EA is not evil.

[Yopaz]

My original definition of evil stated deliberate harm, not wrongdoing as you translated it to.

Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing.

=>

they can just hide behind their finger and pretend they're not there.

*shrug*

This time I dare you to actually quote my post

Calling EA evil is ignorant. EA makes decisions which gives them profit and makes some people hate them. Just like other big companies out there. [HEADING=1]Evil is about deliberate wrongdoing.[/HEADING] EA is run by people who do it for own personal gain. Not admirable, but not evil either.

Too many quotes. I don't know why I even bother anymore. WAAH YOU DARED QUOTE ME LIKE THAT LET ME SCRAMBLE TO MY RIGHT-BACK-ATCHA MACHINE WITHOUT ANYTHING I SAY ACTUALLY MAKING SENSE
You know what? You're free to argue with yourself as much as you want.

But why are you telling this here because as far as I can tell no one you quote has done that.

I disagree.

I haven't made any changes to any of the posts from you. I see you still choose not to quote me entire post proving my point for me. You quoted me entirely out of context in this post too as if you wanted to prove my point for you.

I changed harm to wrongdoing because you referred to it as wrongdoing when you replied to my post. I stated I was referring to my original post, you ignored that. I asked you to quote my full post, you ignored that and accused me of doing the same to you. I haven't once made alterations to your posts. and unless you edit them just to prove me wrong the evidence is quite clearly found.

Now I will repeat what I said in my last post. Using your definition of unethical, where do you draw the connection to my definition of evil? It says wrong, but so does the definition for incorrect so that hardly proves anything. I am trying to play this by your rules and using your definition here. You wont even acknowledge your own definition it seems.

 

[Durgiun]

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first. [/quote]

I disagree, Mass Effect 1 was a boring exercise in going through the BioWare storytelling motions, whereas Mass Effect 2 was more charcter centered allowing for a story where characters were leading the plot, not the other way around as was the case with ME1.

The lack of RPG mechanics that were present in the first can be used as a legitimate point of complaining, but if that's the case, why isn't ME1 considered a watered down piece of crap like ME2 since the RPGness in 1 wasn't all that deep to begin with.

 

[Nannernade]

I never considered them necessarily "evil" but some of the games they produce... they're just awful, decent but awful. I'll give you the common example, Dragon Age: Origins, it had non linear exploration, the characters were loveable and the combat was ok. Then Dragon Age 2 comes along they spend so much time making Hawke have a voice that they got rid of the different areas replaced by reusing a map over and over and over again, the combat was much more blah the only thing that survived was the character development. You'd think somebody would have spoke up or something.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I pointed directly to where the Quote is cut.

I put out direct examples of where they did it.

Cut by who? Who is "they"? I'm being rhetorical, I don't want to know. What does this have to do with me? You accused me of dishonesty, maybe you should use something done by me as an example. Like I said, I know you have a fatwa out on anyone who criticizes EA, and I want to be left out of things that have nothing to do with me.

And you already said

I really don't care if they are trying to make the guy look bad. I'm more concerned with how the quote should be interpreted and I've said my piece about that.

That is intellectual dishonesty on the highest lvl. You dont care what is being said, just care what it should be interpreted. And it just so happens it should be interpreted into a reputation that you are already seem to believe.

How the fuck do you take from that that I don't care what was actually said, or that I think it's OK to misrepresent? You're imagining everyone is a liar and you're seeing it everywhere. I am not interested in discussing whether or not the escapist is actively trying to get it's users to hate EA. That is not an endorsement of dishonesty for fuck's sake. I'm describing how the quote fits an existing pattern of behavior. Accusing me of self-delusion is begging the question. It doesn't "just so happen" anything.

I specifically said I am concerned about how the quote should be interpreted as in, the best and most accurate way to interpret it. You're not taking the most obvious possible meaning of my words, you're reading dishonest intentions into everything. This is bordering on paranoia. I even went so far as to explicitly acknowledge the literal meaning of the words is exactly what you say it is. So what are you accusing me of, exactly? What is the problem here? What can I possibly do in addition to admitting you are right about the meaning of the text? What more is there?

So what I'm saying is, when you have a reputation for eating quality single player games and shitting out low-budget free-to-play or multiplayer garbage so you can monetize everything and control gamers, you may want to avoid bragging about never making single player games.

Dont get all angry with me just because I pointed out that your biases appear to be what is the correct interpretation according to you.

You should deal with what being said. Not what you want it to mean.

That's not why I'm angry and you know it. I'm angry because you keep calling me a goddamned liar.

The fact that I don't like EA does not demonstrate that I am wrong about their pattern of behavior. Basically your argument is "you just don't like EA" and I'm not finding that very compelling.

You want to argue that other people are liars who want to make EA look bad. I didn't take the bait, and now I find all that shit dumped in my lap. I'm not even sure any more what you think my interpretation of the quote in question is. It seems to have been morphed by you into something totally unrelated to what I described. I don't even know what we are arguing about any more except for you calling me a liar for things that have nothing to do with me.

 

[LoneWanderer19]

A lot of people hat EA because they are TOLD to hate them. EA isn't evil, I grew up playing their games, and I still do.

 

[lowhat]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Second point: Closing down studios.

I love this one. Apparently, EA is a vampire that sucks great studios dry, and casts their corpses aside in search for new blood. This ignores a few things. First, how can EA buy a studio that doesn't want the help? They can't.

Ok, first thing: There is another reason companies merge: because they realise they will be stronger if they combine their assets. Look at Activision Blizzard, the result of a merger between two successful companies and five years later they're both doing fantastic. Some of EA's buyouts didn't last two years!
This is an important point, because some of the companies merged into EA did so to take advantage of working within a larger company, and found themselves suffocated.

So, let's take an adventure into the seedy underworld of EA's corporate buyouts!

I'm using hidden text to centre this gif!

We'll start with exhibit A, otherwise known as Origin Systems: Founded by now well-respected game designer Richard Gariott. one of the first EA buyouts, and one of the worst. You are right in saying that they did end up in financial difficulty, and had to either sell to EA or go bankrupt, but what you may not know is that EA put them there. With frivolous lawsuits and corporate bullying they wore them down until they were in debt, and had to settle. Then EA bought them out, and the founder of EA when asked about the tactics they used to aquire it said "This is just business. This is the way we're going to win."

Let's move on to exhibit B, Westwood Studios.

Westwood had 7% of the videogame market share at the time they were bought out, EA had 11%. They were not a floundering company, they were highly successful and doing very very well. In fact they were halfway through the next C&C game. The reason for the buyout lies in money. $122.5 million in cash to be exact, which was what the owners of Westwood were paid by EA for their company. It was a quick money grab, and many of Westwood's employees registered their personal feelings about being betrayed by the owners, and most of them quit their jobs in protest.
What happened to the "awesome C&C" game they were in the middle of developing after EA bought them?

Electronic Arts, who had acquired Westwood Studios in 1998 and published Tiberian Sun, and had no direct part in its development, pushed for Tiberian Sun's release ahead of schedule, resulting in a number of engine and gameplay features being omitted from the game, some of which were later included in Firestorm expansion pack.

Rushed deadlines and putting features meant for the main game in an expensive extra content pack? Start as you mean to go on, I suppose.

And now for Exhibit C, I refer, Your Honour, to the joint acquisition of Bioware/Pandemic, and this juicy tale of corruption runs right the way to the top of the house!

Pandemic were partnered with Bioware, due to them being owned by the same private equity fund (V.G Holdings). By the way, this is another perfect example of two companies merging not because one is on deaths door, but because they realise they can do better together, and it worked really well! Until...

A certain man by the name of John Riccitiello became CEO of EA. He had a very impressive C.V., including working in Haagen Dazs, several previous upper management positions in EA, and co-founding a company called Elevation Partners.

Hold on to your ass, because things are about to get corporate.

Elevation Partners was a large Investment firm, meaning it held a lot of private businesses. Among these businesses was a certain "V.G Holdings". Yes, the same V.G. Holdings that ran Bioware/Pandemic. One of the first acts John made when he became CEO of EA was to buy VG Holdings for $620 million. This gave EA two top quality companies that were just exploding onto the videogame scene.
However, John still held a huge personal interest in Elevation Partners, and so he personally pocketed a $5 million personal bonus by Elevation Partners through his official role there for the merger.

What happened after EA had bought the two companies? Bioware did well... for a while. Now the team that made fantastic singleplayer RPGs are stuck perpetually maintaining a failing MMO loosely based on one of their most successful IPs. Pandemic are... dead. Because EA didn't really have a plan for them.
They lasted one year and a month. How does a company get canned so quickly, especially one that creates such a long term product as a videogame? The Duke Nukem Forever developers lasted ten times as long and they weren't even doing any work!
It's because EA never had a plan for Pandemic, they never had any games reserved for them to make, and they didn't bother to use their talents or name. They didn't factor into EA's business plan, and were canned at the first excuse.
The reason for the merger was John Riccitiello's 5 million dollar handshake, and you know what? For that amount of money you can't really blame him.

Sorry, I missed this post. I'll respond to it the best I can.

As far as takeovers go, you are correct that there are other types of takeover. However, in this business, no takeover is possible without the consent of the owners, unless you can prove EA forged some signatures.

RE: Origin, that is a bit unethical, if it happened. I'm not saying it didn't, but every bit of information I could find was Origin employees calling EA's head at the time "the antichrist", and some hearsay evidence from Origin employees. I'm not saying they are lying. But I'd like some evidence from a neutral source.

RE: Westwood, all right, they were doing well in the market. That doesn't change the fact that they agreed to a buyout, and it doesn't change the fact that Red Alert 2 (ignoring Tiberium, on account of everyone saying that it was in development beforehand) was well received, as was the expansion pack. Renegade...was a bad idea. However, from a marketing standpoint, it made sense. Halo is a first person shooter, let's make a first person shooter. They didn't have a company under them making first person shooters, so they took an established franchise, hoping to sell on namepower. It didn't work, to say the least.

RE: Bioware/Pandemic: You're right, that is shady, and I'll admit it. I won't be using that as an example in the future, that's for sure, because there is no reason to buy a company with no intention to use it. But saying that it is "corrupt" because he made some money through the sale legally is a weakening of the word "corrupt". As for Bioware, I just want to point out the company behind "The Old Republic" is not the main Bioware studio, but is instead a side studio given the Bioware name for name recognition. The main Bioware studio is, at last report, working on Dragon Age III.

Again, what happened to Pandemic is not very good, and I'll admit it. But there is nothing evil about it. Unethical, perhaps. But not evil. Pandemic is a victim, but it's not like their last two games sold well. Pandemic would have survived if they had made EA money. They didn't. And while part of that is due to EA pushing games out fast...I just don't see how Pandemic is not at fault at all for failing to meet expectations, while EA is totally at fault.

 

[Yopaz]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

I am using Wikipedia because contrary to your beliefs making changes based on nothing gets deleted and the original text often gets restored within hours unless you cite a source for the change. I have tested this myself and I often check the sources listed at the end to make sure the article is based on something solid. Wikipedia also provides explanations rather than plain definitions. So do the changes you want. Change the entire article to say that evil means cake. All that will happen is that an administrator will check it, see there's been made some changes lacking citation, see that this is probably made as a joke or some such. Give you a warning about not doing so and that they will block your IP from making changes if they see a pattern.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

That may not be a great example considering how bad Mass Effect 2 was compared to the first.

I disagree, Mass Effect 1 was a boring exercise in going through the BioWare storytelling motions, whereas Mass Effect 2 was more charcter centered allowing for a story where characters were leading the plot, not the other way around as was the case with ME1.

The lack of RPG mechanics that were present in the first can be used as a legitimate point of complaining, but if that's the case, why isn't ME1 considered a watered down piece of crap like ME2 since the RPGness in 1 wasn't all that deep to begin with.

Mass Effect was my first Bioware game, so the difference in perspective might have something to do with it. But that's not the only reason I thought the story in Mass Effect 2 was terrible. None of the big set-pieces made sense or fit well into the plot. Everything you accomplished in the first game was just kind of ignored so we could go through the same motions all over again. I thought there was a big shift in atmosphere from creepy, spine-tingling science fiction to action music and explosions. I didn't think the characters were very likable or believable. The RPG mechanics in the first game were not done terribly well, it's true. But I was interested in Mass Effect as an action-RPG, not as an action game. And as an action game, I didn't think the second installment held up terribly well.

 

[FalloutJack]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

 

[The White Hunter]

Another person who doesn't hate EA? I thought I was alone!!!...or is this a trick? You're just trying to draw me out for the ambush!

Spoiler

...alright, I'll play nicely.

I like EA. I don't agree with everything that they do but they've released more original IP's than most other companies and seems to be one of the few big companies that is actually willing to try something new either through development or publishing (see Dead Space, Mirrors Edge, Army of Two, Bulletstorm, etc). While their PR department could certainly use a bit more sense (ideally just stop talking; they seem to love inserting foot into mouth), the company itself isn't the giant monster that rapes and pillages with one hand while flipping customers the bird with the other; they're a business.

I don't mind that they've created Project Ten Dollar to try to re-coup costs. I don't mind that they buy out companies (they've never done a hostile take-over; these companies are choosing to be bought out). I don't mind that they have chosen to go up against Valve with Origin. I completely reject the argument that they just release the same sports games every year (seriously, anyone using that argument is instantly branded as a moron by me).

That does not mean I support everything mind you (I hate the sports exclusivity deal and the "multi-player in everything!!!" philosophy) but all the big check-marks people put against the company I think are either invalid or completely overblown.

EDIT: Took out Darksiders after it was pointed out that it wasn't an EA title. Not sure why I thought that but Dead Space has now replaced it.

I don't hate EA either. I won't defend online passes and shit but I don't hate them.
They try to maximise profit, that's fair, if I owned a business I would too. Tbh I enjoy a lot of EA games; I love the Crysis series, I loved the Bad Company games (especially 2 but I'm gonna have to not gush about how great that game is), I love the Medal of Honor reboot and I'm really looking forward to the sequel, which from what I've seen and read is doing some fairly interesting and new things with the genre.

I'm not a fan of all their stuff, like I can't stand Dead Space, for example. But generally I enjoy their products so I can't hate them. Bad Company 2 brought me and a friend many weeks of very fun gameplay and entertained me for well over a year, and still does to this day.

So yeah, I don't hate EA. I hate some of EA's business practices. But not EA itself.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

Fair point, but I feel that if I have shown one person that EA is a business, nothing more, nothing less, and that their actions to make money are, for the most part (excepting things like Pandemic) ethical, I have accomplished something.

Of course, if I get a chance to point out the hypocrisy of slamming EA for actions other companies get away with doing with little more than a finger shaking (Rockstar Wives, anyone?), that's a bonus.

And what better place to do it than somewhere where you will get verbally lynched for not hating EA?

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

Of course EA is not evil! That's Activision.

EA is stupid.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Evil? No. "Evil" is a decent epithet if you look like a mixture of a sixties' superspy and Pinhead, and happen to be voiced by Tim Curry at his most mellifluous. "Evil" is a Saturday morning cartoon leftover.

EA's just focused on profit deals, and profit deals sometimes involve screwing their customer base or any beloved IPs or developers. Check out Pach Attack on GameTrailers; this guy tears down every single assumption you might have concerning the Big Three.

Publishers don't wring their hands and twirl their moustaches while gleefully thinking of whose life they could ruin just for the sheer fuck of it. They worry about what makes them money.

Why is EA churning out Battlefield sequels? Money. Why sports games each year? Money. Why do they seem hell-bent on homogenizing their catalogue into one big shooting gallery? Say it with me - money.

Videos like "EA in a nutshell" are comforting because they give the illusion that EA could learn the true meaning of Christmas, or as though some Christ-like figure in gaming could cure them of their wanton need for filthy lucre.

EA's just a business. It's not evil, it's doing what it perceives as being a good way to keep the shareholders happy. That sucks for us gamers, of course, but hey, that's Capitalism for ya.

<youtube=e-LE0ycgkBQ>

It's a cute video, but it oversimplifies things to an obscene degree.

 

[FalloutJack]

No offense, Bob, but shouldn't you be discussing this with the loudest voices who say what EA is, not with this ocean tide of Excapists? I mean, why push the rock up that hill in Hell, right? When this thread is over, even if you've made a point somewhere, it won't actually stem anything. You have...an opinion, but that's all it is. An opinion. Tell me, after six pages, does it seem to be turning into a fact yet?

Fair point, but I feel that if I have shown one person that EA is a business, nothing more, nothing less, and that their actions to make money are, for the most part (excepting things like Pandemic) ethical, I have accomplished something.

Of course, if I get a chance to point out the hypocrisy of slamming EA for actions other companies get away with doing with little more than a finger shaking (Rockstar Wives, anyone?), that's a bonus.

And what better place to do it than somewhere where you will get verbally lynched for not hating EA?

You make an interesting point with THAT, in turn, but the thing is that they're unilaterally slamming EA because they're making the most waves right now. It's a fallacy to do so, but it doesn't make them entirely wrong here. There IS trouble, it SHOULD be handled, and then when it's done with people WILL start complaining about the next guy in line. We both know that's what people do.

Now, the thing is that EA is a business...but this business has the worst PR department ever. It's gonna get burned and all the effort to turn a few heads isn't going to stem that. The score is that someone is still right in some manner about HOW this company is bad. These massive throngs are not as concerned over the why as the what, as in what to be done.

My point is - and I'm aware that I've totally made this a meta-discussion by talking like this - is that the first thing to do is not discuss this with the shrill cry of people who don't want to hear that smack-talk. It's to open up a dialogue with somebody other people are listening to. If you have a point, it would be validated better there.

 

[lowhat]

For a start, pleasure is a gain, in fact, an argument could be made that everything we do for ourselves is for some form of pleasure or satisfaction or whatever emotion. An increase in money may yield logical rewards, but the only reason we seek them is to lower our stress levels and increase endorphin levels and all that.

Anyway, what's the name of that fallacy where you exaggerate your opponents points to the point of absurdity? I think you're doing that. I talked about a line earlier, and not knowing the exact point the line resides, you just have to do it on a case by case basis, and peoples results will vary wildly. I just can't accept a definition that claims that slave owning and Bernie Madoff are not evil. Hell, I'd argue that these types of things are more evil, as they are made by more aware minds. Anyone who needlessly harms people for no reason could be argued to be not evil at all, just mentally ill, and not in control of their actions. But that could, in turn, be extended to pretty much every immoral action, so we probably shouldn't follow it through.

And, correct me if I'm wrong but

Am I wrong for using a different definition than you?

kinda makes it sound as if you feel I'm attacking you. That honestly was not my intent, I just felt a counterpoint needed to be added to the thread, because I disagreed with that logic and definition. So sorry and nothing personal and all that.

(oh, and this is in brackets because it's not really important, but my line about not arguing with dictionaries was quite ironic, but irony is almost impossible to carry across in text without making it blatantly obvious or converting it to sarcasm, so yeah, coolio).

Really, I'm not saying anything against all of this being morally wrong, a lot of it is. Screwing people over just to increase your salary is not good, but I wont say it's evil. Sadly it's the foundation of our society which we take part in. Say that I am taking your arguments into absurdity, but we as the consumer enable this to happen. The smaller companies that EA has crushed has taken part in it. They have ended up in EA's clutches because they wanted financial gain in this. If what EA is doing is Evil then what Pandemic did was evil, then Westwood is Evil, then Valve is evil.

I agree that all of those things you have brought up are despicable, but let's just agree that our definitions on evil are different. Also sorry for not catching your irony, I usually manage to do so, but this time I guess I was just too into the discussion.

Congratulations on doing research, unlike me truly you are something else. But I asked you what the reason for deliberate harm was, not the definition for evil.

There is no act without reason. Either the people at EA know they are deliberately harming people, in which case they are "evil", or they aren't aware of it in which case they are ignorant. Neither is more excusable than the other, and I'm not betting on the latter.

Actually looking at your post you said this:

Evil is rarely about wrongdoing without any reason. That's called insanity.

In direct contradiction with the definition I had looked up. I'm not saying I am right and you are wrong or that I am a better person. I am simply stating the facts here. The fact is that evil can be defined as deliberate harm. If you think EA purchased Westwood purely to cause harm then that's a matter you need to take up with someone who wants to listen to conspiracy theories, I do not so I didn't bother to answer your question.

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis.

Figured I'd leave this in for you since you don't seem to understand the word despite using it.

Why are you using wikipedia, the website where you can change the entries to say what you want, in an semantics argument, rather than one of the many dictionaries online, as dictionaries are probably the best tool for discerning the meaning of words?

In fact, I'm going to go change the definition of "evil" and "insanity" on wiki, just to invalidate what you're saying.

I am using Wikipedia because contrary to your beliefs making changes based on nothing gets deleted and the original text often gets restored within hours unless you cite a source for the change. I have tested this myself and I often check the sources listed at the end to make sure the article is based on something solid. Wikipedia also provides explanations rather than plain definitions. So do the changes you want. Change the entire article to say that evil means cake. All that will happen is that an administrator will check it, see there's been made some changes lacking citation, see that this is probably made as a joke or some such. Give you a warning about not doing so and that they will block your IP from making changes if they see a pattern.

You're built too low, that one flew right over you.

The point isn't how fast wikipedia corrects errors, the point is that using a mutable source like wikipedia OVER an immutable(to the general public, anyway) source like a dictionary, when debating the meaning of words(i.e. the reason that dictionaries exist), is asinine. If you're going to debate the philosophical meaning of something like evil, well, once again, wiki is pretty much terrible for that, when you have a whole internet at your fingers.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

-snipping-

You are all over the place.

"I have not green lit one game to be developed as a single player experience. Today, all of our games include online applications and digital services that make them live 24/7/365"

Was the original quote.

Escapist miss represented that

Other sites did it more obviously and cut it in middle making it the picture definition of quotemining.

You then say that even thou this isn't what he said, this is what he should be thought off as if it was what he said because that fits with their reputation.

You insist that the quote needs to be interpreted literally, but literally he doesn't say Single player games. He says single player experiences. If you read the quote you know it doesn't fit with the message people are attaching to it. If this is an analyses problem here and you read the qoute differently than me, then that is where we are having our point of conflict.

I am not accusing you being the one who made these articles. I am however saying that you are trying to perpetuate their message using this Quote. And it doesn't fit that message.

I am not all over the place, you keep trying to drag me into your nonsense and I'm struggling to the surface. I am not interested in discussing what the escapist did or did not misrepresent. That has nothing to do with me and I don't understand why you keep bringing it up. I think maybe you just want to argue about it and I'm the one you're standing next to. I can't imagine what else it could be.

I did not say

even thou this isn't what he said, this is what he should be thought off as if it was what he said because that fits with their reputation.

That's just your nonsense caricature of my argument. You want to believe I'm intentionally dishonest so bad you are re-imagining my arguments to suit your desired reality.

I don't insist the quote needs to be interpreted literally, I don't know what you are talking about. Why are you arguing about the meaning of the quote when I agree with you about it? Who do you think you are arguing with? If you're not accusing me of having input in those articles then do me a favor and leave them out of it. What have they got to do with anything? What the the hell is happening? This is like an episode of the Twilight Zone.

The quote fits the message I described for the reasons I described. If you want to discuss that, ball's in your court. All you have done so far is talk about shit that has nothing to do with me and call me a liar. I'm still pretty sore about that, by the way.

You then completely moved the goalpost and made me into a cooperate whiteknight when that has nothing to do with my argument.

I never moved the goalpost, you're just starting to realize the caricature person you made up doesn't exist.

 

[Vivi22]

I'm not trying to be rude with the snip. It's just saves others from reading through a long quote if they want to see my response.

First off, EA is not too risk-averse. They do take risks. They took one with Mirror's Edge, they took one with the Ghostbusters game, they took one with Brutal Legend, and they took one with Saboteur. Now, how many of those risks actually paid off? Well, Mirror's Edge got decent reviews, but sold below expectations (they were projecting 3 million sales, but only got two million). Ghostbusters was, again, well received, and sold a bit better, having, in three years, sold just over 3 million copies. Brutal Legend was reviewed well, but as of February 2011, had only sold 1.4 million copies. Saboteur was received with average reviews, but has yet to even break the million sales mark.

Some things that need to be cleared up with regard to your facts here:

EA did take a chance on Mirror's Edge, though one could argue that letting a long time developer who's produced several hit online games for you branch out isn't a massive risk, especially when the title was such a relatively small one. I'd say Dead Space was the bigger risk, but that was made in the same time frame and I'm honestly at a loss as to any title they've taken as big a risk on since.

Ghostbusters wasn't published by them. It was originally published by Activision, then picked up by Atari after Activision merged with Vivendi and dropped it.

I wouldn't give them full credit for Brutal Legend either. It was another title Activision was publishing then dropped, and it was released less than a year after EA picked it up. Odds are Activision had already footed most of the development bill on that one, and betting on a mostly finished game made by Tim Schafer is hardly a risk. No, it didn't sell that well, but I'd be surprised if EA didn't turn an easy profit just the same.

As for the Saboteur, yes, it was a new IP, but developing an open world stealth action game, while a risk financially given they're expensive, was still a case of EA betting on something which was popular at the time, and remains popular to this day. That it didn't do well isn't proof that EA are risk takers. If anything, it may be the opposite. Besides that, up until the point Pandemic was well liked by their fans and critics, and had a reasonably good track record.

As for the idea that games produced after EA acquires them being of lower quality, let me point out a few things.

Mass Effect: Metacritic score of 94

Mass Effect 2: Metacritic score of 96

There's my Bioware example. Oh, and despite the hate-on for ME3, it has a Metacritic score of 93. Worst of the series, true, but many developers would be ecstatic over breaking 90.

I'm not going to argue the point that there are examples of games and series which didn't go to shit after EA acquired the developer. I'm sure there are plenty of examples on each side of the argument. I dislike the idea of using critic scores, particularly metacritic, to prove the point though. Their averaging system is laughably bad, and it's quite well known that many major game news sites are so reliant on ads to stay in the black that their reviews aren't very objective to say the least.