IGN: Why Do People 'Hate' EA? - Seriously? What is that all about? We asked EA.

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
Why do people hate EA? When I say 'people,' I mean 'some people,' some of the time -- a minority. And when I say 'hate' I mean mostly the writing of mean things on the internet.

This brand, this company, this group of people, creates some of the best and biggest games in the world with an average Metacritic rating that’s high and rising. It is profitable, but not outrageously so, and is under-valued by the stock market. So how has it managed to create enough ill-will to be voted the worst company in America? And even if it wasnt, even if we put that down to a temporary 'Mass Effect ending' negative blip that everyone has already forgotten about, there’s no doubt that ‘EA Hate’ is a thing.

I wanted to talk about this with Peter Moore, EA’s COO and he was big enough to tackle the uncomfortable question head on. It’s obvious that the whole issue bugs the hell out of him, and other people who work at EA and who care about EA as an entity. “It's painful when you read that commentary. The vitriol is hard on the teams. They read this stuff, their neighbors ask them about it. You probably saw the video, EA in a Nutshell. It portrays us as a money-grubbing monolith, gouging. And you just want to say... really...we are The Man? Unfortunately, I've always learned that the tallest trees catch the most wind.”

Of course, there’s no doubt that EA does silly things and makes dumb mistakes, as do all large companies. The point of this question isn’t really to exonerate EA for every foolish or greedy thing it’s ever done, but to investigate the depth of emotion that the company attracts -- to try to understand why.

EA is a Corporation

Let’s be clear. EA is a corporation and its primary concern is making money.

We are supposed to accept the fiction that corporations are people, so let me suggest an alternative, equally ludicrous fiction. Corporations are actually dogs. They exist to eat and grow and reproduce and occasionally they make people feel good. But if you leave the pantry door open, they’ll make away with the sausages. They just can’t help themselves.

The best you can hope is that the corporation is managed by people who don’t let them poop on the pavement, or bite small children.

As companies go, EA is not as cuddly and nice as, say Valve. But then, Valve isn’t publicly traded. Valve isn’t owned by banks. EA isn’t exactly Dogtanian or Lady or Lassie. But nor is it Kujo. And the world is full of Kujos. You are probably touching something right now that was conceived, manufactured, funded, or distributed by Kujo.

So the question is valid. Why EA? Probably because EA makes games and people care about games in ways that they don’t about gasoline or shopping bags or laptop accessories. Games are products, but they are also special.

Moore says, “There is this underlying belief in a lot of gamers that games shouldn't be profitable enterprises. I try and sit down with people as much as I can and explain what it takes to make a video game and how much capital investment it takes. We employ over 9,000 people. We invest over a billion dollars a year in R&D, most of which doesn't see revenue until the following year, or in some instances, the year after that. And so you've constantly got to be making money to reinvest money to make great games.”

EA and Your Money

Judging by the forums and articles on this subject, EA’s most grievous error seems to be in its attempts to get more money out of its customers. Its tinkering with DLC models has enraged many people who believe the firm is gouging the most loyal fans of the great games it makes.

It is undoubtedly true that tricks like Day One DLC and extra downloadable content is an area where EA and other games companies are toying with our emotions, our loyalties, and our wallets.

If EA was the only company in gaming trying to figure this stuff out, in a way that suits its shareholders and its customers, and sometimes getting it badly wrong, then there would be an easy explanation for the hate. But it’s not. Every company is trying to figure it out, because if they don’t they’ll go broke. And most of them, at some level, are getting it wrong. They are feeling their way through the dark and they are afraid. Sure, the people making these decisions want to get it wrong in a way that doesn’t get them fired, in a way that sucks in money as opposed to blowing money out.

The $60 game is dying. The mid-range game is no longer profitable. EA has to focus its energies elsewhere in order to meet those quarterly targets. Otherwise its share price will be in an even crappier place than it currently is, and it’ll get eaten up by Kujo. You think the system is flawed? Me too. But I’m not about to move to Cuba.

Moore says, “We have to try things, because we are facing the spectre of the stuff that we've enjoyed selling at a decent gross revenue line, that in the future we'll have to go and give away for free. It's no different from you and I having to go to work and not get paid, but then at the end of the day, we've found a way to make a hundred bucks through five dollars here and ten dollars there. That is the future of what we as a company have to figure out. Otherwise we're gone.”

EA and its Beloved Games

I am not one of those free-market fundamentalists who shrugs and says ‘if you don’t like it, don’t buy it’. In my view, brands have a hard-wired moral responsibility towards their fans to behave in a way that is respectful.

But it is useful that your dollar has power. Brands that fail to align with our expectations, sooner or later, lose customers. I used to buy products from certain manufacturers of computers, clothing, cars. Now I don’t. At some point, they annoyed me off by gouging, employing small children, or attempting to destroy the planet. It’s probable that the brands I currently use will one day tick me off sufficiently that I choose something different.

Unfortunately EA is slightly different, and this is the second reason for the hate. EA is the only company where you can buy Madden. Mass Effect, Battlefield, Need For Speed. Those games all have competitors, but you are invested in these particular games because they have stories and characters and modes that you care about. So the ‘don’t buy it’ mantra makes way less sense. This is a phenomenon that works equally well with, say, George Lucas. If you want a different sort of Star Wars movie, you’re kind of powerless.

Your recourse to things you don’t like is, of course, to withhold your money and to go online and make your feelings known, sometimes articulately and sometimes less so. But we’re not talking here about ‘criticism’. We’re talking about hate, that mindset where whatever EA does, however harmless its motives, it’s going to get flak.

When EA attempts, absolutely necessarily, to get into the digital distribution business, it becomes the focus of ire because it makes use of its best brands to create an exclusive advantage in a sector where it is a long way behind the established market-leader. Good business? Maybe. Good PR? Probably not. EA has done some very smart things with Origin. And its done some very stupid things, like banning accounts for no good reason or failing to invest sufficiently in customer support.

If it has an ounce of wit, it’ll listen to the criticism and Moore says that EA is genuinely interested in what customers have to say, even in the most heated forums. “There are enough gems of well-written responses out there that it makes it worth picking through all the other drivel that you read. Read ten and then the eleventh guy comes in and says, ‘wait a second, let's think this through’...”

EA and its History

And then there’s the past. Famously, EA was founded with noble ideals, to “make software worthy of the minds that use it” and to create “a language of dreams”. No-one is going to seriously accuse EA of being on a moral or intellectual mission, but there still seems to be people who believe that’s exactly what companies should be doing, and they may be right. Back in the real world of grubby commerce, EA has a history of less-than-ideal behavior. EA Spouse, for example, showed the company tolerating a culture where work-life balances were out of kilter. This was in the middle part of the last decade and, thankfully, it was addressed.

My guess is that EA is probably no worse a place to work than anywhere else, probably better. If the focus of your hate is working conditions at EA, I want to gently suggest you also consider clothing factories in southeast Asia or diamond mines in southern Africa, or fast food outlets in the mid-west.

Then there were all those awesome developers that EA bought, back in the day, and neutered and destroyed through overbearing centralized management or neglect. All those things happened. Talk to, say, Bioware today, and it becomes evident that they were not merely horrible mistakes, but also expensive lessons. EA learns, because it must. Mistakes are made and new dictates come down. We change. Or else.

EA and the Future

I know that I place myself in the firing line by daring to suggest that EA is flawed, imperfect, sometimes idiotic, but not hateful. I know it’s uncool to side with a corporation and say ‘well, they have good reason to behave in this way’. And I also know that EA’s phalanx of PRs will not thank me for bringing this whole subject up again.

But EA makes many of the biggest and best games that we play. And it employs some of the smartest people in gaming. So although EA deserves to be analyzed and scrutinized and criticized, it’s weird and it’s unjust that -- so often -- we see this company portrayed as something that’s purely malevolent.

Peter Moore says, “In gaming the highway of innovation is littered with roadkill, developers and publishers that just couldn't figure it out, couldn't find ways to bring money in so they could pay their employees and pay their rent and keep the electricity on and everything else you need to do. That's why we try different things. We don't gouge. We don’t sit around a boardroom and say, ‘okay, how can we can squeeze five dollars out of this guy because he won't realize what we're doing’. It's none of that. None of that. It's a very small minority [haters]. I think the average gamer enjoys what we do and gets what needs to happen for a business to exist and evolve and grow.”

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/06/14/why-do-people-hate-ea
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Your recourse to things you don’t like is, of course, to withhold your money and to go online and make your feelings known, sometimes articulately and sometimes less so. But we’re not talking here about ‘criticism’. We’re talking about hate, that mindset where whatever EA does, however harmless its motives, it’s going to get flak.

The thing is, simply criticizing doesn't get the job done. I mean, we have a right to speak out against day 1 DLC, but in the end, that kind of thing by itself, well, they are a business, but what really gets us motivated against EA is how they buy companies like Bioware and then drag the franchise down in quality in order to appeal to the masses and I don't think they actually have any proof that that's necessary.

Dragon Age Origins was awesome and DA2 was not, for example. And then they pulled the rug out from under BF1942/2/2142 fans and converted ALL DICE shooters to compete with the CoD style games. Obviously those of you who like BF3 don't care because you're happy, but the fact is, some people they cheese off with what they did to Bioware, some Battlefield, and how knows what else.

I heard Dead Space 3 was going to be vastly different? Where does it end?
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
Metacritic score for BF3 breakdown

Critics: 61 positive, 1 neutral, 0 negative
Users: 966 positive, 82 neutral, 251 negative

One critic's review reads "For a single player game that's short and painfully linear, you can only admire the atmosphere and visuals. [edit by me: Precisely, the ONLY thing to admire...] MP maps are too small for 64 players..." and gives a 92 score. In other words, who cares about the actual gameplay when it's looks gorgeous! So please, spare me the "EA makes critically acclaimed" BS. The gamers that decry EA know enough to look past critics that are little more than industry shills.
 
Last edited:

GullyFoyle

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2000
4,362
11
81
Most haters around here quote this:

Then there were all those awesome developers that EA bought, back in the day, and neutered and destroyed through overbearing centralized management or neglect. All those things happened. Talk to, say, Bioware today, and it becomes evident that they were not merely horrible mistakes, but also expensive lessons.
 

Ancalagon44

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2010
3,274
202
106
I've said it before - day one DLC is a sign of an industry desperately trying to turn a profit from a massive investment. No more no less.

Look at it this way - in the last 10-15 years, video game prices have not risen past the $60 sticking point. Yet, in that time, inflation has caused that $60 to mean less now than it did before. So corporations are making less money, in real terms, per game sold.

Add to that, the fact that development costs have skyrocketed, as players demand the newest, best thing. The most photorealistic graphics. The largest interactive worlds. The biggest names in voice acting.

And, competition has intensified in a lot of ways. Neither Sony nor Nintendo is dominating any more. The market is threatened by mobile gaming.

So you have these corporations investing millions into games, that because of fierce competition, might not make a cent. What do they do? They attempt to structure it so that the game will break even if it makes a reasonable amount of sales, and the DLC is where the profits are. Profits that enable the next line of games to be built.

Thats what is happening. DLC is not a price gouging attempt, its a stay-in-business attempt. Corporations seem to think that consumers will not tolerate a new $70 price point for games. They are probably right. So what else can they do? If they cut costs more than they already do (hence day 1 patches, and lack of support for existing games), consumers will go elsewhere. They cant cut the graphics, since graphics sell games. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Most haters around here quote this:

What does that mean, a lesson? Did they learn from what they did to Dragon Age 2?

Take this for example:
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/EA-Says-Dead-Space-3-Has-Sell-5-Million-Survive-43629.html

"In general we're thinking about how we make this a more broadly appealing franchise, because ultimately you need to get to audience sizes of around five million to really continue to invest in an IP like Dead Space."
-EA Labels President Frank Gibeau

So, basically, they learned their lesson on Dragon Age but now they need to learn their lesson on Dead Space? So they're going to change Dead Space 3, get their 5 million sales, but get so many complaints they have to vow to fix Dead Space 4 just like Bioware has had to say about Dragon Age 3?
 

ApexBoost

Member
May 5, 2011
125
0
0
Add to that, the fact that development costs have skyrocketed, as players demand the newest, best thing. The most photorealistic graphics. The largest interactive worlds. The biggest names in voice acting.

Except they also pour tons of money into things that people do not want such as Origin and Kinect motion support. I for the most part agree with your post though .
 

akahoovy

Golden Member
May 1, 2011
1,336
1
0
Wow, didn't know about Origin. Westwood was the first offense that I remember. Not that I didn't like Generals and Zero Hour, but I haven't liked C&C since then.

That whole thing with banning people on the EA forums and their linked Origin accounts was pretty fantastic, I'd never seen anything like that.

I'm not sure what most people think about BF3, but I played BF:BC2 a lot and I feel like it may just be the maps.

I didn't like Mass Effect 2, so I didn't buy 3. I finished it since I did buy it on a discount from Steam, but there was a massive scaling down on RPG elements and the game was bland.

I'm not sure there could be much that would go wrong with Dead Space 3, it seems like that studio knows what they're doing, but I guess we'll find out what EA was asking for when it releases.
 

akahoovy

Golden Member
May 1, 2011
1,336
1
0
Moore said:
But EA makes many of the biggest and best games that we play. And it employs some of the smartest people in gaming. So although EA deserves to be analyzed and scrutinized and criticized, it’s weird and it’s unjust that -- so often -- we see this company portrayed as something that’s purely malevolent.

Peter Moore says, “In gaming the highway of innovation is littered with roadkill, developers and publishers that just couldn't figure it out, couldn't find ways to bring money in so they could pay their employees and pay their rent and keep the electricity on and everything else you need to do. That's why we try different things. We don't gouge. We don’t sit around a boardroom and say, ‘okay, how can we can squeeze five dollars out of this guy because he won't realize what we're doing’. It's none of that. None of that. It's a very small minority [haters]. I think the average gamer enjoys what we do and gets what needs to happen for a business to exist and evolve and grow.

The highway of innovation is littered with roadkill that isn't an instantly recognizable IP that they haven't bought and milked the hell out of while getting it to appeal to the widest customer base possible. EA does not have the Midas touch.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
If it's such a small minority, how did they get voted the worst company? :p While I'm sure they probably aren't the worst company out there, obviously their "minority" are the most vocal, and that is never a good thing for your image.

The very bad trend I'm seeing is that companies these days really don't care about customer service at all, and EA is one of those that throws it in your face. While I like honesty, it's very clear their type of honesty is, "Fuck you, we don't care what you think, we're trying to make money and that trumps any complaint you might have."
 
Last edited:

scooterlibby

Senior member
Feb 28, 2009
752
0
0
I guess I'm pretty indifferent for the most part. They make some good games. I think the only inexcusable thing is their customer support. A company that big should have live chat 24/7. Interacting with them via their shitty email support was pretty unpleasant.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
I've said it before - day one DLC is a sign of an industry desperately trying to turn a profit from a massive investment. No more no less.

Look at it this way - in the last 10-15 years, video game prices have not risen past the $60 sticking point. Yet, in that time, inflation has caused that $60 to mean less now than it did before. So corporations are making less money, in real terms, per game sold.

Add to that, the fact that development costs have skyrocketed, as players demand the newest, best thing. The most photorealistic graphics. The largest interactive worlds. The biggest names in voice acting.

And, competition has intensified in a lot of ways. Neither Sony nor Nintendo is dominating any more. The market is threatened by mobile gaming.

So you have these corporations investing millions into games, that because of fierce competition, might not make a cent. What do they do? They attempt to structure it so that the game will break even if it makes a reasonable amount of sales, and the DLC is where the profits are. Profits that enable the next line of games to be built.

Thats what is happening. DLC is not a price gouging attempt, its a stay-in-business attempt. Corporations seem to think that consumers will not tolerate a new $70 price point for games. They are probably right. So what else can they do? If they cut costs more than they already do (hence day 1 patches, and lack of support for existing games), consumers will go elsewhere. They cant cut the graphics, since graphics sell games. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.


+1

Most people who talk about "price gouging" or "fleecing the customer" do not have the slightest understanding of economics.
 

Harabec

Golden Member
Oct 15, 2005
1,369
1
81
Do we really demand the latest and greatest in every game that comes out?
Or do the "major sites" demand it?

I think the worst thing that can happen to a company is growing too big - then your concern starts to shift towards "quarterly profits" rather than "making games".
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
My biggest complaint is their quality and innovation has gone to shit. They are so bad they have to buy up other companies with real talent and usually after a year they milk em to death.
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Corporations seem to think that consumers will not tolerate a new $70 price point for games. They are probably right. So what else can they do? If they cut costs more than they already do (hence day 1 patches, and lack of support for existing games), consumers will go elsewhere. They cant cut the graphics, since graphics sell games. They are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

In order to settle the matter, I would LOVE to see professional analyses of games to determine whether games in the last few years, when you add base game content to the day 1 DLC content, is it providing the same total amount of content as games from a couple of years ago and earlier when day 1 DLC was less prominent? If it can be shown that they are basically providing the same total amount of content, but chopping one seventh of the general average content total and selling for $10 extra, then that would prove they are manipulating customer perceptions in order to do an end run and get that $70 price point under our noses. You admit that the market probably won't tolerate the $70 price point, so I would think that you would welcome a professional analysis of games, if such a thing is possible, to get an idea of what's going on. And it could prove that they are providing MORE total content. I would think that they companies would welcome such vindication if they are truly doing nothing wrong?

BUT. Even if they are doing nothing wrong on the day 1 DLC, has no one considered that suboptimal financial performance might be due to their design policy? That is: if they had not made the design/storyline/etc decisions to their games that people are complaining about, could the extra sales generated by the higher quality game have allowed them to reach profit based purely on sales at the $60 price point? If so, why should the customers who really want to continue buying EA games have to pay $70 because EA cut corners and drove away a lot of customers?

And then, you have to remember, some of us don't even care about the money. We might even pay $70 for the game, but not if they change it substantially. For us, we're looking for the same gameplay and a continuation of the story(for Dragon Age, Mass Effect etc), or substantially the same gameplay with new maps and graphics(for multiplayer games).

And then, a lot of people, right or wrong, tinfoil hat or not, have been driven away by Origin. I personally buy through Origin but many do not. Why should those who remain be forced to pay $70 because EA drove away customer volume that could have taken them to profit at $60?

I also think they may be slightly overestimating the need for bleeding edge graphics, as well, considering that the higher the graphics go, the more you need an expensive GPU if you intend to run the game on high settings in the first year or two of life - and not everyone is running around out there with GTX 680 or better.
 
Last edited:

dud

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,635
73
91
I do not hate EA. In fact, they have brought me a lot of "fun" in my life. To this day I still (sometimes) play the one that started it of ... the original COD.

You vote with your dollars. If you don't like a company/product then VOTE THEM OUT by not buying their crap.

it's as simple as that ...
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
I do not hate EA. In fact, they have brought me a lot of "fun" in my life. To this day I still (sometimes) play the one that started it of ... the original COD.

You vote with your dollars. If you don't like a company/product then VOTE THEM OUT by not buying their crap.

it's as simple as that ...

The big issue here is they cater to the console crowd and make crummy Windows games as a result.
 

dud

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,635
73
91
The big issue here is they cater to the console crowd and make crummy Windows games as a result.



Understood. But please realize that I am not a console gamer (sold my PS3) and (for some reason) only enjoy playing older games (as in pre-2009).

I can understand the animosity against EA. Everyone has to hate something or someone ...
 

Rambusted

Senior member
Feb 7, 2012
210
0
0
EA published NHL hockey on Sega Genesis so they get a free pass from me when it comes to forum bashing.
 

busydude

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2010
8,793
5
76
Why do people hate EA? When I say 'people,' I mean 'some people,' some of the time -- a minority. And when I say 'hate' I mean mostly the writing of mean things on the internet.

[redacted] When the author starts off on a baseless assumption.. it is really hard to take the article seriously.

In the whole article EA rep said these..

Moore says, “There is this underlying belief in a lot of gamers that games shouldn't be profitable enterprises. I try and sit down with people as much as I can and explain what it takes to make a video game and how much capital investment it takes. We employ over 9,000 people. We invest over a billion dollars a year in R&D, most of which doesn't see revenue until the following year, or in some instances, the year after that. And so you've constantly got to be making money to reinvest money to make great games.”

Moore says, “We have to try things, because we are facing the spectre of the stuff that we've enjoyed selling at a decent gross revenue line, that in the future we'll have to go and give away for free. It's no different from you and I having to go to work and not get paid, but then at the end of the day, we've found a way to make a hundred bucks through five dollars here and ten dollars there. That is the future of what we as a company have to figure out. Otherwise we're gone.”

Peter Moore says, “In gaming the highway of innovation is littered with roadkill, developers and publishers that just couldn't figure it out, couldn't find ways to bring money in so they could pay their employees and pay their rent and keep the electricity on and everything else you need to do. That's why we try different things. We don't gouge. We don’t sit around a boardroom and say, ‘okay, how can we can squeeze five dollars out of this guy because he won't realize what we're doing’. It's none of that. None of that. It's a very small minority [haters]. I think the average gamer enjoys what we do and gets what needs to happen for a business to exist and evolve and grow.”

Looks like IGN filled their pockets with some EA money.

No profanity in the tech forums guys (& dudes)
-ViRGE
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
One of the big problems with Dragon Age that most people miss is that it is a linear successor to Neverwinter Nights but completely omits one of the best parts of Neverwinter Nights--online multiplayer. In Neverwinter Nights there were "persistent world" servers that would save your character and you could play with up to 75 other people on a server at a time. Releasing a new version of the game with less features than the old version is a sin IMHO. I blame the lack of online multiplayer in Dragon Age on consolization.