Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Rogue Redeemer
retired moderator
#26 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 4:34 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
...

Whaaaaat. In what way does having games that allow same-sex pairings make a company overall good?


Yeah if THAT is the best argument they could come up with...

EA just plain sucks.
Advertisement
Scholar
#27 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 4:39 PM
EA voted worst company? Hmm, not surprising...

THE CAT HAIR WIZARD
Alchemist
#28 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 5:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by purexevil666
i think simmers actually voted for them i didn't vote but i'm glad they won..


Simmers and disgruntled Dragon Age fans.
Top Secret Researcher
#29 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 5:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
...

Whaaaaat. In what way does having games that allow same-sex pairings make a company overall good?


Yeah, especially since it is a life simulator and same sex partners are a part of life, like it or not. What they did was expected, not special.
Instructor
#30 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 5:56 PM
The thing that DEFINETLY contributed to EA winning that "accolade" is the fact that they worship the almighty dollar.

Showtime and Sweet Temptations are possible the two most blantant money grab attempts by EA. Instead of making another EP worth getting, They made a BS EP and now a BS Stuff Pack endorsed by a pop star that worships candy, just so they can make a quick buck. IMHO we need another "Pets" style EP, that, Generations and Late Night were probably the only Sims 3 EPs made from the heart, for the fans. WA and Ambitions would have been better if they were more functional, BUT Showtime and Katy Perry's Sweet Temptations were made for one purpose. Money.

I know these are desperate times, but it shouldn't have to be THIS desperate.
Forum Resident
#31 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 7:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by cameranutz2
Yes, please do continue to make games that are released prematurely so that players world wide can vote for your greedy asses again next year because you'd rather make a buck than a quality product.

Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
Not to mention that this forum proves that just because people are buying and using the games don't mean they're fully (if at all) satisfied-- ... Same principle here: sales do not equate consumer love.

People vote with their wallets. They may also come online and vote in polls like these, but what the company really cares about is how people vote with their wallets... and the wallet-poll shows very different results than the online poll. Corporations are legally obligated to make profit. If their shoddy service and poor online publicity does not, in fact, reduce profits, what incentive do they actually have to improve?

(Note also, lest someone veiled remark about taking away the wallet voting via piracy: piracy is another form of approval, one that takes away your moral high ground as a consumer. It tells EA--or whomever-- that their stuff is desirable and they are awesome, but you are just a lazy/broke/unethical cretin who steals their IP. Moar SecuROM et al!)

Anyway, at least it shows us exactly where we stand with EA and exactly what their corporate culture is like: money uber alles, workmanship somewhere near the bottom.

Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
It doesn't matter if 300 million people are using your services; if a significant enough amount vote you WORST COMPANY IN AMERICA, something is wrong.

On the other hand, it's not like internet voting systems aren't known for being troll-heavy and biased. And people never bother to circumvent 1-vote restrictions, let alone write little scripts that repeatedly spam the poll results, nosiree. And it's not like this thing was shared across all kinds of EA-loathing gaming communities, speaking to a potentially small but vocal group (the problem with internet polls is that only the people who care enough about the topic participate). How many other companies have thousands of online networks and forums dedicated to discussing their services and products?

The official response was surprisingly blithe (and definitely defensive in the deflection to more notoriously "evil," though not uncalled for, either), but you really can't be surprised by a spokesperson a)saying only good things about the company they're paid to say good things about, and b)not giving a huge amount of credence to such a thing in the first place, given all the aforementioned Wallet and Internet unreliability factors.

Quote: Originally posted by rian90
Yeah, especially since it is a life simulator and same sex partners are a part of life, like it or not. What they did was expected, not special.

I dunno, there's still not exactly a welcoming atmosphere in the US towards same-sex relationships. Orientation is still not a protected class against discrimination, lots of states don't just avoid same-sex marriage but actively reject it--enshrined in their state constitutions, no less, and so on. It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.
Top Secret Researcher
#32 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 9:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.


EA is in California and most of its employees are young people. I also suspect that most of it's customers are under 40...although there are a lot of older Sim players. Those demographics are in the US consistently poll as in favor of marriage rights for same-sex partners. So EA allowing this in the game is not altruistic. It is expected as well as good business. I don't give them accolades for this since it is something they just should do. I would not be happy if they put something in the game to disallow it...but that doesn't mean they are 'better' because they do. To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.
Alchemist
#33 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 9:16 PM Last edited by calisims : 5th Apr 2012 at 9:41 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by rian90
EA is in California and most of its employees are young people. I also suspect that most of it's customers are under 40...although there are a lot of older Sim players. Those demographics are in the US consistently poll as in favor of marriage rights for same-sex partners. So EA allowing this in the game is not altruistic. It is expected as well as good business. I don't give them accolades for this since it is something they just should do. I would not be happy if they put something in the game to disallow it...but that doesn't mean they are 'better' because they do. To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.


Brightman didn't mention Sims in his comment about same sex relationships in EA games, he just cited BioWare titles like Dragon Age, Mass Effect and SWTOR. And for what it's worth, those same sex relationships were in ME and DA before EA took over BioWare, so the credit for that belongs to them, not EA.
Even so, it does take some guts for a game company to include same sex relationships when they could just as easily not. Even if a majority of their customers are for same sex marriage, those customers won't be offended enough by games that only include hetero relationships to not buy them. Whereas there is a vocal minority who will boycott a game if it includes gay relationships.
Again, none of this excuses anything else EA does or makes them a 'good' company. But I think they deserve some credit for doing something progressive that a lot of other games just don't bother with for fear of alienating customers.
Field Researcher
#34 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 9:53 PM
While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-gay-hate-mail/

Simulis
απολαυστικά κακό
Site Helper
#35 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 10:16 PM
Indeed. There's no evidence that they were voted for (against?) because of their tolerant attitudes towards gays. But it sure does make them sound like the heroes of the story, doesn't it?

Great spin. I hope that it doesn't work.
Alchemist
#36 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 10:24 PM
Quote: Originally posted by PoisonFrog
While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-gay-hate-mail/


Wow, I was not aware of that, and that does truly suck of EA to try to spin this that way. While they have taken some heat for including gay characters and relationships, there's no way they won the worst company of the year for it. If you go to the BioWare forum right now, the whole Mass Effect section is full of people screaming about the ending of the game, and not a peep about the gay characters.
I was just responding to the conversation that was going on about how having same sex relationships in games is no big deal and is to be expected, because I don't think we've come that far yet.
Instructor
#37 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 11:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
People vote with their wallets. They may also come online and vote in polls like these, but what the company really cares about is how people vote with their wallets... and the wallet-poll shows very different results than the online poll. Corporations are legally obligated to make profit. If their shoddy service and poor online publicity does not, in fact, reduce profits, what incentive do they actually have to improve?


The incentive of being, you know, decent and honest people. As far as I can tell, the whole point of a "worst company" poll is to find what company is least liked, not what company is least profitable.

Quote:
(Note also, lest someone veiled remark about taking away the wallet voting via piracy: piracy is another form of approval, one that takes away your moral high ground as a consumer. It tells EA--or whomever-- that their stuff is desirable and they are awesome, but you are just a lazy/broke/unethical cretin who steals their IP. Moar SecuROM et al!)

Anyway, at least it shows us exactly where we stand with EA and exactly what their corporate culture is like: money uber alles, workmanship somewhere near the bottom.


Including this just to prove I'm not ignoring it; I don't see anything I don't agree with, and it doesn't seem to be arguing against me.

Quote:
On the other hand, it's not like internet voting systems aren't known for being troll-heavy and biased. And people never bother to circumvent 1-vote restrictions, let alone write little scripts that repeatedly spam the poll results, nosiree. And it's not like this thing was shared across all kinds of EA-loathing gaming communities, speaking to a potentially small but vocal group (the problem with internet polls is that only the people who care enough about the topic participate). How many other companies have thousands of online networks and forums dedicated to discussing their services and products?


So the reasonable response to a large internet poll ranking you worst company is "oh, votes can be faked and also might not be the majority" as opposed to "okay, let's see where these guys are coming from and analyze why people might think this way"?

Quote:
The official response was surprisingly blithe (and definitely defensive in the deflection to more notoriously "evil," though not uncalled for, either), but you really can't be surprised by a spokesperson a)saying only good things about the company they're paid to say good things about, and b)not giving a huge amount of credence to such a thing in the first place, given all the aforementioned Wallet and Internet unreliability factors.


Maybe it's just me, but the sarcastic "haha these people are so silly, so many people love us" response is just out of line. They don't have to go "oh man we so deserve this!", but the response gives no indication that they care in the least about the poll, which is wrong--if a large poll votes you worst company in America, there is somereason for it and to outwardly dismiss it is a poor attitude.

Quote:
I dunno, there's still not exactly a welcoming atmosphere in the US towards same-sex relationships. Orientation is still not a protected class against discrimination, lots of states don't just avoid same-sex marriage but actively reject it--enshrined in their state constitutions, no less, and so on. It in no way makes up for anything else EA has done (nor do I think the author was suggesting it did by mentioning it), but I wouldn't throw it in the 'meaningless' heap, either.


Admirable views /=/ good games, good customer service, etc. etc. It's a good thing to have games with same-sex relationships, but that doesn't mean the games are not shoddily made. It's like saying "ooh, we have great graphics!" when someone asks if the game is fun.

I promise I'm not as grumpy as my avatar looks.
Forum Resident
#38 Old 5th Apr 2012 at 11:46 PM Last edited by Tempscire : 6th Apr 2012 at 12:11 AM. Reason: adding reply
Quote: Originally posted by rian90
EA is in California and most of its employees are young people.

California...the state that by popular vote removed the right to gay marriage in 2008 and has not yet actually restored it.

Quote:
To use this as the reason they are 'better' than other companies seems very condescending to people fighting for their rights.

Who's saying that it makes them better than other companies? Or even "good" overall? It's one positive thing that the author in the original link felt was worth mentioning as an aside. I guess EA themselves might be trying to imply that by publicizing the anti-gay hatemail they've been receiving, but I can't blame them for trying to do damage control, and if there's anything good or decent they've done (in the vast sea of their terrible bullshit), they deserve credit for it. Giving them that credit in no way negates any of the other very valid criticisms leveled against them, nor does it remove from them the burden of actually addressing any of that criticism (thus far they haven't even been shown to take it seriously).

ETA
Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
The incentive of being, you know, decent and honest people. As far as I can tell, the whole point of a "worst company" poll is to find what company is least liked, not what company is least profitable. ... So the reasonable response to a large internet poll ranking you worst company is "oh, votes can be faked and also might not be the majority" as opposed to "okay, let's see where these guys are coming from and analyze why people might think this way"?

No, their response to this was still inadequate, I think. I'm just saying that from their POV, it's not unreasonable to figure: "profit = people buying our games = people approving of our company (at least enough that they aren't boycotting) = keep on trucking." So they apparently aren't liked-- actively hated, in fact. Yet those who say they hate EA must apparently keep buying games from them. If (love of game) < (hate of EA), they still come out ahead and have no motivation to change.

There are some financial incentives to behaving in a good and decent way (like tax breaks for charitable donations), but corporations have 1 function in life: maximize shareholder value. They are legally required to do everything they (legally) can to fulfill this. If being good and decent out of the goodness of their hearts cuts into the bottom line, then being good is actually bad for the company. Now, ideally, when they act like jerks, their bottom line would go down and they'd be incentivized to be good to bring it back up. However, if that doesn't happen, is it any surprise when they keep on being jerks? And no, that's not an excuse, and that does not make it acceptable behavior on their parts. But it's easy to say "why don't corporations just ...!" without recognizing the larger system they are part of that actively discourages them from doing such things, as well as ignoring the role consumers can play in shaping corporate behavior and policy.

Quote:
I don't see anything I don't agree with, and it doesn't seem to be arguing against me.

I was just trying to preemptively address that argument before anyone tried making it, since there's usually at least one person who likes to wink-nudge about how they haven't been paying.

Quote:
Admirable views /=/ good games, good customer service, etc. etc. It's a good thing to have games with same-sex relationships, but that doesn't mean the games are not shoddily made. It's like saying "ooh, we have great graphics!" when someone asks if the game is fun.

I agree. I just didn't feel that an aside given in the final paragraph was an attempt at whitewashing EA's deeds or distracting from their terrible service record. If I were writing an article on how much EA sucks, I'd probably throw that in, too, just to show I'm not deliberately ignoring anything positive in order to better demonize them, if nothing else. :p
And all the maladies of the world burst forth from Pandora's cooch
#39 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 12:23 AM
Quote: Originally posted by PoisonFrog
While I would agree that their LGBT stance is one of their few redeeming qualities, isn't that negated when they use these people as a human shield, when called out on their business practices?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...-gay-hate-mail/
Interesting article. But one has to wonder, did Maxis recieve any hate mail for including same sex relationships in the original Sims? Even if they did receive some, they still didn't use it as an excuse to talk away some bad press by trying to make themselves a victim.
Forum Resident
#40 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 12:29 AM
Ha! EA covering their shoddy bums by pulling the LGBT card. EA, I'm genuinely offended.
Instructor
#41 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 12:57 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
No, their response to this was still inadequate, I think. I'm just saying that from their POV, it's not unreasonable to figure: "profit = people buying our games = people approving of our company (at least enough that they aren't boycotting) = keep on trucking." So they apparently aren't liked-- actively hated, in fact. Yet those who say they hate EA must apparently keep buying games from them. If (love of game) < (hate of EA), they still come out ahead and have no motivation to change.

There are some financial incentives to behaving in a good and decent way (like tax breaks for charitable donations), but corporations have 1 function in life: maximize shareholder value. They are legally required to do everything they (legally) can to fulfill this. If being good and decent out of the goodness of their hearts cuts into the bottom line, then being good is actually bad for the company. Now, ideally, when they act like jerks, their bottom line would go down and they'd be incentivized to be good to bring it back up. However, if that doesn't happen, is it any surprise when they keep on being jerks? And no, that's not an excuse, and that does not make it acceptable behavior on their parts. But it's easy to say "why don't corporations just ...!" without recognizing the larger system they are part of that actively discourages them from doing such things, as well as ignoring the role consumers can play in shaping corporate behavior and policy.


It seems we are coming from different perspectives, then: I'm more concerned with EA should be acting from a moral standpoint, as opposed to the business standpoint.


[quote[I was just trying to preemptively address that argument before anyone tried making it, since there's usually at least one person who likes to wink-nudge about how they haven't been paying. [/quote]

Ah, okay.


Quote:
I agree. I just didn't feel that an aside given in the final paragraph was an attempt at whitewashing EA's deeds or distracting from their terrible service record. If I were writing an article on how much EA sucks, I'd probably throw that in, too, just to show I'm not deliberately ignoring anything positive in order to better demonize them, if nothing else. :p


Probably me being stupid because my heads not wrapping itself around what you mean here. As far as I can tell, though, I agree.

I promise I'm not as grumpy as my avatar looks.
Instructor
#42 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 1:24 AM
Because allowing same-sex relationships in games makes up for all the crap EA has done... Right.

I just laughed when my husband told me about this earlier. Well done, EA. You definitely deserve it! :3
Scholar
#43 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 3:04 AM
Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
Not to mention that this forum proves that just because people are buying and using the games don't mean they're fully (if at all) satisfied


No kidding. The people who bought and paid for Mass Effect 3 and then LOST THEIR FREAKING MINDS at the ending are counted in that 300 million and I'd bet they'd vote for EA being the worst company right now.

Snickerson: a Random Legacy Challenge. There are zebras involved. Zebras.
Forum Resident
#44 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 4:43 AM
Quote: Originally posted by EmotedLlama
It seems we are coming from different perspectives, then: I'm more concerned with EA should be acting from a moral standpoint, as opposed to the business standpoint.

I agree that they should be acting in a more ethical way. I'm just not surprised when they (general 'they'...pretty much any big corporation) don't, and in fact pretty much expect them not to because a lot of the time, it doesn't really make sense for them to do so. Plenty of other big companies obviously manage to better than EA at so many things, so it's not even as if "ethical/polite/considerate" behavior has to be at odds with a company's financial responsibilities.

In conclusion, there are reasons why EA is the way it is and its spokespeople say what they say beyond just "what a conglomeration of incompetent a-holes." It doesn't excuse them, of course, but it's a slightly more complex system overall than it's usually treated as in discussions of this ilk.

Quote:
Probably me being stupid because my heads not wrapping itself around what you mean here. As far as I can tell, though, I agree.

It sounded to me like some people were of the opinion that the article linked to in the very first post of the thread ended with a note about EA's GLBT stance in an effort to excuse EA's dickery. I was just saying that it didn't seem to have that much emphasis or intent to excuse, and in any event, acknowledging that they're 98% fail instead of 100% fail is not a terribly insulting thing. Somewhere in there people shared other article links about EA trying to do spin on their reputation by bringing up their good record in one other area. *shrug*
Alchemist
#45 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 2:16 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Zokugai
No kidding. The people who bought and paid for Mass Effect 3 and then LOST THEIR FREAKING MINDS at the ending are counted in that 300 million and I'd bet they'd vote for EA being the worst company right now.


It's pretty sad that with all the dickery EA is guilty of, the thing that would motivate people to vote them worst company evah would be their outrage at a lame ending for a game. It really trivializes the issue.
Top Secret Researcher
#46 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 2:52 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
California...the state that by popular vote removed the right to gay marriage in 2008 and has not yet actually restored it.


Learn where the money came back for that 'vote'. It did not come from California.
Instructor
#47 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 4:09 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Tempscire
I agree that they should be acting in a more ethical way. I'm just not surprised when they (general 'they'...pretty much any big corporation) don't, and in fact pretty much expect them not to because a lot of the time, it doesn't really make sense for them to do so. Plenty of other big companies obviously manage to better than EA at so many things, so it's not even as if "ethical/polite/considerate" behavior has to be at odds with a company's financial responsibilities.

In conclusion, there are reasons why EA is the way it is and its spokespeople say what they say beyond just "what a conglomeration of incompetent a-holes." It doesn't excuse them, of course, but it's a slightly more complex system overall than it's usually treated as in discussions of this ilk.


Definitely. It's really a shame it isn't simpler.


Quote:
It sounded to me like some people were of the opinion that the article linked to in the very first post of the thread ended with a note about EA's GLBT stance in an effort to excuse EA's dickery. I was just saying that it didn't seem to have that much emphasis or intent to excuse, and in any event, acknowledging that they're 98% fail instead of 100% fail is not a terribly insulting thing. Somewhere in there people shared other article links about EA trying to do spin on their reputation by bringing up their good record in one other area. *shrug*


I see that, and agree with it, but personally I don't think that's important enough to excuse much at all, due to its overall difference. (Like the whole graphics/gameplay analogy I made--good graphics are great, but aren't going to largely sway my opinion when it gets down to it.)

I promise I'm not as grumpy as my avatar looks.
Mad Poster
#48 Old 6th Apr 2012 at 4:13 PM
lmfao that's hilarious. I do think that EA takes too much credit for the Sims though. At this point they are just milking the hell out of a huge franchise and ripping people off really badly.
Field Researcher
#49 Old 26th May 2012 at 2:17 AM
I wonder is Comcast on their list..what they do is just as bad as EA (also apparently illegal but of course the govt doesn't care so why should they care about what EA does)
how bout Virgin Mobile..I don't know if they've improved but last I checked they were right there with them.

if anything EA probly likes this publicity. they would be dumb like that..they might even think that somehow it would get them more money.
Theorist
#50 Old 26th May 2012 at 9:12 AM
So I'm assuming that EA would rather create trashy games and watch as the dumb haters with too much cash in hand purchase their products to complain, rather than making something good that people would actually LIKE.
Page 2 of 3
Back to top