EA No Longer "Worst Company In America"
- Thread starter Gahars
- Start date
- Views 6,389
- Replies 59
It can be a perspective thing. Maybe the vote should be interpreted as the worst company among its own industry/field and how worse compared to them is. Voting for the absolute "worst" is very boring because companies have more responsibilities than others, sometimes by a huge margin. For example, even in a reality where banks weren't all greedy pieces of shit but were admirable with near-perfect conduct, they would still objectively be the worst companies because pretty much the basis of the economical system is all on them, and the smallest mistake/bad decision will influence the world more than anything else, which would get a free pass no matter what.
So eh, EA it is for me.
I've always considered this poll as the worst company to their customers. Meaning a company that takes their customers for granted, and gouge them every chance they get. Obviously EA deserve to be on this list, as do many telecoms and energy companies.
Now if the poll were about who is worst to their employees, the environment, the economy and the general public, then that's entirely different.
Now if the poll were about who is worst to their employees, the environment, the economy and the general public, then that's entirely different.
Well the banks usually make the "smallest mistakes/bad decisions" that, y'know, lead to a recession.
That's basically what the poll is since it's a consumer poll. I don't think EA deserves to be on the list anyway. Video games are entirely luxury field that many people do not indulge in. It's not nearly as bad as telecom companies (which many people have/need), energy companies, banks, basically anything that has your nuts in a vice. Like if you don't like EA you can go "Eh I won't buy the next Battlefield" and it'll be perfectly fine. If you don't like Wal-Mart, you can't go "Eh I won't buy from Wal-Mart" because that Wal-Mart already killed every other business in that town and anywhere else you'll go is infinitely more expensive or quite the hike from that Wal-Mart.
I don't even know what they fucked up this year. What was wrong with the Battlefield 4 launch? I know Titanfall was offline for a while but that was confirmed to be an issue on Microsoft's side. It certainly wasn't SimCity or anything of that level.
I meant in a case scenario in which banks were the best companies compared to any other company there is - they would still be the biggest cause to anything going wrong because they are that much more influential. So it's boring and obvious to vote a bank the worst company, is my point. Also, banks did not actually 'become' bad - they exploited a terrible system that was destined to be going into the shitter since the beginning of time and just recently the results of such exploits became a worldwide problem. People seem to think that in 2008 banks decided to turn evil and greedy all at once. Most videogame companies, on the other hand, radically changed their course of action and took a nose dive in a short period of time and so people saw it as a bigger degradation, in their perspective.
Had worse bugs than BF3 beta (not even release bugs, actual beta bugs), of which BF4 was largely a rehash of. Also, a huge portion of players got constant crashes to desktop with literally no solution for a long time. EA actually apologized publicly for the abysmal quality of the game when it was released, as it was clearly a cash grab since a lot of games were scheduled to release after it, the investors even filed a lawsuit because of it.
It's now getting more and more standard practice that a full price game flat out doesn't work for the first month of release. Another one to add up on the count of new things videogame companies get away with. People actually call you entitled when a game you pay money for doesn't work and was hyped up by straight lies; I guess once you've been violated for so long your anus gets used to it at some point.
The issue is that this isn't a fictional scenario and the banks did make real mistakes. They're voted "Worst Company" because they are the worst company. They exploited a system which they knew was faulty, like it doesn't take a genius to figure out why what they were doing would eventually lead to a crash.
And the thing is that video games aren't that big a deal. EA makes a shitty rehash and you just don't buy it. There's plenty of other fish in the sea. A bank fucks you over and you lose your house.
People call gamers "entitled" because they're whiny little shits. Asking for a game without bugs isn't entitled, it's definitely reasonable, it's for a wealth of other things that gamers bitch and cry about that gets them the title of "entitled".
No argument that a lot of companies probably need to become better acquainted with the idea of QA*, however no bugs on a large, near infinite state, consumer level program is probably asking a bit much.
*at times I wonder if they do know but then realise the time/effort taken vs potential money lost equation comes out in favour of ship an unpolished game.
With the ability to patch game via Internet, developers these day are relaxing over QA / testing.
They know they get away with it so their only deciding factor for a release schedule is making sure it's not clashing with other big releases to maximize profit. They are playing the game of "let's rush it as much as we can without getting a lawsuit, let's see how far we can go", when they should be striving for quality instead. Before updates were a common thing to fall back on, games actually worked on release, it's no coincidence. There have been games that came out several months before their expected release because competing titles had turned up (see. Dragon Age 2, and you know how that ended up); this is common practice, even 'respected' industry analyst Michael Pachter said that release bugs are meaningless because they can be fixed with time, companies always prioritize getting the game out and whoever complains, of course, is a crybaby.
To be fair Dragon Age 2 was awful not because of bugs but because of its god awful writing and repetitive environments.
Repetitive environments is a sign of rushing though. Doesn't only have to be bugs. Infact one could say it's even worse, cause that's not something you just patch with a 10mb fix. The PC version also deliberately didn't have a top-down view camera because the textures were so bad compared to the first one that it would have ironically "damaged" the image of the game (not like the lack of such a core feature did it any good publicity, but then again it's modern bioware we're talking about here). Writing was an issue on its own for sure, yes.
Half the time they don't even fix major bugs, see Skyrim as a prime example of a game still riddled with bugs a few years after release.
That's because Bethesda are just an awful developer. They built one engine many years ago that was shit and just still use it. Oblivion, Fallout 3, New Vegas, and Skyrim were all buggy messes because the engine sucks and they're too lazy to bug test well.
Skyrim isn't based on the Gamebryo engine (Oblivion, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas) though, they made their own engine for it called Creation Engine.
EA is a notoriously greedy company who wants to have everything, but I don't think they are the worst the company in the world. but their practice in game industry is not the best (everyone is still upset when EA launched origin and keeps their games exclusives).
I have two choices for a reply really.
Back on topic what is the problem with them keeping their games exclusive to their platform? Leaving Valve with a monopoly is not a great thing.
Now I am certainly one to raise an eyebrow at a lot of EA's practices but exclusives like that are not something I can bring myself to be worked up about.
problem is not about keeping the exclusives, but when origins launched, it got a lot of bad reps because it looked like a spyware scanning your system (I saw a youtube video where this guy tracked what origin did to his pc)
I haven't installed origin in my pc though, will probably do after I install a sandbox program to isolate origins
I haven't installed origin in my pc though, will probably do after I install a sandbox program to isolate origins
Yeah DRM has been getting more and more invasive. It was less the scanning (nothing seems to be immune to that) but the terms and conditions that saw people raise eyebrows from where I sat.
Similar threads
- No one is chatting at the moment.
-
-
-
-
-
@
CameronCataclysm:
Why no blog posts about Nitendont going after Garry's Mod repos that have been up for a decade or 2? -
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
Is it safe to update a modded ps3?
Can I play online in pirated games? (with ps3hen either enabled or not) -
-
-
-
-
-
@
Xdqwerty:
@salazarcosplay, I used apollo save tool to activate my ps3 offline so i could play a game that wasnt working
-
S @ salazarcosplay:from what I understood. you load up the piratged game. you the clear the syscalls, then you play
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
