EA Repeats As 'Worst Company In America'

An anonymous reader writes "Electronic Arts has successfully defended its title as the 'Worst Company In America.' Consumerist finished its annual tournament for bad companies, pitting notorious companies against each other in a single-elimination bracket where readers vote on which is worse. EA won last year, and today Consumerist announced the results of this year's final vote. EA was voted worse than Bank of America by 78% of participants. 'A made a royal mess of the SimCity release by failing to foresee that the people who would buy the game — and who would, per the game's design, be required to connect to the EA servers — might actually want to play at some point in the week after making their purchase. But that's just the latest in EA's long history of annoying its customer base with bad support.' Of course, EA saw this coming, and its CEO pre-emptively responded last Friday. Of course, many of his explanations and promises rang hollow for gamers who are sick of the company's practices: 'Until EA stops sucking the blood out of games in order to make uninspiring sequels, or at least until they begin caring about how much gamers hate their lack of respect for our money and intelligence, this is going to continue. We don't hate them because we're homophobes, we hate them because they destroy companies we love. We hate them because they release poor games. We hate them because they claim our hate doesn't matter as long as we give them our money.'"

Comments

Simple

[Locke2005]

Your hate doesn't matter as long as you keep giving them your money. Here's an idea: stop giving them your money!!!

Re:Simple

[tatman]

mod this up.

Re:Simple

[eksith]

Rephrase: Better to be rich than loved

If people showed their disapproval with money rather than vitriol on social media, EA would have been a completely different company... or out of business.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Your hate doesn't matter as long as you keep giving them your money. Here's an idea: stop giving them your money!!!

1. I haven't bought an EA game in years.
2. If everyone follows my example, they won't change their policies, they'll blame it on piracy.

Re:Simple

[j00r0m4nc3r]

You may not realize this, but the vast majority of the population doesn't read gamer blogs or Slashdot daily, if ever. Ideas like this take time to pervade society...

Re:Simple

[eksith]

I'm not so sure about #2. There are now quantitative (though, not comprehensive) ways of measuring piracy these days. Researchers would debunk a claim like that in short order, I think.

But I'm pretty sure if EA keeps going the same direction, #1 will be followed by more and more people. Likewise, I feel indie studios/developers will be getting more exposure.

Re:Simple

[TWiTfan]

No only that, but it seems like everyone is either selling their company to them or working for them. I realize that companies go under and people need work, but if they end up owning all the decent IP, there is going to be nowhere else to turn BUT to buy from EA.

Re:Simple

[Merk42]

GPs point isn't that people are ignorant of the reasons to dislike EA, it's that they come out and say they dislike them by voting in the "Worst Company in America", but don't act as if they dislike them by not buying their games.

Re:Simple

[interkin3tic]

You present that idea as if it hasn't been around about EA for years. It's done nothing.

The gaming market is largely children or teenagers who are too young to know they deserve better. They're the ones throwing $60 at whatever game their friends are playing as soon as it hits, and they're the ones who will buy the rest of the game in DLC if they have any money left. Consumer action that excludes them is never going to cause EA to change: they're way too profitable. Consumer action that DOES include them... doesn't happen because again, they have no patience and don't know they can demand better.

And, truth be told, I'm deeply skeptical that any demographic really "votes with their wallet" with their own interests in mind.

Re:Simple

[Whatsmynickname]

Here's the problem with this capitalistic idea. For every person who uses logic and reason and does not buy a (multi-player) game because it's not supported well, there are at least nine people standing behind him with cash already pulled out of their wallet ready to buy the game. Why? Because they want to play with their buddies, and all their buddies (especially the alpha ones) all are on-line playing that game. So in spite of all the game's and company's flaws, all logic and reason goes out the window, the game is purchased over and over and capitalism falls apart.

This strategy has worked wonders for the Xbox 360. I've seen people who's Xbox die over and over go out and buy a brand new console so they can continue to play Call of Duty with their friends, because the social aspect of the game is the most important thing to them

Re:Simple

[ChronoFish]

No fricken duh.

Stop the bitching, moaning and complaining. Vote with your dollars or buck up.

-CF

Re:Simple

[PRMan]

I often tell my kids, "I can only vote with my dollars."

One day, my 13-year-old responded, "But dad, if everyone did that, they would go out of business. So why don't they?"

Exactly.

Re:Simple

[Phreakiture]

I, for one, haven't given them money since their logo consisted of a cube, a sphere and a tetrahedron and the software ran on 6510s.

Re:Simple

[Hatta]

The gaming market is largely children or teenagers who are too young to know they deserve better.

The age of the average gamer is 30.

They're the ones throwing $60 at whatever game their friends are playing as soon as it hits

How do you figure that children have more disposable income than adults?

I agree with the rest of your analysis. I just blame adults who don't know any better instead of children who don't know any better.

Re:Simple

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

To paraphrase Homer Simpson: To be loved you have to be nice to people...all the time! To be hated you don't have to do squat.

Re:Simple

[gstoddart]

If people showed their disapproval with money rather than vitriol on social media, EA would have been a completely different company... or out of business.

Sadly, in the modern context, they'd go to lawmakers and say that piracy is killing their business, and then concoct some scheme to make someone else pay them. They'd produce fake statistics and graphs to support their position. Kind of what the *AAs did.

Companies are incapable of thinking "Gee, have we pissed off our customers", and go straight to lobbying to make sure their revenue stream is untouchable.

I'm just not confident that a modern corporation would be capable of recognizing and responding to an actual boycott of their products.

Ads showing up in EA games on my XBox is what made me disconnect it from the network, and why it sounds like I won't be buying an XBox 720 because of the always on internet requirement.

I seriously doubt they'd be able to arrive at the conclusion that the reason their product is not selling is because of their own behavior.

I can pretty much tell you right now, XBox 720 has already lost any chance of a sale from me, and by extension, so has EA. Which is a shame, because Tiger Woods is one of the few video games I actually play. Many of us don't play on-line games, and see no value for us in having a gaming console connect to the internet.

Re:Simple

[tompaulco]

1. I haven't bought an EA game in years. 2. If everyone follows my example, they won't change their policies, they'll blame it on piracy.

Not if you (and therefore everybody) in addition to not buying it, also don't pirate it. A game company can tell if there is just nobody playing at all. No support calls, nothing in forums anywhere. It would be obvious that just nobody was playing the game legitimately or illegitimately.

Re:Simple

[Tough Love]

Don't think hate matters, hmm? Check this out:

            EA flat on its back

Set to "all". Note the hate effect.

Re:Simple

[Baloroth]

It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.

Re:Simple

[king neckbeard]

Sure, there are decent ways of measuring infringement and the underlying cause, but when has a major copyright holding corporation ever done such a thing. It's far easier to make your point when you just fabricate numbers.

Re:Simple

[interkin3tic]

The gaming market is largely children or teenagers who are too young to know they deserve better.

The age of the average gamer is 30.

Quite right, but the amount of profit isn't a normal distribution across age. The younger half of the gaming audience has more spare time, and buys more games than those of us who work full time or have kids. They vote more often with their wallet than the rest of us do. "The gaming market" wasn't quite clear. I should have said something more along the lines of "the biggest customers" or "the most demographic that is most profitable for gaming companies." Kind of like how the average age of people who listen to music isn't anywhere near 15, but because teenagers spend the most money on music, the target audience IS closer to 15 than 30.

They're the ones throwing $60 at whatever game their friends are playing as soon as it hits

How do you figure that children have more disposable income than adults? I agree with the rest of your analysis. I just blame adults who don't know any better instead of children who don't know any better.

I don't know that they do have more disposable income. I'm basing this largely on who I saw in the store when I was working at gamestop about 10 years ago. It was all kids. I've been on xbox live more recently, and judging from that, it hasn't really changed. In high school, I wasted most of my free time on whatever crappy games I could afford. In college, I could spend 90 hours in a few weeks playing through every Final Fantasy through completely. These days, a 10 hour game like Dead Space takes me a month to finish. I have about an hour of free time a night maybe.

Re:Simple

[Darinbob]

Better to be rich and loved.

Re:Simple

[compro01]

Researchers would debunk a claim like that in short order, I think.

When has a debunking ever stopped unscrupulous organizations from continuing the use the same bullshit, possibly under a different name?

Re:Simple

[DutchUncle]

all logic and reason goes out the window, . . . and capitalism falls apart.

No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't. Economists also fail to factor in the multiple competing interests involved, like "How much cash will I burn so I can play with my friends". If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.

Re: Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You are doing a good job teaching them why libertarianism ultimately leads to a hypercapitalist dystopia. The vast majority of people making up "the market" are not informed, do not want to become informed, and probably cannot become informed in any meaningful way for any appreciable percentage of the product categories they participate in.

You might be the smartest, most savvy consumer around, always rationally voting with your dollars--but most people aren't, and they're going to dilute your good choices with their bad, uninformed, irrational or random ones.

Re:Simple

[The Moof]

This is also the reason that EA won over, say, BofA. The majority of the population doesn't notice EA's shenanigans, but banks tend to have a direct (and larger) impact in their lives.

Re: Simple

[Opportunist]

Hey, you act as if it was different in politics. The only difference is that rich people get more say when it comes to voting with your... erh ... never mind. It IS the same.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

"The world is full of stupid people son."

Re:Simple

[Colonel Korn]

It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.

You're assuming that their business model is rooted in a capitalist economy. You couldn't be more wrong. See also: "Too big to fail," vendor lock-in, copyright, patent troll, "right to profit"...

You're arguing that EA will be bailed out because the government sees its continued existence as too important to jeopardize?

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

To paraphrase Machiavelli, “it is much safer to be feared than loved because ...love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails.”

In other words, to be loved by your players, you'd have to deliver good games, again and again, to be feared, all you have to do is threaten to pull the plug on that authentication server and they'll shut up.

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

As if. In this time and age, voting with your money fails on more than one level.

What happens when you vote with your money and don't buy their crap anymore? Didn't we learn anything of the antics of the RIAA, and later the MPAA? Their products sucked, we turned away from their overhyped crap and went on with our lives, we voted with our money. So now they claim it's not that we don't buy their stuff anymore because it sucks, no, it has to be that we're accessing it illegally. You really think EA's reaction would be any different if people just up and went away, if people ignored their latest and greatest invention because they already know how bland, nondescript and simply not worth the money their "Whatever 2013" will be? You think they'd go "gee, maybe we overdid it, we should reconsider and try to offer what people want so they'll buy it again".

No, the reaction would simply be "they don't buy it, so they pirate it. Lobbying machine to the rescue, we need laws to prop us up".

And they'll get them.

Where's that delusion coming from that we're still living in a capitalist world?

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

Facts? Oh c'mon, we've never let facts come in the way of lobbying.

'sdies, if I need facts to convince a politician, I make them up myself. Just don't forget to pack a bag of greens for the ho, too.

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

Kids are also impatient as hell. You may milk a few 100 bucks from them when their parents ain't looking, they don't mind that, but try to tell your kid that he can't play with his new toy for a week 'cause your servers are fubar and watch the tantrum.

Re:Simple

[Ambassador Kosh]

Most of the adults I know that game do it on the PC and use steam or they order games online from places like amazon. Having a credit card and a busier lifestyle makes places like gamestop a lot more annoying to go to. Also remember that major stores like BestBuy also stock all the same video games that people are likely to buy and they are far nicer to deal with than gamestop. It could just be that gamestop's demographic is skewed young. That does not mean that gamers in general or the time involved is skewing the same way.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase my Uncle "Fuck you, you little shit, give my my beer back or I'll sick my foot so far up your ass, you'll taste leather!"

Re:Simple

[marnues]

+1 Insightful

Re:Simple

[lgw]

Don't be blinded by cynicism. EA is losing money like crazy, and will eventually go under (more likely, be acquired) if they don't make some significant changes. The government just isn't going to bail out EA as if it were a bank or airline - EA will sink if it can't make a profit.

Now, since "gamers" is a much larger crowd than "geeks", it's possible EA may find some new strategy that's even more offensive to geeks, but placates gamers in general. But geeks aside, they'll need to find something mainstream gamers want, and find it soon.

Re:Simple

[lgw]

Seems like capitalism is working fine to me. If EA is giving gamers what they actually want (online community) then it's a company with good products, and satisfied customers. But in reality EA isn't keeping its customers happy, and they are voting with their wallet, and EA is having a bad time, financially, right now.

Re: Simple

[RabidReindeer]

You are doing a good job teaching them why libertarianism ultimately leads to a hypercapitalist dystopia. The vast majority of people making up "the market" are not informed, do not want to become informed, and probably cannot become informed in any meaningful way for any appreciable percentage of the product categories they participate in.

You might be the smartest, most savvy consumer around, always rationally voting with your dollars--but most people aren't, and they're going to dilute your good choices with their bad, uninformed, irrational or random ones.

Even worse. Many of the ones who are informed don't care enough to do something. They want their Lower Prices Everyday and their "you-can-only-get-it-from-here" name products and so they collude to feed the beasts.

Re:Simple

[magisterx]

Sadly, not everyone knows. Lots of gamers just buy the games without really paying any attention to who the publisher is much less whether that publisher treated its customer's well or not.

Re:Simple

[Ironhandx]

They're losing a shitload of sales to people like me who won't buy their crap anymore. The last EA title I bought was dragon age II because the girlfriend begged me. Before that it was DA:O... I haven't purchased ME2 or 3 even though I want to because Bioware is now owned by EA.

Re:Simple

[scot4875]

See also: "Too big to fail," vendor lock-in, copyright, patent troll, "right to profit"

And which of these are relevant to EA's 'inability' to go out of business?

--Jeremy

Re:Simple

[AlamedaStone]

No only that, but it seems like everyone is either selling their company to them or working for them. I realize that companies go under and people need work, but if they end up owning all the decent IP, there is going to be nowhere else to turn BUT to buy from EA.

There are thousands of indie devs in garages as we speak working on their first games with remarkable (free!) tools like Unity3D. The market is shifting back away from corporations, just like direct-sale music and local bands are starving the "music" industry. In the end, people who care will make excellent products, sell them for less, and keep a vastly larger share of the profit.

Have your Fionna and Cake and eat it too! (Er... but not in a creepy way.)

Re:Simple

[AlamedaStone]

It's like spam- 99% of us hate it, but the other 1% keep it going financially.

So we made laws and international treaties to curtail the predatory practice.

Just saying.

Re:Simple

[yurtinus]

I think if you checked your numbers, you'll find far more big companies have failed than been bailed out by the government. That, and as much as I disagree with the government involving itself in business finances, you'll also find that most of that "free government money" was in the form of loans that have largely been repaid.

Re:Simple

[peragrin]

You are quite correct. The problem is that those loans were granted to the very group of people who think those who get any help from the government are a leach on society. The people who accepted those loans are the same group that would cut Social security , food stamps, medicare, and every environmental law right out so they could save money for themselves.

Re:Simple

[adunstan]

There are many things in the world that people "put up with" and buy because they like the majority of the features, but don't like certain things. They put up with them because often, the alternatives just don't stack up on a lot of features. Were everyone suddenly to stop buying EA's games, would this really stop the root issue? Surely another company would just come along and do exactly the same, and again people would buy the games because they like the majority of the features.

I think voting with your wallet by itself just simply isn't enough, we need to carry on being vocal about these issues. Look at how Ubisoft's DRM service just got hacked and a game that hasn't even been released yet was discovered and made downloadable; highlight how ridiculous and ironic this is so we can spread awareness.

While I think it's a shame to use this survey as a platform to show EA what we think of them, because there are much worse companies out there than EA that do some horribly unethical things, I do think they have a lot of power in them, but only if we persist and don't let them forget until they change.

Finally, even if we did vote with our wallet, EA would convince themselves piracy was the problem and make up fake statistics and that would make the whole issue worse.

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

Well, you can only so long simply tack a new year number to a title and sell it as new before people realize that they don't want to spend 60 bucks on a number. Well, unless you can "switch off" the old title to force people to buy the new one if they want to continue playing (like, say, with a mandatory connection to a server you control...).

But if you do that, it's only a matter of time until people start to turn their back at you and look for another vendor of their favorite kind of game.

And that's the danger. Because gamers tend to be quite loyal to a franchise. They like what they know and they stick with it. I like the Tropico series. I know what to expect from it (to the point where I fail to see the big difference between 3 and 4, but I ramble). I would most likely rather buy Tropico 5 instead of looking for another franchise of tinpot dictator games. I'd have to dig around, I'd have to read reviews, I'd have to wonder if it will be to my liking, not just the liking of those that reviewed it... I know pretty well that I'll enjoy Tropico as long as they somewhat stick to what they have done so far. It's pretty hard for a new franchise to muscle in. I might start looking into it if I get bored with the ones I have and no new ones are on the horizon, but in general, I'll probably not bother to go shopping around for something different.

If they now fuck up T5 to a point where they manage to alienate me, I'll probably do just that. And again, I'll probably stick with the franchise. It's just easier than shop around, waste money on games I don't know the "feel" of and so on.

Re:Simple

[Opportunist]

Very true, and very important. But since there will always be people who'd rather copy than buy, blaming it for the loss of sales is quite easy.

There is, in general and to my knowledge, five kinds of gamers.

1. The kind that will buy the game, no matter what. He wants to play that game, and he will jump through any hoop you make him, because it's HIS game and he WANTS it, and he is not interested or able to get it illegally (for whatever reason).
2. The kind that usually buys a game, but has no problem (neither technical, morally or otherwise) to use a crack if the game pisses him off enough that he decides a crack is the answer.
3. The kind that will buy a game if there's no way around it. He routinely uses copies and cracks when available, but if he has to buy a game he really wants, he will buy it.
4. The "activist" kind that will buy a game from any Indie company to "support them" but will copy anything with hardcore DRM to "stick it to the man", and failure to do so will make him do without the game to "make a point". Pretty much the opposite of 3.
5. The kind that will never buy a game, no matter what. If he can't get it as a copy, he'll simply not play it.

Of all those, only group 3 will be affected positively (from the game maker's point of view) with hardcore DRM. 1 and 2 buy the game anyway, 5 will not buy the game anyway and group 4 will be affected negatively by it. So what's left is whether group 3 or group 4 are bigger.

And while group 4 seems like a minimal tree-hugging fantasy group, you'd be surprised how big it can be once you factor in those people that want a game, see its DRM and/or reviews that point to it and abstain from it who also belong into this group of gamers.

Given the success of Indie games recently, I wouldn't say that group 3 is bigger than group 4 anymore.

Re:Simple

[denelson83]

You really think that message of yours will reach enough people? EA's really just drowning you out, outspending you on advertising.

Re: Simple

[Grishnakh]

And what exactly is your alternative? Having a big government agency that determines how companies should act, and forces them to act in ways that (some) people like? Or better yet, just eliminting private companies altogether and having the government own and run everything?

History has shown that command economies don't work. We've also seen many times that very large companies can be destroyed or at least massively shrunken when their customers abandon them. Remember AOL? It's a tiny shadow of its former self. RIM isn't looking so hot these days either. Is Blockbuster Video around any more? All the other video rental stores are gone. How's Atari doing these days? Microsoft is still doing OK thanks to Office and Windows, but as much as they try, they just can't get many people interested in Windows Phone.

EA is doing fine because tons of stupid gamers keep buying their crap, and then complaining about it. If you don't like it, don't buy it: it's that simple. EA isn't a monopoly, and video games aren't a necessity by any means. This isn't like banking, where it's a pretty integral part of the economy and regulation can be reasonably called for. This isn't like power or water or other utilities, where people depend on them to live or have modern civilization. This situation is akin to a bunch of teenage and 20-something hipsters complaining about Starbucks' crappy burnt coffee, and then continuing to go back and buy more of them for $4 per cup. Cry me a river.

Re:Simple

[Grishnakh]

There's an old saying that applies here:

"A fool and his money are soon parted."

Re:Simple

[Grishnakh]

To be fair, unless I'm mistaken, there are not blank media taxes here in the US. For some odd reason, Canada actually implemented that, but we never did, though I'm sure the MAFIAA would have loved that.

Yes, they have gotten crazy copyright laws, but those only help them if people actually want their stuff. If everyone ignored their stuff, it wouldn't help them.

Re: Simple

[jellyfoo]

and video games aren't a necessity by any means.

The way some kids and young adults act I'd almost be tempted to question that. Games are these days considered as necessary as food to a lot of young people, which is a testament to their addictive nature of games and the strength of peer pressure (and I ain't flaming, since I've been there myself many times). It's also the reason why EA have nothing to worry about.

Re: Simple

[jellyfoo]

You might be the smartest, most savvy consumer around, always rationally voting with your dollars--but most people aren't, and they're going to dilute your good choices with their bad, uninformed, irrational or random ones.

That might be one of the most insightful things I've ever read on Slashdot. Shame you posted as an AC though.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't be surprised. With some good lobbying on their part, they could probably convince the government that if EA went under, the USA would be engulfed in chaos and destruction and a hostile alien race would obliterate what's left of our species, after which God would declare his grand experiment a failure and recycle our universe to create a MyLittlePony(tm)verse.

But I think the congress will be more than happy to help them out, seeing how SimCity seems to be the main source of their knowledge on how to manage a large population: Need a new power plant? Put it smack-down in the middle of the city and plant 5 trees next to it. Done. No more pollution, everyone's happy.

Re:Simple

[Grishnakh]

The last game of theirs I bought was Bard's Tale II (PC version).

Re: Simple

[khallow]

It'd be insightful only if you ignore niche markets. Smart game shoppers might not be numerous enough to change the ways of a behemoth like EA, but they can jump start new competitors quite easily. Even if those competitors get snapped up by EA or its like, that's still an ample flow of wealth from the lazy or ignorant to clever game makers.

Re:Simple

[khallow]

you'll also find that most of that "free government money" was in the form of loans that have largely been repaid

Let's not get too hasty. We don't know how much debt these companies actually owe to the federal government via quantitative easing (QE) and perhaps public loans or stimulus. The Federal Reserve has bought a lot of private debt as part of its QE process - not just US treasuries. It would very simple for a business to sell bonds to the Fed and then use the cash to pay off TARP or ARRA loans.

Re:Simple

[mjwx]

It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.

You also have to remember the THQ implosion.

Personally I think we're on a big shake-up in the gaming industry. Many of the major publishing houses will fall as they've become to reliant using the same IP over and over again, marketing budgets become larger than development budgets.

EA or Ubisoft will be next. The fact they keep trying to funnel people into Origin or Uplay is losing them a lot of customers. I would have purchased Mass Effect 3 and Far Cry 3 if I wasn't forced to install some other bit of always running crapware that required me to be online. As it stands I had an easier time getting FC3 to work than the Australians who bought it legitimately.

BTW, the money I had allocated for games went to other developers/publishers with less onerous DRM requirements.

Re: Simple

[jellyfoo]

True. One of the nice things about smaller companies is that they basically HAVE to listen to their customer's concerns, otherwise they'll go out of business. The customer base is naturally small enough such that the impact of even a single customer can be felt, hence there's an incentive to improve their response to complaints (at least in theory).

For a large bohemith like EA, a single customer's word means fuck-all. You need a LOT of people to swing in a direction for EA to change their behavior, and that simply won't happen due to human nature - specifically the average gamer's nature.

Re: Simple

[Grishnakh]

Actually, they do have something to worry about. Mobile phones aren't exactly necessary as food (though of far more utility than games), yet look how far Nokia and RIM have fallen, while other phone makers have risen in their place (Apple, Samsung).

There's lots of other companies making games besides EA, and it's folly to think they can't be unseated by their competitors. Young people may be addicted to these things, but people can be fickle about these things. They could easily stop buying EA games and switch to Valve or whatever else.

Re:Simple

[Anonymous Coward]

You're

The fucking word is you're.

LEARN ENGLISH

Re: Simple

[jellyfoo]

They're fickle up to a point. If EA is in control over a major properties like the Sims, you'll never be able to get my wife to just give them up. Though to be fair, although we've got all the Sims 3 stuff and expansion packs, all of them are pirated (torrented). She doesn't care, she just likes to hear when something new pops up, and I download it for her.

Re:Simple

[cavreader]

The number of people such as yourself are only a tiny fraction of customers or potential customers. The majority of people look at the actual product to see if it is something they would like to play. They don't care who made the product or whether the product comes with DRM. Just like your average user doesn't care about who made the operating system or who made any of the software they may use on their computer.

Re: Simple

[Ambassador Kosh]

Have you noticed that most of the "internet native" generations that people keep referring to don't seem to actually use it to find information. I find that most of them play games on facebook, make silly twitter postings, post pictures of their weekend on facebook etc. On average I would say most of them know less about finding information online since they have never really had to think about how to find information and instead mostly just click on links that friends give them. It leads to tempest in a teacup type situations but little actual understanding.

Re:Simple

[Ambassador Kosh]

The rational actor model the system is based on is definitely not true. I suspect a large part of the economic problems we keep having are because the underlying models our economy is based on are not compatible with how people actually act. I wonder what the next economic system will be. None of them last forever and this one is due for replacement.

Re:Simple

[tbird81]

Mod me down. (As long as you give me money!)

Re: Simple

[jellyfoo]

Why is it that pirating movies elicits basically no response or even sometimes approval on Slashdot since it hurts the MPAA, but pirating games from a hated company like EA prompts swearing from a dick like yourself? Are games more worthy than movies? Or are you so addicted to gaming that your perspective about what's morally wrong is warped to hell?

Re:Simple

[sFurbo]

No, capitalism is working, with unanticipated inputs. That's the problem, and it's been discussed before. Economists expect people to act rationally, in their own interest, yet people don't.

That is a problem with economic models (that economists are aware of it and are trying to fix), but it is not relevant here. The buyers the GGP described are rational, their enjoyment from playing with their buddies are higher than the loss of enjoyment from the money they spent on the game, even considering that the game is hard to use otherwise.

If economists were right, nobody would ever drink at a bar or eat at a restaurant because taking a bottle home and cooking for yourself is so much cheaper, which misses about 90% of the point.

Only if you assume that everybody's time is free and the atmosphere is irrelevant, which economists don't assume. Or do you have a quote form where they assumed that?

Re: Simple

[aaaaaaargh!]

You seem to have only right-wing libertarianism in mind, but there is also left-wing libertarianism. I'm not advertising it, just wanted to mention it.

Re:Simple

[iinlane]

Here's an idea: stop giving them your money!!!

This will make them destroy more companies we love.

Re:Simple

[gsslay]

I can never understand people who waste time and emotion hating a company that, if they never bought from them, could never affect their lives in any way.

If you think EA games suck, then don't buy them. There. I've just saved you all the hours you would have wasted hating on EA. Use them wisely.

Re:Simple

[Nocturna81]

Fear would imply I would actually *need* this game for my day to day existence, else it'd be a lousy punishment. Yes, they might threaten to pull the plug and some people would shut up. But I think the majority would throw up a stink and would probably not buy another game from that maker again. Treat your customers badly will result in loathing methinks, not fear. Because pulling the plug on some server is just not really a big stick they're wielding in the grander scheme of things. Unlike say, broken kneecaps.

Re:Simple

[Xest]

No he's arguing that due to companies like EA holding important patents, and licenses to culturally significant IP and so forth that even if they have to fire all their development teams, they'll still be crawling round like a legless zombie annoying the hell out of everyone with lawsuits and strong arming for license fees.

The problem is that companies can continue to exist nowadays even if they have nothing productive to offer to society, even if their only business model is suing people over bits of paper that assign them some intangible rights.

Re:Simple

[drinkypoo]

I hope that, if you have not already explained cognitive dissonance, that you took the opportunity — both because it is the explanation behind so much of human activity, and because it is something that we as humans must guard against assiduously.

Hmm, looks like I spelled that right. Why is it that Firefox can remember what dictionary language I want to use everywhere but slashdot?

Re:Simple

[drinkypoo]

If enough people stop buying from EA, then EA will go away. They lost money this year, so it may be happening already. If EA goes away they won't be buying game companies. Then someone else can forget all the lessons they've learned and repeat all their mistakes, and gamers can forget all the lessons they learned and do likewise, and we can have these conversations all over again.

My advice to gamers who want things to change is to find some indie developers who are doing things you like and give them your gaming money. I especially think that supporting games funded through services like Kickstarter is the way to go for the future, because haven't we as gamers long complained that we're not given what we want? This is a chance to see what you're being offered ahead of time, and send a clear message. Box store sales figures are gamed and obfuscated but digital sales are easily tracked and understood.

Re:Simple

[TWiTfan]

Tell me more of this "outside" you speak of.

Re: Simple

[dywolf]

another typical /. who wants to bash libertarians without actually knowing anything about it.
it has nothing to do with libertarian thoughts.

the simple truth is EA is not all bad. Not everything they make is horrible. Enough of it is successful enough to cover the failures and missteps. and in the end more people are willing to live with things like the always on drm than those who arent. and people arent irrational simply because they disagree with you and made a different choice.

Re: Simple

[Grishnakh]

Exactly.

Moreover, unless the pirated version "phones home", how would EA even know that you have a copy of it? (And if it does "phone home", that'd make it easy for them to sue you like the MPAA does.)

Re:Simple

[denvergeek]

So they'd be like the SCO of the video game industry? That's actually a damned frightening thought.

Re: Simple

[sarysa]

I'm talking about the true internet natives, children...you probably don't hang out with many. How much they know compared to how much my generation knew at their age makes me reeeeally envious, heh. I'm surprised that I got mod hate for my optimism (politics, meh) but I really do think this generation will be far more capable of making good decisions than our own. I'm already of a bent where I feel government intervention and overregulation makes people lower their guard, making them more vulnerable since their critical thinking skills(and various other skills, like bargaining with employers) are diminished. (Kind of like how my command line skills have gone down the toilet since 98% of my work is faster to do via gui) These policies will be a lot less defensible in the future.

Re:Simple

[yurtinus]

Right, those are all wastes. But *my* company does great things!!

The hypocrisy would be funny if it weren't so damaging.

Re:Simple

[cthulhu11]

Monsanto sure feels that way, and their impact is a hell of a lot bigger than some lame niche company that makes games for kids.

Re:Simple

[yurtinus]

Fair enough, but those are still "could haves" in need of further investigation and discussion.

I personally am strongly opposed to government bail out of private businesses whose bad practices put them at risk. I'm stronger-ly opposed to one line sound bytes aimed at getting people angry over bad assumptions and mis-information.

Re:Simple

[bat21]

Most console gamers don't care. They're just kids spending their parent's money.

Re: Simple

[Grishnakh]

Yes, those are all definitely downsides with maximizing individual freedom.

However, what's a better alternative? I haven't seen any. Now, this doesn't mean that libertarianism is the answer to everything, and that no government regulation is ever useful or necessary: the economic meltdown was proof of that. However, while I think the economic crisis shows that the downsides of government regulation are an acceptable compromise in the financial sector to prevent economic disasters, I don't think this extends to every single sector of the economy, and certainly not video games. Do we really need government bureaucrats telling us what kind of video games we should and shouldn't be allowed to buy? It's not like EA going under would result in economic devastation (and if it did come to that, that would be a failure of the government to enforce its own anti-monopoly laws, which apply to all industries). There's nothing stopping other gaming companies from competing with them, and indeed, many do. If EA's customers are getting shafted by EA's business practices, it's their own fault, plain and simple, for continuing to buy their stuff. Yeah, it's too bad many consumers are stupid, irrational, and refuse to do research before making purchases. Having a command economy is no answer to that, and neither is excessive regulation on sectors of the economy that really aren't that important to society and don't involve health or safety.

Re: Simple

[tedgyz]

Hey - I heard the iPhone 6 is coming out. Hurry up and buy it. It's more iPhony.

Re: Simple

[Opportunist]

Then you're just as well in Group 4, people who don't buy the game because of DRM. Whether you copy the game afterwards doesn't really matter.

Re:Simple

[DiEx-15]

Easier said than done. People get sucked in thinking that their remake or sequel will be different and they won't completely foobar it...

Surprise. Surprise. They do manage to fuck up the foobar in epic ways.

It's like an abusive husband (EA) and the abused wife (the consumer). People think EA will stop, but they won't till they get a major slap to the forehead with a nail spiked 2 x 4 (massive loss of sales). Until that happens, EA has no incentive to stop because people naively think the next game won't be the inevitable fucked up mess and money grab ass that it is.

Re:Simple

[qwak23]

The only people I hear talking on live are kids, but myself and the other adult gamers I know only break out our headsets if we're grouped and working as a team. I suspect that many other adults are the same way. I have no problem muting the obnoxious kids and getting my game on. Though I have no hard data to back that up, I'd definitely be willing to form it into a hypothesis and collect some data (assuming I had time for that sort of thing).

Amusing anecdote:
I remember playing one game once, where two kids were talking, one sounded about high school age, the other probably junior high. The Junior high kid had to leave the game for a moment, his mother had some chores for him. His mother took over the controller and headset, apparently the high school kid was a neighbor of theirs so the conversation continued. The mother complained that "billy" didn't have any of the guns she liked and then proceeded to kick all of our asses anyway.

Re:Simple

[DutchUncle]

I believe I mentioned the "multiple competing interests". And my slight exaggeration includes the phrase "which misses.. the point". I stand by my core point, in general agreement with the masses of posters wondering why more people haven't voted with their feet and left EA completely.

For myself, I gave up on computer gaming when I realized that I would never get to 50% of the content I had paid for. I switched to emphasizing FTF tabletop gaming in my schedule instead.

Re: Simple

[Trogre]

Correct.

Just like every other voting system on the planet.

Re:Simple

[Trogre]

Yes.

The government needs game and TV industries much more than you might think.

In addition to filled with bread, it is critical to keep people entertained and dull of mind to satisfy the Circus requirement for an apathetic, compliant nation.

Re: Simple

[strikethree]

Even worse. Many of the ones who are informed don't care enough to do something. They want their Lower Prices Everyday and their "you-can-only-get-it-from-here" name products and so they collude to feed the beasts.

You are looking at it backwards. It is the beasts colluding to herd their food. What you have named is their methods of herding.

Are the sheep going where they want to go or are they going where the shepherd encourages them? The informed consumer is more like a cat but ultimately a cat will eat whatever is available. The shepherd provides the food that it wants the sheep to eat.

Re:Simple

[strikethree]

It should be pointed out that EA did lose a ton of money last year ($45 million quarter 4 2012, $381 the quarter before that). If they keep on track they should go out of business pretty quickly.

This is good news.

Re:Simple

[strikethree]

Hm. I was never asked to vote on whether or not EA is the "Worst Company in America". That would indicate that the crossover between the group that was asked to vote and the group that buys games is not representative of the whole. There is no cognitive dissonance here.

EA is right about one thing, though

[Applekid]

They're right about claiming our hate doesn't matter as long as they get money.

Because for whatever reason, people still keep buying EA software no matter how buggy, no matter how user hostile, no matter how demeaning, no matter what the price.

I think it's just proof positive that the majority of gamers are, at heart, masochists searching for a sadist.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[davidbrit2]

Or rather, addicts looking for a dealer.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[Hentes]

The majority of gamers are fanboys reluctant to part with their favourite series of games. EA owns many titles that were once good.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[Dorianny]

The CEO of EA just get fired because of EA's poor performance. It seems that people will not keep buying EA software no matter what, after all!

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[ELCouz]

^ this x1000 ... That's why people are still paying games from EA.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[Opportunist]

Dude, it's not like the dope from the others is any worse. But the side effects are less nasty.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[Opportunist]

Like, say, Sim Whatever?

The current Sim City is the first I didn't buy. I already thought SC4 was a bit bland, but the "always on" crap sealed the deal for me. Even aside of that, what I've seen so far is a disappointment at best. Hell, SC2000 had more freedom to develop than this.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[ArmchairGeneral]

I really like SimCity4, I still play it as the customizing/modding community is still going strong. And for a game that's 10 years old now, that's really saying something.

When I first heard that a new SimCity was being developed, my initial reaction was excitement, and then I immediately remembered who owns it and after looking at their idea of what they were going to release I said no. Always-on, very limited region size, no customization whatsoever, that just didn't sound like any fun.

Re:EA is right about one thing, though

[drinkypoo]

I really like SimCity4, I still play it as the customizing/modding community is still going strong. And for a game that's 10 years old now, that's really saying something.

The strength of the fan community for a ten year old game is proof that you really have to be the world's biggest fuckups to not sell a simcity game to everyone and their dog's mother. Which in turn is proof of something about EA...

Sadly, it doesn't matter...

[Stormwatch]

We hate them because they claim our hate doesn't matter as long as we give them our money.

Guess what: it doesn't, because tons of idiots keep buying EA's DRM-laden excrement.

Re:Sadly, it doesn't matter...

[PhxBlue]

I suspect casual gamers and SimCity fans thought EA was up to the task of making the newest SimCity work. But folks who saw Blizzard struggle with the Diablo 3 launch saw the epic fail coming from a mile (or two SimCity maps) away.

Re:Sadly, it doesn't matter...

[Opportunist]

Given the size of the SimCity maps today, you could see it from at least 20 maps away.

Re:Sadly, it doesn't matter...

[Endo13]

Zing!

Well played, sir.

Re:Sadly, it doesn't matter...

[kamapuaa]

Mass Effect and Portal are hella fun.

so, don't buy the games

[alen]

i haven't bought or pirated a big publisher game in at least a year

if you give them money then all they hear is "Thank you sir, may i have another?"

Re:so, don't buy the games

[frootcakeuk]

"See? It has already forgotten that I have already given it change. It just wants more change"

Re:so, don't buy the games

[Sarten-X]

I've bought probably a dozen big-publisher games over the past two years... but often through GOG, which I can't praise highly enough, even though I risk sounding like a shill.

I don't know what kind of arrangement GOG has with the copyright holders, but their offerings are DRM-free*, unlimited in downloads, and cheap to boot. No, they don't have the latest greatest AAA titles, but they do have games that are fun, and once upon a time, they were big-name games, too. Even if half my purchase profits EA or another psychotic game baron, I'm glad to know that they see the purchase coming through GOG, in the hopes that some data-mining lackey in the hidden lair of evil game companies notices that a more liberal sales model is performing slightly better.

*I recall seeing a few listings that said the game included its original DRM but came with a fix to disable/bypass it. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a few of the old "find this word in the manual" prompts, but GOG usually includes the game manuals. Of course I can't find any such listings on demand.

Re:so, don't buy the games

[Opportunist]

There are still a few decent studios around. But I, too, have relied more and more heavily on Indie devs in the past year for my gaming fix.

It's simply a few rules that I put up for myself that your game has to satisfy to be considered by me. And that's even before I start looking at "petty things" like gameplay or graphics:

- No "always on internet" crap.
- Private servers. It's nice if you offer servers, but I want to be able to host my own if you decide to pull the plug.
- No Windows Live, Origin or other useless junk. It's ok if it is optional, or mandatory for mulitplayer in games where I don't give a fuck about multiplayer. if it is mandatory or necessary for multiplayer where I want to actually play multiplayer, you hit a K.O. criterion.
- If it's a console port, I'll hold my money until I KNOW that you didn't fuck up the port. I'm looking your way, Borderlands!

It's my money you want. If you want it, play by MY rules!

Re:so, don't buy the games

[Opportunist]

Can we hold them to that promise?

Re:so, don't buy the games

[AlamedaStone]

They also sell new indie games for small/individual developers, totally bypassing the corporate structure of publishing (with its attendant CEO salaries and censorship).

GOG is doing it right, right now.

Re:so, don't buy the games

[Jedi Alec]

I also tend to give bonus points to companies based on how they interact with the community with regards to fan-projects, use of IP etc. Some companies will go into an instant legal cramp the moment some kid uses one of their assets outside of the game. Other companies will tell him it's cool or even offer to help to make it better or easier.

CCP (Eve Online) ranks very highly in my book, as does CD Projekt (The Witcher). These guys know there's no advertising like having your fans praise you (guess that's what I'm doing right now).

Sense of proportion

[blarkon]

Gotta love sense of proportion. You've got companies like Monsanto and Academi (formerly Blackwater) and a raft of multinationals polluting and doing bad stuff - but the one that causes the outrage? EA. You want to know why politicians don't bother fixing real problems? It's because people passionately believe that EA is the worst corporate citizen.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Applekid]

Gotta love sense of proportion. You've got companies like Monsanto and Academi (formerly Blackwater) and a raft of multinationals polluting and doing bad stuff - but the one that causes the outrage? EA.

Monsanto, Academi, and Polluting Multinational #32, Inc. don't market to the public. I would doubt the average person has never heard of any of the biggest offenders. Their customers probably like them a lot, and the problem is really that the government oversight is lacking or just plain looking the other way.

Of course, you could nominate them next year and see how they do.

Re:Sense of proportion

[jedidiah]

Unfortunately, Monsanto and Blackwater weren't in the tournament.

The site is called CONSUMERIST. So, you know it's going to be about CONSUMER concerns. It's not going to be a sounding board for every random Chomsky wannabe.

Re:Sense of proportion

[alen]

yes i eat
and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either

Re:Sense of proportion

[amicusNYCL]

Do you go grocery shopping at the Monsanto store? Do you order your food from monsanto.com?

Re:Sense of proportion

[Applekid]

"Monsanto doesn't market to the public"

You do eat, right?

I don't buy Monsanto products. I buy vegetables from a number of names of companies which may or may not use Monsanto products. They're not required to be labeled in my country as such, so aren't. Even if they were, I doubt they would have a big Monsanto logo on the back proudly proclaiming they provided the seeds, or the seeds that produced the vegetables used in my purchased soup, or the seeds that produced the grains that were fed to the animals that provided the meat for my burger.

Re:Sense of proportion

[femtobyte]

When I go to the store, I don't see boxes of "Monsanto(tm) Corn Flakes (now with 30% more Bacillus thuringiensis toxin!)". Monsanto markets to the agribusiness end of production, not directly to the consumer. Aside from products specifically marketed on the basis of *not* being made with whatever crap Monsanto is pushing, consumers are unlikely to see labeling and make purchasing decisions based on Monsanto's branding/marketing/labeling.

Re:Sense of proportion

[jedidiah]

Don't be an ignorant git.

If you don't buy seeds or herbicide then you aren't a customer. You aren't even a customer of the farmer that uses the seed or herbicide. You're several levels removed.

Without the Internet, you would likely not even know who they were.

Re:Sense of proportion

[jedidiah]

EA is an industry stifling behemoth much like any of the companies you named.

A couple of those other companies also qualify as "mere entertainment".

Re:Sense of proportion

[Dracos]

Lack of proportion and perspective. The "worst company in America" dishonor belongs to Monsanto, there shouldn't even be a contest.

Re:Sense of proportion

[alen]

just buy food labeled as being non-gmo or something similar

Re:Sense of proportion

[interval1066]

You do eat, right?

Show me an average consumer who knows that the bread or corn meal they are eating was grown with Monsanto grain. Show me one.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Zak3056]

Gotta love sense of proportion. You've got companies like Monsanto and Academi (formerly Blackwater) and a raft of multinationals polluting and doing bad stuff - but the one that causes the outrage? EA..

Bank of America vs EA:

1. Cratered the economy? ehhhh...
2. Botched launch of a time waster game? GET THE TORCHES AND PITCHFORKS!

Re:Sense of proportion

[Pope]

What about ADM?

Re:Sense of proportion

[devent]

TFA compared Bank Of America with EA. Of course EA will get the price, because they did some bad with games, whereas BofA foreclosing houses, screwing up a homeowner’s loan, has been sued by investors, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, and the U.S. government and probably had a lot to do with the last economical crisis.

Just wonder what BofA have to do to outmatch the busted lunch of Simcity 5.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Endo13]

and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either

What he said is entirely possible.

Re:Sense of proportion

[CannonballHead]

Just wonder what BofA [would] have to do to outmatch the busted lunch of Simcity 5.

Foreclose on some basements.

Re:Sense of proportion

[bobbied]

and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either

What he said is entirely possible.

But highly improbable. Just avoiding HFCS would be a neat trick and take a LOT of effort. I can not imagine trying to avoid Monsanto related ingredients at your local grocery store. There would literally not be but a handful of items you could purchase at even the best stocked grocery, and that stuff would make pretty poor eating overall. You would certainly have to grow a lot of your own food, and most of us don't have enough space to make much of a dent in a years worth of food.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Endo13]

Not really. Buy organic. Avoid grains. As for HFCS, it's mostly found in junk food. I don't shop like that myself, but I know people who do. And even while being a non-customer of places that specialize in such food, I know of two such stores within two miles of my house.

In short, if he says he does so, I consider it highly probable he does.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Opportunist]

Yes, but when was the last time you bought something that had "Mosanto" on its producer list? The level of separation is what keeps them out of the public eye. They don't market to the public, their eventual product is.

It's a bit like why Foxconn isn't in the list. They don't deal with you. They deal with the ones that deal with you.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Opportunist]

Why, if their customers are satisfied with their performance? Being shot by a gun doesn't make you a customer.

It kinda makes you the product, though...

Re:Sense of proportion

[Opportunist]

Pretty much this. The voting only takes into account whether or not you hate a company, not how much you hate it. I'm pretty sure few people would go out of their way to run over the EA CEO, and then put in reverse not to look whether they hurt him but to make sure they did.

I'm also pretty sure that a lot of people would check that box for the BoA board members.

Re:Sense of proportion

[UltraZelda64]

Or see Round-Up while walking through the Home Lawn & Garden section of just about any Wal-Mart?

Re:Sense of proportion

[AlamedaStone]

As for HFCS, it's mostly found in junk food

You are gravely mistaken, at least in the US. HFCS is found in very nearly every product I can put my hands on in the local supermarket including pickles, yogurt and ham (all the ones that don't have it contain some other form of either corn or soy.)

Re:Sense of proportion

[PraiseBob]

In short, if he says he does so, I consider it highly probable he does.

I consider it way more probable that he isn't aware of how much Monsanto food he eats, and simply thinks it is very little. His other related comment was to just not buy food with the GMO label on it to avoid Monsanto food.

A) Not all Monsanto seed is GMO. I knew they had a large distribution of non-GMO seed, but I didn't realize until now that ALSO a large percentage of the organic produce in supermarkets is grown from Monsanto seed: http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/a-month-without-monsanto

B) GMO labels aren't used in the US. I'm assuming that he isn't in america, and has little knowledge of american grocers, since there are no labelling laws in any state. Since the discussion is about Worst Company in America, and specifically Monsanto's influence in American food, I had assumed he was in country. It might be easier to avoid Monsanto in other countries. I don't think its actually possible in the US unless you grow almost all your own food. It requires a huge lifestyle change, and dedication to that mission, and the attitude of "I just don't buy their products" isn't a realistic way of avoiding them.

Re:Sense of proportion

[AlamedaStone]

It kinda makes you the product, though...

Brilliant and horrifying.

+1, bleak reality

Re:Sense of proportion

[yurtinus]

and all the food i make at home has nothing from monsanto in it. no HFCS either

This is not difficult to do at all, really. It's just a matter of going to the right store and paying a little more out of pocket, possibly along with growing your own garden. There *are* food stores outside of the Wal Mart Supercenter y'know...

Re:Sense of proportion

[yurtinus]

A mile or so from my house is a local food co-op stocked by nearby farms who grow from their own organic seed stocks. There are literally dozens of handfuls of items you can purchase there which makes for excellent eating overall. I don't go there often because I don't freak out about my fruits and veggies, but they always have a good supply of good stuff.

Re:Sense of proportion

[yurtinus]

While everything you say is spot on, just to be a pedantic ass I'm going to point out that I bought a Foxconn branded mainboard for my computer.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Balthisar]

>>In reality, EA is just the worst corporation according to people who read The Consumerist.

I’d argue that this is proof that EA is one of the *best* companies in America according to people who read The Consumerist. Or mot popular if not best. Disclaimer: I read that site. I'm an old man who gets to the articles through an ancient technology called RSS using a service on its death bed called Google Reader.

Look at the original brackets: http://consumerist.com/2013/03/27/meet-your-worst-company-in-america-no-so-sweet-16/ -- it’s a popularity contest.

Chase has more customers than Wells-Fargo, so Chase wins its first round. Apple versus Microsoft: more front-facing customers. Dish vs. DirectTV.

The contest result is bullshit, because the design of the contest is bullshit.

Re:Sense of proportion

[freeze128]

I live in the midwest, and even since the 80s, I have seen TELEVISION commercials for Roundup herbicide. One popular commercial shows a man spraying roundup from a hand-held spray bottle, just like the kind you find filled with 409, on a small weed growing between sidewalk panels. Yes, Monsanto markets directly to consumers.

Re:Sense of proportion

[drinkypoo]

You buy "USDA Organic", which has very little whatsoever to do with organic gardening and which approves a lot of things which really have no place in any food production worthy of the name. (The ridiculousness of overloading the word "organic" is outside of the scope of this conversation. I love me some inorganic food!) It also includes "no GMO". So far. I expect that to change given that Monsanto is literally in charge of what we are permitted to eat. Look it up, and thank Obama.

Re:Sense of proportion

[drinkypoo]

I live in the midwest, and even since the 80s, I have seen TELEVISION commercials for Roundup herbicide.

ISTR seeing "Monsanto" on a bottle of roundup once (never used it, but I've picked the bottle up to read it, because I do that kind of thing) but I don't recall seeing their name in a commercial for Roundup. Monsanto is still the world's largest producer of glyphosphate, but they don't sell it as "MONSANTO GLYPHOSPHATE" in stores, they just sell it as "RoundUp". I don't think that counts as advertising Monsanto, even if it is Monsanto advertising.

Re:Sense of proportion

[bobbied]

HFCS is only in junk food? Um.. I think you need to read some labels. HFCS is in "junk" food almost universally, but it has made it's way into a whole lot of other stuff you will likely buy and unless you are reading the labels you are likely unaware of it.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Endo13]

I know HFCS is found in very many products. Most of them are more or less junk food. I would indeed consider pickles or ham with HFCS in them junk food. Good pickles and ham won't have it. Just checked the yogurt I brought for lunch today... nope. It has sugar, not HFCS. As for containing smoe other form of corn or soy, that's also just processed products.

If you shop at whole food stores, and/or buy local or organic ingredients and do your own cooking, it really is not that difficult to avoid buying Monsanto stuff, and certainly stuff with HFC or other corn products. Most people don't do that, but it's entirely probable that someone health conscious would.

Re:Sense of proportion

[AlamedaStone]

I have access to Whole Foods, but I cannot afford to shop there except occasionally (once a month or so). I eat almost exclusively self-cooked food, and I'm a label-reader (and for what it's worth, I'm in the low end of the BMI).

I don't exactly disagree with what you're saying, but the harsh reality is that not everyone has enough money to eat in a healthy balanced way AND only buy the "good" products. Most people, even informed people with access, have to make a choice.

Finally, I'm not an expert on this topic, but from what I understand there is no FDA requirement to list HFCS on ingredients. If the label says "sugar" it's at least as likely to be HFCS as anything else. If I'm mistaken in that, and you have a link handy, I'd love to read it. My google-fu is weak today.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Myopic]

Halliburton? But yeah Monsanto might still be even worse than Halliburton.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Myopic]

Yeah but the industry is video games not things like economy (AIG, Countrywide) or environment (BP) or human life (Halliburton). Even Comcast and RIAA represent threats a thousand times worse than EA. This particular Consumerist contest was taken over last year by a bunch of whiny gamers. Promptly thereafter The Consumerist got hacked a bunch of times, lost comments and community, and the articles declined. This year they decided to include EA again, a preposterous decision, giving the same whiners a chance to do a password lookup on their 12-month-old accounts, log in one more time, and vote for EA. They'll be back 12 months from now, but the Consumerist is past because they've sort of given up their credibility. I took them out of my Reader which was sad because I always liked the site a lot.

Re:Sense of proportion

[Myopic]

Halliburton's customers are satisfied with their performance, too, yet somehow voters chose them as worst company.

sad, really

[MickyTheIdiot]

EA does suck. They did screw up SimCity in a big way. But they won because gamers are loud, not because they are the worst.

As another forum (I can't remember which now) pointed out, they were up against a company that has foreclosed on houses they don't even hold the note on.

EA screwed up a game. BoA has destroyed lives.

Re:sad, really

[amicusNYCL]

It's not about EA screwing up a single game. It's about EA's entire corporate attitude towards its competitors that it buys up, and towards its customers. BofA obviously has several bad practices going on as well, but the hate that people direct towards EA is not based on their disappointment with a single game, it's based on their disapproval of the entire way that EA runs itself.

Re:sad, really

[Jiro]

I don't know about that. How do you compare companies that do drastically different things, but also do them to drastically different numbers of people?

Taking someone's home is clearly at least ten thousand times as worse as DRMing a game. But there are also probably over ten thousand times as many victims for the latter.

It's like the argument that we pay actors millions of dollars and we pay teachers a pittance. Well, teaching is more important than entertainment--if you're teaching one person and entertaining one person. But you can entertain millions of people at a time, and things that are much less important taken one at a time are multiplied by millions.

There has to be some point at which inconveniencing tens of millions of people is worse than causing serious harm to a much smaller number.

Re:sad, really

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about EA screwing up a single game. It's about EA's entire corporate attitude towards its competitors that it buys up, and towards its customers. BofA obviously has several bad practices going on as well, but the hate that people direct towards EA is not based on their disappointment with a single game, it's based on their disapproval of the entire way that EA runs itself.

...when they make GAMES. When all they do is MAKE GAMES. In their own tiny, tiny international market, they're terrible. And only in that market. They're highly influential in the GAME market, they treat GAME DEVELOPERS like shit, they run GAMES into the ground, they screw up GAMES, and they suck to GAMERS.

BoA is a bank. They fuck up people's livelihoods, homes, investments, etc, etc, even if they've never touched a video game in their lives. Those shitty interest rates? BoA's fault. Foreclosing on mortgages they knew were bogus to begin with? BoA's fault. Using connections to mess with international trade for their own benefit? BoA's fault. BoA will screw up EVERYTHING — real-world shit, too, not your damn DLC — from shelter to food to clothing to trade to, oh look, GAMES. Game companies deal with money, too.

EA, on the other hand, are entertainers. They don't even have the clout of the **AA. A bunch of noisy fucking spoiled gamers are all butthurt because they've been conditioned to waste money on a luxury based on the pretty pictures and a name. That's why EA was voted the worst company. Not because they actually are. When EA screws you over, you have a substandard luxury that you can trivially ditch and go with someone else. When BoA screws you over, you don't have a home or money to get a home .

Now, if this were about the worst GAME COMPANY in the world...

Re:sad, really

[Guppy06]

BoA didn't try to blame their poor reputation on homophobes.

Re:sad, really

[MickyTheIdiot]

I am not sure I can agree with that when it comes to something as fundamental as housing and defrauding persons out of their life savings.

Re:sad, really

[Endo13]

Basically what it boils down to is which company pissed off the most people the most recently. EA's SimCity debacle hit at just the wrong time. (Or just the right time, depending on your perspective.)

Re:sad, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Games reflect cultural values and associate like-minded gamers, though. EA buys up historic game franchises and then phones in the sequel implementation, banking on the idea that momentum will keep high production budgets afloat and the bad will garnered from actual fans do not matter if the sales shortfalls can be blamed on "other factors" like piracy.

BoA operates in a regulated industry with plenty of peers brandishing different names, logos, and stock tickers, while doing essentially the same bad things. BoA is hardly unique in its badness, but remarkable in its size/scale. The point is that BoA did not take some vaunted cultural value and turn it into crap all by itself, so it doesn't drive a lot of outrage for people who haven't lost their "stake". Those whom have lost a home or were wronged in some way by BoA might have some path to settlement, restitution, or remuneration through legal channels. Opinions of cultural phenomena do not obey such maxims.

The difference is palpable amongst lawmakers, too, though. Congress will jump into an investigation of a baseball player during a doping scandal (even if they can't fix anything and regulations would make everything worse) because the "stake" is the integrity of the game. The way gamers feel about EA's treatment of hallowed game franchises reflects the same level of offense at the assault on game integrity (for lack of a better term, re: DRM/DLC/etc) for the sake of short-term investment margins, now proven unprofitable.

Who is actually benefitting from EA's decisions over the long term? Certainly not the fans, nor the franchises themselves. It's doubtful that EA shareholders will benefit either, so that leaves a small cadre of executives and boardmembers. There will never be an effective law to regulate cultural values for games, but it's hardly ambiguous to those who actually play them why the hurdles to qualify for 'legitimate player' status can so easily dwarf the actual fun to be had.

Re:sad, really

[AlamedaStone]

I appreciate (and to a degree share) your anger, but I think you vastly underestimate the power and influence of digital entertainment now and over the next few decades at least.

Re:sad, really

[AlamedaStone]

BoA didn't try to blame their poor reputation on homophobes.

No, they blamed it on poor people.

Re:sad, really

[drinkypoo]

All of those things you listed for BoA have one thing in common: they were precipitated by a stupid action on the so-called "victim's" part.

The same is true of anything you say about an EA game, because it was preceded by giving money to EA. If you have a point, why not approach it?

Re:sad, really

[Myopic]

Demonstrated successfully.

The Consumerist sold out their credibility. It's time for a new consumer-news blog. Who has one to recommend?

Re:sad, really

[qwak23]

Fuck blogs. We don't need any more of those.

Re:FIRST

[Anonymous Coward]

They may suck, but they aren't evicting people or profiting off of an economic downturn that they engineered. That people consider EA worse than the banks is disappointing.

Utopia

[blarkon]

Oh that we live in such a utopia where the thing that outrages the populace the most about the totality of American corporate behavior is the inclusion of always-on DRM in SimCity.

wow

[geekoid]

"We don't hate them because we're homophobes, "
wait, what?

"We hate them because they claim our hate doesn't matter as long as we give them our money.'
And they are correct. If you claim to hate them, but then play their games, then you are either a hypocrite, or need to look you the word 'hate'.

Re:wow

[a_big_favor]

"We don't hate them because we're homophobes, " wait, what?

"We hate them because they claim our hate doesn't matter as long as we give them our money.' And they are correct. If you claim to hate them, but then play their games, then you are either a hypocrite, or need to look you the word 'hate'.

Penny Arcade is commenting on EA claiming that one demographic that voted them the worst company was homophobes.

Re:wow

[the_other_chewey]

"We don't hate them because we're homophobes, "
wait, what?

Yeah, that is completelty without context, and totally stupid.
Unless of course EA is somehow particularly gay - which I'm
pretty sure it is not, not even in the old meaning of the word.

Re:wow

[lord_mike]

"We don't hate them because we're homophobes, "
wait, what?

EA was claiming that they got a lot of negative votes from people upset with their use of same sex characters in some of their games.

Re:wow

[geminidomino]

It's not stupid, you're just ignorant. Try reading the links, and you'll see EA's self-congratulatory bullshit claiming they're being "targeted" by anti-gay bigots because they refuse to stop players from making gay characters in games.

Re:wow

[AlamedaStone]

they refuse to stop players from making gay characters in games.

You can make them, just as long as no one else ever has to see it. It's the worst kind of lie - they can claim to support LGBT while still forcing members of that community to stay in the closet.

Quite despicable, in my opinion.

Re:wow

[AlamedaStone]

That may be a little bit true. Religious nutjobs have condemned them in the past.

Although, in my limited experience, religious nutjobs aren't major consumers of computer games, or mass media in general for that matter. They tend to shut the world out so they can more completely indoctrinate their young and maintain their cognitive dissonance.

To be clear, I am speaking only of the nutjobs, not people of faith as a whole.

Worst Company? Seriously?

[XxtraLarGe]

Sure, EA screwed the pooch on the SimCity release, but at least they aren't on the government lobbyist gravy train like AMD, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Monsanto, etc. These companies use the government to screw over the public. At least with EA you have the choice to not buy their products. With the others, you're paying for their products whether you use them or not, either in the form of subsidies or flat-out money grabs.

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[omi5cron]

ADM , not AMD i hope. i LIKE AMD!! not a fan of ADM, i admit.

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[Merk42]

Worst consumer company. Of the four you listed, only one, Bank of America, was even in the brackets. It did come in second to EA. I didn't vote and I'm not a consumer of either EA or Bank of America, but what has Bank of America done in the past year? I'm not saying they are innocent, I just honestly don't know since I'm not a customer.

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[XxtraLarGe]

Yes, sorry. I typed that in haste, was definitely referring to Arch Daniels Midland (ADM), not Advanced Micro Devices (AMD).

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[Xelios]

More importantly BoA has been branded "too big to fail" and owns so many subsidiaries by now that they don't need to worry themselves with what ordinary consumers think of the Bank of America brand.

EA, on the other hand, was bothered enough to dish out pre-emptive damage control, so maybe some good will come of this.

Well, probably not.

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[Svartalf]

It *IS* EA, after all...

Re:Worst Company? Seriously?

[the eric conspiracy]

Bank America can be bad news. For example a few years ago I caught them selling an anti-identity theft product to my 85 year old father who needed no such thing. That's really low.

Most recently their robo signing abuses led to a huge fine.

Re:Misdirected criticism.

[frootcakeuk]

Bad crack at that!

The last one is true

[krtek]

Your hate really does not matter as long as you keep giving them your money.

Debunking EA's spin

[onyxruby]

The consumerist has already debunked EA's attempt to spin this. The link should have been included with the story to prevent EA from blaming this on homophobes or people who didn't like the athlete on the jacket of one of their games.

Yet still...

[Westwood0720]

...I'll end up ordering Battlefield 4. I need help. =[

Re:Yet still...

[Endo13]

You need a good alternative to Battlefield that's true competition. Unfortunately, I'm not sure one exists. I've seen plenty other good FPS's but nothing that's got the same feature-set. That said, the only two Battlefield games I've purchased were 1942 and BC2. Both only to play with friends, and both purchases I consider mistakes. As AAA games go, the Battlefield series have always been some of the most buggy games upon release ever.

What makes it even worse for gamers like you is that going forward, you really don't have a choice. With the elimination of dedicated server hosting by outside entities, EA now has full control over the multiplayer. You can bet within a year of releasing BF4 they'll be shutting down the servers for BF3.

So why hasn't someone developed some true competition for the Battlefield series? Or if they have, why isn't it popular and why haven't I heard about it?

Re:Yet still...

[Xest]

"So why hasn't someone developed some true competition for the Battlefield series? Or if they have, why isn't it popular and why haven't I heard about it?"

Call of Duty? Activision is as bad, or worse than EA though.

The problem is that these games cost a lot of money to make, and afaik they even have some of the elements locked down to an extent. People want real vehicles and real guns and I believe these are licensed. From what I understand the reason that Battlefield 3 didn't have the MP5 (iirc the closest it had was the UMP-45) was because Activision got signed a fairly exclusive license to it for their Call of Duty series.

So not only do you need a fortune to even make the game - the game itself will cost 10s, possibly hundreds of millions to make, but also you need to be able to negotiate licenses for all the military hardware if you want realistic weapons and you need the money to pay licenses for that.

Re:And Slashdot repeats and repeats

[colesw]

Except the first story was about being in the finals on the poll, this one is about 'winning' the poll ...

I'm Done With EA

[organgtool]

My indifference to EA stopped after I noticed that SSX required a code to play the game online, presumably killing its resale value. I've already boycotted Ubisoft and EA is the latest to join that list. There's just too many good games to play for me to give my money to companies that act like greedy dicks.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Westwood0720]

Westwood studios would be turning in its grave.

Not a SINGLE penny more.

I hear yea. I started off on Dune II on Windows 3.1. In fact, I go by the handle Westwood in all my games.

Re:Tagline

[Issarlk]

They just looked a Sid Meyer's Railroads for inspiration.

I haven't bought an EA Game in ages.

[jzilla]

EA makes games like laundry detergent. Every year they make a new box, slap a "10% more whitening power" sticker on it, and try to sell you the same shit game they sold you last year. I have time to play like 5% of the games out there nowdays, cause there are so many. I want to play a game that has something else to say than "Give me yo' fucking money". So I don't really avoid EA games because i hate EA, they do me a favor really and point out the shitty games i don't want to play by putting their name on them.

They won't measure piracy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why on earth would they go out and measure what rate of piracy they are getting? The only thing that can happen AT BEST is that their assertions are borne out. Most likely, their figures will be shown to be wildly inaccurate. And therefore they won't be able to get aid to the level they demand.

So they won't look.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[jedidiah]

The core team from Westwood never left. They formed their own studio afterwards and continued to make RTS games.

Perhaps that's what everyone needs to do. Track down the old talent. See where they are hiding. Buy those games instead.

EA is a distraction against what we truly hate.

[TheRealRainFall]

"We don't know it, but we're doing it". Like how much of anti-semitism is actually a hatred of capital, hatred of EA is that same hatred of capital. If you hate EA, you likely hate the entire system, but have been conditioned in favor of the system because of the band-aids holding it together make it appear better than all other options.

Re:FIRST

[amiga3D]

Especially Bank of America. I loathe them. Everytime I drive past one I roll down the window and spit at it. They are the lowest of the low, the scummiest of the scummy, the filthiest of the filthy.

Re:What bothers me the most, perhaps,

[Endo13]

And as long as their shitty business practices keep them the most profitable video game company in the world, why shouldn't they?

Personally I've been waiting for the masses to discover that EA has been getting more and more shitty for over a decade. Still waiting. I guess that's why the term "sheeple" exists.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Hsien-Ko]

I started off on Dune II on Windows 3.1.

That release is DOS only

Huh?

[Em Adespoton]

They were voted "worst company" and everyone's getting hung up on their products. What about the other aspects? I've known a number of people who worked for them, and the stories have never been happy. I've also seen the impact they can have on the markets they "target". They're the Wal-mart or Pepsi/Coke of the gaming world... Let's not forget that and get distracted by what they actually produce. There's a lot of other negative impact they have on this world that would exist even if their games were wonderful every time.

Comments?

Re:Tagline

[Endo13]

Thats what i hear every time i start an ea game...

every time i start an ea game...

So don't. Duh?

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Westwood0720]

I started off on Dune II on Windows 3.1.

That release is DOS only

Oh, I'm aware. Doesn't mean I was/am unable to play DOS games. =]

'We hate them as long as we give them our money'

[al.caughey]

First world problems... suck it up buttercup!

Too much focus on Social Media

[BlindMaster]

There are games targeted to hardcore players, while there are games focus on social media/softcore players. Perhaps the conclusion is, don't try to make complex games for softcore, or don't promote a social media game to hardcore. Diablo 3 and SimCity are supposed to be hardcore games, and they failed every aspect for hardcore, while make the focus in softcore (pay to win, connect to friends, ...). If they want to take the softcore market, just make something less complicated and funny. They shouldn't have mixed the male dominant market with female dominant market, it should fail as expected.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Endo13]

The downhill slide was apparent to me the moment WW got bought out by EA. Even RA2: Yuri's Revenge (the first EA C&C release) wasn't as fun for me as base RA2. Just like every other studio/franchise they've acquired. It just wasn't as noticeable back then, because they were just starting their downward spiral. The high point for EA IMO was back around the turn of the millenium, about the time they released Need for Speed: Porsche Unleashed. Everything since then has generally been slightly less fun and slightly more buggy than its predecessor (if one existed). Their first in-house project that really exemplified the future of their QA was Battlefield 1942. Until then, there had never been a high-profile FPS that was more bug-ridden and unplayable upon release. Of course, since then they've managed to top themselves with virtually every new Battlefield release, but it somehow hasn't seemed to matter.

Bottom line, I've seen this coming for a long long time.

Re:Monsanto? Coca Cola?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't companies like Monsanto, Coca Cola, Exxon etc. even mentioned?

That's a nice question you have there. It would be a shame if something... happened to it.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Endo13]

Just tried to find what studio you're talking about and came up with nothing. Care to elaborate?

Re:Its their fault...

[Endo13]

Seriously? You think Origin is the worst thing they do? No wonder they still make bucketloads of money.

Probably the first time I'll really stop buying EA

[GodfatherofSoul]

I've been a huge BF3 player of the past year, but the hacking and bugginess have been ridiculous. In the past, EA has been shrewd enough to patch everything right before a new release. I was hoping they'd at least try to do that for BF4, but we haven't even gotten that yet.

Just too aggravating really. They don't do anything to punish to block trolls, spammers, or in-game asshattery, which turns every round into 60%-fun, 40%-frustration.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Jthon]

Petroglyph Games. They started out with Star Wars: Empire at War and since moved on to the Graxia series.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroglyph_Games

we are banning ea

[thygate]

I have been refusing to buy their titles for he past few years, even though I really want to play ME3. Maybe if they ditch the origin and DRM crap and come to steam I might consider buying it because of the Mass Effect franchise. But only that one.

Re:sage wisdom: if the movie stinks, Just Don't Go

[Endo13]

If the game is published by EA or Activision, just dont buy it.

There are so many options out there now, well deserving, dedicated, creative independent developers who just want to make games. Give them your money instead of soulless corporate goons.

Here's the correct version of your post. You're welcome.

This is pretty stupid

[Ambassador Kosh]

Sure EA is not a great company. Actually I think they are pretty bad but they are not even in the top 10 for the worst companies. Given that we have companies like Monsanto around there is no way that EA is actually worse. We have companies like BP that deal hundreds of billions of dollars in environmental damage and the taxpayer gets most of the bill and somehow EA is worse because they have DRM and crappy servers? We have some drug companies that have made fraudulent journal articles in order to push medications that they know are lethal but are very hard to trace back to them and even when they are caught pay tiny fines compared to the money they made and somehow EA is worse?

Yeah I just don't buy it at all. This is more like some kind of internet popularity contest and it is popular for people to hate EA. Most people have no clue about what evil companies actually do because they don't really look around them. If EA is the worse company you know of then grow up and look around the world a bit and find out what worst really is.

Re:This is pretty stupid

[Ambassador Kosh]

After they spilled all that oil in the gulf of mexico they would certainly qualify. Also they certainly operate in America since they are a multinational corporation regardless of their name.

Another Worthless Self-Selected Online Poll

[westlake]

EA has 21 games and DLC in the top 50 Amazon PC game bestseller list. [4:30 EDT April 9]

It's telling that SimCity continues to top Bioshock Infinite in sales --- arguably the best single player game out there, in any genre, with a Metacritic rating of 95.

EA is very strong in genres which appeal to a very different demographic and set of values than Slashdot. The core appeal of the Sims is the same as the soap opera or telenovela. The major league sports fan wants to recreate the game day experience.

It is not as easy as it looks.

That is why EA's games continue to rake in the cash while the geek rages on.

Re:Another Worthless Self-Selected Online Poll

[Ironhandx]

Actually EA is losing money hand over fist because they bought a bunch of studios that make games that specifically appeal to people like those in the slashdot readership.

Bioware as a studio was a STRONG company for over a decade before EA took them over, and a decade is a long ass time in the video game industry. They're still a money maker but the titles they produce are selling less and less due to EA fingers creeping in.

One of the most telling things about EA is that they had to make fucking press statements that they weren't going to mess with biowares internal structure when they purchased it just to try to keep their brand from ruining a good thing.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[flimflammer]

It's a shame Petroglyph has been doing so poorly.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Endo13]

Thanks. Now I have some new games to buy. :)

Re:priorities out of order

[neminem]

Penny Arcade recently put it well: we *know* banks are, on the whole, evil, scumsucking parasites that would murder their own mothers for pocket change. Same is true about oil companies, private mercenary militias, etc. We're not surprised when companies like that do horrific things - in fact, we're surprised any time they *don't*. But a company that sells video games... we don't expect it from them. So it's far more shocking.

Re:Don't we?

[AlamedaStone]

... We don't hate them because we're homophobes...

Speak for yourself...

If you're uncomfortable please continue posting as AC, but I'm sincerely interested to know if this is just a drive-by troll or if you really made a decision not to buy EA products because of their LGBT handwaving, and why.

Worst company in America?

[wildtech]

I think this is somewhat simplistic. EA operates by the use of unethical practices to milk their customers out of money, but this is a video game company. If they folded tomorrow, the country's economy would not be impacted. Wall Street would not really care. The only people who would be impacted would be their employees.

There are worse businesses out there that do cause significant harm to people in the US. How about Oil Companies? How about Walmart?

This is as silly as Barack Obama and Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace prize for playing politician at their day jobs.

If you don't like EA that much, then Don't give them your money. End of story.

WTF nerds

[Snotnose]

Company A screws people out of their homes with shady business practices. Company B prevents people from playing a video game after paying $50.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd rather be out $60 than out my house.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[AlamedaStone]

I started off on Dune II on Windows 3.1.

That release is DOS only

As was Windows 3.1

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[AlamedaStone]

1000% this. What gamers need to learn is that it's about talent - people - not studios and brand names. Follow the good work, not the promos.

Re:What about Time Warner

[AlamedaStone]

I don't see how Time Warner is not the worst.

Because Comcast.

In That Category I hope

[Trogre]

Wait, a video game company has been rated as the worst company in America, above the likes of Monsanto?

Video games?

No wonder that crazy nation is going to hell in a handbasket.

And everyone thought EA couldn't do it

[OhANameWhatName]

The detractors said they'd never make it, but in the end they pulled through.

This is what happens when visionary leaders dare to dream. It's the result of countless hours of boardroom discussions and those not meeting the mark stepping down to allow more effective leadership to take the helm. It's the result of true commitment to an honest goal. It's an arousing endorsement over the likes of Monsanto and Bank of America. For a mere gaming company to inspire such customer dedication proves without a shadow of a doubt how effective EA has become.

I (for one) congratulate EA on thier achievement.

Re:Not so

[Ambassador Kosh]

Systems are also too complex to be made close to the purchase point right now. Nanomaterials are a great example of that. They have some extremely impressive capabilities, especially the medications, but they are HARD to make. They are seriously nasty evil bitches to make and very easy to screw up. There is really no way a regular person will ever understand that enough to make wise purchasing decisions. The world is just too complex now to have an economic system based on the consumer having informed consent and informed choice.

You are mistaken

[aepervius]

Consumerist is asking the consumer *which* company they felt was the worst (insert here "at consumer service"). The company you cited have a very small group as consumer, or no "consumer" at all (black water). You could be a morally abject company making oil out of live kitten, if no consumer whatsoever has contact with you, you won't appear on the poll.

The poll should read actually "Worst company of the year, as felt by consumer of their products vis a vis of their service". Not as catchy as "worst company of the year" though.

Wrong choice

[ThatsNotPudding]

As terrible as EA no doubt is, they didn't make millions in illegal lucre by conspiring in a pyramid scheme that led to the near-destruction of the world economy (without one person even being procecuted, mind you).

IMHO, EA isn't even in the same league of evil as Bank of America. BoA should be given this award permanently.

Re:sage wisdom: if the movie stinks, Just Don't Go

[Endo13]

Are you stupid? Bioware has never been a publisher.

Re:Command and Conquer ..

[Endo13]

I didn't say RA2:YR bothered me all that much. I said I found it slightly less fun than RA2. I also discovered that I made a mistake in my previous post. RA2 was actually the first C&C game published by EA. It also got lower ratings than the first RA, which I've never played and thus couldn't compare RA2 with. I guess now I'll have to. Also of interest to me was that C&C Generals was the last C&C that had any of the Westwood team working on it, and it was also the last C&C I actually enjoyed. I didn't care for the more recent ones at all.

Like I said, it wasn't that noticable back then, it was mostly just minor disappointments here and there, games just felt a bit rushed and not quite as fun as previous ones (well, with the exception of Battlefield 1942, my god what a mess of bugs that was). Still, I and some others did see EA starting to go downhill even then. It appears they've accellerated now, almost to the point where it looks like they're actively trying to do a suicide crash.

Ridiculous and sad

[descubes]

The fact that a video game company was voted worst company in America is ridiculous and would be laughable if it was not so frightening. Come on! Is there nothing more serious on the planet than botching a game release? Aren't companies that fight like crazy to deprive cancer patients from inexpensive treatments a little worse? Or companies who lie to be free to play with your health in the name of profit? Or companies using child labor to lower the price of smartphones? Or simply profitable companies planning massive layoffs? Or media associations with an agenda built on layers of lies?

Apparently, for the majority of Slashdot readers, getting a perspective chip would be a good idea.