And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I'm going to have to agree with M.Bacon here.
I think people who go to forums and who are "die hard gamers" or at least have a keen interest in games, have a somewhat skewed vision of how the hobby is seen.
Most people don't care at all. They don't go to forums, they don't go to conferences they just see a Star Wars game and buy it. dlc/lootboxes? They will either buy or not buy but that's the end of it. They're not going to be up in arms or boycott or join the pitchforked few who want to teach them a lesson.
Now, if they don't make a good game, one that entertains, that will hurt them more.
Vast majority of people are like this, you are correct. Hell if we are being honest I am like this. I buy off of the IP. For instance I gave Total War: Warhammer a try because I LOVE the warhammer universe. I also loved the care that went into the game to make it better and for that CA (Creative Assembly) got my loyalty. I do not particularly care for the expensive DLC but I did a cost benefit analysis and in the long run I get a good deal of entertainment for the money I put down. Some people have lower thresholds for these things.
Essentially what I am arguing here is that economics is a big piece of the puzzle for companies but, contrary to what others are saying, social and ethics do play a part in consumerisms. But yes I do agree with Max Bacon and yourself that the vast majority of people do not care. But with us being in the social media age, information like this is MUCH easier to get than it was 20 years ago and therefore more people can be swayed if they see enough information. But that is on them to actually go looking for it.
I doubt EA will ever change. I have played too many games that they have ruined and their sole aim is to squeeze as much cash out of the players as they can.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I'm going to have to agree with M.Bacon here.
I think people who go to forums and who are "die hard gamers" or at least have a keen interest in games, have a somewhat skewed vision of how the hobby is seen.
Most people don't care at all. They don't go to forums, they don't go to conferences they just see a Star Wars game and buy it. dlc/lootboxes? They will either buy or not buy but that's the end of it. They're not going to be up in arms or boycott or join the pitchforked few who want to teach them a lesson.
Now, if they don't make a good game, one that entertains, that will hurt them more.
To be more specific, they don't have to make anything groundbreaking. Simply "good enough."
Brand recognition and a monopoly on the sports franchise does the rest. EA isn't stupid, but that doesn't mean that the moves they're making are in the best interest of consumers.
EDIT- That's also one of the reasons the EA hate is more vehement. They've set themselves up to try and immunize themselves from failure. They've done an excellent job of it, which means they get away with shitty stuff more than some other publishers.
Fox - conservative-leaning news group that millenials love to bash
NFL - throw out the cart because a few apples (appear to) stink.
Surely you are intelligent enough to see the gaping double standard in these sentences.
You criticize millenials for hating Fox's right wing political stance while simultaneously criticizing the NFL for not squashing the freedom of speech of a few bad apples.
Either neither of these deserve hate or both of them do. Don't be a hypocrite.
I wasn't criticizing the NFL. I was pointing out that that is what others are doing.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
Disney isn't going to pull the license people with your head in the clouds. Who else would they give it to that they think would bring them more money? Look at the top publishers in the world and there's your answer: Microsoft, Sony, Activision, Tencent?
Let me guess. You think they'll give it to your favorite small time publisher who will treat the IP with the respect you've fantasized about and then gamers will throw dollars at them. lolol Oh god, that's comedy gold.
I think with most, the hope is that either the license will be handled individually (as it was prior to the Disney purchase) or be given to a more reputable large publisher (like Nintendo). Both are unlikely, but these are wishes, not expectations.
There are options here that could be had, should Disney choose to pursue them. As mentioned, they could negotiate with Nintendo to present a family friendly IP on an explosively popular new console. They could look towards Amazon, who is currently throwing money to get into game publishing and engine licensing. They could sign with Epic, who could use their shooter expertise to really promote Unreal 4 in the largest way imaginable. There are options there. Whether such parties would be interested is questionable, but we ARE talking about the biggest IP in the world here.
Disney isn't going to pull the license people with your head in the clouds. Who else would they give it to that they think would bring them more money? Look at the top publishers in the world and there's your answer: Microsoft, Sony, Activision, Tencent?
Let me guess. You think they'll give it to your favorite small time publisher who will treat the IP with the respect you've fantasized about and then gamers will throw dollars at them. lolol Oh god, that's comedy gold.
I don't think they will pull the license any time soon nor do I believe they should. Disney is a business and they will go with whichever company will make them money. However, what I am saying, is if UNDER CERTAIN CRICUMSTANCES that EA started to lose mass profit because of severely negative public view and ethical concerns then yeah I think they would pull it out of fear their profits would suffer due to association. Again its a very low chance it could happen but nothing is ever impossible.
With EA, the opposite is true. If you've been a gamer for any length of time, you will have been negatively affected by EA. Whether it's the closing of a favoured studio, the poor quality of their games or the aggressive monetisation, you will definitely have been negatively affected.
Tell me that what EA did is worse and more deserving than we see companies do on mobile gaming?
They charged $60 for entry and then sprung the mobile like nonsense progression systems, vs those minimal effort mobile games charging nothing for entry and being mobile games.
Disney isn't going to pull the license people with your head in the clouds. Who else would they give it to that they think would bring them more money? Look at the top publishers in the world and there's your answer: Microsoft, Sony, Activision, Tencent?
Let me guess. You think they'll give it to your favorite small time publisher who will treat the IP with the respect you've fantasized about and then gamers will throw dollars at them. lolol Oh god, that's comedy gold.
I think with most, the hope is that either the license will be handled individually (as it was prior to the Disney purchase) or be given to a more reputable large publisher (like Nintendo). Both are unlikely, but these are wishes, not expectations.
There are options here that could be had, should Disney choose to pursue them. As mentioned, they could negotiate with Nintendo to present a family friendly IP on an explosively popular new console. They could look towards Amazon, who is currently throwing money to get into game publishing and engine licensing. They could sign with Epic, who could use their shooter expertise to really promote Unreal 4 in the largest way imaginable. There are options there. Whether such parties would be interested is questionable, but we ARE talking about the biggest IP in the world here.
The fact you think Nintendo is a more reputable publisher with consumer interests at heart illustrates the depths of illusion that gamers live under. Nintendo is far more ruthless than anything else.
If they owned the IP rights you'd see everything Star Wars as Nintendo exclusives on their hardware with the exception of some tawdry mobile games.
Then you go on to list an unproven publisher and some small two bit engine developer. Wake up. Sometimes I think you're Wizardries alt account.
I already listed the other big publishers and none of them are friendly and pro-consumer. Microsoft? Sony? Nintendo? Tencent? If you're going to suggest a better solution, actually make it better.
And Nintendo hardware exclusivity would be a bad thing why? Exclusivity is the backbone of console value. Consoles must have value if they are to compete with eachother and diversify the market.
Amazon's lack of experience isn't relevant here. They have money and lots of it. They are an immense company looking to expand. They have an ambitious publishing studio. They own their own engine that they need to prove the value of. They have the resources to hire the talent required and have the business acumen required to handle the financial aspect of publishing. They are the perfect partner in both resources and motive for such a deal.
Epic owns the most popular AAA engine in the world. I laugh at the idea of them being two bit.
Also, I'm appalled and offended at the idea of being Wizardry. I couldn't fake grammar, paragraph structure, or logic that poor if I wanted to.
And if you want to be a more profitable company then you need to be willing to be more socially and ethically sustainable. I understand making money is key but if you business practices are socially and ethically corrupt then your public image will take a hit. Personally if I was a big investor I would not be comfortable putting my money out to a company like with this terrible a reputation. Although I have a soul and conscience so take that however you want.
Honestly, how much longer before this type of negative publicity will take them down a peg or two. If they were a small company with these types of practices then they would most likely be out of business. Only reason they sustain is because they have licensing to games other companies can't get. If they continue with the negative publicity though how much longer before certain companies are guilty by association and possibly pull their licensing. All it would take for EA to feel significant burn is if they lost a few big licenses (Madden, Star Wars). Anymore businesses are not like it was in the past and with being in the social and information age. All it takes is one really big mistake and they could be wiped off the map. It times like these having a positive reputation can make the difference between being saved and going out of business.
They are sustainable, waaay profitable, that's what speaks, for all that is business EA is doing it right and their numbers show it.
If all they need to do is release yet another FIFA game and sell it full price with a few changes every year and it is a success in sales, there's no way you are going to tell a company "shame on you! put more effort in your games!" when the numbers speak by themselves.
In a business perspective, they are successful, this is where the opinions of gamers over their games being bad games and all that do not translate, even the last Mass Effect and so.
The last Mass Effect game is seen by many as a failure and half-baked that didn't live to the quality standards it should have, yet on that quarter EA profits almost 700$ million, over 100$ million than the previous year, there is no way in hell anyone at EA is going to a business meeting with those numbers and say "yeah we should listen to criticism and change our ways".
It won't change because the gamers behavior is like, in one moment is "I hate you!!!" the other is "Shut up and take my money!".
Economic is not the only type of sustainability. They are successful economically but in social and ethical they are doing poorly. If they release more models like Star Wars battlefront 2 then how long before that turns off enough people before they decide to not buy EA products. That would then affect them economically. Yes gamers are finicky but piss enough of them off and that can cut into profits.
I'm going to have to agree with M.Bacon here.
I think people who go to forums and who are "die hard gamers" or at least have a keen interest in games, have a somewhat skewed vision of how the hobby is seen.
Most people don't care at all. They don't go to forums, they don't go to conferences they just see a Star Wars game and buy it. dlc/lootboxes? They will either buy or not buy but that's the end of it. They're not going to be up in arms or boycott or join the pitchforked few who want to teach them a lesson.
Now, if they don't make a good game, one that entertains, that will hurt them more.
To be more specific, they don't have to make anything groundbreaking. Simply "good enough."
Brand recognition and a monopoly on the sports franchise does the rest. EA isn't stupid, but that doesn't mean that the moves they're making are in the best interest of consumers.
EDIT- That's also one of the reasons the EA hate is more vehement. They've set themselves up to try and immunize themselves from failure. They've done an excellent job of it, which means they get away with shitty stuff more than some other publishers.
They don't have a monopoly. Look that term up. They have exclusive licensing deals. There is a huge difference, in the real world not in gamer fantasy world of course where everything is distilled down to the absurd.
Way to be super literal. Doesn't change the point, but you seem more interested in bashing folks than making a point or counterpoint in these conversations.
I can never understand the hate against gaming companies. To me it says more about the gamer than the company. I've been gaming for nigh on 35 years and never once been angered by one.
If you read the methodology, there were a number of factors taken into account that go beyond "popularity contest". It appears that things such as environmental impact were not factored in. However, employee and customer surveys were, so it's telling.
While not the end all be all, it's still a slap at EA for its terrible business practices.
Yeah but this is the thing, it's still a popularity contest it's always a select major companies that get the list, while everyone else flies under the radar, the size of such companies always means they are usually the ones facing most backlash, complaints, etc... Just like my country the most hated ISP is the largest one, the most hated supermarket company is also the largest one.
Well of course bigger companies are dislike more for the same stuff as smaller companies, they affect more people over a larger area.
If one persons house is covered with 2 feet of snow, one family might be complaining about having to shovel the sidewalk and driveway. But do that to an entire state, and you have significantly more people complaining.
In matters like these, scale counts.
Also, I'd rather call this an "Unpopularity Contest"
To me this a utterly ridiculous thing, people with messed up priorities driving all their attention to petty situations, there are far worse companies that cause realm harm in our society that deserve to be brought up to light and shamed for it, but they get away without much bad publicity because the internet is too busy talking about how EA is the devil. hm
Quite the popularity contest.
Is the education system that bad? HEY YOU IT SAYS MOST HATED IT IS DESIGNED TO BE A POPULARITY CONTEST.
Anyrate take your pc rubbish you want to spew elsewhere while you crow on about the environment like the typical hypocrite, driving your car everyday chowing down electricity for your internet/computing/iphone etc blah blah blah.
I can never understand the hate against gaming companies. To me it says more about the gamer than the company. I've been gaming for nigh on 35 years and never once been angered by one.
You don't understand strong feelings on highly suspect and exploitive business practices that have globally affecting industry consequences?
The poll is based upon peoples feels and not actual service background, Only reason why The Trump Organization is on the list is because of the name, that is just plain stupid. FoxConn being hate, people must hate all their TV's cellphones vid cards etc etc....
EA is ruining the Star Wars name with its horrible business practices. There are plenty of worse companies out there, but to say EA doesn't deserve the criticism it receives is wrong. They deserve to be shamed in public and across all mediums. I'm glad Battlefront 2 is under-delivering sales expectations and I hope people continue to boycott it.
Now if only people would take on companies like Monsanto, Equifax, Comcast, Verizon, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and so many other companies with bad business practices, the world would be a much better place.
I can never understand the hate against gaming companies. To me it says more about the gamer than the company. I've been gaming for nigh on 35 years and never once been angered by one.
I'm with you, for the most part. There have certainly been times I've been disappointed to read about bad practices of devs/pubs that put out a game I enjoyed, though, like hearing about the so-called horrors at Team Bondi during development of LA Noire or the time CD Project Red sent extortion letters to pirates of The Witcher 2. Still, I just don't have it in me to get all riled up over a game I bought turning out to be somewhat mediocre, or the closure of a studio that made a game I liked 20 years ago. A video game costs about the same as getting a couple pizzas and some cheese bread delivered...if it's not what I hoped, oh well.
Comments
Vast majority of people are like this, you are correct. Hell if we are being honest I am like this. I buy off of the IP. For instance I gave Total War: Warhammer a try because I LOVE the warhammer universe. I also loved the care that went into the game to make it better and for that CA (Creative Assembly) got my loyalty. I do not particularly care for the expensive DLC but I did a cost benefit analysis and in the long run I get a good deal of entertainment for the money I put down. Some people have lower thresholds for these things.
Essentially what I am arguing here is that economics is a big piece of the puzzle for companies but, contrary to what others are saying, social and ethics do play a part in consumerisms. But yes I do agree with Max Bacon and yourself that the vast majority of people do not care. But with us being in the social media age, information like this is MUCH easier to get than it was 20 years ago and therefore more people can be swayed if they see enough information. But that is on them to actually go looking for it.
Brand recognition and a monopoly on the sports franchise does the rest. EA isn't stupid, but that doesn't mean that the moves they're making are in the best interest of consumers.
EDIT- That's also one of the reasons the EA hate is more vehement. They've set themselves up to try and immunize themselves from failure. They've done an excellent job of it, which means they get away with shitty stuff more than some other publishers.
I wasn't criticizing the NFL. I was pointing out that that is what others are doing.
I want a mmorpg where people have gone through misery, have gone through school stuff and actually have had sex even. -sagil
There are options here that could be had, should Disney choose to pursue them. As mentioned, they could negotiate with Nintendo to present a family friendly IP on an explosively popular new console. They could look towards Amazon, who is currently throwing money to get into game publishing and engine licensing. They could sign with Epic, who could use their shooter expertise to really promote Unreal 4 in the largest way imaginable. There are options there. Whether such parties would be interested is questionable, but we ARE talking about the biggest IP in the world here.
I don't think they will pull the license any time soon nor do I believe they should. Disney is a business and they will go with whichever company will make them money. However, what I am saying, is if UNDER CERTAIN CRICUMSTANCES that EA started to lose mass profit because of severely negative public view and ethical concerns then yeah I think they would pull it out of fear their profits would suffer due to association. Again its a very low chance it could happen but nothing is ever impossible.
Amazon's lack of experience isn't relevant here. They have money and lots of it. They are an immense company looking to expand. They have an ambitious publishing studio. They own their own engine that they need to prove the value of. They have the resources to hire the talent required and have the business acumen required to handle the financial aspect of publishing. They are the perfect partner in both resources and motive for such a deal.
Epic owns the most popular AAA engine in the world. I laugh at the idea of them being two bit.
Also, I'm appalled and offended at the idea of being Wizardry. I couldn't fake grammar, paragraph structure, or logic that poor if I wanted to.
If one persons house is covered with 2 feet of snow, one family might be complaining about having to shovel the sidewalk and driveway. But do that to an entire state, and you have significantly more people complaining.
In matters like these, scale counts.
Also, I'd rather call this an "Unpopularity Contest"
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
You stay sassy!
Is the education system that bad? HEY YOU IT SAYS MOST HATED IT IS DESIGNED TO BE A POPULARITY CONTEST.
Anyrate take your pc rubbish you want to spew elsewhere while you crow on about the environment like the typical hypocrite, driving your car everyday chowing down electricity for your internet/computing/iphone etc blah blah blah.
Do you take a stance ... on anything?
You stay sassy!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Now if only people would take on companies like Monsanto, Equifax, Comcast, Verizon, Halliburton, Lockheed Martin and so many other companies with bad business practices, the world would be a much better place.
I'm with you, for the most part. There have certainly been times I've been disappointed to read about bad practices of devs/pubs that put out a game I enjoyed, though, like hearing about the so-called horrors at Team Bondi during development of LA Noire or the time CD Project Red sent extortion letters to pirates of The Witcher 2. Still, I just don't have it in me to get all riled up over a game I bought turning out to be somewhat mediocre, or the closure of a studio that made a game I liked 20 years ago. A video game costs about the same as getting a couple pizzas and some cheese bread delivered...if it's not what I hoped, oh well.