Talk:Electronic Arts/Archive 3

History section
The history section (excluding subsections) is still very similar to the EA IP's version. Earlier today, I saw that at least the opening section seemed a bit peacock-ish, and added a fact tag. Now, after reading through the changes the IP made in that particular edit, and seeing how POV it still remains today, perhaps, as a temporary measure, that section should be replace (excluding the old image caption) back to how it remained before the edit? Any objections? Either way, it surely needs a rewrite, and I'll add a tag to that section. --Dreaded Walrus t c 23:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted the changes I provided in the link above, which basically turned the section into one big press release, and was awfully unencyclopedic. The downside of this is that the current, old version of the section is out of date (no mention of Probst, for example, which could be important) and it does still need a bit of general cleanup, too. Still, it's better than the last version. --Dreaded Walrus t c 09:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
The criticism section of this entry is in many parts very dubious and definitely not encyclopedical. Many issues being brought up seem to be something for EA message boards and look like payback by disgruntled customers but not like something that should be in an encyclopedia.

''EA is often criticized for buying smaller development studios primarily for their intellectual property assets, and then making the developers produce run-of-the-mill games on these same franchises. For example, Origin-produced Ultima VIII: Pagan and Ultima IX: Ascension were developed quickly under EA's ownership, and these two are considered by many as not up to the standard of the rest of the series.'' --> This seems like generic criticism of big companies. There are no citations and there are different opinions about the statements made in this paragraph. Weasel words galore. I would cut this out.


 * Added sources. Oddly enough, I was first introduced to and read from the sources that I (re)attached to this page months ago. It's only now that I've had to go and look that I see that they'd disappeared. I chalk the missing sources up to more of EA's history revisionist shenanigans. As for the quality statement, though I could speak for myself having played through the series, the reviews that gaming magazines gave them are telling enough. I'll add tags tomorrow sometime. Braidedheadman 05:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. I've sourced this paragraph out the ying-yang. Some of those alleged "weasel words" were actually used in the sources I've provided - it's not a weasel word if it's properly sourced. :p If there's a problem with the paragraph now, it's because someone doesn't want their skeletons to fall out of the closet. XD Braidedheadman 08:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

''EA is also criticized for shutting down its acquired studios after a poorly performing game. Many see EA's control and direction as being primarily responsible for the game's failure rather than the studio. Magic Carpet 2 was rushed to completion over the objections of designer Peter Molyneux and it shipped during the holiday season with several major bugs. Studios such as Origin, Westwood Studios, and Bullfrog had previously produced games attracting a significant fanbase, and when they were closed down many top designers and programmers refused to stay with EA and formed rival studios. Many fans also became annoyed that their favourite developers were closed down, but some developers, for example the EALA studio, have stated that they try to carry on the legacy of the old studio, in this case Westwood Studios. EA has also received harsh fire from labour groups for their dismissals of large groups of employees during the closure of a studio (see below). Such was the case with the game GoldenEye: Rogue Agent.'' --> Weasel words galore, no citations. Subjective opinions. Also mention of general business practice in this industry and others (closing down of unsuccessful parts of the company). Very generic and not EA specific.

After releasing many semi-finished products, the lack of support is notable in many games, assured by the fact that EA declared openly that they would no longer support relatively new but still buggy titles, like Need for Speed: Most Wanted, Need for Speed: Underground and some of the latest Command and Conquer games- though in defence of EA, the latest Command & Conquer game, Tiberium Wars has been given 6 patches in just over 4 months, and EALA have guaranteed at least two more patches, bringing the future total up to 8, which many consider a vast improvement over past efforts. --> No citations. There are two games mentioned but can this be called typical business practice? We are talking about a company that releases 50+ games a year and not just one or two. This is extremely generic and could be included in the entries for basically any publisher if you switch the names of the games.

''Electronic Arts announced it would not support the Sega Dreamcast unless it sold 1 million units. When this happened within a record 90 days, EA went back on their word and declined to support the Dreamcast in favour of Sony's PlayStation 2.'' --> Citation? Also this is very dubious criticism since it is a normal decision by companies to support some platforms and others not.

Exclusive licenses paragraph: --> Standard business practice is mentioned here. Why is this in the criticism section and no somewhere else? Many companies get exclusive licenses for example for films and that is considered normal business. What is different about sports licenses? Also it should be added that in the mentioned season (wasn't it 2K in that year already and not Sega anyway) the company in question released their games at a prize tag which caused an effective loss (The games were sold for 20$) simply to gain market share and this forced EA to make a move?

Online Strategy: --> I also don't see why this is in the criticism section and not somewhere else. A standard business practice is mentioned.

The rest of the criticism section is well done with citations and it is also relevant in my opinion but the parts mentioned above are dubious at best and appear to be criticism for the sake of it but not well thought through and definitely not encyclopedical. 80.135.92.87


 * Wow, all that from a one-shot anon editor. No, I don't think it seems suspicious at all! --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi EAGAmes viral marketer, trying to erase history again? If adding citations is going to lessen EA's history, then you need to think again. I'm going to start citing them one by one.--ChibiMrBubbles 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's exactly what it needs, is sourcing. I was tempted to hang tags all over that section myself last week, but saw there was some discussion here and left it. Looking better now, though. I do have a question regarding the last paragraph under "Game Quality" - if you look at the cited article, the quote that's mentioned is a general comment about the game development industry at large, and isn't intended to describe EA itself when read in context. I'd suggest that's an unfair spin of the quote and the paragraph should probably be removed unless another source can affirm the comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is it so unfair? EA is the single largest publisher of games in the industry and they lead the way in "rinse and repeat" products. I suggest that it is well within context. Just because Mr. Riccitiello may have been slanting the industry in general does not exempt him or his company from falling under the same observations more specifically. They are equally applicable in either case; more so in EA's case than any other company. Shall we enumerate the number of Sims products they've shoveled off? Or how about their sports franchises? Name me one other company that has produced as many derivative titles based upon or expanding existing franchises as EA has. I say the quote and the paragraph stays. Braidedheadman 09:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reference in which the quote is specifically directed at EA, then it would be fine; as it stood, however, that paragraph was applying a generality to this specific company because the CEO made the comment. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd call that a self-incriminating statement. But if you suggest that the paragraph needs work, fine, rework the paragraph then. You've dismissed the underlying message without actually addressing the argument that it presents, defending your position by saying only that it falls under a "generalization" when the facts are clearly consistent with EA's business practices. Yours is a weak argument for removing the paragraph. Reword, don't remove. In any case, I've done the leg work here. These corporate protectionist revisions are getting old.Braidedheadman 19:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're implying that I'm some sort of corporate hack, I'll note that I have zero interest in EA outside of playing some of its games (poorly), and this page is on my watchlist because of vandal reversion. My concern with the paragraph as it stood was that it was unsourced and the quote was taken out of context to apply specifically to EA. Finding sources for material should be done before it's inserted. In this case, it wasn't a sourcing issue, it was that the reference was inappropriate in the context it was presented. Good work in finding a source for the first part of that paragraph; it looks like a good reference, and I have no problem with it now that it's sourced. I'm still uncertain as to the inclusion of the quote, but the way the paragraph is worded, it doesn't bother me nearly as much anymore. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Understood. You'll have to forgive my suspicions then, given the goings on around here of late. My intentions are in seeing that EA's history unfolds as it happened, not as they would like us to believe it happened. Their production methods and business practices are at the very heart every criticism leveled against them and I feel it's important that they be exposed. Peace. Braidedheadman 22:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Took care of it.--ChibiMrBubbles 18:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Nifty. Nice work on the sourcing! Tony Fox (arf!) 20:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Checking the history, an anonymous User 24.7.107.86 wrote "→Game quality - 'only minor cosmetic upgrade' is POV & implies changes were restricted to UI or graphics, which is not accurate, as yearly release include gameplay improvements," before saving his/her suggested changes... Here I'd like to point out that words like "improvements" or "upgrades" are every bit as much somebody's POV as "minor cosmetic upgrades" may be. I accept that the terms applied prior to the changes indicated above could benefit from an unbiased POV in this case. I will not, however, accept "improvements" or "upgrades" (by itself) as replacement terms on the same grounds used to reject the previous terms. Weasel words work both ways. Fix it; don’t spin it. Suggested changes: only minor cosmetic upgrade → incremental changes to game mechanics, the user interface, and graphics. Braidedheadman 09:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been a few back and forth about this sentence "According to an online article, compared to companies like Ubisoft, EA's innovation in new and old IPs, "Crawls along at a snail's pace."[27]". This is an opinion and should be qualified as such. It is not a verifiable fact, or if it is, let's include a real comparison. Merely mentioning a journalist's opinion does not make it an encyclopedical fact. To begin with, it's a metaphor, hardly a measurable verifiable fact. I am not arguing whether this opinion is right or wrong, but it has no place in an encyclopedic content. It is not backed by any solid data (besides this journalist's statement that he believes so). Contrary to some comments in the revision history, it is not confirmed by anything Riccietello have said. He talked about the industry but I can't see any reference to Ubisoft, or any specific comparison between Ubisoft and EA. So if we have to keep this opinion, it should be qualified as such, not presented as an universal truth. EA games metacritic falling is a fact, documented, measurable. This is a very clear POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.107.86 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical info of value
Cant add this directly since I do not know exactly the source of reference but would be interesting to look into the historical issue with Electronic Arts verses Sega (particularly the Genesis) and their issue with not producing (Sega certified) games and creating software with a bit of reverse engineering. Vaguely remember later models of the Sega intentionally trying to *break* these titles from working...

Mebby someone can elaborate on this area? -JP 70.19.242.39 12:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That was Accolade vs. Sega. Accolade made their own developer systems and then Sega sued them for reverse engineering. Therefore, they could publish titles without Sega's blessing (though they never did—they just didn't buy their pricey dev systems). The details are in the Accolade article. &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. EA did reverse engineer Genesis and threatened to produce games without Sega's blessing if Sega did not give a better deal than Nintendo (ie allow EA to manufacture its own inventory and remove draconian publishing restrictions). EA was all ready to go forward alone, but Hawkins decided to at least ask Sega first and got a deal he was happy with. EA therefore never went through with producing unauthorized games. Indrian 03:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

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

''Electronic Arts in its most recent release of its award winning, Medal of Honor, allows gamers to "kill American soldiers and Marines." The company is facing a major boycott, and the Department of Defense has already banned this particular release from the military exchange system. See news link: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/08/national/main6846690.shtml''
 * Likewise, others are using the article as a method to trumpet their anti-EA agenda. I just removed the following from the article intro:

''Electronic Arts has made a business decision to put profits ahead of the lives and dignity of American military personnel. Complaints can be phoned into the the Electronic Arts CEO at (650) 628-1500.''
 * Whatever your personal feeling about EA might be, this article must remain neutral. Put something about the controversy in the criticism section if you must, but please do not use the article to promote one side or the other. --Takerfoxx (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia Edit Section
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.145.80.224 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

The issue doesn't seem to be any controversial, but more of a business decision. Question is, was EA obligated (by contract, promise, or non-recalled claim) to support LIVE service to its products? If not, where's the problem? Furthermore, the "gamer criticism" relies on the weasel word, "from many gamers", as its source. The last sentence in parentheses sounds like as if some gamer got upset at the game.--BirdKr 01:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your question lacks context. Did EA market the game in question as an "online" game? Moreover, is this game only capable of delivering real satisfaction by being played "online" by virtue of its design? For instance, would it be appropriate to market, distribute, and sell an online only game such as Team Fortress 2 - not an EA product, I know - only to pull support for that product shortly thereafter? Even after several years, at what point are the ties that bind "just business" and "ethical support" finally broken? What of the end user who still has money tied up in a produce he/she can no longer use? More than that, hasn't this topic already been hashed out in the archives? I seem to recall reading stuff similar to this in the past. Braidedheadman (talk) 08:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * Let me reiterate what happened. I removed Desert Strike from the Notable games published list because I thought it wasn't all that notable. It was just one game that EA published among hundreds of others. Rodhullandemu added it back in, thinking it was notable because it has it's own section in an article. I don't see how that makes it notable. Most games have articles, even if they are obscure. I assert that Desert Strike is a pretty obscure game and doesn't deserve to be on the "Notable" list (and it is on the List of Electronic Arts games). Indrian's objection noted, does anyone else object to removing it? &mdash; Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, first of all, Desert Strike is from 1992, so your Moby Games info is pretty worthess since there are virtually no online press reviews of the game. Second, even if the review score was average, or even horrible, that would once again mean nothing on its own because plenty of awful games have become big hits. Third, anything that spawns a five game series is not "obscure" as you say even if it is not as popualr as Madden or Mario. Outside of its sports games, EA has had very few series last that long, particularly in the period of time we are talking about in the early to mid nineties. Finally, if you want to limit this list to truly notbale games that is fine with me, because I put Desert Strike somewhere between where you put it and super important games like Populous, Ultima Online, and Madden, but then please go ahead and remove Mail Order Monsters, Music Construction Set, and Racing Destruction Set from the list too, which are far more obscure than Desert Strike. Indrian (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Is EA still world's largest publisher?
Now that Activision and Vivendi games have merged, I don't think EA Games is the largest games publisher anymore. EA's article says EA's annual revenue is $2.9b; Activision Blizzard's press release says that Activision Blizzard expects $3.8b in 2007. Furthermore, the press release claims that Activision Blizzard is "the world's largest and most profitable pure-play game publisher". I'm no expert, but it looks as though EA's no longer top dog. Ornen 22:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you are correct, but until both of those companies give their annual reports, I do not think we have a reliable enough source to credit Activision Blizzard as the new top dog. I may be wrong, however. Indrian 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


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


 * If it hasn't happened yet, why include speculative commentary? I move that these comments be removed until such time as the article's findings are verifiable as, for the moment at least, it's just not relevant information (as interesting as I find it to be). I cite WP:CRYSTAL. Braidedheadman 02:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I also think that is for the best, particularly after I noticed with further research that EA projects revenues of $3.8 to $4 billion this year, so chances are good EA is still (barely) on top. As you say, though, we will not know until there are sources and WP:V would seem to mandate we not touch this for now. Indrian 02:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Would like to document negative experience with EA Store
Hello Wikipedians,

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

I have started a blog documenting my experiences. Would it be unethical to add a sub-section to the existing Criticism section on this page with a mention of EA Store unreliability, citing my blog? Annoyead (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your single complaint would not be notable, and hence not encyclopedic, your blog would not be regarded as a reliable source, and you would be perceived to have a conflict of interest. Any one of these would get your edits deleted. Probably a better idea to persist with EA's customer support but this is not the forum for consumer complaints. -- Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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