

Fred Marcoux
profile image
This just shows Gamers have too much time on their hands and wasted it on this survey....