Talk:Electronic Arts/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Monopoly?

I think it might be notable to mention EA's monopoly on the gaming industry, or the coming of a monopoly. I'm not sure where you draw the line when it comes to a company holding a monopoly over something but quite a few people have noted this monopolizaton. The purchasing of Westwood, Maxis and shares in Ubisoft contribute to the idea of EA becoming a monopoly. The fact that their games are made for all systems also contribute to this idea, as it gives them a good percentage of the total games out of all the platforms. I'm just throwing this out there though, forgive me if I'm ignorant in this matter, I'm reflecting on what I know and I haven't researched this much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.71.88 (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Random comment

I have been around for awhile I have played many EA games I have even though about someday working for EA and I have to say after all my research I find this to be a very accurate entry well done is all I can say. And hey if Fan boys want to argue with the facts that is there problem. Knight1b

I'd like to see a section added highlighting the dubious editing practices of EA on this page with regards to criticism against them. 72.143.58.118 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already in there: Electronic Arts#Editing of Wikipedia. --Dreaded Walrus t c 00:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Employment policy

"Electronic Arts has from time to time been criticised for its employment policy of requiring employees to work extraordinarily long hours—up to 85 hours per week—as a general rule and not at just "crunch" times leading up to the scheduled releases of products. "The current mandatory hours are 9am to 10pm—seven days a week—with the occasional Saturday evening off for good behavior (at 6:30pm"

As far as I know, this isn't official "employment policy". The "general rule" is asserted by the EA_Spouse site who certainly isn't NPOV. If this entry is kept, it should perhaps also imply that most gaming companies have difficult crunch times. Something like: "Electronic Arts, along with most other game companies, has from time to time been criticized..."

Some analysts, however, view this as industry (rather than company) practice. Anonymous User

EA Spouse is completely false information. Full stop. New sources or delete all things referencing that site. I'm an EA employee and I'm doing 37.5 hours a week with optional paid overtime (including free meal vouchers at their gourmet cafeteria if you're staying late), 5 days a week. They're about the most lenient country I've ever worked for and they need some sticking up for. Zeekthegeek
EA is a complete country? When did that happen??
So the vandalism was your doing? Shame on you! This is exactly why net neutrality is so important... if we didn't have it, ALL references to Electronic Arts on the World Wide Web would be written by obsequious corporate lackeys. --M.Neko 06:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
My friend worked for EA and he pretty much confirmed everything that the EA spouse blog said. He got burned out in under six months of 60-80 hour weeks and left the game industry completely. I've heard different things from other studios, however. He worked at the main LA studio. Things may be different in some other locations, such as FL and Canada. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it's changed a lot since back then, although other countries such as the UK have never had this sort of trouble; my understanding is it's pretty much confined to the States ( I work in the main UK studio ). Steve (Anonymous User)
The EA Spouse is no longer valid. It completely depends which studio you work for and which department you're under. You don't do 60-80 hours if you work in Marketing. I work for Electronic Arts and we have busy times and slow times. Obviously when 3 titles are launching back to back its busy. When it's a small title or just one, it's slow. Also, Electronic Arts is a giant corporation and every studio is run a little differently. Maxis isn't run the same way Dice is, get a grip. Everyone knows it completely depends on who you're under. Yes we do sometimes work overtime, but it's not mandatory and you get paid for it. This isn't the 80's or 90's people and Electronic Arts isn't the only company who does long hours. So do Konami, Sony, Google, all the companies around here do. AND YES, we get paid for our overtime. So before you slam the entire company, check to see which Studio the person complaining is talking about. I get both weekends off, work overtime during the crunch time, get paid for it and have full benefits, but I'm a permanent employee, not a temp. and Temps. have a whole different outlook on things. (BUT ask any temp and they'll say the same thing)
I beg to differ. If all we had to support the view was EA Spouse, I would agree. But EA was tried and found guilty of those practices...in court. So the complaints are valid. And since the trial with the artists hit Class Action status, it means it was widespread enough. Yes, if you worked in Marketing the situation may be different, but the settlements and court cases revolved around the artists and programmers; no other divisions are mentioned. If the company *is* a great place to work now, and employees average 37.5 hours including overtime options with joyous Elves flitting through ripe wheat fields, it may very well be due to the court case. 64.183.105.202 03:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC) the1rob
I do not believe there was a trial, therefore the company could not have been found guilty. The class action lawsuit resulted in a settlement, with no admission of wrong doing. These are the facts. It is a stretch to say that because a class action lawsuit existed, the company was found guilty. Let's stick with the facts.24.7.107.86 02:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Facts are it was common practice back when EA Spouse was written to burn out employee's and not pay them overtime. Maybe things are so good now because of the class action suit. I worked at EA around that time for "EA.com"...the failed online gaming attempt that's not even mentioned in the article and commonly worked 60-80 hr weeks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.7.254.75 (talk) 23:36, August 22, 2007 (UTC)
I am not disputing that at all, just the assertion that EA had been found guilty in a trial, this is simply not true.24.7.107.86 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

POV edit

An anon user added this section:

The Boycott Movement

Recent events regarding EA's purchases, have spurned the ardent gaming community into disgust. These actions combined with the recent "ea_spouse" [1] accusations of overtime and "crunch" time without compensation and overtime as well as EA's acqusition of Westwood studioes, the 15-year NFL and ESPN deal, the hostile bid of Ubisoft France, and the recent investment into the DICE (Battlefield 2) group, have lead to gamers forming an alliance that would like make EA see the error of the ways. This they hope to achieve in the capitalist USA buy refusing to buy all EA products regardless of system, in hopes of EA backing of and seeing the lack of ethics in their recent actions.

While it has useful content, it is hopelessly POV and has some duplicated content, so I moved it here. I don't have the bandwidth to NPOV it, but if someone else wants to, be my guest. Afterwards you can put it back in the article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:15, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I have added some more items to the criticism section, including the shutdown of some studios and the Ubisoft deal and mentioned that some people are boycotting EA in a single sentence. I think that that should cover the essence of what was in the edit. TerokNor 16:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

EA acquisitions

Can we get a list of developing companies that were bought out by EA?

I think we have it, check the Studios section. If anything is missing, feel free to add it. TerokNor 18:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Notable games published by EA

I disagree with the idea of listing in this section games that were not originally published by EA (at this point, Populous, SimCity, and C&C). As they were originally published by other publishers later acquired by EA, while their rights are owned by EA they are not actual EA games. (Rather, they are, respectively, Bullfrog, Maxis, and Westwood games.)

I'm not going to delist them, but I felt that Something Needed To Be Said. --coldacid 01:58, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Populous was published by EA. And to be pedantic, C&C would be a Virgin Interactive game (going by publisher). Otherwise, I agree with you. TerokNor 10:17, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Well, that's enough, in my opinion, to delist C&C, certainly. I'm pretty certain that Maxis self-published during its indie days... Not completely sure, though. What say ye? --coldacid 18:53, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
It's important to understand the difference between developer and publisher. EA published some of those games, but they were developed by the developers you mention. — Frecklefoot | Talk 18:41, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
Seems that one of them was published by EA. And trust me, I understand the difference between developer and publisher all too well. --coldacid 18:53, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)
I've changed the list to mention when EA took over C&C and SimCity and that other publishers released the earlier titles. TerokNor 16:19, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't the correct solution be to list all the games they've published *and* who developed them?

thats not the point that is trying to be made, which is, that C&C, SimCity, ect, we orginally published by companies other than EA, who later bought out those compainys, or the developer.

Rewrite

I have several comments and questions on the rewrite:

  • First off, why is it being rewritten? Was the previous version really that bad? Wouldn't a touch-up be more appropriate if there were little things wrong?
  • Second, the first edit of the "rewrite" just omitted several entries in the standardized infobox. How in the world is that an improvement?
  • Third, the first sentence of the rewrite totally goes against wikipedia style. Articles, if at all possible, should start with A is a B. The previous version did that, the new version doesn't. It says what EA does instead of what it is.
  • Fourth, the rewite re-wikilinks terms over and over, terms that have already been wikilinked before. E.g. USD is re-wikilinked several times. Once is enough (and it's in the wrong place—USD$1000 is the correct way). After the monetary units are established, you don't need to keep repeating it (e.g. "I started with USD$1000 and ended up with $5000.").

I'll refrain from reverting the edit in order to give you time to fix the errors and answer the above questions. While some of the edits added to the quality of the article, many didn't. Some of the previous entry were better (IMHO). Do you or anyone else disagree? Let's discuss! :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 00:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. The article's desperate cries for a rewrite are quite loud. The article is barely organized and much content is redundant. The History paragraph I rewrote was not fluid.
  2. Your second point is nonsensical.
  3. Your third point is false, although debatable. Define "is".
  4. "USD" and like-acronyms can be wikilinked as many times as necessary. In addition, your so-called "correct way" is improper and not widely accepted on Wikipedia.
Adraeus 00:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit I came across as a bit hot-headed. I apologize. I originated most of this article and sometimes I take a "rewrite" as a personal attack. Let me respond in a civil fashion. :-)

  • "The article's desperate cries for a rewrite are quite loud." I haven't seen any discussion on this page stating a rewrite is necessary. The additional information you added is great, however. My opinion:
    • The whole "Upcoming games published by EA" can either be deleted or moved down. Pretty useless section--wait until games are actually released, I say.
    • There probably is redundant information in the History section. Trimming would be appreciated, as long as it makes the section clearer. It could also probably use sub-sections to break up the long narrative.
  • "Your second point is nonsensical." I don't know why you didn't understand my comment here. The company infobox has a "products" entry. You omitted all the entries for the parameter. It could've been trimmed, I agree, but all the entries didn't need to be removed.
  • Third, I guess this is personal bias, but I take it from the guide to writing better. It suggests using the A is a B style (e.g. Electronic Arts is a video game developer and publisher). I personally find it clearer. But I agree that there may be several legitimate articles that don't use that format. But this point is moot since I see you've modified the wording to this format...
  • When I was a newbie on Wikipedia, I had a penchant for wikifying terms over and over and got yelled at for it. I came to see the error of my ways and try to discourage others from making the same mistakes I did. The re-wikifying you did wasn't that bad, but, really, once a term has been wikilinked, it doesn't need to be re-wikilinked, especially in the same paragraph. Further down in the article, it would be perfectly fine. As for where the "USD" goes, I've seen it both ways (e.g. USD$100 and $100 USD). I guess it comes down to personal taste and who's to say my taste is preferable to yours? If Wikipedia has a style guideline for this, I'd like to see it.

Anyway, that's my $.02. I hope I was clearer this time. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 02:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree that the Upcoming games published by EA can be deleted. Games not yet published, and certainly games without substantial history, are not valid subjects for encyclopedic inclusion. Over time, many editors on Wikipedia have apparently forgotten what an encyclopedia actually documents.
  • The History section does necessitate trimming. I've started doing so. The long list of early employees was mostly unencyclopedic. Those early employees with an existing history documented on Wikipedia retained mention.
  • Since I am the original designer of the Template:Infobox Company, I do think I have some say regarding the direction in which the infobox is to lead. For companies with an extensive portfolio of products, only the most prominent products should be listed in the infobox. A link to the section of the article, as demonstrated in the syntax at Template_talk:Infobox Company, is then suggested to provide readers a complete overview of a company's offering. Yes, I removed the products listed, but this is wiki, and so, such removals are nonpermanent.
  • I changed the wording simply to appease your preference. I didn't feel like indexing all the company articles that do not follow this so-called standard format. I also don't like the A is B format because it's unimaginative. If the decisions we make in our lives, define us, then the behavior of a company also defines the organization.
  • I requested a bot to perform duplicate link removal several days ago. I also requested the feature from several developers of other wiki applications for their software which they implemented. I know what's you're talking about, and I appreciate the single-link-once approach, but I don't think that approach should apply to acronyms that are used as part of a syntax (e.g., USD). In regards to the position of "USD", the Company Infobox Template uses that format that I have used, and since the template is used on more than 1,000 company articles, I think the template has established the standard.

Adraeus 03:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents: Just saw this, and I agree that the history section had become a "begat" list that was not encyclopedic, but in making the cuts we lost the names of several people who played a big role in EA getting established. So I'd recommend a little research and middle ground. Coll7 03:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

industry

Adraeus mentioned that "interactive entertainment" is a designation used to describe EA's industry, but the link in the data box currently points to the main article Computer and video game industry instead. Should "Computer and video game industry" be renamed "interactive entertainment", or should there be a new page on "interactive entertainment"? Some observations: Activision and THQ use the term "interactive entertainment software", while EA uses "interactive software games" in their annual report. Shawnc 21:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a contributing member of the International Game Developers Association and an industry insider. Interactive entertainment is the formal phrase for the games industry, which is generally used to reference the computer and video game industry. The latter phrase appears to be a dumbed down "popular" creation by those not-in-the-know here in Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia does provide formal encyclopedic content, the formal name should be used. I support renaming computer and video game industry to interactive entertainment. Adraeus 21:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia should use standard terminology and not silly euphemisms invented by PR types. Mirror Vax 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
"Interactive entertainment" is standard terminology. And please cut the pseudo-intellectual remarks from your future replies. You have no idea what you're babbling about. Adraeus 06:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
"Interactive entertainment" is an industry PR flack term. It's not a term used by real people. "I'm off to play some interactive entertainments" is not a sentence that has ever been uttered in the history of video games. Mirror Vax 08:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
There is a slight difference between what the "industry" considers the "appropriate" term and what's the more common and less ambiguous wording. "Interactive entertainment" is a PR term. That's analogous to calling the movie industry "visual entertainment". While a couple of suits may very well prefer that euphemism when dabbling in marketing and sales, the vast majority of developers refer to their business as "game development". That's why it's called the Game Development Conference, for example. Therefore the industry is the Game Industry, not the Interactive Entertainment Industry. Maybe it's an American thing. — Ashmodai (talk · contribs) 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
The term "Interactive entertainment" seems too vague, too catch-all. Wouldn't it also describe playing fetch with your dog or building a sandcastle? It's missing the 'computer' or 'virtual' or 'software' aspect that distinguishes it.160.33.43.31 20:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

History of EA?

I'd like to see more of the history of EA - in particular, what happened in the 1990-1994 time span when Trip Hawkins left, EA reincorporated in Delaware, and started to change into what many consider to be an evil nasty corporation. --moof 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't understand from the article how EA went from being a game publisher to a game developer. The way I understand it, EA used to publish games for developers, now it seems that games they develope are made in-house by "mindless drones" of the EA corporation. Is this correct? If so, when did the company switch models?

They are still a publisher, though they do quite a bit of in-house development now. So they are both a publisher and a developer. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

How about some mention of EA.com (and the 200 million dumped into Anderson Consulting for the project) and the relationship with AOL as thier game button. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.7.254.75 (talk) 23:45, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

sorry the comment in the section below was meant for here! it was: when did EA go public? when did they first float the company on the stock market?

Non-game titles?

There is no sign of Deluxe Paint which was published by EA for Amiga in 1994. I cannot think of anymore... anyone?

Deluxe Paint I was published in 1985, while the last version, Deluxe Paint V, was published in '94. Since it was a fairly important EA (ECA) product, perhaps it should be mentioned? 85.19.140.9 00:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I added a paragraph on Deluxe Paint. The Deluxe Paint article isn't in great shape, however, so you may want to direct some effort there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

i'd like to know when the company first went public, ie. when they were first floated on the stock market. any one know?

Notable games, Eras

What exactly do "early" and "contemporary" refer to? Shawnc 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"First half" and "second half", respectively? I don't know, I'll remove them and see if anyone objects... --Tifego 08:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS2 Online Gameplay

I am correct in thinking that EA have a charge for playing games online on PS2? I'm taking this from the article which gives this impression but isn't entirely clear as it says: "could not charge a monthly fee for every game as they could on the PS2". Just because they could doesn't mean they do. Do they? - RedHot 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No this is not true. There is sponsorship from ESPN which you can opt out of by paying a small fee of a few $, but you do not have to pay to go online. --VanBot 18:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

antoher criticism section?(sp?)

I am of the opinion that the criticism area should have a section for EA fairly common tactice of forcing their developers to rush they're products out to meet harsh deadlines, i don't have figures, but it is widely accepted that games like battlefield 2 among others are realesed relatively incomplete, very buggy, and poorly streamlined( e.i. resorce hogs)

First, this article is terrible and messy with criticisms as it is. We don't need more unreferenced criticisms. Second, this "rush" is usually known as "crunch time" for many software companies and the word "harsh" and "incomplete" is very subjective.--BirdKr 07:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Incomplete is heavily bugged and/or missing features. EA products often have them at release, and are often not "fixed" properly. - Doug, 14:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pure Evil

EA Tiburon is pure evil to work for. Ridiculous hours, a culture that says weekends and home life are for losers, and sick workaholic supervisors who can't stand to see anyone leave work until it's dark outside, whether there's a deadline or not.

If you do get a job offer, read that letter very carefully, and have it reviewed by an honest-to-god attorney. It's a lot harder to do anything about their 'employment agreement' after EA has shafted you, and they will stick it to you for every inch that they feel they can get away with. When in doubt, just say "no" to employment with EA. They are inhumane.

Well, I'd like to temper that. I can't speak for EA Tiburon or other studios, but I've been working at EA Montreal for a year and a half, and to me, life just doesn't get any better than that. We do have long hours at times - although many people do manage to go home at 5 every day to see their family, and to have all their week ends off, by playing less games on the job and getting things done faster. Except maybe in the 2 or so weeks leading to E3 or major releases. The people are fantastic and I've been learning MASSIVE amounts of stuff in so little time, the pay is good, the technology is great, and we're excited by what we're working on. So I'm sorry if life is that bad at EA Tiburon, but I guess every EA studio isn't the same. Please don't generalize. 24.201.195.200 05:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I've had a completely different experience at EA Tiburon from what you describe. I was hired in September of 2006 and it's been almost delightful to work here. The hours are perfectly reasonable most of the time, though they have been growing slightly as we approach Alpha. The worst I've had so far is a 56 hour week, though the overtime pay is always useful. 159.153.129.39 19:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Try working in 'Central Technologies'! Every bad scheduling decision from every team leaves you in an endless 'crunch mode', while you toil away forever reinventing perfectly good wheels, but more usually it was fixing gross bugs in badly designed, bloated code from people who had left the company. Granted, there are always specific exceptions to general descriptions of very large entities containing many parts. I'm sure you can 'win the lottery' and find yourself on a well-managed team with realistic goals, but at Tiburon everything seemed to be crisis-oriented. There was almost never a night that there wasn't some catered dinner in the break room for teams in 'crunch mode'. If cold, greasy food and breakfast cereal for every meal, and life lived either in a dim room in front of a CRT, or sitting in Orlando traffic jams is your view of 'heaven', then I guess that's 'heaven' for you.
EA hires and fires in big waves. They will have a massive hiring spree, then a massive layoff, followed by another massive hiring spree. If that roller-coaster sounds like an attractive ride to you, you're welcome to it. You'll at least know your value to the company: Wholesale. Before contemplating employment at such a place, do web searches about them. Try combining 'Tiburon' (or any company) with derogatory terms in your web searches. If you're just out of college, maybe consider a SMALLER game company to start with, to at least give you some perspective. Many game companies do not want young people who started out in EA fresh out of college bringing that toxic culture with them into their own businesses. I got this from multiple technical recruiters.

I have worked on the Madden Next Gen team for almost three years now, and I find that the portrayal of EA Tiburon is inaccurate. There have only been layoffs once when I was at the studio, and that was less than 5% of the workforce. Mostly managers and producers were let go, artists and devs stayed. Contractors are a different story, but full time employees have no reason to fear for their job. Yes, crunch time is bad, but it's not constant. Madden crunches for maybe 2 months a year during late production / alpha where we work 6 days a week for about 12 - 14 hours a day. No doubt that is stressful, but it is only for a small fraction of the year. Otherwise, I work around 40 hours weeks during pre-production and post-production, and maybe 50 hour weeks on average during production. The place isn't perfect, but as far as game companies go, it is far from the worst. Having the job security provided by a large company like that is important to me. There's never any risk of a publisher reneging a deal, the game not selling and the company going broke, etc. It's not for everyone, but it's not "pure evil". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.121.3.176 (talk • contribs).

Heh! So, I guess it takes a whole team 40 hour weeks and two months of 'crunch mode' to change '2007' to '2008' and stick it in a new box... ;)

Correction regarding Special Forces Unlocks

The statement, "These weapons are only available to players who have played Special Forces, generally meaning that players have to buy the Special Forces add-on to access them." is incorrect. The same unlocks are available to any player that installs the free patch. The difference is that players who have logged at least one second in a Special Forces ranked game receive two unlock credits per promotion instead of one.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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
PC era
Current era
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).
  1. ^ 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

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)

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

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)

  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)

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.[1] 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%.[2] 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.[2][3] Other explanations include use of day-one DLC and EA's habit of acquiring smaller developers to squash competition.[4] 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."
  1. ^ The Voters Have Spoken: EA Is Your Worst Company In America For 2012!
  2. ^ a b Electronic Arts Named Worst Company in America
  3. ^ EA, named America's worst company, tries to make amends
  4. ^ Electronic Arts: 'Worst company in America'? Consumerist says yes

AzureFury (talk | 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. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
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)

 Done

EA Europe

The headquarters of Electronic Arts in Europe is located in Geneva source. Prior to 2006, it was located in Chertsey, United Kingdom. Saemikneu (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The redirection on the article says that the introduction is too long for the article. What information should be best to remove and reduce the intro? Lacon432 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say everything after "By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers" except the last paragraph, which can remain mostly intact. Just my $.02... — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'd just MOVE that content to a History section. It's good info, just too much for the intro. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

updates

the edit lockout is preventing more current information from being added, such as the departure of the BioWare founders from the now combined BioWare-Mythic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.143.86 (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FIFA 13 Universal Acclaim

FIFA 13 also has Universal Acclaim in Metacritic. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fifa-soccer-13 --186.182.145.201 (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Please change the link from [[AT&T]] to [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]] for simplifying disambiguation, per Talk:AT&T#Incoming links to AT&T. 12.153.112.21 (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No. AT&T Inc redirects to AT&T, so there is no reason to change the link. The talk page you link to says much the same thing. Please stop making these requests until you get consenus on this change. RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Electronic Arts Victor

For the subsidaries section, can we add the Japanese branch Electronic Arts Victor as one? Could we also add all of the Electronic Arts Victor games that are on the article that are not already there add to the List of Electronic Arts games section? Lacon432 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Locked

this article should be unlocked so that people can vandalise and destroy the information in the same way that EA destroyed and vandalised Dead Space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.69.4 (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


Criticism

Lots of complaints out there about EA. Here may be an addition. http://www.easucks.org/ Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created redirect page Criticism of Electronic Arts here if the article is needed or not like Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Walmart. JJ98 (Talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

John Ravioli is still listed as being the CEO in infobox

The article's locked so I can't change it, but he resigned today so it should say vacant. - Sausboss (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No, his resignation is effective March 30. He is still CEO at the present moment. Indrian (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

"As of 2010, 40% of console-only gamers were women and the average game player was 34 years old"

This sounds incredibly inflated, are there any other sources or studies that can back any of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.29.6 (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference is right there at the end of that sentence. --89.0.238.89 (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Knights of the Old Republic

I'd like to point out that the article states EA created Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - they did not. KotOR was created in 2003 by BioWare (who were idnependent), then KotOR 2: The Sith Lords was created by Obsidian Entertainment. There is also the Dark Horse Comics KotOR series - none of which were created by EA. The only aspect of KotOR that was created by EA was Star Wars: The Old Republic, developed by BioWare (who started work on it before being bought out - EA only came in part-way through development). Jamozk Ekhiss (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Joe Ybarra

{{request edit}}

There is some missing and wrong information on this page that I was hoping I could have corrected. In the regards of the first employees, Joe Ybarra was actually one of the first five employee's brought into the company at the beginning of its formation, where he helped Trip Hawkins in defining the roles of Producer and Assistant Producer as well as helping to define the early principles of game design. There is also a mention of Joe Ybarra at the bottom of the page as a current employee, which he is not. He hasn't been with EA for a very long period of time, and we were hoping you could put him in past employees. Any questions can be directed to me, and I will be happy to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamstarthegchild (talk • contribs) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

have you a source for this? DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Note posted to user talk page regarding lack of a source. If no response by the requester within (say) a week, I recommend this be closed as "declined". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 Metacritic score and response to Consumerist poll

I'd like to propose the following two additions:

1. in the game quality section, add: "In 2012, EA’s games were ranked highest of all large publishers in the industry, according to Metacritic."[1]

2. in the Consumerist poll section add: "When asked about the poll by VentureBeat, Frank Gibeau, President of EA Labels, responded “we take it seriously, and want to see it change. In the last few months, we have started making changes to the business practices that gamers clearly don’t like.” Gibeau attributes the elimination of Online Pass, the decision to make The Sims 4 a single-player, offline experience, as well as the unveiling of more new games to the shift in thinking. “The point is we are listening, and we are changing,” Gibeau said. [2]

  1. ^ http://www.metacritic.com/feature/game-publisher-rankings-for-2012-releases
  2. ^ http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/23/eas-frank-gibeau-on-interview-part-1/2/

As a reminder, I work for EA, and I always post edits to Talk for several days before making any changes to the live article. If there's any concern about these suggested edits, I welcome the feedback. Akatkin (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1991-2007 should be renamed

How does an entire decade get skipped in two sentences? The section title is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.72.104 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Consumerist poll 2013

EA has repeated its Consumerist "win" as Worst Company in America, this time by an even larger margin in a repeat of the 2012 final against Bank of America. [2] The Consumerist poll section should be updated with this info. --89.0.238.89 (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. Winning two years in a row certainly makes this deserving of coverage. Whoever adds this just needs to make sure they stick to what's in the sources and provide balanced commentary as to what this means. While this certainly indicates a high consumer dissatisfaction that goes beyond a single hot issue (such as the Mass Effect 3 ending problem last year), it should not be used as an excuse for random EA-bashing. Indrian (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, why should two small unscientific poll done by a very biased source whose readers represent a very niche anti-Capitalist viewpoint be given so much weight? I'm deleting it.

 Done PraetorianFury (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything published by Consumers' Union should be taken with a grain of salt. CU, and its off-spring Consumer Reports has been sued for publishing fake or made-up reports. Nothing from Consumers' Union can be trusted. CU is not a reliable source for anything. Santamoly (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny, the article lists some lawsuits against Consumer Reports, but most of them were found in CR's favor. While they've had some erroneous testing, they've always owned up to it. They've never been sued for publishing fake or made-up reports that I'm able to find. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, they have been sued and just because they won "most" (supposedly) of their lawsuits does not mean that they were right. There are plenty of lawsuit decisions that have been questionable. And the fact they lost any lawsuits proves they are dishonest and untrustworthy. Yeah, they owned up to erroneous tests only because they were called out on it. Who knows how many faulty tests they still have hidden?

"This case is about lying and cheating by Consumers Union for its own financial motives," (George F. Ball, managing counsel Suzuki America quoted in LA Times Aug 19 2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talk • contribs)
He had a vested interest to smear Consumers Union. The law found on CU's side every time. This isn't the place to discuss CU. If you want to improve the CU article, please do so on it's talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And Consumers Union has a vested political and financial interest in lying and cheating. So what's your point? I thought you said CU won "most" of it's lawsuits but now you all they won "every time." So which is it? Looks like the CU fanboys are as untrustworthy as the CU!

On the 15th of april 2014 someone going by 69.123.198.131 removed the entire section about the "worst company in america"-poll from the EA page. Since i can't find any discussion about removing the section in the talk page's history leading up to april 15th, i'm assuming this was vandalism going under the radar. Can someone more proficient in wiki-editing check this out? 77.164.107.1 (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've restored the section verbatim as there was no discussion regarding its removal (and considerable support for its inclusion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.176.150 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are the 1990s?

The history section skips straight from 1991, when EA was a small developer known for games like M.U.L.E, straight to 2007, when they're a giant corporate behemoth. There is nothing about HOW that transition happened, which is arguably the most interesting part of the whole article! 67.160.152.34 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is this present in the category Linux companies ?

I am removing this page from the above mentioned category. There is no reference or source mentioning Electronic arts as a linux company. Please comment. SlimShadyLFC (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if it's the bot's fault, but neither archived source fully supports the claims its supposed to. Rhoark (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Where are the 1990s?

The history section skips straight from 1991, when EA was a small developer known for games like M.U.L.E, straight to 2007, when they're a giant corporate behemoth. There is nothing about HOW that transition happened, which is arguably the most interesting part of the whole article! 67.160.152.34 (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This was removed in the last revision however while some of the 2000s exist there's still a huge gap missing. I'm also the original author of that comment but my ip has long since changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:26:12CF:55C3:BC3:A6AB:422D (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

cricket

why is there no development in the cricket games of EA Canon7225 (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Consumerist called EA the worst company in America two times

And I can provide a source, but I am on my Xbox One, so it would take a while to add the source. Anyway, is it worth mentioning in the section regarding criticisms and controversies of EA? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the article. -- ferret (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I did not see it on my Xbox One. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Reconstruction

As an editor here at Wikipedia, I would recommend that two sections of the article be split into multiple smaller articles. For example the "company structure" section, I believe, is large enough and important enough to be placed in its own article. It takes up far too much space. Secondly, the games developed by EA should be given they're own page. This will help the article more navigable and easier to read. I would like to have community consensus on this matter.

Jeermud (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

IMO, the two sections "Electronic Arts company structure" and "Owned studios and partnership companies" could easily be merged with the already existing article List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts, which would be aptly renamed "List of Electronic Arts subsidiaries" (or similar). Regarding the games, an article List of Electronic Arts games already exists too! We should probably reduce our version here to just key franchises, rather than individual games, and properly maintain the given article. Lordtobi (✉) 10:11, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Stock Price Hemorrhaging

Since Sleyece admits they are just being pointy, closing this as it's a waste of time.--Jorm (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why is there no mention here of EA's stock price taking a nose dive this year? It's quite relevant. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Sleyece, because that would require a reliable, secondary source. If you find such a source, you can add that the the article. Lordtobi (✉) 12:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Does the NASDAQ not count as a reliable source? Lordtobi, they've lost $68 per share since July. That seems noteworthy. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sleyece, stock prices change many times a day, so one could fill an entire article just with describing these changes, which is not what an encyclopedia aims to achieve. If the fall of shares was really significant some secondary source will have talked about it, otherwise, we'd have to assume that this is just a regular irregularity. For video game-specific reliable sources you can try our custom search engine at WP:VG/SE. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Lordtobi, what in the world is a "Regular irregularity"? EA's stock fall is significant, and it has been widely reported. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The share price is not far from its price at the beginning of the year, and it increased by a similar amount in the previous year. So was there some irrational exuberance inflating its price recently? Is there some sector impact, or is it specific issues at the company? The share price is not the real story. As Lordtobi says, markets go up and they go down. Sometimes it even has nothing to do with the company. So find the real story first. -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
EA's stock price has trended the same was the NASDAQ has the whole year. Do you have reliable, third-party sources that actually cover EA's stock price? Calidum 14:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really care about EA's stock price. I'll just wait until the bubble they are currently doing business in pops. We can add a section to the article when they go bankrupt. -- Sleyece (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Sleyece, if sources cover that bankruptcy, sure. Lordtobi (✉) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Update: Stock Prices are now plummeting for several other AAA Video Game company. They are, at this point, trending down faster than most of the rest of the market. The AAA software industry/sub industry is in free fall. Watch this space. Sleyece (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Stock price changes are not remotely appropriate for inclusion in an article. --Jorm (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not remotely the point of this section. I'm saying this change is indicating something bigger in the market. It would not make sense to just post stock numbers. -- Sleyece (talk) 03:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm really confused as to why this was brought up at all since Wikipedia does not engage in speculation or original research. If a reliable source makes a comment about this and does some analysis, then we should discuss whether or not it should be added to the article, but not before. This discussion should be closed and hatted.--Jorm (talk) 03:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The "2020 Speculation" section on Beto O'Rourke's article is proof of Wikipedia happily engaging in WP:NOT. I propose that this section not be hatted until that random and baseless speculation is removed. -- Sleyece (talk) 13:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Sleyece, the article is not performing speculation, it quotes the speculation of reliable, secondary sources, something that is not the case here. From a first glance this doesn't seem as much of a problem, but you can surely take on that article's talk page if you feel the need to. Otherwise this is a very weak WP:OSE argument. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 13:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't care to take on speculation, just hypocrisy. -- Sleyece (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
...so you're not familiar with the concept of reliable, secondary sources? Furthermore, the guideline you name to call out hypocrisy litterally begins with "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions." O'Rourke's page, however, contains verifiable speculation published by (who I hope to be) professionals from reliable sources.
And again, WP:OSE; of the participants in this discussion, apart from yourself, most if not all have not participated in the editing of O'Rourke's article, so just pointing at that one example none of us had an interaction with is not a valid point. Also, when you attempted to remove the section, you were reverted without comment, after which you had exactly 0 exchange with the offending user. How is this a point to blame other editors? Lordtobi (✉) 14:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dan Bunten should be changed to Danielle Bunten

I can't edit this, nor do I keep up with wikipedia's editing policy, so can someone change this for me? Though her family wanted to remember her as a man, she identified as a woman, even when she questioned her sex-change. Identity is more than gender, etc etc. Thanks! --anon

Archive Forcer Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Game section

I think Need For Speed should be included in that "most notable and most popula games" list inside the Game Section. I'll put it so please don't delete it

Archive Forcer Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:22, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electronic Arts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2018

In the section "Games by Electronic Arts", on the line "SimCity series (1999–present) by Maxis", the year should read "1989-present". See SimCity linked page for confirmation. Rockyourteeth (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

  •  Not done Maxis was an independent company until 1997, when it was acquired by EA. The first SimCity game released by EA was SimCity 3000 in 1999. Therefore, the article is correct. Indrian (talk) 17:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Admittedly the header in that list could be more clear, but it does point out that EA didn't develop all of them, with the implication being the dates are when EA owned the titles. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2018

It should be added that EA is the exclusive maker of football games 72.73.93.190 (talk) 10:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. What about Pro Evolution Soccer? Lordtobi (✉) 10:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Electronic Arts company structure

The Electronic Arts company structure is slightly wrong.

Both EA Competitive Gaming Division and SEED are not separate divisions. They are part of EA Worldwide Studios.

https://www.ea.com/seed - We are a cross-disciplinary team within EA Worldwide Studios. Our mission is to explore, build and help define the future of interactive entertainment.

https://www.ea.com/careers/careers-overview/worldwide-studios/seed https://www.ea.com/careers/careers-overview/worldwide-studios/competitive-gaming

But I have no idea how to restructure it as currently EA Worldwide Studios only has studios listed in their section.

Also I'm 100% EA All Play has ceased to exist, but the text about partner franchises is helpful, but I'm not sure where to put it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alakagom (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Verification

@Gamingforfun365: When you're saying

Also, I am not sure how a subsidiary of EA to begin with could be acquired by EA itself (unless in an unlikely case it were sold and then reacquired)

which subsidiary are you referring to? Lordtobi (✉) 00:33, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Judging by your associated edit, I think EA Romania might be of your concnern. The studio was founded in 2005 as part of Jamdat, under the name "Jamdat Mobile Romania". Jamdat was acquired by EA in 2006, and the studio was renamed. See this interview with the studio's founder. Lordtobi (✉) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I was confused by the wording of the company as "EA", and this clarifies a lot. Gamingforfun365 00:52, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Criticism and controversy" should be its own article

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The general consensus seems to be to trim the section to only focusing on the company itself. During the discussion, I did just that, and since I have not received a response in nearly two weeks and the section is already reasonably concise, I do not think there is much to debate. However, I am interested in hearing responses to Lee Vilenski's earlier comment. Gamingforfun365 04:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I am considering cleaning up the article a little further. That said, I notice that the "Criticism and controversy" section is large, composing a quarter, if not a third, of the page. Given the reputation of Electronic Arts and the relevant ever-increasing controversies surrounding the company, I think this section deserves its own article, where the text is copied and pasted to that article and the text here is more summarized. Otherwise, this seems to lend in undue weight. Does anyone else agree? Gamingforfun365 17:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Should we split the section into its own article or keep it as it is? Gamingforfun365 04:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Generally agree; the section is lengthy and could easily make for its own article, however, it might need significant cleanup and NPOV checks. Lordtobi (✉) 17:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Split This feels like Fox News controversies all over again and could definitely bloat hard. Better to slice it out now before we have a monolith on our hands. The tricky part will be the summary replacement, which should be kept to the main points as opposed to the one-off trivia. Zero Serenity (talk - contributions) 18:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gamingforfun365: what is your brief and neutral statement? Have a look at how it appears on the RfC listings, and remember that Legobot copies everything from the {{rfc}} template down to the first timestamp. Is the first sentence relevant? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this split - Splitting to focus entirely on negative aspects of a subject like this violates WP:CONTENTFORK. (Full dusclosure: This is not a “defense if EA” stance. I neither love nor hate them. This is coming from a neutral place.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:23, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    • So do you propose trimming it down then, perhaps to a third of its original size? Gamingforfun365 23:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Not that I am against trimming it down, but if it is better, then I can do that. Either way, in my opinion, this bloated section has got to be cut down. Gamingforfun365 00:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Yes, I believe there’s a lot of areas that can be trimmed back, including this section, or the long list of games when there’s already a separate list for that, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Sergecross's comments - Also, with the amount that it could be trimmed down I don't think it would be substantial enough as it's own article. Looking at some of the higher quality "Major Company" article, I reckon some of it can be merged into the appropriate history sections. CrimsonFox talk 10:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I already removed the massive unnecessary bulk of the section, and I am considering closing this discussion as trimmed. Gamingforfun365 15:11, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment - Here's a bit of a merge - What if we were to create a split for the article, and refer to it as "Reception towards Electronic Arts"? This could then include some more information on high/low-lights of their games as well, as well as criticism towards business standards. This could potentially mean it's not a one sided article, and could be written from a NPOV. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EA Studio Structure Removed from Main Article

I noticed that recent edits removed a list of EA's studios from the main EA article. The separate list of acquisitions article is useful, but does not provide the same information as concisely or thoroughly. For instance, some internal studios are not listed because they were not acquired. It would be nice if the list was returned to the "company structure" subsection. SamNW (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

SamNW, agreed, but we shouldn't restore it in its previous state. I've sticked an old revision to my sandbox, planning to clean up the list. If you would like to help out, go ahead. Lordtobi (✉) 17:01, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I restored the old list. it could use a clean up sure, but the information should stay in the article. Norschweden (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Uprise?

There seems to be no information on Uprise after 2017, and the studio has disappeared from EA's website. Did it get merged into DICE, or did it get closed down? Pantsmode (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

main article change request

i'd like to request to change the main article, here is what i request:

Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) is an American video game company headquartered in Redwood City, California. It is the second-largest gaming company in the Americas and Europe by revenue and market capitalization after Activision Blizzard and ahead of Take-Two Interactive and Ubisoft as of March 2018.[1]

Founded and incorporated on May 27, 1982, by Apple employee Trip Hawkins, the company was a pioneer of the early home computer games industry and was notable for promoting the designers and programmers responsible for its games. EA published numerous games and productivity software for personal computers and later experimented on techniques to internally develop games, leading to the 1987 release of Skate or Die!. The company would later decide in favor of abandoning their original principles and acquiring smaller companies that they see profitable, as well as annually releasing franchises to stay profitable.

Currently, EA develops and publishes games including EA Sports titles FIFA, Madden NFL, NHL, NBA Live, and UFC. Other EA established franchises includes 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, Titanfall and Star Wars: The Old Republic.[2] Their desktop titles appear on self-developed Origin, an online gaming digital distribution platform for PCs and a direct competitor to Valve's Steam. EA also owns and operates major gaming studios, EA Tiburon in Orlando, EA Vancouver in Burnaby, BioWare in Edmonton as well as Austin, and DICE in Sweden and Los Angeles.[3]

the company has sparked controversies, including DRM attempts. acquiring development studios, and then shutting them down shortly thereafter. poor Treatment of employees. a downward trend in game quality over recent years. Sports licensing and exclusivity. it's frequent uses of microtransactions. and being dubbed "The Worst Company in America" by The Consumerist twice, first in 2012, second in 2013.

 Not done These types of controversies are not discussed in the lead of the article, unless they are a major developing factor in the subject. There is also the fact there is no included sources to support your claims. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 01:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

okay, here is some sources i found:

the company has sparked controversies, including DRM attempts. acquiring development studios, and then shutting them down shortly thereafter[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. poor Treatment of employees[11][12][13]. a downward trend in game quality over recent years[14][15]. Sports licensing and exclusivity[16][17][18][19][20]. it's frequent uses of microtransactions. and being dubbed "The Worst Company in America" by The Consumerist twice, first in 2012[21], second in 2013[22], respectively.

References

  1. ^ Jordan, Jon. "Earnings report roundup: Game industry winners and losers in Q4 2017". Retrieved August 27, 2018.
  2. ^ Davison, Pete. "E3: EA's Press Conference: The Round-Up". GamePro. Archived from the original on August 12, 2011. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "About Us | Locations". Electronic Arts. Archived from the original on August 19, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ Fennimore, Jack (October 19, 2017). "Studios EA Has Killed: A History". Retrieved August 27, 2018.
  5. ^ Murnane, Kevin. "Visceral Games Joins A Long List Of Studios Closed By EA". Retrieved August 27, 2018.
  6. ^ "EA Admits That Gobbling Up Talented Studios Then Ruining Them Isn't Working Out So Well". Retrieved August 27, 2018.
  7. ^ Zealot, Funky (February 25, 2004). "EA to Shut Down Origin Systems". GamePro. Archived from the original on February 10, 2009. Retrieved September 17, 2008. {{cite magazine}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Matei, Robert (October 17, 2006). "EA Closes Down Warrington Studio – Another development studio shut down". Softpedia. Archived from the original on June 9, 2008. Retrieved September 17, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Sinclair, Brendan (October 6, 2006). "EA shuts down DICE Canada". GameSpot. Archived from the original on March 29, 2014. Retrieved September 17, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  10. ^ Nutt, Christian (January 26, 2005). "Layoffs and Restructuring at EA LA". 1UP.com. Retrieved September 17, 2008.
  11. ^ "The original ea_spouse blog entry". LiveJournal. Archived from the original on February 15, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Feldman, Curt (November 11, 2004). "Employees readying class-action lawsuit against EA". Gamespot.com. Archived from the original on November 13, 2013. Retrieved March 24, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ "Programmers Win EA Overtime Settlement, EA_Spouse Revealed". Gamasutra.com. Archived from the original on April 29, 2009. Retrieved March 24, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ Sinclair, Brendan (November 30, 2006). "Analyst: EA brand tarnished". Gamespot.com. Archived from the original on October 18, 2013. Retrieved March 24, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Reimer, Jeremy (December 1, 2006). "EA brand "tarnished" according to analyst". Arstechnica.com. Archived from the original on October 20, 2012. Retrieved March 24, 2009. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  16. ^ "Anti-trust lawsuit over exclusive license contracts" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 10, 2011. Retrieved May 31, 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ Kuchera, Ben (June 12, 2008). "Lawsuit flags EA for illegal procedure on football monopoly". Arstechnica. Archived from the original on October 1, 2008. Retrieved September 17, 2008. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  18. ^ Kravets, David (January 6, 2015). "NFL players win appeals court ruling in EA Madden NFL flap". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on July 10, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ Kravets, David (March 21, 2016). "Supreme Court punts in 1st Amendment Madden NFL legal fight". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on July 7, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ Kravets, David (June 28, 2016). "EA punts, gives $600k to former football star in Madden NFL rights flap". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on June 28, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ Morran, Chris (April 4, 2012). "The Voters Have Spoken: EA Is Your Worst Company In America For 2012!". Consumerist. Archived from the original on August 7, 2012. Retrieved October 22, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Morran, Chris (April 9, 2013). "EA Makes Worst Company In America History, Wins Title For Second Year In A Row!". Consumerist. Archived from the original on November 9, 2016. Retrieved October 22, 2016. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
It's not that we can't talk controversies about EA, but this is not lede material. Much of this is fan resentment which can be documented, but because its mostly how players see EA and not the world at large, it shouldn't be in the lede. --Masem (t) 03:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

2nd largest by Revenue

Question on the category of Video Game Companies. Does this apply to multi-industry companies like Microsoft or subsidiaries like Xbox Game Studios? Microsoft is multi-industry but Xbox Game Studios is not. Microsoft said that it exceeded $10b in gaming revenue in fiscal 2018, which would make Xbox Game Studios the largest video game company in the Americas & Europe by revenue ahead of EA and Activision Blizzard[1]

References

  1. ^ https://variety.com/2018/gaming/news/microsoft-xbox-gaming-revenue-2018-1203065766/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtbittaker (talk • contribs) 19:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Criticism split

I see that a split was done because of tag but without any discussion before. Standalone criticism pages are extremely rejected on WP because they tend to end up as POV minefields. I strongly suggest undoing this, and if there's a size issue, moving the list of studios to a separate article. --Masem (t) 01:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Masem, it was discussed here (the discussion somehow ended up in Archive 1), resulting in no consensus. The tag should have been removed when the discussion was closed. Lordtobi (✉) 06:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Given there was no consensus, shouldn't think be undone? Again, there's strong policy language against those types of articles. --Masem (t) 13:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
EA has received a lot of criticism, making the respective section rather lengthy (30k+ characters), so I would (content-wise) be in favor of a split and size could justify that too. I would argue that the maintainability remains the same, or could be even be more concentrated on the split article. "No consensus" means that being bold was still an option. Pinging the bold one, @Zxcvbnm. Lordtobi (✉) 17:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Not disagreeing about having the criticism section but as noted in the buried archive discussion some trimming might come into play. But if this main EA page is too big, the first obvious split is the list of owned studios as we have for Ubisoft, Activision, and a few others. --Masem (t) 17:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The section was getting far too long to fit in the EA article without being WP:UNDUE, which is a major reason I split it off. Per WP:SIZESPLIT the article was too large and needed to be divided as well. And there are plenty of articles at Category:Criticisms of companies that seem perfectly notable. Overall, I don't see how this is controversial.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realize we had that many company criticism articles, so fair enough. --Masem (t) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Move to EA

Please show evidence that the company is completely switching to the "EA" branding rather than "Electronic Arts". My news feed is coming up blank at this. --Masem (t) 22:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

It was an accidental move. I was actually trying to make EA (game company) redirect to the correct page. TheDiaperPinez37 (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Regarding article titling

Do we use alternative (or full/official) names for articles that avoid having to use disambiguation words, if such established names exist? Isn’t "EA" the common way of referring to the company, both IRL and on the Internet? --Heymid (contribs) 21:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

EA is online abbreviation. If you go past gaming literature to more mainstream and reputable sources, they will always call it "Electornic Arts" and then may introduce "EA" to simplify things. Calling this EA would be inappropriate since that's more a simple abbreviation and not a name they themselves formally go by. --Masem (t) 22:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Data leak

I just want to inform you all that hackers recently infiltrated their servers (very easily) and stole 780 GB of data:
[3] - Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

https://it.slashdot.org/story/21/08/02/0823222/hackers-leak-full-ea-data-after-failed-extortion-attempt Keith Henson (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electronic_Arts/Archive_1&oldid=1177570209"