Home
News Post



You've almost certainly heard the news by now, Electronic Arts has been named the worst company in America for the second year in a row by Consumerist. EA managed to 'best' Bank of America, yes that same BAC that helped nearly bring down the entire US economy in 2008, in the championship round.

Consumerist cited three key areas where EA failed to improve in the last year: 1)providing a product people want and like, 2)sell products at a reasonable price and 3)support the products you sell.

EA COO Peter Moore had this to say, "I’ll be the first to admit that we’ve made plenty of mistakes. These include server shut downs too early, games that didn’t meet expectations, missteps on new pricing models and most recently, severely fumbling the launch of SimCity. We owe gamers better performance than this."

Of course, Moore also had something else to say, "In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games. This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America."

So, apparently, EA is officially the worst company in America, but not because of what they have done to anger customers in the first place, but because people simply are homophobic and want to prove a political point.

Of course, it's also because people just don't like the Madden cover choice, "We’ve seen mailing lists that direct people to vote for EA because they disagree with the choice of the cover athlete on Madden NFL," Moore wrote to Consumerist.

As for those pink elephants in the room? Oh don't mind them, they are just there for decoration.

What do you think about EA being named the worst company in America for a second year in a row? Does it 'deserve' the honor over the other companies at the top of the list like Comcast and Bank of America? Sound off!

Member Comments
# 1 Cletus @ 04/10/13 12:53 PM
Lol. I can't help but laugh at people. Sure, EA makes some bad games, but it's hard for me to believe they are the worst. EA products have never killed anyone, or had side effects that majorly affected your health. I'm still not sure how they got more votes than dog food companies who products kill thousands of dogs then act like nothing happens.

Also, if EA was the worst company in America, how do they sell millions of products? Their products are so bad that they manage to be one of the most successful companies in America?
 
# 2 Mostoasty @ 04/10/13 01:07 PM
They ARE a bad company when it comes to consumer satisfaction. The online pass alone is enough to make me hate EA. They do make great sports games though.
 
# 3 BreaksoftheGame @ 04/10/13 01:17 PM
EA has continued to fail at satisfying consumers.

I don't understand how the NBA and the NCAA allowed them to purchase a license and not use it. Sure you make the money but how does the contract not state you must produce something to further spread the NBA and NCAA's advertisement.

It really makes the NBA and NCAA look bad if they sell the rights for a game that doesn't get made right?
 
# 4 Bmore Irish @ 04/10/13 01:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus
Lol. I can't help but laugh at people. Sure, EA makes some bad games, but it's hard for me to believe they are the worst. EA products have never killed anyone, or had side effects that majorly affected your health. I'm still not sure how they got more votes than dog food companies who products kill thousands of dogs then act like nothing happens.

Also, if EA was the worst company in America, how do they sell millions of products? Their products are so bad that they manage to be one of the most successful companies in America?
This is kinda my take. Sure EA can infuriate at times, but I'd say there are companies out there who are much more deserving of the vitriol. I absolutely hold them to a higher standard than they put out, but some of their products are still quite enjoyable. Clearly, though, the leadership at EA is made up of complete *******s.
 
# 5 ps3veron @ 04/10/13 01:54 PM
LoL! Well this is a little harsh! Sure they do a bunch of money hungry moves (Online Passes, DLC, In Game purchases etc..) but everyone else is following suit with that.

They sure do have the best servers for online gaming and their sports library is awesome.

Its not like they're dumping toxic waste into rivers, scamming people's savings or causing global warming.

World's worst gaming company? Maybe. World's worst company? Heck no!
 
# 6 CM Hooe @ 04/10/13 02:52 PM
1 - incorrect headline, the Consumerist poll only included American companies and was for the award "Worst Company in America".

2 - as I've claimed in the thread in the Madden forum, this poll made no attempt at being an accurate cross-section of the American consumer base; it was a voluntary internet poll run on a web site whose traffic demographics skew heavily to the 18-24 and 25-34 age brackets. Compound this with the observation that video gamers are typically young, incredibly vocal, and possess a pack mentality on any controversial issue, I assert that there's undoubtedly sampling bias in the population of poll respondents, which is enough for me to disregard the poll entirely.

3 - EA's practices are fairly representative of most of the AAA video game industry. I don't see how one could call them the "worst company in America" and not effectively call out every other major video game publisher at the same time. EA is just the flavor of the month once again, this time thanks to the SimCity debacle.

4 - if EA is really so anti-consumer, etc., why do consumers keep buying their products? Surely they keep making things that consumers want, and whatever EA is doing must not be but so bad if consumers are willing to tolerate whatever they do to have access to said products.

5 - why is this poll even worth talking about? Unless EA is going to react to it in any substantial way (remove microtransactions, limit DRM use, end the exclusivity agreement), this poll means nothing. EA will react to their own financial missteps (SWTOR) before they react to this because at the end of the day consumers are still buying FIFA, Madden, SimCity, The Sims, etc. AND their associated DLC, regardless what they are voting in this poll. If consumers are legitimately unhappy with EA, they need to consistently voice their opinion with their wallets, otherwise EA isn't going to change.
 
# 7 Fresh Tendrils @ 04/10/13 03:13 PM
Internet polls are probably the most worthless source of information on the internet and considering all the inaccurate "informational" memes I see plastered on my newsfeed that is saying quite a lot.
 
# 8 Fresh Tendrils @ 04/10/13 03:28 PM
If buying Battlefield is wrong then I guess I don't want to be right.
 
# 9 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 03:33 PM
I lol at Peter's reasoning for why EA won this poll. I also lol at those discrediting the message just because EA is not really the worst company in America.

What I get out of this poll is that there are a lot of others besides me that are dissatisfied with EA's business practices.
 
# 10 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 03:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils
If buying Battlefield is wrong then I guess I don't want to be right.
I'm disappointed in Battlefield 3's single player campaign as well. Too arcady. Arma 2 is much better.
 
# 11 Fresh Tendrils @ 04/10/13 03:37 PM
BF3 had a single player campaign?

I feel like that complaint would be similar to complaining about Tomb Raider's multiplayer. Yes its there and feel free to complain about it, but its obviously just tacked onto the bigger part of the driving force behind the game.
 
# 12 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 03:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils
BF3 had a single player campaign?
Yes. I don't like paying subscriptions so I stay away from MMO's. I don't even bother to check if the MMO is a monthly subscription or not anymore since so many are.

Arma 2 is much more realistic to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils
I feel like that complaint would be similar to complaining about Tomb Raider's multiplayer. Yes its there and feel free to complain about it, but its obviously just tacked onto the bigger part of the driving force behind the game.
You edited your post.

I specifically said "Single Player Campaign" and didn't mention anything about multi-player. I only complained about the Single Player Campaign option. I don't know if the multi-player is as arcady as the Single Player Campaign. But the Single Player Campaign is much of an endorsement for the multi-player. Arma 2's Single Player Campaign is much more realistic.
 
# 13 mpbaseball22 @ 04/10/13 03:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mostoasty
They ARE a bad company when it comes to consumer satisfaction. The online pass alone is enough to make me hate EA. They do make great sports games though.
There is nothing wrong with an online pass. I am not sure how it all works, but when you buy a game used, the game developer is not getting payed for it, just the store you buy the game from. The online pass is simply a way for people that buy used, to give something back to the developer
 
# 14 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 03:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpbaseball22
There is nothing wrong with an online pass. I am not sure how it all works, but when you buy a game used, the game developer is not getting payed for it, just the store you buy the game from. The online pass is simply a way for people that buy used, to give something back to the developer
If the game is used, then it's already been paid for. Why should a used game purchaser be required to "give something back to the developer" for something that's already been paid for?
 
# 15 Fresh Tendrils @ 04/10/13 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky60
If the game is used, then it's already been paid for. Why should a used game purchaser be required to "give something back to the developer" for something that's already been paid for?
As a business I would be pissed that somebody is making money off of my product several times, but I'm only getting paid once.
 
# 16 Greatness @ 04/10/13 03:56 PM
I think EA definitely deserves the title of "World's Worst Company".

Tell the truth and shame the devil!

It looks like the people have spoken regardless of individual opinions.
 
# 17 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 04:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fresh Tendrils
As a business I would be pissed that somebody is making money off of my product several times, but I'm only getting paid once.
Why? Once the product is sold, the one who bought the product owns it, not the company that produced it. If you bought a car and sold it used to your neighbor, should the neighbor have to pay a fee to ford because he bought the car from you?

You buy a used Ford at a GM dealer, after you pay the GM Dealer, are you sending another check to Ford Motor Company?
 
# 18 CM Hooe @ 04/10/13 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bucky60
Why? Once the product is sold, the one who bought the product owns it, not the company that produced it. If you bought a car and sold it used to your neighbor, should the neighbor have to pay a fee to ford because he bought the car from you?

You buy a used Ford at a GM dealer, after you pay the GM Dealer, are you sending another check to Ford Motor Company?
While I'm not 100% positive if this is the case for console video games, for most PC software this absolutely isn't true, the consumer is actually only buying a license to use the software and he does not actually own it.

Use of software implies acceptance of its EULA, and given the terms of the relationship setup therein the producing company absolutely has a leg to stand on to the end of seeking money for the sale of a used video game.

Again, I'm assuming video game EULAs are the same as PC software EULAs here, I'm attempting to dig up more information that end and will update this post if I find something contrary to what I've argued.
 
# 19 Fresh Tendrils @ 04/10/13 04:32 PM
Comparing used video game sales to used car sales isn't analogous. Imagine if people were reselling music on this scale.

The fact still remains that EA is losing out on sales. Its only logical to go after those sales that are, seemingly, readily available.
 
# 20 bucky60 @ 04/10/13 04:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Hooe
While I'm not 100% positive if this is the case for console video games, for most PC software this absolutely isn't true, the consumer is actually only buying a license to use the software and he does not actually own it.

Use of software implies acceptance of its EULA, and given the terms of the relationship setup therein the producing company absolutely has a leg to stand on to the end of seeking money for the sale of a used video game.

Again, I'm assuming video game EULAs are the same as PC software EULAs here, I'm attempting to dig up more information that end and will update this post if I find something contrary to what I've argued.

All depends on how the PC Product is sold. Much of the Server based (Major) Business Software is licensed to a specific company. Most home software, you purchase the license and can do what you want with it. Including give the product to someone else.

Microsoft tried to go away from the one time license and wanted to start charging yearly for a perpetual license for there software, but they backed down.
 

« Previous1234567Next »

Post A Comment
Only OS members can post comments
Please login or register to post a comment.