Talk:Electronic Arts: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:36, 22 June 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electronic Arts article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find video game sources: "Electronic Arts" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Video games B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Iikka Keränen (1 participant)
Miika Huttunen (0 participants)
Tsutomu Kōno (1 participant)
George Harrison (executive) (1 participant)
Harry M. Rubin (4 participants)
Atelier Double (2 participants)
IGN Convention (4 participants)
Darkworks (6 participants; relisted)

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Vandalism/intentional removal of relevant information

This article seems to be under attack by individuals who systematically attempt to remove the criticsm section, in particular. If this continues, it may be necessary for administrators to step in and lock the article down for the time being. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.66.167 (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, others are using the article as a method to trumpet their anti-EA agenda. I just removed the following from the article intro:

Electronic Arts in its most recent release of its award winning, Medal of Honor, allows gamers to "kill American soldiers and Marines." The company is facing a major boycott, and the Department of Defense has already banned this particular release from the military exchange system. See news link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/national/main6846690.shtml

Electronic Arts has made a business decision to put profits ahead of the lives and dignity of American military personnel. Complaints can be phoned into the the Electronic Arts CEO at (650) 628-1500.

Whatever your personal feeling about EA might be, this article must remain neutral. Put something about the controversy in the criticism section if you must, but please do not use the article to promote one side or the other. --Takerfoxx (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Wikipedia Edit Section

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.80.224 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a point tb make? Or are you here simply to troll... If the latter, I move that we delete this new section as it does not appear to be constructive in the least. I'll give it a week. Braidedheadman (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever, I guess you're important that way. I think if everyone is encouraged to edit articles, especially stakeholders and people who actually know how a business operates and how it's perceived by outsiders, it should not be a "controversy" that they've edited an article. The ISSUE died down over a year ago, and resulted in no changes to corporate policy or any other effect that would require a whole subsection in an already-long criticisms section. Speaking of which, the two other controversies in the article: quality, and licenses, could apply to any company doing any kind of work. Is it a controversy that NBC has a license to broadcast the Olympics? That the games are repetitive and of poor quality is not a "controversy" it's the product of a business plan. Again, do whatever you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.27.120 (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just scrolled down to see that this issue had been settled in Feb. 2008. I don't want to revisit this topic without new reason (although now the "criticism" is even staler). So, Baidedheadman delete the discussion (or not) when you see it next. This "controversy" is important to you and your friends and all I was worried about was brevity. Also, whoever makes the decisions about changes to pages, please leave this here so that it's actually seen. At least be courteous enough to point out what is not "constructive" about a statement withdrawing an issue. Quite the opposite, I'm trying to close a controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.27.120 (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found your first comments (above) unconstructive because they added nothing of value to these discussions. In trying to encourage "brevity", you were entirely too brief to be taken seriously and came across as nothing more than a common troll - and this article has attracted more than its fair share of those as it is. It's encouraging to see that you at least followed up with something a little more salient than what you started with, however. As for the issue dying down over a year ago, or that the entire criticism section has grown stale; I don't see how that's relevant. IMO, as it is a product of history, it remains relevant regardless of its apparent age; I don't recall there being an expiration date stamped on history as such. However, if you do find something new to add, to freshen it up a little, if you will; please, by all means make your contributions. As to your other arguments, the ISSUE was not that EA had made edits to the article. You rightly point out that that is to be expected. However, it was how they edited content within the article and, indeed, what precisely was edited that was AT ISSUE. If it interests you (if you haven't already looked), and rather than readdress here what has already been discussed on the matter elsewhere (in the interests of brevity), the archives contain additional conversations with respect to this section of the article. Peace. Braidedheadman (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Online Strategy section

EA originally decided against allowing its games on Microsoft's Xbox Live online service due to arguments between Microsoft and EA about the distribution of revenue from online play. EA finally agreed to release games on Xbox Live on the condition that Microsoft allow the games to connect to the EA servers in order to play them online.[24] EA has also received criticism from many gamers in that EA refuses to patch many of its games (usually the older ones) that are in many cases glitchy and/or imbalanced (one player side has more advantages over the other and thus the game matches are unfair).

The issue doesn't seem to be any controversial, but more of a business decision. Question is, was EA obligated (by contract, promise, or non-recalled claim) to support LIVE service to its products? If not, where's the problem? Furthermore, the "gamer criticism" relies on the weasel word, "from many gamers", as its source. The last sentence in parentheses sounds like as if some gamer got upset at the game.--BirdKr 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question lacks context. Did EA market the game in question as an "online" game? Moreover, is this game only capable of delivering real satisfaction by being played "online" by virtue of its design? For instance, would it be appropriate to market, distribute, and sell an online only game such as Team Fortress 2 - not an EA product, I know - only to pull support for that product shortly thereafter? Even after several years, at what point are the ties that bind "just business" and "ethical support" finally broken? What of the end user who still has money tied up in a produce he/she can no longer use? More than that, hasn't this topic already been hashed out in the archives? I seem to recall reading stuff similar to this in the past. Braidedheadman (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm beating on a dead horse, but for future reference, the block I deleted had absolutely no mention of the context of the questions you put out. I'm not going to assume that most of these games published by EA had to have LIVE service to be enjoyable or at least within the publisher's claim. --BirdKr (talk) 09:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Desert Strike

I am not an expert in this topic but I bring this here for your attention because is suggested that this game be removed from the list of notable EA games as it is not notable. My contention is that it is notable because it has its own section here; in addition Googling "Desert Strike" game -wikipedia yields 315,000 Ghits. Even factoring out blog entries must leave a substantial case based on the first criterion of notability. The main argument against seems to be that all EA games are listed, whether great or dreadful. I don't think this is a valid criterion for notability. You might say Winston Churchill was great and Adolf Hitler dreadful, but both are undoubtedly notable. I leave it to the experts on these things, as long as WP:NPOV is borne in mind. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Desert Strike was a big hit for EA on the Genesis (with a SNES port) and started a franchise that lasted into the 32/64-bit era. That seems notable enough for me. Indrian (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "big hit"? MobyGames accumulated scores gives it about an 80% rating--pretty average.

Let me reiterate what happened. I removed Desert Strike from the Notable games published list because I thought it wasn't all that notable. It was just one game that EA published among hundreds of others. Rodhullandemu added it back in, thinking it was notable because it has it's own section in an article. I don't see how that makes it notable. Most games have articles, even if they are obscure. I assert that Desert Strike is a pretty obscure game and doesn't deserve to be on the "Notable" list (and it is on the List of Electronic Arts games). Indrian's objection noted, does anyone else object to removing it? — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, Desert Strike is from 1992, so your Moby Games info is pretty worthess since there are virtually no online press reviews of the game. Second, even if the review score was average, or even horrible, that would once again mean nothing on its own because plenty of awful games have become big hits. Third, anything that spawns a five game series is not "obscure" as you say even if it is not as popualr as Madden or Mario. Outside of its sports games, EA has had very few series last that long, particularly in the period of time we are talking about in the early to mid nineties. Finally, if you want to limit this list to truly notbale games that is fine with me, because I put Desert Strike somewhere between where you put it and super important games like Populous, Ultima Online, and Madden, but then please go ahead and remove Mail Order Monsters, Music Construction Set, and Racing Destruction Set from the list too, which are far more obscure than Desert Strike. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is EA still world's largest publisher?

Now that Activision and Vivendi games have merged, I don't think EA Games is the largest games publisher anymore. EA's article says EA's annual revenue is $2.9b; Activision Blizzard's press release says that Activision Blizzard expects $3.8b in 2007. Furthermore, the press release claims that Activision Blizzard is "the world's largest and most profitable pure-play game publisher". I'm no expert, but it looks as though EA's no longer top dog. Ornen 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are correct, but until both of those companies give their annual reports, I do not think we have a reliable enough source to credit Activision Blizzard as the new top dog. I may be wrong, however. Indrian 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The press release itself has a disclaimer stating that all figures are estimates and future predictions. Tentatively, I've made a slight change to the intro to make it slightly less specific. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it hasn't happened yet, why include speculative commentary? I move that these comments be removed until such time as the article's findings are verifiable as, for the moment at least, it's just not relevant information (as interesting as I find it to be). I cite WP:CRYSTAL. Braidedheadman 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that is for the best, particularly after I noticed with further research that EA projects revenues of $3.8 to $4 billion this year, so chances are good EA is still (barely) on top. As you say, though, we will not know until there are sources and WP:V would seem to mandate we not touch this for now. Indrian 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to document negative experience with EA Store

Hello Wikipedians,

I have had a very negative experience with the EA Store, which exists for the express purpose of allowing people to purchase and download EA games. I was able to complete the "purchase" part of the process, but there has been a slight problem with the "download" part: in other words, I have parted with money but have not been able to download the game to which I am entitled. EA Support have not been helpful in the least.

I have started a blog documenting my experiences. Would it be unethical to add a sub-section to the existing Criticism section on this page with a mention of EA Store unreliability, citing my blog? Annoyead (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your single complaint would not be notable, and hence not encyclopedic, your blog would not be regarded as a reliable source, and you would be perceived to have a conflict of interest. Any one of these would get your edits deleted. Probably a better idea to persist with EA's customer support but this is not the forum for consumer complaints. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your blog, and your experiences contained therein gain mass coverage (as was the case with EA Spouse), then it could well be notable enough. Until that point, blogs aren't generally regarded as reliable sources, and also generally only common and notable criticisms are included, rather than sole, rare or personal occurrences. Good move coming to discuss this on the talk page first, however. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation is to warn others of the potential for their purchase to "go wrong" as mine has, and also to encourage EA to get their act together. Other content in this very article would suggest they pay quite a lot of attention to what's being said here :-) In any case, I will complete my blog and try to see what happens. Thanks for the responses. Annoyead (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to get the word out about your blog, try sending links out to the big blogs like Kotaku and Joystiq once you have solid evidence in there and the like. The role of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is to include things that are already notable, rather than include things with the intention of helping them become notable. Good luck, though. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 23:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - the issue is now resolved. My purchase is accessible through EA Download Manager. This can't have been the case more than about two days ago, when I last checked. Nothing to blog about now! :-) Annoyead (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I swear some people are idiots. Just be patient and use tech support, not damn wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.49.125.26 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting The "Editing of Wikipedia" Section and Accusations of Personal Bias?

In a recent series of reverts, one wikipedian made the claim that Braidedheadman (talk) (me) is personally biased against EA in an attempt to invalidate his protests against the removal of certain sections from the "Criticism" section of this article. In my own defense, I feel that I would like to submit the following argument to show that I (Braidedheadman), am not biased in so far as I only make edits that can be substantiated by facts supported by credible sources.

It is true that the bulk of my edits have contributed to the growth of the "Criticism" section in question. The reason for that being the case is simply that, prior to my contributions, in addition to those added by other, like-minded wikignomes, the EA wiki article ran more like corporate promotional material or a press brochure rather than an encyclopedic article written from a non-neutral POV. The article needed a criticism section in order to balance all the fluff that persists in this document body to this day.

And so I took it upon myself to identify and document points upon which EA could be fairly criticized, with supporting documentation attributed to credible sources (sometimes with help from others =P ), in order to preserve some sense of NPOV throughout this article. More than that, without criticism like this, there can't be the kind of healthy debates that encourage growth elsewhere. While I admit I do feel that, without making them one's soap-box, publicly controlled articles like these - seen by hundreds of thousands if, indeed, not millions - are a perfect place for such things and for leveraging large corporations like EA into examining themselves closely to look for ways to change for the better; to the best of my knowledge, I have not made this article my personal soap-box and, to my credit, I have opposed points of criticism here in the past that were either not sufficiently notable, were not NPOV, or could not be substantiated through proper documentation.

As far as EA's staffers editing wiki articles in which they have a vested interest goes, and people's continued efforts to remove EA's recent involvement in such activities; yes, I know it happens and, no, I don't have any problem with it in so far as they are not the kind of historical-revisionist entries like those that were made here in the past or are not full of salacious, corporate disinformation.

When companies do stoop to this level, however, I strongly believe that these are notable events, particularly when major news media outlets like the NY Times et al pick up on it and run them in their periodicals. As such, they are confirmed points of historical record and have a place of value in encyclopedic articles. Bias does not factor into including them in such articles one bit. I might even contend that not including them, in fact, shows a particularly favorable bias toward EA's interests in direct opposition to allegations made of my own supposedly non-neutral points of view. It's worth noting here that Wikipedia is not a corporate public relations entity where everything that is said about the corporations they document has to be all peachy and nice.

Anecdotally, I made edits in the past wherein I quoted EA's current CEO, John Riccitiello, for his comments regarding EA's apparent stagnation and lack of innovation. The edits at the time received a fair bit of resistance given that there was some ambiguity in his comments with regard to whether they pertained to EA specifically or the industry at large, generally. I'd like to thank those who contributed toward making those comments as NPOV as possible in that regard. At the same time, however, I'd like to direct everyone's attention to this article by the NY Times, which pretty much vindicates my interpretation of the older articles currently cited in the criticism section. If Mr. Riccitiello was not specifically talking about his company's stagnated growth in new and innovative IPs then, he certainly is now. =P

Please expect further updates to the criticism section in the near future. =D Peace. 04:41, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Internet: Serious Business. Look, it was not massively discussed (pertaining to notability) anywhere except for game-related blogs, which are barely a reliable source of information, and ONLY focus on gaming, not general news. I did not hear a peep from any major news source (ABC, CBS, CNBC, Faux- I mean, Fox News, etc.) about the incident. Besides, if you check the Wikipedia IP Scanner here, you'll find that many companies do what EA did, which was make a couple edits on their behalf. And since you seem to dig blogs so much, check this. It's a short list of notable companies and organizations (including EA) that have edited the Wiki on it's own behalf. And you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, because your account has few past edits that do NOT pertain to this article. And if you think that the article needs balancing, it does not become fixed by simply keeping one small section that is both not encyclopedic AND fluff itself. Go ahead and keep reverting my edits. Can't stop me from re-reverting. Blacklist (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in getting into an edit war over something like this, so I won't bother taking part. What I will say is that a corporation editing Wikipedia is neither inherently notable and should be included, nor inherently not notable, and should not be included. I agree that there are lots of edits made to Wikipedia by big corporations, and many of these are not worthy of mention. I feel, however, that this deserves a mention in the article, as it did get coverage, even if largely only in videogame and tech-related sites. Other similar cases of Wikipedia editing which are mentioned in their relevant articles are Exxon Valdez, Raytheon, Congressional staff, CIA, "Internet brigades", NYT, Cult Awareness Network, Diebold, BBC, Fox News, and likely many more. Some of those articles have less references for that section, others have more. The section that there is a revert war over at the moment was fully referenced, from three different references. Those are Joystiq, Shacknews, and Gamesindustry.biz, which are used as references all over Wikipedia. They are clearly reliable enough, in my opinion, and this section got wide enough coverage to warrant inclusion, in my opinion. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If both of you could avoid reverting for a while, and just discuss on this talk page, that would be great, and would avoid the possibility of either of you getting blocked for violating WP:3RR. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with this, I have put 3RR notices on each of your talk pages, for making two reverts each in the past 24 hours, just incase either of you was to revert before reading this talk page (fair warning and all. :) ). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 06:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. You'll also note that I twice requested in history comments that this come to discussion before this revert war escalated and yet I see the original page content has been changed, yet again, before a consensus has been reached. Furthermore, as I also pointed out in history comments, this topic indeed has been discussed extensively in the past (check the archives) and has been at rest for several months now. '@Blacklist:' If you are suggesting, sir, by your references to Wikipedia:Ownership of articles that I cannot work with the other editors on board here, you are mistaken. As it stands, since you haven't come up with a better argument than, "I don't think it's notable," and your fallacious assertion that this topic has not been widely covered by credible sources, I simply happen to disagree with your reasons for removing the section.Braidedheadman (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Since an Admin got into the mix and is threatening to block people and stuff, do what you wish. If it DOES need to be mentioned, it should not be in it's OWN underlined section. Regular folk work at EA, especially those who gain outside Internet access inside of the Quality Assurance department (since it hires regular folk once every six months or so), so then they get to edit the article to defend their employer while on the clock, and by doing so, make it from EA's IP Address. Not that big a deal that it deserves a header, if you ask me. Blacklist (talk) 00:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, hold on. I'm not an admin, I'm just a regular editor like yourselves. I wasn't threatening a block, just placing a notice to inform both of you that edit warring is not productive, and if both of you continued to revert without discussing it on the talk page, that you would end up violating WP:3RR and that usually leads to a block for all violating parties. Do not think that I used that to stop you from taking part in this discussion. I think it is important that a consensus is reached here. Apologies if it felt I was throwing around any kind of authority. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... Isn't there a general rule on the Internet that if you're not a moderator, then you don't go around acting like one by warning other users that they're somehow breaking the rules? You warned us both, and I assumed that since you had the ability, you would go on and pull it off if such an event would come to fruition. But whatever, I'm past this. Blacklist (talk) 00:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin here. Any user can issue warnings for vandalism, 3RR, etc, so Dreaded Walrus acted quite correctly in issuing warnings, but would need to request an admin to issue blocks. That's why we have WP:AIV, for example. Meanwhile, I'd suggest, as a fellow editor, rather than acting qua admin, that the issues in this debate are *how encyclopedic is the section under discussion?, *what understanding does it give a reader?, and *how well-sourced is it? Can we move on on that basis, please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted your edit. I'm for keeping it up there. Just because it wasn't covered by "major" news doesn't mean it isn't news. And if you're perception of "news" is limited to the "major" networks, you may need to do some serious thinking. And i'm sure other companies do this whole dirty business of wikipedia editing, wikiscanner shows it! Unfortunately, they aren't reported in the news generally, much less so in any of the avenue(s) you are used to (READ: TELEVISION). Haracas (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, it's considered news if it reaches a general and major populous that then acknowledge the events depicted in said news. Second, I don't need to do any thinking, for anybody. Thank you very much. Finally, you never touched on the fact of whether or not it was encyclopedic, which is what half of this debate is about. Also, I personally did watch a News Report out of my local KGO 7 News about Microsoft editing Wikipedia. Oops, I guess they are reported in the avenues I am used to. Blacklist (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well as for how "encyclopedic" this is, i would say its worthy of being placed in here. We are dealing with EA's criticism. Their editing of Wikipedia and subsequent press release is an excellent example of how their PR practices, in my opinion. Including it in Wikipedia will give readers a better understanding of what EA is like. I also do think this is a notable event such that even EA itself issued a press release, in which it did not deny its practices (but nor did it condone them). I don't think that the article is biased nor is Braidedsomethingsomething (sorry, i can't find your name!) biased in his opinion. Judging his POV based on the fact that all the edits he has made are in the criticism section and then accusing him of being biased is a bit far-fetched. He cited sources in his edits, and EA's own press release regarding this issue was included in the reference too, that, by my definition is not biased. Biased is when you accuse someone or something of doing something despite evidence to the contrary. Finally, your maturity (or dire lack thereof) as an editor of Wikipedia is somewhat alarming, but i'm sure you're over this whole fiasco now as you said so yourself and hopefully you won't be so rude next time to fellow editors. <3, Haracas (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your own comment just lacked maturity also. Don't try to put one over on me, punk. Blacklist (talk) 07:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ok, so rather than use this talk page to move towards a compromise, you once again decided to just dive in, even with name-calling added! Moving aside from all that hatred and anger for punks, i would like to once again focus on the topic at hand and offer some suggestions(if you're still interested in working out a resolution that is). I do still strongly feel that the topic about Wikipedia editing should stay up. I think it is important to let the readers know that the material they are reading was at (a) point(s) heavily tempered with and from the company itself too. I don't mind if it was scaled down to one or two sentences though, and merged with the main paragraphs under criticism, eliminating the need for its own section. If you (and anyone else opposing the current situation) do not mind this suggestion, then be my guest and carry out the necessary edits. Punk, out. Haracas (talk) 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to how well sourced the section was, it had three separate pages used as citations, but there are many more, as the story was picked up by many other big names, such as CVG [1], Kotaku [2], Destructoid [3], and even GameSpot [4]. The story was also picked up by foreign-language sites such as FOK!games [5], so I would say it's certainly important enough for inclusion. Many of our entire articles don't have as many sources as that. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 01:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am prepared to let the page sit as it is for another couple of days at least in order that this can be discussed thoroughly, at the end of which time I plan on reverting the changes. IMHO, however, I feel that since this has been discussed before and that the section in question as it was had been at rest for several months, someone (*ahem*) other than myself should step up and do the honors. =P Braidedheadman (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section should stay up. I think the fact that EA (or more specifically, an EA IP address) is editing out criticism should make it notable. It would be a much different scenario if the article added something like, EA is the best company and worth $2 BILLION which could just be attributed to employee enthusiasm/spamming(?). However, I don't believe "criticism" sections are required just because a corporation is non-negative things written about it.Strongsauce (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective: I don't think this is notable or worth inclusion especially considering the GameSpot "story" cited appears to be a personal blog. If at least one real newspaper or periodical covers this issue then I would change my position. --Coolcaesar (talk) 08:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpot isn't cited in the section in question. The three citations used are Joystiq.com, ShackNews (the originator of the story), and Gamesindustry.biz. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(as an aside, if you're talking about the GameSpot page I linked to above, that appears to be from Sidebar, GameSpot's official news blog, named such because it appears in the sidebar on their main news page). Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 08:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is noteworthy. Unless someone knows WHO at EA edited the article, it is a criticism of unknown EA employees, not the company. There is no reason to believe it was sanctioned by the company, and every reason to believe it was not (since EA is a software company, and the edits must have been made by a non-technical person if they did not understand that vandalizing a wiki won't accomplish much and can be tracked). I think it reeks of petty bias, and I don't particularly like EA myself. Your comment, "please expect further updates to the criticism section in the near future," makes it sound like you're on a mission to destroy EA, and your edit history reiterates it. --Mugsywwiii (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't agree with most of what you've said - if it wasn't noteworthy, major gaming eZines (legitimate, credible news/media sources) would not have run with the story in droves - you are dead wrong about the last part. I would like nothing more than for EA to get back to producing great games again as they have in the past rather than the reiterated franchise material that has been their bread and butter for the better part of the last decade. I feel that criticism such as that found in articles like these and elsewhere go a fair ways toward accomplishing that goal. But the ad hominem attacks made here in recent weeks do nothing to address the facts and, so far, no one has been able to show why this section is not notable outside of their own opinion. I argue that it is notable because it is supported by substantiating documents. Moreover, the comment you quoted, and took out of context BTW, was intended as a friendly jab at my fellow wikignomes who some months ago resisted the idea that Riccitiello might actually have been talking about his own company in comments he made in an article that I cited at the time. As the new article I linked to above is explicit in Riccitiello's comments (rather than implicit) this time, I could not resist the opportunity to poke some of these guys in the ribs =P. It has nothing to do with me wanting to see EA fail.Braidedheadman (talk) 07:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't sure if it warranted a new heading but I have had previous experience with an EA staffer editing unfavourable information out of a Need for Speed article. I can't quite find it at the moment but it was an edit by an anonymous user who I tracked down using WHOIS to an EA owned IP address. Probably doesn't warrant a mention in the article but thought it was interesting that it wasn't the only time this has happened. USER - Pretender2j (sorry have forgotten my wiki markup :S) 13/9/2008 2239 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.123.31 (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Income

I don't think the math works out,it doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.149.231 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"EA's CEO: How I Learned To Acquire Developers And Not Screw Them Up"

I want to bring this into attention, seeing how this Wikipedia article has ended up being staunchly anti-EA and needs some NPOV writing:

John Riccitiello is apologetic about what happened to Bullfrog, Westwood, Origin Systems; acknowledges important of retaining corporate culture, as seen with Bioware and Maxis. - 60.50.251.20 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the article has become "anti-EA" per se. One could just as easily argue that there's lots of material in there that is decidedly "pro-EA". But with respect to your comments, a few weeks ago I noted a similar article above from the NY Times. Like you, I'm sure, I felt that it was a good article and shows that EA is aware of its past mistakes and is moving toward making corrections. I had intended to incorporate it under the criticism section after it had mellowed a bit in order to avoid "recentism" in the wiki, but it looks as though Haracas beat me to the punch. =P I'd like to note, however, that the article cited here and in the wiki, as good as it is, appears to be a blog rather than an article from a reputable source. This article from the NY Times would probably be a more appropriate document to use. It also has the advantage having been titled a little better than "How I Learned To Acquire Developers And Not Screw Them Up", which I find to be on the NNPOV-side. The wiki may also benefit from having commentary related to this article placed more strategically than it currently is, but it's getting late. I'll have more ideas to offer on this matter later in the week. Cheers. Braidedheadman (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it soon under the company timeline and see if theres anything that should be added under the "Company development strategy" section.Haracas (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that phrase is false anyway, given that they acquired Maxis for SimCity, etc. then got Tilted Mill to do SimCity Socities Evils Dark (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad EA doesn't seem to have learned as much as their CEO has claimed. If the past 10 months of EA games are any indication they still seem to rush products to completion before they're ready and interfere a lot with developer's creative freedoms and attempt to dumb down their games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.58.85.10 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection?

I think this should have semi production because especially recently, there has been a high concentration of vandilism in this article, and to stop furute re vandilism? Please respond --PandaSaver (talk) 21:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)PandaSaver[reply]

If you'd like to request semi-protection, go to WP:RfPP and follow the instructions. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History/Organization

Seems to me that the History section needs some work to pull out the most relevant company timeline. I'd suggest that it be primarily split between the eras that define EA's three CEOs.17reasons (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the page is not well-organized, particularly when compared to the best practices laid out by the Companies WIkiproject (Microsoft is a good example). Splitting the history into three distinct periods, defined by CEO leadership (1982-1991, 1991-2007, and 2007 - present) is intuitive. It also is consistent with what could be described as three very different periods in EA's evolution as a company. Hawkins' tenure saw the creation of not just EA but an entire industry; Probst oversaw the explosive growth of videogames and EA, the consolidation of the industry, and some company growing pains; Riccitiello has led a complete restructuring of the company and its approach to the industry. Doyle75 (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Label Architecture and the Studios sections are out-of-date and inaccurate, and don't really reflect the current structure of the company. The Studio section in particular lumps game-making studios with EA publishing offices, which aren't studios at all. I suggest that these two sections be combined to give more accurate information about each of the four labels, and the studios that fall under each of them. Cba2000 (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 Activation Policy

Apparently any games published from now on by EA or it's subsidiaries will only allow the user 3 activations before they have to purchase a new copy(!) Activations are used up when you reformat your PC, change the hardware as well as when you initially install the software. This has been confirmed on the Spore forums where any new posts on the subject are now banned. I'm wondering if I can find an official statement from EA on this matter (most likely a forum post by an authorised employee) whether this would be worth mentioning in the criticism of EA? This system has already been used in Mass Effect for the PC and EA has received criticism for it as it is penalising legitimate users as it is quite possible to go through those activations in a limited time. I'm still trying to find out what the legal situation is here in the UK, but it looks like it might well be yet another area where the legal system lags behind developments by companies... I'm hoping it'll fall under one of the unfair trading rules. --Tethran (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise in advance for the long links. There is vague reference to it here, however, anecdotal evidence suggests what is meant by "case-by-case basis" is actually "never" and that people are being told they will have to buy a new copy.

Here's the support page for DRM and Mass Effect:

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=19735&p_created=1211313603&p_sid=VYpskMcj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0yOTI2LDI5MjYmcF9wcm9kcz03JnBfY2F0cz0mcF9wdj0xLjcmcF9jdj0mcF9zZWFyY2hfdHlwZT1hbnN3ZXJzLnNlYXJjaF9ubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1

I'll try and paste some pertinant quotes from the link above:

"EA Customer Service is on hand to supply any additional authorizations that are warranted. This will be done on a case-by-case basis by contacting Customer Support."

"First, authentication of your game disc has changed from a physical format to an online format, eliminating the need to have a disc in the drive when playing." This also means that you have to have internet access to authenticate and play the game.

"Re-authentication is required if the game is re-installed on a previously authorized machine for any reason." So, that's 3 re-installs then before you have to contact EA support and hope that they give you a new copy. Users of Mass Effect found themselves being told to buy a new copy to get more activations.

A similar series of answers is found on the support for the Spore Creature Creator support section:

http://support.ea.com/cgi-bin/ea.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=19743&p_created=1211584776&p_sid=j43*nMcj&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9OTUsOTUmcF9wcm9kcz03LDYyMjAmcF9jYXRzPTAmcF9wdj0yLjYyMjAmcF9jdj0mcF9wYWdlPTM*&p_li=&p_topview=1

If I can find solid examples that a lot of customers are being just told to purchase new copies I'll post links to them here as well. I don't want to just leap in and start editing the article, potentially controverisally, without talking about it here first. --Tethran (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And an article discussing the 3 activation policy with regards Mass Effect and Spore. http://www.simprograms.com/?p=692 Again, I apologise for the length of the links. Honestly. When playing your legally purchased game is more troublesome than playing a pirated copy would be, somebody somewhere should realise the system is messed up... Unfortunately EA doesn't seem to understand that the way to reduce piracy would be to make it easier on the customers that are paying for it (see Stardock's Galactic Civilizations 1 and 2 for example...) --Tethran (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article of interest, related to this topic: Spore's Piracy Problem - Forbes.com. Notable exerpts include:

Electronic Arts (nasdaq: ERTS - news - people ) had hoped to limit users to installing the game only three times through its use of digital rights management software, or DRM. But not only have those constraints failed, says Garland [Big Champagne Chief Executive Eric Garland], they may have inadvertently spurred the pirates on.

On several top file-sharing sites, "Spore"'s most downloaded BitTorrent "tracker"--a file that maps which users had the game available for downloading--also included step-by-step instructions for how to disassemble the copy protections, along with a set of numerical keys for breaking the software's encryption. For many users, that made the pirated version more appealing than the legitimate one.

DRM only limits the ability of consumers who wouldn't typically pirate media to make copies or share it with friends and family, agrees Big Champagne's Garland. But because encryption is so easily broken by savvier--and more morally flexible--users, it does little to stop the flood of intellectual property pirated over the Internet, he contends.

"DRM can encourage the best customers to behave slightly better," he says. "It will never address the masses of non-customers downloading your product."

Braidedheadman (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rumorang

Is it related to Numberwang? Davhorn (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:EA Sports.png

The image Image:EA Sports.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

Image:The sims 2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxis - both current and former?

Maxis is both listed as a defunct EA studio and a current one. Technically, this is correct as Will Wright's development studio is now based in Emeryville, and the Maxis brand has been transferred with him. What was Maxis is now an EA studio. Perhaps some better delineation between 'old' and 'new' Maxis is necessary (both in this and the main Maxis article)? Sslaxx (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Links

Someone needs to link Mirrors edge to the game's article as I cant get it to link. Vexrog (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you asking for? Here's a link to the game article, however: Mirror's Edge. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is EA hurting the industry?

EA's always acting in it's own corporate interest, as any company should be expected to do, but critics all over the internet allege that EA is hurting the videogame industry. Critics in forums, in videogames, on youtube, in blogs, and even in fairly high profile game reviews and "infotainment" have formed something of an EA bashing band wagon in which EA is accused of writing it's own reviews and citing them in commercials, attempting to take over and liquidate their competition to establish a virtual monopoly, and attempting to flood the market with low quality and cheaply made games relying on commercial advertisements and hype to sell them.

I don't know how much of this is true, but it would make for interesting discussion since there are plenty of sections here on the Electronic Arts page that seem to be criticizing EA--67.58.85.10 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find verifiable and reliable refs, go ahead. But don't unbalance the article. EA got to where it is by releasing popular games. Sure they put out a lot of crap too—most publishers do. But they couldn't survive if that's all they put out. Writing their own reviews? Where? Sony did that with movie reviews and it really bit them in the butt. I'm not in love with EA, but this type of hype is levied against most large businesses. Verifiable, reliable refs (FYI, forums, YouTube videos and blogs are not valid refs). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not calling for any additions, I just thought it would be interesting to see people discuss in an intelligent manner. Wikipedia is great for this because people actually have to back up their claims, so unlike on an Internet forum or in Youtube Video or in video game chat interfaces people can't just throw out a bunch of claims and hope some of them stick. I had read that EA wrote their own reviews for Skate 2 and highlighted them during their TV commercials, which were highlited on Youtube, but I'm unsure of this and being the skeptic that I am I try not to take too much of anything at face value after all. 67.58.85.10 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the talk page is really only for discussing changes or improvements to the article, not random discussions. Sorry, but if you aren't actually looking to change the article, you should bring your discussion somewhere else. Yes, on Wikipedia editors have to back up their claims, but only when looking to change an article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Major layoffs

I read yesterday that EA is laying off 1100 people, about 11% of its workforce (I'm not gonna put a ref in here, there are hundreds, just do a search on Google News). I was looking for a place to insert this information, but there isn't an obvious place. After the lead-in, the article launches immediately into criticism (this doesn't seem very NPOV). There is a "Corporate affairs" section, but all it talks about are EA's logos.

I seem to remember there used to be a "History" section to the article (such as in this version), but that is long gone (but seems an obvious topic for an encyclopedia to cover). Where should this news be inserted? Will it require resurrecting sections that were deleted (for who knows why) long ago? Or undertaking a major restructure to the article? Please chime in. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly me, I was looking at a vandalized version of the article. Thanks to Indrian for restoring it. I added the above information to the bottom of the History section. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to know that the EA CEO and board still have enough money to fly on private jets, gamble constantly, eat the over priced refuse of the food industry (fish eggs and the like) and take long tropical vacations between conferences and media showings. --67.58.85.10 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least they're not doing it with taxpayer money. :-) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you use the real EA logo for a change.

Seriously.

This article is supposedly about being accurate, yet for several years now Electronic Arts has change the company logo on the majority of products (aka the non-EA Sports ones) into that oval shaped EA containing image. How do supposed experts of Electronic Arts manage to not keep up with simple marketing/branding image changes done by this company? Yet they are all over the negative publicity in this article.

--EMU-LMAO (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, if you visit their forums, they have not kept their logos up to date either, by your reckoning. So then what really is your point, aside from trying to start an argument? Rather than complain, why don't you take some initiative and do it yourself if it bothers you that much? Would it not have been easier to change one line in the image tag as opposed to typing out a 90-word complaint here? Frankly, with the literally dozens of different logos that EA continues to use even today, I'm not that interested in which one you think is "most current". You want it changed? You do the leg work. Braidedheadman (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't live in these internets where you clearly live in. Are you one of those Netizens we hear about in the real world? In the real world we have a fancy EA logo which has a big oval circle around it and is usually black on the box. By the way, I just love the Wikipedia politics, which is a total turn-off. Maybe you can work on a free encyclopedia with smarty know-it-alls that apparently live and thrive on the words found on the Internet, and not the real world.

Summary. So EA logo with an oval circle around it, usually black. Use that, since EA puts it on every product they ship to these amazing retail outlets in the real world. --EMU-LMAO (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EA Partners

I'm seeing things in various articles referring to the EA Partners program, but nothing really in this article. I read an article in Game Informer about it and was looking for more information, but didn't really find any. I think it would make a good addition to this article, and quite pssibly have it's own article, since it has been around for 12 years and helped put out some truly awesome games (System Shock 2, Left 4 Dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddragyn (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think somebody should mention that John Carmack and id Software bailed from the EA Partners program once the acquisition deal with Bethesda fell through. I don't know how to put it, though. I'm not editing to preserve quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.199.219 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive copyright tag

Why is there a tag claiming there's improper use of copyrighted materials? Everything in the article seems to be acceptable as fair use. Maybe EA is up to their old tricks again... Dashwarts (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change "EA" from Electronics Arts primary topic to disambiguation page

See Talk:EA (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History?

This revision of the article has a comprehensive history, but it's missing from the latest versions of this article. What happened to it? Why was it removed? Was it simple vandalism or was it removed for some other reason? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this revision from back in February is responsible for deleting the history. I'm restoring it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia section

I removed the section on "Wikipedia". In the context of a multi-billion dollar business, whose other "contentious issues" are things like employment policies and anti-trust lawsuits, the fact that someone from the business once tried to edit Wikipedia as an IP in a biased manner just isn't due weight, unless it really did become (or was connected to) a big scandal. I've removed this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This should be removed and kept off as truly inconsequential. You will probably have an uphill fight against a couple of editors here, however. This is not the first time we have tried to get this out. Indrian (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought it was very noteworthy. Who's to say it was EA management that did the editing and not some random employee. Thousands of employees have an EA IP address when accessing the Internet from the workplace. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree either and the only reason I reverted was that I thought it should be a discussion, which it has now become. If the section was deleted, I would have no issue and totally understand the logic behind that. MrMarmite (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I've re-removed the navel gazing. –xeno^talk 15:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection: Vandalism

I think the article should be temporarily semi-protected due to explicit vandalism, it's getting quite annoying, and the vandalism is coming mostly from IP addresses. GWPSP090 (GO!) (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whole Lotta Bitchin' Going On

...in this article. I have read previous comments explaining that the Criticism section was introduced or expanded to counter Corporate fluff. Seems to me that two wrongs don't make a right. Wouldn't it be better to edit the article to be neutral/unbiased/whatever rather than just placing heavier and heavier weights on each end of the see-saw? 92.234.49.13 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct.

Just a small recommendation. It should read at the very beginning that EA is an American company and not an international. A company is from the country that its headquarters are located in. If you look at all the other big companies like Suare Enix, Ubisoft etc. they are listed as companies from countries that their headquarters are located in (Japan and France for those two) and not as international ones even though they have offices and employees all over the world. EA is not any different. EA was founded by Trip Hawkins (an American), and it's based in Redwood City, California, U.S.A. Therefore it should say at the beginning of the article that "Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) (NASDAQ: ERTS)[3] is an American developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of video games." "An international company" would mean that a company was actually owned by many countries which none of those companies are since they all are privately owned. And all the offices and studios those companies have around the world are still owned by those companies and not by those countries. So when you write something that it's meant to be an informational article about a company you should use the country that company is actually from and not the term "international". Please correct that. Thank you.

P.S. Please excuse any writing mistakes I made. English is not my native language.

Points well taken. Changed article lead to your recommendation. Fair warning, though, it may be changed by other editors. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update To Overview

As a representative of Electronic Arts, I would like to make the following suggested changes to 2nd and 3rd paragraph in the overview section. These changes are primarily meant to bring our entry up-to-date. Feedback on the proposed updates is welcome -- Andy Katkin, Editor in Chief, EA.com

Originally, EA was a home computing game publisher. In the late 1980s, the company began developing games in-house and supported consoles by the early 1990s. EA later grew via acquisition of several successful developers. By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers. On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011. EA has moved into providing new digital gaming goods and services (including downloadable games, paid do wnloadable content, mobile games and social games), and reported $833 million in sales of digital goods for the 12 months ending in March, up 46 percent from the year-earlier period. "That figure blew away analysts' estimates of about $750 million, with the company now tracing 22 percent of its $3.8 billion in revenue to virtual wares. It expects digital sales to pass $1 billion this year."^[1]

Currently, EA develops and publishes games under several labels including EA SPORTS titles, Madden NFL, FIFA Soccer, NHL, and NBA Jam. Other EA labels produce established franchises such as Battlefield, Need For Speed, The Sims, Medal of Honor, Command & Conquer, as well as newer franchises such as Dead Space, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Army of Two and Star Wars The Old Republic, produced in partnership with LucasArts.^[2] EA also owns and operates major gaming studios in Tiburon in Orlando, Burnaby, Vancouver, Montreal and DICE in Sweden.^[3]

UPDATE - June 29th. Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and move this text over to the live article. If anyone has issues with this update, please leave me a note. We're eager to work with the Wikipedia community to keep our entry as factual and current as possible, and we want to do so within the guidelines and accepted community standards of the site.

Akatkin (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Updates To Overview

Hello Wikipedia - This is Andy Katkin, editor for ea.com, back again with some additional updates to the overview section fo EA's Wikipedia entry. As with the previous updates, I am suggesting these changes as a representative of EA and would be happy to work with the community to reach consensus on the text if any objections are raised.

The new text updates and augments the content in the 3rd paragraph. The 1st two paragraphs, and the first 3 sentences in the 3rd paragraph remain unchanged. New text follows:

EA began to move toward direct distribution of digital games and services with the acquisition of the popular online gaming site Pogo.com in 2001.^[4] In 2009 EA acquired the London-based social gaming startup Playfish,^[5] and in June 2011, EA launched Origin, an online service to sell downloadable games directly to consumers.^[6] In July, 2011 EA announced that it had acquired PopCap Games, the company behind such hits as Plants vs. Zombies, Bejeweled, Peggle and Zuma.^[7]

EA is currently the No. 1 publisher in Western markets with a 16% segment share.^[8] With the acquisition of PopCap, EA regained its position as the No. 2 publisher of games on Facebook.^[9]

On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011. On July 27, 2011, EA reported fiscal first-quarter profits had more than doubled on brisk sales of “highly-anticipated sports and shooter games.”^[10] EA earned $221 million, or 66 cents a share, in the three months that ended June 30. “That's up from earnings of $96 million, or 29 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 23 percent to $999 million from $815 million.”^[11]

EA has moved into providing new digital gaming goods and services (including downloadable games, paid downloadable content, mobile games and social games), and revenue from digital sales this year “will likely total between $1.1 billion and $1.15 billion, representing a dramatic change in the company's business model.”^[12] EA earned $833 million in digital revenue last year.^[13]

EA’s earnings are marked by an ongoing difference between non-GAAP and GAAP accounting – which, for example, mandates deferrals of revenue related to services provided for online-enabled packaged goods and digital content. Consequently, EA’s quarterly reports reflect hundreds of millions of dollars which, under GAAP accounting, are deferred for a period of months – then appear in the earnings over multiple quarters subsequent to the original sale. Other companies with significant online revenues face similar issues. This can make it extremely difficult to understand the company’s GAAP profitability.

UPDATE AUGUST 8: Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and update the live article for EA.

Akatkin (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other games

There are upcoming 2011 and 2012 games that are not on the "Upcoming games" list, such as NFL Blitz and Grand Slam Tennis 2. Some of these games would be redirected to articles relating to them, but would still be shown on those articles and confirmed by EA's website. Can I add them? Lacon432 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update On EA's Digital Growth

Hello Wikipedia - It's Andy Katkin, the editor for ea.com, back again to make a few more updates to the Wikipedia entry for Electronic Arts. These updates focus on EA's recent reorganization of its digital division, as well as a recognition that in 2011 EA earned over $1b in digital revenue. If anyone has any feedback on the proposed changes, please let me know...

Changes begin with the 2nd paragraph which would be updated to read:

Originally, EA was a home computing game publisher. In the late 1980s, the company began developing games in-house and supported consoles by the early 1990s. EA later grew via acquisition of several successful developers. By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers. On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011, and on January 13, 2012, EA announced that it had exceeded $1 billion in digital revenue during the previous calendar year. [ADD CITATION: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-reshuffles-after-1-billion-in-digital-year/]. In a note to employees, EA CEO John Riccitiello called this “an incredibly important milestone” for the company. [ADD CITATION: http://kotaku.com/5875652/this-is-what-eas-up-to-on-the-day-zynga-hired-one-of-their-top-guys] EA began to move toward direct distribution of digital games and services with the acquisition of the popular online gaming site Pogo.com in 2001.[4] In 2009, EA acquired the London-based social gaming startup Playfish,[5] and in June 2011, EA launched Origin, an online service to sell downloadable games directly to consumers.[6] In July 2011, EA announced that it had acquired PopCap Games, the company behind hits such as Plants vs. Zombies and Bejeweled.[7]

Paragraph 3 would be added:

EA continued its shift toward digital goods in 2012, folding its mobile-focused EA Interactive (EAi) division “into other organizations throughout the company, specifically those divisions led by EA Labels president Frank Gibeau, COO Peter Moore, and CTO Rajat Taneja, and EVP of digital Kristian Segerstrale.” [ADD CITATION: http://www.gamasurtra.com/view/news/39623/EA_reorganizes_after_a_landmark_1B_digital_year.php]

Paragraph 5 which begins with "EA has moved into providing new digital gaming" would be removed.

As always, we are eager to work with the Wikipedia community to make sure these updates are vetted before going live. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

Akatkin (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and move this new text over to the live article.

Akatkin (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query re: EA updating their own entry

Why are we letting EA write their own Wikipedia entry? Half that text is unnecessary fluff rather than neutral POV facts.

EA Gothenburg

EA has just opened a studio in Gothenburg, could someone please add this (protected). The sources are this job page and this article: https://jobs.ea.com/search/advanced.do?q=&globalRegionID=a1W500000004CCcEAM&locationID=a1W500000004MBOEA2&jobCategoryID=

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/05/ea-opens-ea-gothenburg-studio-focused-on-frostbite-2-projects/ --Hentheden (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 12 March 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Mass Effect 3 as an Electronic Arts game release in 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_3)

46.59.28.80 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: The list at Electronic_Arts#2012_release, to which I assume you are referring, is a list of "Games in development". Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6 2012.

If you, instead, were requesting to add it to the "Notable games published" list, you'd need consensus for that, I think, especially as it is a new title.

FYI, there is also this article: List of Electronic Arts games, which is a list of games. This article is primarily about the company. Begoon ^talk 04:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Arts wins Worst Company of 2012 over Bank of America, etc.

Somehow I feel this is more than relevant to the criticisms page. The Consumerist held a poll on which companies they considered the worst in America, and EA won with 250,000 votes. If Wikipedia hadn't locked this article (like it does with every article that arouses so much as a tiny bit of controversy) I'd have added it myself.

http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratulations-ea-you-are-the-worst-company-in-america-for-2012.html Pippipdoodlydoo (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is relevant, please include this information.91.39.94.135 (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because charging ten dollars for an online pass and having exclusive sports licenses is much worse than helping destroy the US housing market and, subsequently, the entire economy through deceptive practices and subsequently continuing illegal foreclosures and other questionable activities after these problems had come to light. Spare me. This was an Internet (un)popularity contest that probably got all those Mass Effect fanboys all riled up again to stick it to "the man" that denied them their life-fulfilling ME3 ending. I see no reason to include this. Indrian (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a statement of fact, not a subjective judgment by Wikipedia (or its editors) about the merit of the award. The Consumerist blog is owned by Consumers Union (owners of Consumer Reports) and the blog/its contributors have been regularly mentioned by news outlets and others, meeting the notability requirement to have their own article on Wikipedia. Comcast's article mentions their win of the award in 2010.

I won't argue as to the exact placement (other than whether or not I think it should be in the first sentence of the article? No, I think it shouldn't), but ignoring the fact that people voted EA for its practices because you believe them to be more or less evil than those of companies misses the point and just places one point of view as superior to the other. If there's notability issues, or whatever, then yeah, that's a valid reason not to include a mention in the article.

In the end, visitors to a popular and often cited blog about consumers, consumeristm, et cetera, thought that EA's practices merited them winning the award. Maybe they thought that BofA's acts were more evil, but EA was the worst company since they weren't making efforts to improve and others may not be aware of the impact they are having on their industry. In the end, I think personal opinion on whether or not the win was justified is irrelevant, and the edit should be included on the merit of its notability and relevance to content.

I will note that the article presently has a long section with multiple subsections on criticism of the company. --JDCMAN (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My above post is to illustrate the ridiculousness of the poll. The main reason it should not be included is because the poll is unscientific and therefore useless as a gauge of anything. The Consumerist being a reliable source does not change the uselessness of the results because the content is not an expert opinion or a scientific study promulgated by the organization. They just stuck some polls out there for anyone who cared enough to participate. If and when EA wins a lot of these kinds of contests, or is inundated by protestors, or is the subject of high profile boycotts, or is the subject of multiple op-ed pieces in reliable sources decrying its conduct, then we may have a trend of public dissatisfaction with the corporation and its business practices that would be worth discussing. Winning one unscientific poll, especially when there is currently an irrational Internet subculture attempting to smear the company in any way it can, hardly qualifies as a valid subject for discussion and analysis in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be based on secondary research and not flavor-of-the-month Internet reporting anyway. Indrian (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So your main objection is that The Consumerist didn't poll everyone in America? You've said it yourself, "They just stuck some polls out there for anyone who cared enough to participate". You seem to be making a great many assumptions about the demographics behind who voted for EA and why. The fact of the matter is that there *is* a legitimate backlash against EA's current business practices, evident not just from the results of the Consumerist poll but also from a string of recent Forbes articles criticizing EA. I also don't quite understand why you're putting the emphasis here on the poll being "unscientific" and thus "useless as a gauge of anything". How exactly would you have improved the method the Consumerist poll used to determine the worst company in America? Murdox (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody polls everybody in America, but for a poll to have validity as a measuring device it needs to be structured in such a way as to capture a broad cross-section of the target group and have results that fall within a reasonable margin of error. There is no evidence that this poll does either. Including the results of such an unscientific poll in an encyclopedia article is a ludicrous proposition. Indrian (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just throwing out two things. First your personal feelings on the poll don't mean anything. Second EA is hated for more reasons then that. They are hated for buying up popular series and then running them into the ground. They destroyed several successful companies such as Pandemic and Westwood. They work their employees ridiculous hours for no Overtime because they are all salaried. They nickel and dime like crazy with their DLC, micro-transactions, and online passes. This is about more than the ending to Mass Effect 3. Superbowlbound (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the company still makes money, ie people still buy its games. Odd that. Its employee practices (which are a systemic problem throughout the industry and not a specifically EA "evil") are properly covered because this drew widespread attention to a serious issue and led to larger debates about industry conditions in general. That was really significant stuff. This poll, not so much. Including random criticisms not backed up by extensive sourcing as to their larger significance creates biased, poorly researched, and POV articles.

I think the edit should be made. This is a significant event, even though the poll itself may be unscientific and not necessarily accurate. In my opinion not to include it would be a breach of neutrality. That being said it should probably include the caveat that the poll was an internet poll, and that some media commentators (Forbes) believed it was unacceptably harsh for a computer games computer to be voted 'worst company in America' over and above some mortgage companies and greedy banks in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. I personally agree with that point, clearly EA are not the worst company in America, but it doesn't mean this event should be whitewashed off wikipedia. 123.2.80.9 (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I do think I understand where you are coming from and your response is far more measured than the knee-jerk, "we hate EA"-style response above, I do have to respectfully disagree. A breach of neutrality would be including an event without being able to articulate its larger significance, and at the moment it is difficult to attach any to this poll. Large video game companies like Activision and EA take a lot of flak from the Internet crowd for being run like businesses, but most of this criticism tends to be uninformed and originates from a vocal minority. The fact is, if EA and Activision were really destroying all that is good about games, then they or the entire industry would have disappeared long ago. Like any business they have made mistakes, and also like in any entertainment industry, the need for broad-based appeal in an era of stratospheric budgets has led to a lack of risk-taking and originality that is detrimental to certain genres and certain types of innovations, but you don't see the Warner Brothers or the Random House or the Sony BMG page including paragraph after paragraph of criticism even though the large publishers in the book, movie, and music industries are guilty of the same thing. This poll will probably be forgotten in a year, and including it (and several of the criticism items already in the article like the Dead Space advertising info) is an example of recentism and giving undue weight to an issue. That is where the true breach of neutrality lies. Indrian (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guy's really trying to make a big deal out of this? You don't need to agree with the results of the poll, but it did happen. Just add it to the article, it would only take up one sentence. 68.10.113.199 (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the edit should be added. Like others have already said, I think it's really extreme that they were voted as a worse company than Bank of America. I also would agree with the critics that this is part of anti-EA sentiment that has been going around in the gaming community. However, I think that regardless of how knee-jerk or short-sighted this sentiment is, I think it is notable. EA is a very heavily-criticized company, and has been for years. Various forums and message boards on places like GameFAQs or reddit are frequent sources of anti-EA sentiment; I think this is very noteworthy. Perhaps there should be a subsection added to the Criticism section regarding this sentiment from gamers on the internet, and info about the Worst Company Award should be included there. Wall Screamer (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EA is pretty despicable as a company but I don't think we can use an online poll from the Consumerist (a blog) as a reliable source WP:RS. We haven't mentioned the award on any articles for the other winners. I am sure there are other valid criticisms of EA that can be added, but as of this moment, an online poll result isn't one of them. Redredryder (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems obvious to me that EA employees are attempting to hide the facts by editing Wikipedia. It is against the policy on neutrality to not add this to the criticism section, if not the timeline of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.204.4 (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see multiple reliable tertiary sources reporting this same story on the first page of google. This clearly passes WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTE, WP:WEIGHT, etc etc. There is no reason to not include this. We'll have to look into an RFC if this doesn't get done. 159.1.15.87 (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EA critisized for putting gay and lesbian relationships in their games

Can we put EA's criticism for including gay (bisexual if you thought about it) characters in their games, particularly in BioWare's standpoint with the Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Star Wars: The Old Republic series? http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/09/ea-fights-back-against-anti-gay-boycott-with-help-from-stephen-fry-and-yoda/ Lacon432 (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fiscal Year Update

Can we update the fiscal year earnings for this article, and other companies and game companies like this one? Lacon432 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia editors - Andy Katkin, editor of ea.com, back again. I'd like to propose the following changes be made to update the results of our most recent fiscal year update.

REMOVE: On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011. On July 27, 2011, EA reported fiscal first-quarter profits had more than doubled on brisk sales of "highly-anticipated sports and shooter games".[13] EA earned $221 million, or 66 cents a share, in the three months that ended June 30. "That's up from earnings of $96 million, or 29 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 23 percent to $999 million from $815 million."[14]

ADD: On May 7, 2012, EA reported $4.1 billion in revenues for the 2012 fiscal year ending March 2012, highlighted by $1.2 billion of digital revenue. In Q4 of 2012, full-game downloads were up 76 percent year-over-year and EA’s Origin platform for games and services had registered 11 million players and generated approximately $150 million in ten months.

We want to be respectful of this space and only make updates the community approves of. Please let me know if there are any objections. Akatkin (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got a verifiable reference for that? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Info culled from EA's FY 2012 earnings report and earnings call are all over reliable gaming press and business sources. Indrian (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Frecklefoot - point taken. we'll make sure to add linked references. before posting this. thanks for the feedback. Akatkin (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RFC - Should the "Worst Company in America Award" receive a mention?

A recent poll by The Consumerist awarded Electronic Arts with the title of "Worst Company in America". The poll had more than 250,000 voters and has seen significant coverage from multiple sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the list goes on... Should some mention of this poll be included in the Criticisms section of this article? 159.1.15.87 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking at the arguments above, I really only see one editor opposing inclusion, with the only justification being his concerns about the validity of the poll. However, this point is moot; whether or not the poll is valid, we are required to report on it when it has received significant coverage, as is the case here. That aside, this seems to trivially fulfill all typical policies: WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTE, etc. 159.1.15.87 (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The anon fails to mention WP:WEIGHT, which states thus: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." The Consumerist held an unscientific user poll which, for whatever reason, ended with EA as the winner over companies that have done far more heinous and even illegal things. News sites then reported on it. The significance appears to end there. Textbook case of undue weight. Nothing wrong with reporting on criticisms of the company business practices as elucidated in reliable sources, but the poll itself is meaningless, so giving it coverage introduces POV. Indrian (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The section we want to put it in is entitled, "Criticisms (of Electronic Arts)". I'd say a poll criticizing Electronic Arts is just about as significant to that topic as can possibly be. Also, see sentence #1 from the link you provided, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." This is a significant viewpoint that has received significant coverage. 159.1.15.87 (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neither statement is true. A significant viewpoint is a viewpoint elucidated by multiple sources. This is one poll. Being reported on in multiple sources is not an endorsement of that viewpoint by any source other than the original poll. Multiple polls might make it a significant viewpoint, and multiple reliable sources independently reaching the same conclusion about the company would definitely be a significant viewpoint. In fact, most of the provided sources seem to think naming EA the worst company in America is pretty silly, so that would be a rejection of the viewpoint in the process of reporting on it, further proving this seems to be a minority view among reliable sources. Also, reporting on an event is not significant coverage, as all of these Internet news sources report on dozens of stories a day, making one or two articles per source an insignificant amount of their overall coverage on any given day. Was it a "featured" story (ie something that in a print source would be front page news)? Did the poll inspire several sources to devote a series of articles covering the topic in-depth as opposed to just reporting the facts? Is this poll still being discussed now? If any of the preceding are true, that might be an indicator of significant coverage. If a secondary source or two discussing Electronic Arts mentions the poll, that would also most likely be significant coverage. Just reporting that a poll took place and noting the results is fire-and-forget stuff. If the story has legs, then it might deserve a mention. Indrian (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you're getting these interpretations of policy. I'd say a quarter of a million people identifying EA as worse than BoA is a significant viewpoint. If not a "viewpoint" then a significant event. Whatever you want to call it, it's significant, and significantly covered. What the sources think of the poll is irrelevant. We report on controversies here at Wikipedia, so if the sources consider this poll important enough to dispute, we should consider it important enough to cover. Furthermore, Wikipedia only needs one poll to be significantly covered in order to report on it. We don't need multiple polls to say the same thing in order to report on them. See Iraqi Body Count. Highly disputed and contradicted, yet significant enough to report. More completely unprecedented arguments; where the poll is mentioned is irrelevant. The sources listed are all electronic and won't work like a physical paper. Finally, when the poll was reported on is irrelevant. If that was the case, we would have to gut all kinds of articles on politics, or anything where an award was given based on voting. See Microsoft and IBM. Even historical criticisms are included. That's what we're witnessing now. History happening and then passing. We're not asking for a lot. Perhaps one sentence mentioning the poll. 159.1.15.87 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have read with interest the arguments over WP:WEIGHT. I did not even know this company existed - or The Consumerist - until notified of this Rfc. I do have to say that rfcs are a great way to discover a bigger world picture - and see what people in other parts of the world see as WP:NOTE. The argument that WP:WEIGHT precludes inclusion of this matter is false. It is clear that Electronic Arts have decided to give the matter weight when they held news conferences and made comment - such as "Forbes - EA Responds To 'Worst Company' Award By Mentioning Past Winners". The LA Times Quotation is also of note. If the matter should be treated as Unscientific Polling - then EA games would be the one's needing to raise that issue and making comment - they have not. I see that the EA COO has been making comment in other places in a most balanced manner - and not calling anything Unscientific.Link. That article alone provides a most sound foundation That shows that the named parties have given the subject weight and also applied balance - allowing WP:V + WP:NPOV to be applied. It even provides balancing arguments. It's all over apart from the wording on the Wiki page. This Rfc should not even be required - Though I can see it's value in avoiding edit-wars. I detect a strong whiff of WP:COI across page and histories.
Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who has been awarded a civility barnstar, you sure are pretty uncivil. Your points are valid, and I agree that EA feeling the urge to respond to the poll may be an indicator of a slightly higher level of notoriety, although your interpretation of WEIGHT is skewed because the policy refers to weight given in reliable sources and has nothing to do with how the subject of a piece of information responded, but personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith? That's bad stuff. I am not an employee in the video game industry, I am not affiliated with Electronic Arts, and while I am a gamer, I don't own anymore EA games than I do any other company, less than most really. Believing that a disagreement over content is automatically about bias helps no discussion, and I would ask you leave your ridiculous accusations out of your otherwise logical arguments. It helps in maintaining that civility you apparently pride yourself for supposedly having. Oh, and I agree an RFC was not necessary. There was a discussion about this, but never an attempt to change the article itself or an edit war of any kind. Anyone could have added this information whenever they wanted, and I agree with the anon's assertion that most people in the previous discussion were in favor of the addition. No one gave an indication that they would go against a consensus. This anon cannot add the information because the page is semi-protected. Its not my or anyone else's fault that no one with the authority to edit the page never decided to add the info.

Now, as to the info itself. I think it could be appropriate if handled well. Just adding a sentence that says EA won this poll would be bad. If however, it is part of a section dealing with gamer perception of the company along with a few other assertions (which should be easy to find) and it is also mentioned that this poll was both unscientific and active during a period when certain fans of the company were particularly mad about Mass Effect (the CNET source links the the poll and Mass Effect, so there is sourcing for that) then I think mentioning the the poll is appropriate to the narrative. That would stop the article from placing undue weight on the results of the poll as opposed to the reality that the poll happened. Indrian (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if my account is still active, and then look into adding something carefully worded to the article. 159.1.15.87 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(The anon) While the ME3 controversy is mentioned by several reliable sources, it is not the only explanation for EA's "win" here. Day 1 DLC, poor support, devouring smaller developers, etc. are mentioned by more sources I think than the ME3 ending. I don't think it's fair, in the to-be-added section to write it in such a way that implies that this vote was just about the ME3 ending. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few things. First, I think the vote probably was pretty much about the Mass Effect ending. I don't know how much you followed some of the things ME fans were doing around that time, but they included a charity drive for Child's Play that was taken down by the charity itself because it was misleading. Its not much of a leap to believe that these same actors saw a good opportunity to give EA some bad publicity on this poll, and reliable sources have joined me in making that leap. Second, its DLC and developer buyout practices are not too dissimilar from several high profile video game companies, not to mention entertainment companies in general, yet one does not see so much vitriol thrown at any of these other companies on wikipedia, not even Activision Blizzard, which has received far more negative coverage in the gaming press than EA in recent years. Third, and this is a minor point, the total number of voters in the poll was 250,000 not the total number who voted for EA. Obviously at least 51% voted for EA, but I do not believe the exact figure has been released, just something to keep in mind if you add something about this. Finally, I already stated that I would be fine if this went in as part of a section on general gamer perception of the company, which would include all the things you mention above. On the flipside, however, the timing of the poll with some vast nerd rages across the Internet relating to ME3 does need to be included in order to give full context to the results. To not do so would be to violate wikipedia rules on bias. Pretty much all the reliable sources agree that the poll results are silly, so the article should reflect that while still paying attention to some of the general gamer dissatisfaction that led to said results. Otherwise the results are given undue weight. Indrian (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware of the charity issue, though we can't take that into consideration here until the sources back it up. I recall reading something about gamers "campaigning" for votes for EA, but I don't know whether or not all candidates in this poll had someone campaigning for them. Do you have a specific and particularly damning source for this?

I haven't been keeping tabs on Activision or Blizzard lately, but I don't think we can make any comparison between EA and them without sources.

If I recall, the last round of voting was between just EA and BoA, and EA got 64% of the vote. I haven't looked up the exact procedure, but my impression was that the vote was pretty decisive.

I would not agree with "Pretty much all the reliable sources agree that the poll results are silly." My interpretation was that the sources were surprised that EA was more hated than BoA. Perhaps "impressed" by how hated it is. In any case, condescension or dismissiveness is not something I intend to include. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about this:

In April of 2012, The Consumerist awarded EA with the title of "Worst Company of America" along with a ceremonial Golden Poo trophy.^[14] The record breaking poll drew in more than 250,000 votes and saw EA beating out such regulars as AT&T and Walmart. The final round of voting pitted EA against Bank of America. EA won with 50,575 votes or 64.03%.^[15] This result came in the aftermath of the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy which several commentators viewed as a significant contribution to EA's win in the poll.^[15]^[16] Other explanations include use of day-one DLC and EA's habit of acquiring smaller developers to squash competition.^[17] EA spokesman John Reseburg responded to the poll by saying, "We’re sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren’t nominated this year. We’re going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide."

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that is really good. I think this is unbiased and catches all sides of the issue. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. I've added the section to the page and removed the RFC. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Notable games published section

I started this section way back when, and then it only had a few entries. Others added to it and it has grown to the point that it's nearly unusable. I propose a re-ordering of the section into the format below. All I did was add three sections, which I think are in logical areas, just to break it up and make it more meaningful and easier to digest:

Home computer era: I think this title makes sense, based on the time when these games were released. All computers of that era were refered to as "home computers", so it doesn't omit any platforms.
PC era: I know this is PC-centric, but I couldn't think of a better name. They released games on the game consoles too, but I couldn't think of a name that included them as well.
Current era: is self-explanatory. It contains all the recent games and still active game series.

Here it is:

Some of the most notable and popular games of video game history have been published by EA, and many of these are listed below. Though EA published these titles, they did not always develop them; some were developed by independent game development studios. EA developed their first game in 1987.

Home computer era

Pinball Construction Set (1983) by Bill Budge^[18]
Archon (1983) and Archon II: Adept (1984) by Free Fall Associates
M.U.L.E. (1983) by Dan Bunten and Ozark Softscape
One on One: Dr. J vs. Larry Bird (1983) by Eric Hammond
Music Construction Set (1984) by Will Harvey
The Seven Cities of Gold (1984) by Dan Bunten and Ozark Softscape
The Bard's Tale (1985) by Interplay Productions
Mail Order Monsters (1985) by Paul Reiche III, Evan Robinson and Nicky Robinson
Racing Destruction Set (1985) by Rick Koenig
Instant Music (1986) by Robert Campbell^{[disambiguation needed]}
Starflight (1986) by Binary Systems
Skate or Die! (1987), EA's first internally developed title
Zany Golf (1988), by Sandcastle Productions (Will Harvey)
Populous (1989) by Bullfrog which EA acquired in 1995

PC era

The Immortal (1990) by Sandcastle Productions (Will Harvey)
Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf (1992) by EA's High Score Production group
NHL series (1991–)
Wing Commander series (1992 onwards, previous games published in-house)
FIFA series (1993–)
Need for Speed series (1994–) (first installment was made by EA in collaboration with Road & Track)
Ultima Online (1997) by Origin Systems
NASCAR series (1997–2009)
Command & Conquer series (titles from 1999–present) by Westwood Studios (earlier titles released by Virgin Interactive)
Dungeon Keeper series by Bullfrog Productions
SimCity series (titles from 1999–) by Maxis (earlier titles released by other publishers)

Current era

Medal of Honor series (1999–)
System Shock 2 (1999)
American McGee's Alice (2000)
SSX series (2000–)
James Bond series (1999–2005)
Harry Potter series (2001–2011)
The Sims (2000–2003) by Maxis
The Sims 2 (2004–2008) by Maxis (and later The Sims Studio)
The Sims Stories series (2007–2008) by Aspyr and EA
The Sims 3 (2009–present) by Visceral Games and The Sims Studio
Burnout series (2004–present)
Battlefield series (2002–present) by EA Digital Illusions CE
Madden NFL series (1989–present)
NCAA Football series (1993–present)
Dark Age of Camelot (republished after EA acquired Mythic in 2005)
Crysis series (2007–) by Crytek
Rock Band series (2007–) by Harmonix
Skate series (2007–) by EA Black Box
Mass Effect series (starting with Mass Effect 2, the first game was published by Microsoft)(2009–2012) by BioWare
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (2008) by Mythic Entertainment
Spore series (2008–) by Maxis
Army of Two series (2008–) by EA Montreal
Dead Space series (2008–) by Visceral Games
Mirror's Edge (2008) by EA Digital Illusions CE
Dragon Age series (2009–) by BioWare
Dante's Inferno (2010) by Visceral Games
Star Wars: The Old Republic (2011) by BioWare

Electronic Arts also published a number of non-game titles. The most popular of these was closely related to the video game industry and was actually used by several of their developers. Deluxe Paint premiered on the Amiga in 1985 and was later ported to other systems. The last version in the line, Deluxe Paint V, was released in 1994. Other non-game titles include Music Construction Set (and Deluxe Music Construction Set), Deluxe Paint Animation and Instant Music.

EA also published a black and white animation tool called Studio/1, and a series of Paint titles on the Macintosh: Studio/8 and Studio/32 (1990).

An argument could be made for just breaking it up into decades—1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s—but that's not nearly as useful as "eras" and adds difficulty in classifying the game series that just began in those decades (such as the Medal of Honor series, which is still actively developed for). Any comments or suggestions? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects, I'm just going to go ahead and make the change. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ Vance, Ashlee. "Electronic Arts's Plan to Get Your Last Gaming Dollar". Business Week.
^ Davison, Pete. "E3: EA's Press Conference: The Round-Up". GamePro.
^ "About Us | Locations". Electronic Arts.
^ "EA.com Acquires Leading Games Destination pogo.com".
^ "Not Playing Around. EA Buys Playfish For $300 Million, Plus a $100 Million Earnout".
^ "EA to Test Its Might Online".
^ "EA to Acquire PopCap Games".
^ "Electronic Arts Reports Q1 FY12 Financial Results".
^ "ANALYSIS: Ricctiello's $1bn digital dream".
^ "UPDATE: Electronic Arts 1Q Net Jumps; 2Q View Lifted".
^ "Electronic Arts pulls in almost $1 billion in revenue in one quarter".
^ "UPDATE: Electronic Arts 1Q Net Jumps; 2Q View Lifted".
^ "Electronic Arts' Digital Revenues Hit $833 Million for Full Year to Exceed Forecast".
^ The Voters Have Spoken: EA Is Your Worst Company In America For 2012!
^ ^a ^b Electronic Arts Named Worst Company in America
^ EA, named America's worst company, tries to make amends
^ Electronic Arts: 'Worst company in America'? Consumerist says yes
^ In 2008, Pinball Construction Set was awarded at the 59th Annual Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards for "User Generated Content/Game Modification": 2008 Tech Emmy Winners

[1] Vance, Ashlee. "Electronic Arts's Plan to Get Your Last Gaming Dollar". Business Week.

[2] Davison, Pete. "E3: EA's Press Conference: The Round-Up". GamePro.

[3] "About Us | Locations". Electronic Arts.

[4] "EA.com Acquires Leading Games Destination pogo.com".

[5] "Not Playing Around. EA Buys Playfish For $300 Million, Plus a $100 Million Earnout".

[6] "EA to Test Its Might Online".

[7] "EA to Acquire PopCap Games".

[8] "Electronic Arts Reports Q1 FY12 Financial Results".

[9] "ANALYSIS: Ricctiello's $1bn digital dream".

[10] "UPDATE: Electronic Arts 1Q Net Jumps; 2Q View Lifted".

[11] "Electronic Arts pulls in almost $1 billion in revenue in one quarter".

[12] "UPDATE: Electronic Arts 1Q Net Jumps; 2Q View Lifted".

[13] "Electronic Arts' Digital Revenues Hit $833 Million for Full Year to Exceed Forecast".

[14] The Voters Have Spoken: EA Is Your Worst Company In America For 2012!

[Hollywood_Reporter-15] Electronic Arts Named Worst Company in America

[16] EA, named America's worst company, tries to make amends

[17] Electronic Arts: 'Worst company in America'? Consumerist says yes

[18] In 2008, Pinball Construction Set was awarded at the 59th Annual Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards for "User Generated Content/Game Modification": 2008 Tech Emmy Winners

[1]

@@ Line 431: / Line 431: @@
 == RFC - Should the "Worst Company in America Award" receive a mention? ==
-{{rfc|econ|media|soc|rfcid=1BA8BD6}}
 A recent poll by The Consumerist awarded Electronic Arts with the title of "Worst Company in America".  The poll had more than 250,000 voters and has seen significant coverage from multiple sources: [http://consumerist.com/2012/04/congratulations-ea-you-are-the-worst-company-in-america-for-2012.html 1], [http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-57410992-71/ea-named-americas-worst-company-tries-to-make-amends/ 2], [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/04/04/ea-responds-to-worst-company-award-by-mentioning-past-winners/ 3], [http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/04/business/la-fi-mo-electronic-arts-worst-company-consumerist-20120404 4], [http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/electronic-arts-worst-company-america-308302 5], [http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-by-consumerist-6370000 6], [http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_20325358/electronic-arts-ea-worst-company-consumerist 7], [http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2012/04/04/ea-wins-quot-worst-company-in-america-quot-award.aspx 8], [http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/04/05/ea-wins-worst-company-in-america-golden-poo-award/ 9], [http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/ea-named-worst-company-in-america-even-as-it-makes-peace-with-its-audience/ 10], the list goes on...  Should some mention of this poll be included in the Criticisms section of this article? [[Special:Contributions/159.1.15.87|159.1.15.87]] ([[User talk:159.1.15.87|talk]]) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
@@ Line 464: / Line 461: @@
 [[User:AzureFury|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']]  ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 ::Actually, I think that is really good.  I think this is unbiased and catches all sides of the issue.  [[User:Indrian|Indrian]] ([[User talk:Indrian|talk]]) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
+:::Glad to hear it.  I've added the section to the page and removed the RFC. [[User:AzureFury|'''<span style="color:blue">Azure</span><span style="color:red">Fury</span>''']]  ([[User talk:AzureFury|talk]] | [[Special:contributions/AzureFury|contribs]]) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
+{{done}}
 ==Notable games published section==