Child's Play Responds To EA's DLC: They Did Not Have Our Permission To Run This Promotion

Gaming Blend "Child's Play organizer Jamie Dillion has always been upfront about the charity business and explaining what's really going on behind the scenes, and fervently explains that EA did not have their permission to use Child's Play to promote their Battlefield DLC."

[Almir908]

My God EA just keeps on ruining it for themselves.

[TekoIie]

How many bullets do you think are still lodged in the companies foot? They're gonna have to move up towards their knees to fit more bullets...

[vortis]

Dude, I lol'd...bubbles to you.

[SilentNegotiator]

Then maybe they should switch to arrows...

Just some polish for their golden poo award. They want to be contenders for this year.

[Nimblest-Assassin]

Im confused.... doesn't EA want my money?

Why is EA doing everything they possibly can so I do not want to give them my money?

EA's business practices are becoming confusing..

[SSKILLZ]

can't you see bro, there trying hard to be like activision but are making a mess of them selves and sh!ting on the fan-base.

[negroguy]

EA making sure they keep that worst company award.

[Lulz_Boat]

@negroguy
some years ago maybe.
now the reward is for Activision.

nuff said.

[xVeZx]

there was a contest for worst company that just ended recently and EA won

[kevnb]

sad really, EA isnt even close to the worst company in america.

[Soldierone]

This is absolutely stupid. For one why is EA taking the heat for this specific thing? The ME3 thing wasn't set up or promoted by them at all. It was there to attract attention, and guess what, it did. All the people that requested refunds are morons, period.

Second who cares where the money is coming from? its not like it was a "raise hitler from the dead" promotion with your name slapped on it. It was a "we are raising awarness and any money we make will go to your charity" why is that a problem? they could have just kept it all themselves instead. It's really stupid. They are a gaming based charity, these charity promotions are gaming based, whats the issue?

Honestly won't be donating to them now, I'll find charities elsewhere.

[IDonQuixote]

The article isn't saying that EA is taking the blame for retake Mass Effect, It's talking about the promotions EA did for the BF3 DLC back in December that was never shut down.

[dennett316]

The problem is that the tactic used by RME was a deliberate and sleazy attempt to curry favour amongst gamers by slapping the name of a charity to the cause...and also an attempt to strongarm the developers of the game by ensuring they couldn't speak out against the movement for fear of being branded child hating scumbags.
It also creates a tacit connection between the charity and the cause...that they somehow endorse the cause that's attaching their name, and that's a dangerous thing for the charity to allow.
You can talk about corporate donations to the charity and the true purpose behind it all day, that's an authorized and acceptable method of said companies giving back to the gaming community. Of course it matters where the money comes from, particularly if the founders of the charity do not support the cause leeching off their name. The fact that you would deny a charity money because a bunch of uptight neckbeards got their panties in a bunch over a game ending is a perfect example as to WHY it matters where the money comes from...charities are not ammunition in an idiotic war they didn't start in the first place. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Baka-akaB]

THose kind of precedent are also dangerous for a charity , beyond the ethical implications .

The moment the general public feels a charity is corporate based front , their input dry out , wich can cost far more than the sparse timed big companies donations .

[Soldierone]

I didn't say I'm denying it because of that, i'm said Its stupid that they are not accepting the money because "they had no part in it."

Its like saying before I donate I have to notify them and tell them where my money came from before i give it to them.

It's absolutely stupid that people are twisting words and decision around for this charity to make it seem greedy and wrong. Then the charity jumps in and denies the money all together? I was willing to donate to the charity through mass Effect, why no still accept my money?

If a company was saying the money was going to them, but it wasn't, and the charity didn't give the name to them for that reason then fine I understand it. But that isn't the case. They are taking heat from the ME3 issue, and are not attacking EA. Like I said, who cares where the money is coming from? Its coming. Why not contact EA and clarify that whole deal before publicly making them seem evil?

[vortis]

Company uses charity without charity's knowledge to peddle DLC = Good

Gamers uses charity to raise awareness to dev/pub = Bad

Keep that logic-train running pal, it's doing wonders to make you seem anti-gaming.

[aliengmr]

"also an attempt to strongarm the developers of the game by ensuring they couldn't speak out against the movement for fear of being branded child hating scumbags."

Well that didn't work did it. Retake has been both marginalized and blamed for all sorts of horrible things that were done by a few people. Do read IGN or PA? There were bloggers comparing retake to freakin terrorists while at the same time calling them whiners. So, that tactic failed.

Retake using a charity may not have been the right thing to do, but they raised $80,000. So, no they shouldn't be ashamed.

[dennett316]

@Vortis, I wasn't referring to EA using Childs Play, that's just as bad as the RME guys doing it, I was referring to the portion in the linked article where people were criticising the charity for accepting donations from publishers etc. that they have dealt with. I didn't make that clear.

EA were slimy for doing it without permission, as were the RME crew...both had ulterior motives and agendas beyond helping sick kids.

@Soldierone, the money had to be turned down to send the message that it was not OK to use the Child's Play name in that fashion...they have to protect their image, and were right to do so. If the RME crew had gone through the proper channels, that would be a different matter entirely.

[dennett316]

@Aliengmr, no it didn't work, and I'm glad plenty of people saw it for the sham trick it was to boost their popularity...leech off a popular gaming charity to get publicity and tacit support for their silly cause.

And they absolutely should be ashamed...Soldierone has stated he will no longer donate to the charity, and that is indirectly linked to the actions of the RME group and their unauthorized use of the Child's Play name. That's harmful. It's also harmful to encourage charitable donation out of spite or misguided notions of sticking it to Bioware because you happen to think they wrote a terrible ending. Agree with that notion or not, RME were wrong to use a charity to their own ends. Disgusting.

[ziggurcat]

@ dennett316:

shhhhh... that's too much logic and reason - you're going to be branded an EA "shill" if you're not careful.

you need to be more irrational, and knee-jerk reactionary.

[kevinsheeks]

It's sad that foolish people like ziggurcat and dennett316 even get to post. The story has nothing to do with retake mass effect yet they somehow drag it into the conversation and try to twist the meaning behind it while at the same time saying poor EA.

I mean really read his post closely

"the problem is that the tactic used by RME was a deliberate and sleazy attempt to curry favour amongst gamers by slapping the name of a charity to the cause"

Now lets go to what he said about EA

"You can talk about corporate donations to the charity and the true purpose behind it all day, that's an authorized and acceptable method of said companies giving back to the gaming community."

How can you know what a company or an organized group's purpose is you sound like you work PR for EA next time keep with the focus of the article instead of venturing off with your own silly assumptions.

[ziggurcat]

well, that didn't take long...

@ kevinsheeks:

what you fail to understand is that this article is related to this one (written by the same author, no less):

http://www.cinemablend.com/...

so it has a lot to do with RME. twist the meaning? it's whole purpose was to try and get bioware to change the ending to a video game (i.e. ME3). it had nothing to do with actually helping sicks kids, so don't fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

also, the whole point in this article was a further attempt at making penny arcade (the main operation behind the charity) appear "hypocritical" by shutting down RME's funding drive (but not EA's), and to increasingly villainize EA by implying that they didn't even contact child's play prior to implementing their funding drive this past christmas.

and i won't even get into how the source of that information is highly suspect (reddit, for god's sake...). it's about as awful as kotaku citing pastebin as a source of information regarding the next playstation system - it's just lazy journalism.

EA isn't the only company on the planet to have created a product with the intent to sell it and donate a portion of the proceeds to charity (i can think of several occasions where mcdonald's sold their coffee/big macs and donated a portion of the proceeds to charity, or sony creating an XMB theme and donating the proceeds to help the japanese earthquake victims) nor would it have been the first time they've done such a thing.

and it's a problem now, why? because ME fans are upset because they didn't get their way? because the charity they were hiding behind saw what they were doing as an abuse of their image and shut them down? because it's EA?

get real...

[vortis]

@ziggurcat

Dude, how come every time you post it's always defending EA? Did you check the Reddit post? It's by Jamie Dillion, she even posts her e-mail and shows that she's a verified member? I'm pretty sure if the source was an e-mail you'd say "well there's no way to tell if that e-mail is legit"

Just sounds like you're trying hard to run damage control for EA, dude.

Hands down, if you don't want corporations to be pulled into question over ethically questionable tactics then stick with IGN and GameSpot because they never slap the hand that feeds them (or inform consumers about potentially wallet-raping endeavors). You'll fit in well over there.

[MySwordIsHeavenly]

Still upset that EA beat out GameStop for worst company. -_- Three and a half years of working for corporate tools and nothing to show for it...

[the_hitman3000]

Man it maybe just me but it seems like every since EA got the worst company award people just seem to complain about them more I haven't play ME3 but I like a lot of their games so I can't believe they could be that bad

[vortis]

Dang, dude google up "EA Madden monopoly", they prevented ALL other publishers from gaining use of the NFL license and paid a lump-sum to retain the rights exclusively.

Google up "EA Porche license" and find out why EA wouldn't let Turn 10 use the Porsche in Forza 4 because they were trying to market NFS: Shift 2 and use the exclusive Porsche license as a way to one-up Turn 10.

Google up "Origin scans your PC" and find out why people don't like Origin. Or google up "Origin bans" and find out how you can loose entitlements/dlc/games via getting banned from Origin.

Google up "EA lawsuit" and find out why the spouses of employees tried taking EA to court over employment abuse.

Google up "EA viral marketer" and see that they spend enough money marketing crap and paying for trolls that they could have designed 70 games equivalent to Gears of War 2 in 2011 alone.

"I can't believe they could be that bad" is the very kind of misinformed mind-frame that keeps them in business and going as strong as ever.

[the_hitman3000]

Well wow okay I was wrong lol man damn that's messed up. While I like their games they really do some real stupid crap lol. I feel like a idiot now. :/

[Bimkoblerutso]

@vortis

Bubbles for you, dude.

Dude...bubbles for you.

[extermin8or]

The only thing on there that I actually see as bad is the issue with employment abuse but I'd have to see what actual proof they had in court and it's always possible that was the minority of workers out of the whole company and just say one manager being a colossal dick and overworking/being unfair I don't know. The other points are ridiculous reasons to hate a company; if EA have the Porche license then they are entitled to allow it's use or not to whoever they want- if it's the main part of their marketing scheme for a RIVAL game it's perfect business sense to not allow another company to utilise it; I would want it as an exclusive selling point to people that like games and porche's too. Origin scanning your pc whilst not good im sure if people read T&C's etc before they downloaded and installed stuff it would have been mentioned somewhere although I do agree it shouldn't really be doing that but whatever I'm sure they aren't the only ones at that sort of data collection. If Ea want to pay for the NFL license to stop others using it I see no difference between Sony or Microsoft paying for an exclusive or Microsoft handing over a large amount of cash for COD dlc earlier than pc and ps3; their money they can spend it how they want if they feel that's it's best use then that's their choice. As for the point on Marketing well maybe they could've made all those new games but whats the point without the money on marketing many of the games they released that sold decently/well/exceptionally probably would have preformed considerably worse without that marketing sales per time wise. I mean (don't get me wrong I love it) look at all Sony's PS3 exclusives plan, they pumped all that money in then could only afford to really bump up a few games. Poor old resistance 3 got poor covererage and then died in terms of sales; the original developers have washed their hands with it which is a shame but my point is if they'd made those 70 other games and not been able to promote the ones they did; chances are they would have all sold considerably less and it would've harmed other Dev's not connected because 70 titles like GOW2- 70 AAA games talk about flooding the market I mean how many people buy 70 games in 1 year. Who would have time to play THAT many games, how would you afford them, how would you choose which to buy in the end if they feel those adverts helped them make a reasonable profit and keep making AAA games I'm relatively happy I disagree some things they do but not enough to warrant a "worst company" award what over the tobacco companies? the drug companies, the Oil companies; some of which do some pretty awful things.... :/

[wolokowoh]

While they are pretty bad, they're still miles behind several companies outside of the gaming industry. Bank of America for instance is far worse and I don't even need to explain the several reasons why that is.
Here's some reasons why they aren't as bad as they seem at first glance. The EA Madden monopoly is something that is a little overblown. Sony San Diego and 2K were both also trying to get that license, EA is just the company that got it. If EA didn't get it, EA would have lost a great source of revenue so that's just part of being a business. The EA Porsche license is also why it isn't in GT5 but are we really complaining about the absence of one car brand in games that have several hundred cars. Origin is indefensible. While other companies spy on you all the time, none of them take away your games if your banned. I'll concede on that one. The EA employment abuse lawsuit is something that is pretty common place in the gaming industry and also common in every industry. While EA should not work its employees to death and pay them overtime when necessary, they're not the first to do this and won't be the last. Remember the Team Bondi investigation in 2011 which resulted in its closure. Companies always screw their employees over. Walmart is the best example. Do you know how many class action lawsuits are filed against them? I worked there for two years and was asked if I wanted to sign one several times. If I had to guess, it was over 20 times. It seemed like it about once a month. While the company did nothing wrong to me and I got bonuses and raises often, it's business practices are questionable when that many people are suing them.
As far as marketing goes, assuming the numbers are correct ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum... you're still making a massive overstatement by saying 70 games could be funded. 70 games could be funded if they used the entire marketing budget but that would mean no marketing at all. Things need to be marketed. Dead Space 2 for instance had a fairly extensive marketing campaign at the beginning of 2011. Madden and their sports lineup needs to be marketed. If people don't know your product is out they won't buy it. EA's published 27 games in 2011 so the marketing budget while bloated is actually reasonable. 747 million divided by 27 is 27.67 million per game with some obviously treated better than others(Star Wars TOR, Battlefield 3, Madden, Dead Space 2, etc.). Considering Microsoft dropped 500 million on marketing for Kinect in just one quarter this number seems somewhat small, considering the number of products. Furthermore, EA has been gradually cutting back on marketing and R&D expenses. They're pulling in less revenue thanks to the economy so what they're doing with cutbacks is just the reality of business.
You may not agree with their business practices but there's no way you can tell me that EA is the worst company in America when other companies are clearly responsible for the economic collapse and have far worse business practices than anything reported about EA in its entire history. EA doesn't even make the top 10.

[KMCROC54]

Am gonna speculate but i bet EA has made some nice donation to u folks past & present, so am guessing a one time pass will not hurt you folks . but if you want to be tech it about, then everyone who has donate should require proof that these donations are going where you say they are going. seeing as how you want to be a tech about everything or just maybe you don't want donation from these companies. grandfather always said one hand wash the other .

[extermin8or]

Ok this is news to me since when did you have to ask a charities permission to raise money from it; I mean it's bad that they used the charity to prmote their DLC however if the money raised during that promotion was donated to the charity (no im not reffering to the dlc sales) then really who actually cares? - plenty of companies do this with say comic relief whereby they have adverts "buy these cakes and x% goes to comic relief(minimum of x# of pence)" this is nothing new or exclusive to the games industry also they only had an issue with the ME3 thing because people got confused and wanted a refund and that got EA involved although I bet you if EA had been doing this themselves they'd have insure people knew what exactly it was for and that they wouldn't get a refund.

[Lilioups]

ofc they dont...they have money they will give some to child play to make them shut up and end of story.... lol