Why Gamers Should Care About EA on the Worst Company List

We are quickly approaching that time of the year again. The Consumerist website will be tallying up their nominees for the Worst Company in America. Already they have been getting flooded with votes from participants about who they believe is the worst company. Once again, Electronic Arts has been nominated by many people and I know what some you just did. You either sighed, rolled your eyes, or shouted with disbelief, "Are you kidding me". Well, believe it because the people are letting their voices be heard. Electronic Arts is on the chopping block again and I'm going to tell you guys why I think gamers should care about subjects like this.

This is in no way in the defense of EA. I think they are a deplorable company who deserves to be nominated. Even though there will be companies who lose focus and treat their employees terribly like RadioShack, AIG, Dollar General, and Dish Network, Electronic Arts should get equal criticism. Don't believe me? Let's take a look at EA's portfolio for 2013 and see how they did last year.

1) Battlefield 4 was a complete disappointment for many people and even landed on some Worst of 2013 lists due to the game being blatantly unfinished, yet still released. Further, Battlefield 4 had trouble performing on next gen consoles and upgraded PCs.

2) SimCity had similar problems with its performance as Electronic Arts neglected to mention that the game was online all the time, while gamers faced plenty of issues regarding log in times, lack of server support, and disappearing cities.

3) The new free-to-play Command & Conquer was cancelled along with the dismantling of the team at Victory Games. Supposedly, there would be in-game currency with real money purchases that alpha testers did not approve of, thus leading to EA dropping the project entirely.

4) Microtransactions took a turn for the worse for Dead Space 3 as it replaced the in-game currency system, while the entire experience was dumbed down for the sake of more action and less horror, co-op gameplay, and lack of balanced weaponry.

5) Sports titles got equally panned as EA's presentations and promises of graphical prowess and real time player reactions would excel EA Sports, but the games don't play or look anything like what they showed. NBA Live 14 crashed and burned with many citing its dated graphics, controller input delays, and awkward artificial intelligence.

6) Investors advice not delving into shares into EA due to the multiple lawsuits and false advertising of certain games that apparently violated many codes. Origin also appears to be a reason as the digital service is still facing scrutiny.

Some gamers can look at a list like this and say, "It's just video games". No, actually it's not. What those gamers don't grasp with the meaning behind what the Consumerist is doing and with a list like this is that if a company is doing bad enough (e.g. treating employees terribly, utilizing questionable business practices), then they will make the worst list. No video game company should be immune to it because "it's just video games". That's like saying McDonald's shouldn't be on the list because "it's just fast food" or Sears because "it's just clothing labels and jewelry". When covering the subject of companies being the worst it's much more than the products they sell. It's the human factor and how much video games as an industry has grown.

Look at how companies like EA treat their employees and consumers. Command & Conquer was barely getting its feet wet and was still in the alpha stage. The game was being worked on since 2011 and they close Victory Games. Why? Because EA changed the model of the series to fit their current business ploys with microtransactions and online only multiplayer that the alpha testers didn't like (sound familiar?). They preceded to sweep the entire project under the rug and toss their employees aside to other branches. Meanwhile, they still milk gamers for all they are worth with microtransactions in other games and make their developers apologize for them for the games' poor performance like Maxis with SimCity and Visceral Games with Dead Space 3.

It cannot be ignored that gaming has grown to the point where any developer and publisher can face equal praise and criticism that other companies in other business fields do. To say that "it's just video games" clearly shows that those gamers do not believe that video games deserve to be critiqued or approved. It is that same mindset that believes that video games cannot be art, taken seriously, or deserve a good awards show. I highly disagree. Video games in the mainstream have been around for well over thirty years.

Yes, games can be about fun and mindless entertainment. Movies, comics, anime, and television have that, too; however, each entertainment medium can have projects that go beyond the conventions of what people automatically believe the material to be. These things can scare us, inspire us, evoke our emotions, and be stepping stones for our own initiatives. Video games have and are evolving into greater things. It is no longer about just beating others to win or building up points. Video games give programmers, writers, actors, and musicians a chance to express themselves and add their talent to these projects.

As such, any developer or publisher should be held to the same criticism that other companies are. That is why there are the best and worst of movies, comics, anime, and television lists every year. That is why there are critics and fans who cite the good and bad from the companies in those fields. Electronic Arts is not an exception. They should not get a free pass from being criticized for their treatment of their employees and customers and for their poor performance with their products because "it's just video games".

I'm not just saying these things because gaming is one of my main hobbies. I just believe that video games deserve the kind of recognition that other forms of media do. I believe that every company (not just video game companies) should be held to their actions. This is especially true given that this is not a cheap or money friendly hobby. To game means to spend and gamers have every right to be angry if they end up buying a broken or unfinished product. We should cite the growing problems that employees face with some of these publishers.

It's not just video games. If employees are getting paid bare minimum, if people are getting screwed over through broken products, then companies should be criticized. In recent memory of their past indiscretions (and I know I sound like a broken record when saying this and I apologize), publishers like Activision, Capcom, and Electronic Arts show us the ugly side of being in the business of video games. While there will be companies that are obviously far worse than EA, the nomination sends the message to the rest of these publishers that they have to watch their step because there will be retaliation either legally or monetary. We have to remember that products are only one side of the coin of every company. The people matter just as equally if not more. That is why gamers should care about Electronic Arts being placed on the Worst Company in America list.

[zerocrossing]

Great blog, you make some excellent points.

If there's any video game company that needs to be held accountable for poor business ethics, anti-consumer policies and the mistreatment of staff/employees, it's EA for sure.

It's not "just games" anymore, this is about the future of our hobby and our fading rights as consumers.

[HonestDragon]

Thank you. Yeah, I really wanted to touch on this subject because it seems that a lot of people (even non-gamers) don't get or understand why some companies end up on the Worst Company list. Looking at the company's history from the year they are voted for reveals some surprising facts. It's not just about the product, but what employees go through every day and what consumers put up with. There are truly some awful companies out there.

[MysticStrummer]

None of those points, however true they may be, justify EA being nominated for worst company, much less winning the "award". There are many companies whose business practices impact the world much more negatively than EA.

[rainslacker]

Sadly, the only thing that will matter is that number 6. Investors start getting shaky because of things like this.

While I don't think EA deserves the title of worst company in America for a number of reasons, it's quite apparent that EA doesn't really care one iota about winning this award two years running. EA hasn't been phased that badly by being put there, because as you say, the consumers are still buying their products, and to be fair, EA does still publish some good games, despite their policies attached to too many of them.

[TacticAce]

I agree with this

[HonestDragon]

Unfortunately, that is very true. Once a company finds themselves in legal trouble, then investors get cold feet supporting them. I also agree that while EA isn't the worst company of the year, I still think it sends the message that no video game company is immune to nomination. Also, yes, they do not care one bit about winning that award since their games still sell.

[DragonKnight]

A lot of people are going to say that EA doesn't deserve it because Bank of America this, or government of America that. The Consumerist deals with consumer satisfaction and reports, not companies that can screw people over and they (the costumer) can't do anything about it.

EA has been voted in twice already, and they don't see to care about it because they haven't changed their stance on anything at all. It's likely they will be voted in again a 3rd time, and they absolutely deserve that in my opinion.

[SilentNegotiator]

As a human being, I think that a company like Walmart or a gas company should get the "honor"

Because it *IS* just video games. A company that treats their employees deplorably or a company that gets tax breaks that they don't need, s**ts all over the environment, and price gouges.....deserves it more than a company that "doesn't do mah vidya geams rite!"

Labor rights, environment, fair prices > entertainment

Children on the internet voting them for worst company two years in a row hasn't stopped them from profiting and neither will a third.

[DragonKnight]

The Consumerist isn't about exposing companies for maltreatment of employees or for environmental pollution.

It's about customer experience with a company. Like for example, the kind of help they received when calling a support line, anti-consumer practices, etc...

[SilentNegotiator]

Then the consumerist's scope is very limited.

[DragonKnight]

Because it's intended to be.

It's purpose is merely to act as a voice for consumers. A place they can share their grievances and help other consumers avoid companies who treat consumers poorly, have poor consumer relations, and possibly anti-consumer practices.

It was never a place to simply continue talking about how Wal-Mart underpays its employees while treating them terribly and overworking them.

[SilentNegotiator]

They screw over employees to have super low prices to run other businesses out of business. They're impacting consumers and ultimately the economy.

There's no reason that should be excluded from reasons why a corporation is voted "Worst Company in America"

[DragonKnight]

How are they impacting consumers? Wal-Mart is able to have prices sometimes significantly lower than anywhere else. Yeah, it screws over smaller businesses who can't buy in bulk the way Wal-Mart does to have low prices, but for consumers who want to save money in an economy that's been f*cked up regardless of Wal-Mart, in countries where people don't earn a decent living wage (which includes the U.S.), where the cost of living means living beyond your means, Wal-Mart is a god send to people.

I'm not disagreeing with you about how Wal-Mart is to employees and small businesses, but this is about consumers and their experiences with companies and most will tell you they love Wal-Mart because of how inexpensive it is and how vast their product selection is.

[MysticStrummer]

"The Consumerist isn't about exposing companies for maltreatment of employees or for environmental pollution."

Then they need to rename their award.

This is like having a Fastest Car award but only hybrids can be considered.

[pompombrum]

Great blog article, personally I'd also mention that Criterion games is close to going the way of Bullfrog, Westwood and all the other development teams that EA have ruined. I guess that much was known for a while but the co-founders leaving sort of makes it official.

[SnakeCQC]

*Face palm* ANYONE who thinks ea is the worst company in america is out of tough with reality.
Forgetting about the fact there are financial companies that intentionally created a global recession or any of the healthcare insurance companies that still give bonuses for how many claims they deny and forgetting about the other myriad of companies that are on that are far worse; Ea doesn't have a monopoly over the videogame market if you don't like their games don't buy them, simply buy the plethora of other games out there.

[Valenka]

I'm not surprised to see Electronic Arts on that list given some of their past actions (especially with their handling of The Sims 3) but I think Activision needs to share a spot, because they're just as bad (if not worse) in my opinion.

[HonestDragon]

Now when you're referring to their handling of Sims 3, what specifically do you mean? I ask because I know the one complaint people have of Sims 3 is how overpriced the expansions are. Sims 3 had eleven expansions with some being pricey that a lot of people were not too happy about. As for Activision, your words match that of many gamers and you would get many in agreement about it, too.

[Valenka]

Well, generally everything. Between the expansion packs that were a cut and paste job from The Sims 2 (that should have been included in The Sims 3 base game), the price of the expansion packs and the 'stuff' packs as well ($20 is a bit much for a couple of pieces of virtual furniture), their inability to fix a bug without causing a worse one and lastly, The Sims 3 itself being poorly developed and inappropriately demanding, specs-wise. The Sims 4 will hopefully be an improvement but it already looks like they're backpedaling from what I've seen. Hopefully the decrease in graphical quality means an improvement on larger areas.

[BeefyDeedz]

I think that EA did some good things this year, which they need to be recognized for.

HOWEVER, I think that it is an indictment of the company that these things still shouldn't prevent a nomination.

[coolbeans]

The problem I have is just how they've become a clear victor in these past two contests, not that they're being nominated. When I look at the big 32 (or is it 64?) counted companies on there, I don't think anyone should roll their eyes at the idea of a video game publisher getting up there.

As time has moved on and on, though, I'm a bit more inclined to just have a neutral position just because of the buildup that's occurred since their 2012 victory:

-A lot of what you stated would be there

-Publishing a lot of rushed titles out of the gate last year: X Rebirth, BF4, SimCity, some Sports titles, etc.

-Their condescending defense from last year speculating that a glut of voters were just angry over LGBT stuff in their games and the Madden cover. That was just shameful.

Even though my agree/disagree decision over this will be made while grating my teeth, it's easy to see that a mountain of terrible stuff has been piled on since the reactionary "bu bu...ME3's ending!" reasoning back in '12 that makes it worth reevaluating altogether.

"To say that 'it's just video games' clearly shows that those gamers do not believe that video games deserve to be critiqued or approved. It is that same mindset that believes that video games cannot be art, taken seriously, or deserve a good awards show. I highly disagree. Video games in the mainstream have been around for well over thirty years."

The parallel you're trying to make here is flimsy because the "it's just videogames" attitude is representative of two different avenues of discussion here. Just like all mediums of art, they are a part of the culture around them and represent something significant to us. When addressing THIS discussion, however, the complaints morph into "it's just a videogame company." Yes, the games are art motif does stand, but we're also acknowledging that games, like film, paintings, sculpture, etc., are a luxury to indulge in. When looking at a "worst" list like this, the argument takes on a form of its own in examining just how monumental the importance of insurance companies, banks, predatory lenders, etc. have on not only you but your children's future. What so many of those other companies that are on that list have done is cause a ripple effect so massive and changed the very idea of what the US government is meant to do in this capitalist system.

I guess practically all of this brouhaha would be avoided by something as simple as a name change to the awards. Something like "comsumer poop" award or something else would make the methodology and reasoning for the votes that much clearer for both the voters and readers. Because...really if you're going to use such strong language as "Worst US company" and yet only want to consider a portion of what makes a company good or bad (consumer policies and such) upon evaluating, the poll seems pretty useless.

[HonestDragon]

I understand that seeing how EA has won twice (practically in a landslide) does show that it is very glaring. This is given that they beat Bank of America last year. Bank of America was foreclosing on many families and small businesses with questionable reasons. I would definitely say that taking homes and livelihoods away from people is worthy of Worst Company of America.

I wanted to touch base on why I mentioned the mindset of not believing that games "cannot be art, taken seriously, or deserve a good awards show". I didn't want for it to be a central subject. Yes, that can diverge into a whole other topic, but what I was connecting was that people who say those things I listed on top of saying "it's just video games" relating to video game companies being nominated for this annual tournament that the Consumerist does comes from the same mentality. Basically, they don't see video games as influential or big as it actually is.

We have movies being made after video games. There are many recognizable actors and musicians who get into video game projects. Video games open up avenues of careers for people to get into. Video games have their own tournaments and conventions that millions of people go to every year. There are multiple websites and magazines dedicated to video games. If that doesn't show how big and influential video games have become, then I don't know what does. That is why I believe that video game companies should both be equally praised for great games and criticized for the way that they treat their employees and consumers.

And that's where I was coming from with being sick of hearing "it's just video games" when in reality it's not. The people matter, too. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that has all of this media attention and millions of people of different backgrounds dedicated to it either professionally or personally. Again, while they aren't THE worst company around, I feel that no video game publisher or developer should be immune to nomination and the nomination itself shows that they are being held responsible for their actions.

"When I look at the big 32 (or is it 64?) counted companies on there, I don't think anyone should roll their eyes at the idea of a video game publisher getting up there."

I want to say it's 32 companies because it goes through the usual preliminary rounds and all the way to the finals, but it doesn't take that long to get there. So, I'm going say 32 for now.

"I guess practically all of this brouhaha would be avoided by something as simple as a name change to the awards. Something like "comsumer poop" award or something else would make the methodology and reasoning for the votes that much clearer for both the voters and readers."

That actually would be better. Consumers can vote and give the (I don't know) "golden poo" award to whatever company wins. It gives the idea that we are giving a "poo" to whoever stunk the most that year.

[coolbeans]

"Yes, that can diverge into a whole other topic, but what I was connecting was that people who say those things I listed on top of saying "it's just video games" relating to video game companies being nominated for this annual tournament that the Consumerist does comes from the same mentality. Basically, they don't see video games as influential or big as it actually is."

Yeah, I can see what you're trying to illustrate with that point, but I still don't really think it works. Sure, the "it's just videogames" mindset is the same but the foundation for that excuse is completely different. To put in perspective:

I think videogames are a legitimate artistic medium; one that certainly has some growing up to do, but still one nonetheless. Even though I stand by that, I still go back and forth over the "it's just videogames" excuse for this because, as much cultural and artistic influence as they may have, I'm also acknowledging that they're still one thing at the end of the day: a luxury. Almost all of the other ruthless companies on there are in fact supplying some kind of a greater need. I'm not sure about those other posters you've seen sneering at EA getting nominated again--nor can I claim to recall seeing those types of reactions, but I'm guessing that could be their mindset as well.

That's why I don't think that connection really works.

EDIT: Sorry this is a later reply but I have those instances of just reading, getting back to modding or IRL stuff, and then forgetting. XD

[HonestDragon]

Okay, I get your point. And it's no problem about the time between responses, but you have to let me know what you think about Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, lol.