EA just keeps digging that hole deeper and deeper

I don't get the hate for this post. He admitted that they fucked up on a bunch of things, he defended a lot of the critiques against the country in a good way, and said that they can do better. It is actually surprising that he said as much as he did.

I don't think that's exactly how accountancy works but ok!

As Liz Phair once wrote before she ironically sold out, "It's nice to be liked, but it's better by far to get paid."

When it rains it pours I guess. Who do you all think will be the next publisher we're suppose to hate is going to be?

How could they say that Peter Moore's claims do not agree with EA as a whole?

He's the CEO.

NOOOO WE GOT ANOTHER ENDING FOR MASS EFFECT 3, MAYBE THEYLL START MAKING BETTER GAMEZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!11!1!

The thing that bothers me about that statement is that while they admitted fault.. they gave no directive on how they'll actually address the legitimate concerns that people have been constantly bringing up against them. Absolutely nothing.

Instead, he spent the page bragging about sales figures and registered users while deflecting blame; just like how they bragged during the SimCity apology and the ME3 apology. This self promotion has no place in an apology, and it comes across as arrogant, dismissive, and tone-deaf. The fact that this same tactic appears in every single statement from them only enforces this disingenuous nature of EA, like they're following a specific, marketing driven protocol. This is exactly why they still get the hatred they so deserve. Supporting LGBT efforts (the only thing I can say they do right) doesn't suddenly make up for the anti-consumer business practices they constantly utilize.

As for the Worst company in America thing.. it's an online poll. Of course EA isn't the absolute worst; it's going to be a "popularity" contest no matter how you put it. People on the internet are generally more tech-savvy and gaming-centric than the average populace, and more likely to be wronged by EA in particular. I bet half of the people screwed over by BoA have never even heard of this poll. It's meaningless for the most part.

The fact of the matter is though, if you're drawing that much directed, relentless hatred, there needs to be at least some modicum of self examination. EA is not beyond help, but they seem to be getting worse every year with releasing clearly unfinished games for increasingly higher prices.

Last I checked, Peter Moore's job was not to tank his company's stock (inb4 "They're already doing that without his help" or something equally dumb). People need to get some perspective and start bitching about the parts of EA that are worth bitching about. This indiscriminate EA hate makes it seem like no one cares what is actually being said, just who is saying it. I guess in the context of an internet voting EA as (almost) "Worst Company in America" it makes sense. People just see the name EA and start spewing e-bile on reflex.

Name one of those "legitimate concerns" that it would make sense to address in the context of a blog post.

Why would EA disagree with anything he said? He basically said EA has issues but he's proud of the people he works with and thinks they're generally doing a good job. Considering he's a leader within EA, it'd be nuts if he said otherwise. He's never going to say, "We have problems, and we're a real shitty company whose employees are wasting their time. And few people are happy with what we do here."

Admitting that there are any problems at all is probably the most you'll ever get out of someone in a position like this. And with good reason. If he didn't believe in EA as a company, he probably wouldn't be there. And if he said most of the things they did were wrong, he'd have no one else to blame but himself for not changing that. A man in a position like this can, at most, acknowledge their own imperfection and the apparent challenges faced by the company, but if even a leader within the company things they're up a creek without a paddle, why in the world would any employee believe in the company?

While I agree that he could have responded in a better and more practical manner, this was about the best you could hope for from someone at this level of the company. EA has no reason to distance themselves from such comments, as they're comments they must believe to continue going about their business. If you don't like that he basically expressed how he honestly feels, that's up to you, but this sounds like what he and EA both believe. They think they have issues and challenges but are ultimately a decent company just trying to do what they do. We can disagree with that perception, but they will believe what they will believe.

@jimbo said:

I can't tell if you're being ironic or not.

Anyhow, you can argue all you want, but the fact is that without having access to the source or insider information (from someone who has a complete view of SimCity as a whole), you can't really make a solid argument against what he says. He could be lying through his teeth, but this isn't really an argument, it's a statement. He's saying "I know why it was designed this way, and it's not DRM".

Besides, it's not DRM. Lookup the definition of DRM, or better yet expand it. Digital Rights Management. Sim City's online functionality has very little to do with checking to see if you have a license to the game, and a whole lot to do with that's how the game is built. Call a duck a duck, right? A program that erases your harddisk is not necessarily a virus. Saying that SimCity's online functionality is DRM is a category mistake.

Not really ironic; I was using it in return to demonstrate that it's a shitty argument and doesn't conclude anything. Also just poking fun at him for his adopted Americanism in the process.

I know he's saying 'I know why it was designed this way, and it's not DRM', but that isn't enough to demonstrate why the argument to the contrary is false, which is what that section is supposed to be doing. In effect he's saying 'Many continue to claim the Always-On function in SimCity is a DRM scheme, but they are wrong because I said so.' which isn't exactly the most compelling argument. I don't need to prove that it's DRM (though it's obvious to most that it is anyway, which is really all that matters) because all I'm saying is that the argument isn't over just because he said 'Period.' at the end. He is denying that it's DRM, but he has done nothing to prove anybody who says otherwise wrong.

Re: your last paragraph. If their primary reason for building the game how they did (ie. eliminating offline play) was to facilitate DRM (or anti-piracy, if you're arguing semantics), then it's reasonable to refer to it as DRM. Given that their stated reasons and justifications for building it that way (oh there's way too much going on behind the scenes for your PC to be able to cope without the servers / this was our vision from the start etc.) were shown to be lies, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to consider EA to be lying about it not being DRM.

@jimbo: don't dismiss something as "semantics," because it's inconvenient to your argument. DRM is an abused term nowadays (rapidly becoming a boogyman).

Anyhow, basically Moore doesn't have anyone to report to so you can dismiss what he said as much as you want as "being a bad argument," but in the end, he knows what he said, and doesn't need to expound on that anymore if he chooses not to. He's saying "the reason why Sim City is online-only is not because of the way we choose to manage our game's licensing, but because of how it is built". It's very likely that the whole online-only thing had the happy side effect of protecting their IP, but that doesn't make their architecture "DRM," anymore than it makes a butterknife a slotted screwdriver.

Considering that Moore has the game's developers and architects at his fingertips, I'd be more inclined to believe him when he says "it's not DRM" without backing it up, then why you say "it is DRM" without backing it up. Calling something obvious doesn't make it so!

Having said that, though, what could they say to apparently "prove" that it wasn't a DRM scheme?

From this angle, it seems like the only credulous response would be that it -is- a DRM scheme. I'm not aware of any level of evidence that could convince people that it wasn't, because, ultimately, it would come down to what their intention was. And they can hardly provide concrete evidence on their intentions besides saying what their intentions were. If their word on that is deemed unreliable, then there is no possible way they can "prove" that their intentions were otherwise. Thus, the best he can do is state their intention, and for them, that's the end of the story, as they believe themselves. So, of course he didn't prove anything; he only gave the best evidence he has. Which is simply what he views as their real intentions.

Fuck EA

They can't, which is why he shouldn't have presented it as "Some of these complaints [...] just don’t hold water:" Like you're supposed to then read "We can’t be any clearer – it’s not. Period." and think to yourself 'Oh ok, well that's that cleared up then!' Like I said: he can claim it isn't the case, but he didn't show why the complaints supposedly don't hold water.

The consensus among gamers seems to be that it was built this way primarily as a form of DRM. I don't think a playground level of rhetoric which amounts to 'You are wrong because I said so' is going to change that perception.

What certainly doesn't help their case is being caught lying that this was their vision all along (during earlier comments to the press, they stated you would only need to be online to launch) and later that it would take a significant amount of engineering to make this function as a single player game, because the connected gameplay was so integral to the design of the game and their vision, because so much of the simulation was happening server-side etc. etc. Turned out the servers really just operate as standard multiplayer servers, with all of the city simulation taking place on your PC, which is why the game still continues to run for a time without a connection (and even that time-limit was shown to be arbitrary and easily changed). So plenty has been done to make their claims seem unlikely to say the least.

I don't even really have a problem with them making their game like this if they want to. I mean, I won't buy it, but it's their product and they can do whatever they want - but for some gamers to still believe it was made always-online for their benefit rather than for DRM (anti-piracy) purposes is pretty funny. EA can keep saying 'It isn't because I said so', but I don't know what they think it's achieving.

kill all videogames

I'm secretly hedging my bets that there's a Brewster's Millions styled deal going on with EA that is causing them to try to lose all possibility consumer goodwill in the shortest space of time.

I don't think that the assumption is that his comments somehow shut the door on it; the point is that what he said is all they -can- say. I mean, there's nothing more to be said from this. Thus "Period". We're apparently in agreement that there's no way they can actually prove their intent, and there's no actual way for people to prove their intent either. So, while we can make conjectures against them, it doesn't make them true. If your point is just that it's unclear either way and neither side can prove it, then I think we're all in agreement here. The only difference is that I believe he probably believes what he is saying and you don't. So, we're disagreeing over intentions that neither of us can really know.

Just to be even clearer. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the common theory. I think that Maxis proposed the idea of a multiplayer SimCity and EA most-likely encouraged it out of the value always-online could provide. But that's just what I believe. I can in no way prove that, and as far as they're concerned, I can understand them just standing by what they say was their original intent. What else are they going to say? He wasn't going to say, "Yeah, I suppose there's some uncertainty over what our original intent was. I can't say anything definitively though." Of course not, that's utterly absurd. He believes what he believes, and for him, denying it is like denying that George Washington was the first US President. It's just a fact to him. It's like if I told you, "I take care of my brother because I love him." And you -could- suggest that I just take care of him out of guilt or because it makes me feel needed as an individual. You could cite instances throughout my life where I was unloving or said something expressing joy over the basic sense of satisfaction I get from it. You could very adamantly deny my expressly-stated intentions. But I know what my intentions are. And I won't quibble over that. "Period." I know what my intentions are; so, if someone questions them, that's tough. Because I know the truth.

So, it's possible he's lying. Maybe these weren't their original intentions. But I wouldn't expect him to speak less definitively about them. Of course he is that certain. I'd be surprised if he -didn't- act incredulously at such accusations if he does indeed believe they are false. Because, to him, they're false. Without a doubt. And we have no reason to think he wouldn't speak with such certainty if he really believes with such certainty. Period.

I thought it was a well spoken admittance of EA's problems and generally smart defense of what the company has done right in the last few years.

Your feelings that he's somehow digging himself into a hole by making a rational and balanced defense of the company he works for is ridiculous.

In his statement, he states as fact that their detractors' argument doesn't hold water, implies that he is about to explain why it doesn't hold water and then proceeds to do no such thing. He just repeats that it doesn't. Their argument is left holding just as much water as it ever did.

His own belief or certainty is immaterial in so far as disproving their argument goes, yet he words it like that alone will be good enough for people reading the statement. Which it clearly won't be, so what did it achieve? 'What else are they going to say?' Well, he didn't need to bring it up at all if he didn't have anything new to say about it. If he's going to specifically call the DRM argument out as not holding water then it's on him to explain why it doesn't, which he fails to do. It's his job to convince me / his audience, not the other way around.

Personally, I think the whole statement ends up coming across as quite belligerent and his attitude here is reflected throughout it. 'Your criticism is wrong because I said so' pretty much sums up the undertone of the statement. It's a 'Fuck you, we're awesome' masquerading as a mea culpa. I did not come away from it feeling like EA are going to change for the better any time soon.

That post is part of his play for the CEO job

@truthtellah: Well put.

@jimbo: I think you missed the point of Truthtellah's post.

Well technically he's the COO (Chief Operating Officer), not the CEO - that position is still open since John Riccitiello left.

I concur. His soapboxing here is less about some silly internet poll than it his about him saying that he wants to lead the company (and speak for it).

I thought EA's customers where the producers and companies that make video games. Huh.

I respect Peter Moore, I also thought it was a pretty good fess up.

EA voted worst company by the biggest group of cry babies on the internet not much in the way of news.

RAAAABBLE RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE.

I'm going to buy NHL 14 in September, I just don't care.

Dead Space 3 wasn't a bad game because of micro transactions, Mass Effect 3 ended how ME3 ended GET OVER IT, there is nothing wrong with sports games, there is nothing wrong with selling games to my parents on their iPad. Sim City...okay yeah that whole thing is pretty shitty, I didn't bother picking it up but as a D3 launch day survivor I can sympathize.

Just take a step back, breath in...and out. Now repeat after me: "If I do not agree with the direction and business practices of Electronic Arts, I hereby pledge not to buy their games or support their services. On a side note, I also pledge to not disparage the people who enjoy genre's of games I don't like, because when I do that I sound like a total pretentious ass."

Battlefield is still pretty fuckin' good, you guys.

You know i have played all the games put out by EA that people bitch about except The sims 3 and not one of those games was un-playable or bad in my opinion due to their micro-transaction options with in the game. I will never understand or support anyone who rails against DLC or micro-transactions they are add-ons that you are not forced to buy they don't prevent you from playing the game fully so why burn the calories to hate them. And i will say it again giantbomb needed to generate more money so they came up with the subscription plan and have put a lot of content behind a pay wall. Sure the amount you spend is on a smaller scale but if you want to be part of everything giantbomb does you have to pay. They even threatened to put the podcast behind a pay wall unless enough people subscribed. Another example that no one ever brings up is activision, if you bought into elite when it first came out you got all their DLC and the when BLOPS 2 came out if you wanted all the DLC there was another season pass your elite membership got you nothing and both games are hundred dollar games to play all the content, but if you didn't want to pay the extra you still had full games to play. And i will bet anything MWF4 will work the same way and will most likely have more micro-transactions. And i truly believe that if companies like EA stopped what they are doing now we would either have 70-80 dollar games or far fewer games produced each year. No company whether it be a game publisher or widget manufacture cannot rely solely on one revenue stream from their products and hope to stay in business.

Ultimately, a CEO just left EA because people voted with their wallets. I disagree with the 'boycotting the company' approach, but I'm certainly all for boycotting a game that, based on reviews, is something I don't want. So, there's no need to lecture the audience. If they keep up the way they're headed, there are bad things in store for EA.

Tell me this: What marquee IP does EA have left to iterate upon that has not already been sabotaged by a recent release? When I say sabotaged, I don't mean that the game is bad, necessarily, just that fan enthusiasm was damaged by the last game in the series. (For example, I'm a big defender of ME3, but it's hard to argue that franchise wasn't sabotaged.)

There's no need to make that a rhetorical question. Here's a list of their franchises, courtesy of Wikipedia. I've bolded the ones that have recently been the victim of unpopular or divisive games.

That leaves sports games (a declining market, I'm led to believe), Need for Speed, Crysis, the Sims, and Battlefield. Need for Speed and Crysis have very recent releases in their respective franchises (and not huge hits, either). I don't really know what the status of the Sims is these days, and what opportunities remain there. But you can see by this process of elimination that if Battlefield 4 doesn't register a huge hit this fall(?) with a sequel that some feel is premature, things look very grim for EA in the 'core gaming' market. In fact, it's probably the very reason that they're pushing that game so early.

And yes, they own Respawn entertainment. Impossible to factor in what those guys will bring to the table at this point.

I've stopped buying EA games since BF3. I don't really care to shout to everyone that I'm boycotting EA with my money because I'm mostly just done with AAA games all together. The budgets don't fit the quality anymore and I can't agree with they way DLC is handled. Lower budget games from small companies seem to be where you'll find the games with character and quality these days and that's where you'll find me.

Bioshock Infinite was definitely the final AAA game I think I'll be buying any time soon. It was a decent game, but I still feel buyers remorse for spending $60 on something that after a couple hours of playing I was wishing that it would end soon so I could just get to the ending. That's not something I want to feel after paying that much money for something where half way through I just wish it'd end but that I need to at least finish it because I already feel like I wasted that money.

But the thing about those games in '08/'09 is that they weren't poorly received critically. I feel like a lot of them were poorly marketed, and a lot of them needed to have it's rough start, followed by a great sequel. Uncharted 1 was a pretty middling game, yet the second is where it found a foothold. I still think a Mirror's Edge sequel could be fucking fantastic if they learned from the things that didn't work and took some feedback about how to approach it. But they didn't do anything with the good will that they garnered then. They squandered it entirely and then some, killed almost every project that would have had potential, and the ones that weren't squashed were molded and bent into something else entirely for it to be digestible for the mainstream and fitted with microtransaction.

I'm not even saying they needed to gamble by doubling down on development of those projects that they couldn't guarantee would be profitable, but there is so much squandered potential in that company it's bananas.

You are so right. I can't possibly think of anything more rational and measured than claiming (falsely, mind you) that the reason EA is in the finals of Worst Company In America is due to people upset over the Madden cover athlete and angry anti-LGBT people. What a balanced, apologetic defense *dismissive wanking motion*

<p>I'm so sick of the EA hate train at this point. People just need to accept that money drives public trading companies.

Edit: How was Rock Band "sabotaged"?

That's actually a pretty good point. I never thought of it that way. He's campaigning for the CEO position, so of course he's going to spew some politician-esque bull, whether he believes it to be true or not. "The Man" is lying to us all! We must rebel! o_O

Gosh, now that you write *dismissive wanking motion* I'm confident you're coming from a reasonable perspective where you consider all sides.

Keeping in mind you are actually arguing that HE is a prick.

But on topic: Did I say I agree with him? No. I don't, I think a lot of what EA has done in the last few years is greasy at best. Do I think he makes a well spoken apology for things he feels they fucked up? Yup. Do I think it's ok he's proud of the company he works for? Sure, why not? Does his claim that they got this worst-company thing because people are unreasonably happy to jump on the HATE-EA bandwagon? Oh my lord yes.

I agree they are not the worst company in America but they ARE the worst company in the games industry.

Having said that, they need to re evaluate their relationship with customers because as it stands it non existent. Calling their customers whiny is just making it worse, make some games your CUSTOMERS want and stop ruining what made an IP what it is today.