Does 'Groupthink' describe EA's issues well?

[Uratoh]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I'm not a sociology specialist or anything, nor do I have any kind of inside track to make me think this...a friend was just asking me 'so WTF is wrong with EA?' and 'Groupthink, probably' popped into my mind. It's a term I knew but didn't think about for quite some time...I really don't remember much about it besides the wikipedia entry there and the jist of 'collective stupidity from theoretically smart people'. Anyone else know more who can give opinions on this?

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

More likely, they suffer from the "penny wise, pound foolish" problem. Essentially, they look at short term money gains, and ways to get more money from gamers, without looking at the long term PR problems. The stock price issues they've been having are years in the making. Even as a non-EA hater, I cringe every time EA has a PR release, because they are only opening their mouth to switch feet.

I can't believe that EA won the worst company in America. I mean, it's completely nonsensical. I understand people are still angry over Westwood, Pandemic, ect... But all they do is publish games. Time and time again they've published major games, which were both critically and comercially acclaimed.

For the second year in a row, mind you. They won last year as well. That's what happens when the title is determined entirely by an online poll.

 

[Tom_green_day]

As a person who isn't an employee of EA, I can't pretend to know what goes on in EAHQ however I doubt it is them all being too polite to each other. I don't think they are doing anything particularly wrong, as the PR dude (crudely) put it, all the players of Battlefield online and others can't be wrong. People complaining about EA's decisions are just a vocal minority, as most people I speak to about the matter who aren't vocally stating their opinion don't really care. This is the internet, mind you.
As someone who doesn't care about Microtransactions, DRM or day-one DLC, they haven't done much to offend me. All the games I've bought from them have been fine- in fact, some of my earliest games were by them (Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets ftw!)

 

[Chris Tian]

As a person who isn't an employee of EA, I can't pretend to know what goes on in EAHQ however I doubt it is them all being too polite to each other. I don't think they are doing anything particularly wrong, as the PR dude (crudely) put it, all the players of Battlefield online and others can't be wrong. People complaining about EA's decisions are just a vocal minority, as most people I speak to about the matter who aren't vocally stating their opinion don't really care. This is the internet, mind you.
As someone who doesn't care about Microtransactions, DRM or day-one DLC, they haven't done much to offend me. All the games I've bought from them have been fine- in fact, some of my earliest games were by them (Harry Potter: Chamber of Secrets ftw!)

They must be doing something wrong, stock price issues, losses, CEO stepping down, all that doesnt happen just because of a "vocal minority".

They got the "worst company" award clearly because the poll is taken only online and their consumerbase is just much more active on the internet than most others. And employing the worst PR department in the history of mankind probably doesn't help.

OT: I don't belive its the Groupthink-thing. I think one big problem is, that EA/other big publishers and consumers alike treat this industry so much different from others. I mean you wouldn't put a bunch of explosions in a romantic comedy and then hope it becomes a Transformer-like blockbuster, or build a super cheap and crappy Mercedes to cash in on the reputation of the brand.

 

[Smooth Operator]

That effect might be felt lower down the ranks but at the top the problem is quite simple, those people did not come in for the hobby they came for the money.
So while demanding gamers lament over triple charges, forced DRM, project $10, cut content, quick productions, sequel pumps, copy paste games,... the EA board room is looking at earnings charts and on those all these "innovations" look very very promising and in no way detrimental.

And then that sort of thinking trickles down to the studios eager to please the whip cracking master, before you know it they push design towards top earnings instead of top experiences.

 

[ThriKreen]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink

I'm not a sociology specialist or anything, nor do I have any kind of inside track to make me think this...a friend was just asking me 'so WTF is wrong with EA?' and 'Groupthink, probably' popped into my mind. It's a term I knew but didn't think about for quite some time...I really don't remember much about it besides the wikipedia entry there and the jist of 'collective stupidity from theoretically smart people'. Anyone else know more who can give opinions on this?

Pretty accurate. One thing I've noticed is the huge jump in logic that occurs from "Hey I noticed something funny about this program" to "Oh no, it MUST be doing something bad, therefore DRM and EA is evil!" Basically lacking in any critical thinking or verifying if the issue is actually something valid to be concerned about before shouting from the soapbox. So you end up with a lot of parroting but no one actually checking facts.

A lot of us 'defenders' are more about pointing out that gap and showing how from a larger perspective why things are that way. But after awhile we get frustrated with arguing with a brick wall, where people don't seem to even read what we're writing, let alone comprehend what we're posting - and coupled with ad hominem attacks ("You worked there, it discredits you! Astroturfer!" Huh?). So we tend to leave the conversation since it's a waste of time - they've already made up their mind and no evidence would change it - and the echo chamber just gets louder.

Case in point, a recent thread on Reddit had someone complain that after a switch to OpenDNS, he checked the logs and noticed both his and his wife's computers were making an "unreasonable" number of DNS requests to dirtybits.origin.ea.com or something, while Origin was active.

Therefore it's DRM!

Wait, "unreasonable"? The frequency worked out between the two computers to about once every two minutes. Why would it need to constantly check for if you own such and such a game, wouldn't it be easier to just check when you launched it?

Oh wait, there's this thing in Origin called a friends list. So it's understandable it's querying the server via a regular heartbeat to let them know you're still online and get an updated status of your friends (who's playing a game, went offline, etc.) And of course, a DNS request is just an address lookup, it doesn't mean anything unless you also analyze the contents of the packet that is sent to the server. The thread had a couple more knowledgeable networking types verify the packets sent were very small (Basically "I'm still here!") and even had an EA employee who works in the Origin dept verify as such.

But even after all those counter-points and evidence, the guy STILL insists it's DRM. Wat?

While I agree EA and their studios have made some poor decisions, You're right in thinking the groupthink tends to over exaggerate the issue and blow it way out of proportion. People jump on every little thing to feel a part of it, without checking or wanting to go against the grain, like some sort of mob mentality. To change one's opinion is to admit you were wrong, but you can't be wrong, therefore...

 

[ThriKreen]

That effect might be felt lower down the ranks but at the top the problem is quite simple, those people did not come in for the hobby they came for the money.
So while demanding gamers lament over triple charges, forced DRM, project $10, cut content, quick productions, sequel pumps, copy paste games,... the EA board room is looking at earnings charts and on those all these "innovations" look very very promising and in no way detrimental.

And then that sort of thinking trickles down to the studios eager to please the whip cracking master, before you know it they push design towards top earnings instead of top experiences.

Yet some people [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-04-09-the-doctor-is-out-greg-zeschuk-on-bioware-ea-and-the-uncertain-console-future] says otherwise.

Look for this phrase: "EA gives you enough rope to hang yourself."

An interpretation of that could mean the publisher just says "Here's your budget, here's your deadline. Go." And all other decisions are from the studio themselves, for good or bad.

 

[TheLycanKing144]

EA is not even close to being considered the "worst company" in my book, it's just asinine to make such a claim. They are not harming anyone, the worst companies would be AIG or Wells Fargo, both of whom practically caused the 2008 recession and caused millions of people to lose their jobs and their homes.