Talk:Electronic Arts/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Criticisms

As much as I agree with and am aware of everything mentioned in the criticisms section, none of it cites sources. If there are documented criticisms out there, please put them in, but for now, the criticisms section can easily be refuted on grouds of lack of research. --Thaddius 13:26, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. And I think it smacks of non-neutral POV. I'll tag it maybe... Romansanders 21:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

agree criticisms needs some work. I know for a fact they don't require overtime except in crunch times and the regular hours are a mere 9-5:30, seeing as how I'm typing this from an EA thin client in the quality assurance department :) And all overtime that I know of is paid...if it ever was true, the criticism about these things is now historical, and should be stated as such in the article 159.153.138.70

I don't know which studio that you work at, but the two years and change that I spent in QA at EA Tiburon were from 10 - 7 as the regular hours with OT lasting until 10, 12, or 2 generally, depending on the part of the cycle that the product was in. I do agree that there's no unpaid OT for anyone who works hourly. Many of the testers in Tiburon can only afford to work QA because of the large cheques that they receive when they work OT.--72.21.6.2 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is an important criticism, pretty recent also- sorry but I'm not very good with editing and citing sources. EA's actions with microtransactions in XBOX Live. They have begun charging for Tutorials (which they call "Video Strategy Guides") in Madden 07' and NCAA 07', a feature which used to be included in previous iterations of the game.- http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/ea/ea-starts-selling-tutorials-210018.php

Also, in The GodFather, you can buy- using real money- hundreds of thousands of dollars- of in game money in order to purchase better weapons faster. The problem with this is that for the XBOX 360 version of the game, EA removed the cheat code that allowed you to attain this money in the PS2 and XBOX versions.- http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/godfather/exhange-real-money-for-fake-money-in-godfather-360-209718.php

The criticisms are non-neutral POV and should be removed or reworked. if they are to stay they should be included in as a reference and should be counter balanced. --VanBot 18:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is these criticisms are the sort that are not reported in most "reliable" sources. They trend to be in blogs, forums, and the like. This does not make them any less true, but does make them hard to cite. Although the lack of originality should be citeable with a list of the "franchise" products (Sims addon packs, the yearly Sports games, etc) and reviews that mention the lack of change from previous games. Also, EA charge for extra maps and the like, which if you look at Valve or the Unreal team, they provide free. - Doug, 2:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find a "credible" source that EA is not spending advertising money on. You think a game magazine that's getting thousands a month in advertising for EA products is going to bite the hand that feeds them? Get real. Same goes for 'job search' companies. EA is a paying customer. Things that make it less likely to place people at EA will quietly 'disappear' from such sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.7.62.179 (talk) 01:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

As hard as it is to find credible sources, and I do see your point on that one, anything blatantly POV and unsourced should be completely left out until an acceptable source is found. I read somewhere that the rule of thumb is "when you finish reading an article, you should not be able to tell what the author thinks about the subject". I have immense respect for all the hard work that has gone into this article, but that rule of thumb is certainly not the case here. I've tried to fix a few of the most obvious POV statements today, but a lot of work remains to be done. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 03:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Well stated. The burden is on the editor adding stuff to show it is true, and the burden increases in proportion to the inherently controversial nature of a statement. If you can't find a credible, verifiable, reliable source for a controversial or POV statement, it has to stay out. These policies are necessary to prevent repeats of the John Seigenthaler fiasco.--Coolcaesar 06:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with your opinions on the POV of criticizing EA for their usage of the Marketplace or Downloadable Content system. Ethics aren't subjective, and what they've begun doing with their 360 releases (making previously free cheats into "premium content") is unquestionably unethical. In a situation dealing with clear ethics, I hardly think it's fair to remove entire sections rather than edit out any POV. I suppose that to have it with as little judgment as possible, it should be phrased in a way that, at the very least, communicates that this is a dynamic shift in EA's policies, and is also not common among the many publishers with content on Microsoft's Marketplace.--NagakuraShin 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, ethics are most certainly subjective. I think most of us can agree that killing is wrong, but when it comes to things like alcohol consumption, or the proper way to treat people of different classes and status throughout history, or the best way to punish criminals there are constantly evolving standards that change as the concept of what is moral and ethical changes. To state something so blantantly untrue seriously casts doubt on your arguement. Secondly, show me the ethical cannon that says previously free content must remain free. All computer games were free when the first networks came into being back in the 1960s and 1970s. Is it unethical to charge money for computer games now? All console systems in the 1970s and 1980s came with a bundled game and two controllers. Is it unethical to make someone buy the games or an extra controller separately now? Sure, it would be great if EA had kept this stuff free and long-time players of their games have a right to be annoyed at this change. Unethical though. Come on now. Indrian 16:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Apart from applying an inconsistent interpretation of "ethics", I do agree with you on that point, I think his arguments has some merit - as does yours. On the one had you have games that now cost a premium to play over games that used to be free, as you point out. But on the other hand you now have companies (EA) selling "features" for those games that give players a distinct advantage over other, perhaps less privileged players, albeit mostly in offline arenas for the time being. They are effectively selling cheats to these people, for indeed that is what EA calls some of their assets. So why not legitimize the production and sale of the all out cheats, hacks, and glitch abuses that now plague many of EA's other online titles, like BF2 for example, and turn a tidy profit on the side? If we are able to turn a blind eye to one, what is to keep us from doing the same with the other? Where is the line finally drawn? Moreover, why introduce a class system - where people can obtain "ph4t" or "l33t l00ts" through monetary purchases - into a system that has traditionally been classless? You might be tempted to say that it already has some elements of a class system by virtue of the hardware people are able to purchase. But for the most part, that is hidden from people on opposite ends of the net. I believe that this is the "ethical conundrum" that NagakuraShin was trying to express. Braidedheadman 05:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Doug: Article found and criticism section updated. If you or anyone else wants to edit and make that list, I'd say that article is your green light.Braidedheadman 01:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the part about editing of Wikipedia. Yes, we all know WikiScanner revealed that lots of people edit WP from IPs associated with corporations, governments, etc... but that doesn't mean every article about the associated entity needs a section about it. The information is citeable, but that doesn't mean it belongs here. Rompe 00:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think it's very notable that a big company like Electronic Arts is attempting to alter their own Wikipedia article in put themselves in a favorable light. Regardless you should not remove a section like this completely this without discussing it here first in the talk page. Strongsauce 00:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hence I put it here. But the fact remains that this happened to dozens of entities and the changes were far less about a policy of trying to whitewash their image than a few individuals messing around. WikiScanner and related articles are where it belongs per WP:WEIGHT. Hence Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia instead of having a section on every member's page discussing how they got caught with their pants down trying to make themselves look better. Rompe 22:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dreamcast

Under criticisms shoulden't you state the fact that EA went back on their word and decided not to develop games for it despite saying they would once a million units were sold? --Elven6 00:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but they were only a sidepoint to the death of Sega's consoles... Others were poor marketing, Sony, being too ahead of its time for the idiots to realize Sony was lying, and Sony... - 68.228.33.74 05:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Reguardless, it is a fact Sony went back on its word, yes? Documented acts like this should be here. - Doug, 2:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The lines about EA promising to support Dreamcast and then 'going back on their words' should be backed by actual reference or removed. To my knowledge, EA never suggested they would support the platform. I can be wrong of course, but just writing it doesn't make it real either.24.7.107.86 02:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Category to top?

Why did WikiCats move the [[Category:Electronic Arts|*]] to the top of the page? All categories belong at the bottom of the page. I was going to revert it, but thought there might be some wiki-weirdness I'm not familiar with. Anyone? — Frecklefoot | Talk 14:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable games

This has happened on more articles than I can keep track of. When a list is included for notable programmers, games, etc., people start spamming it by adding their favorite games, people, etc. Now it's happened for the "Notable games published" list. It is meant to be for games that were important in the history of video and/or computer games. Most of the games on the list fit that description. However, Clive Barker's Undying does not, but Havok insists that it is notable enough to be included in the list. Please, let's discuss it here before getting into an edit war. Please address these questions: How did it contribute to game design? How did it alter the face of computer gaming? How many sells did it generate? As far as I know, it was just another EA title. It may have been pretty successful, but that alone does not merit inclusion in the list. Thanks. — Frecklefoot | Talk 23:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge?

It has been suggested that Electronic Arts logo be merged with this one. Um, wasn't it originally broken out from this one? — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a stock quote?

I don't see stock quotes for any other company in Wikipedia, and this isn't a quote site. Is this really necessary, or is it an attempt by EA to flaunt their sadistic marketing schemes?--Katana314 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft. Please be less pessimistic. --BirdKr 21:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Added POV tags 28 December 2006

I agree that some of EA's actions have been dishonourable, but that is no excuse for having a heavily biased article, especially one for an "encyclopedia". The whole article carries a tone of disgust towards EA throughout; on top of that, some of it seems to be the writer's own uncited, unsupported opinions. For example, this quote:

"EA puts up a front of offering support for games. The official company website does have a page in which players can email technical support, but this is like sending a message into a Black Hole."

Pretty catchy simile but has no place in a serious article that's supposed to be neutral.

I hope the writer fixes these things up to maintain the professional feel of Wikipedia. Windows2142 07:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tiburon?

Is the merger with Tiburon a hoax? The Tiburon Web site seems fake to me -- slick but fake. And I just read an article about EA Montreal that seemed pretty recent and there was no mention of a merger. --DeweyQ 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• Never mind. I misread the EA Tiburon location as if Tiburon was a separate company. --DeweyQ 02:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

RPG macguffin

Not sure it's appropriate to mention here or not (could also go on the logo page), but the Square-Circle-Triangle motif got worked into gameplay in a number of games... most notably Barts Tale I and Starflight, where in each game collecting a trio of similarly shaped artifacts (silver triangle, silver square, and silver circle in BT1, something like a cube/sphere/cone in Starflight) was an important macguffin needed to get to the end of the game. The page for Ultima 8 (Pagan) also mentions some similar things worked into that (much later) game. mr_Handy 09:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article at Gamasutra

Gamasutra published a very nice feature about EA today, with many interesting things. Check here, and see if you can add some to the article. Cheers! -- ReyBrujo 16:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Black

I noticed that in the list of notable games it has listed the 'black series'...did i miss something, i wasnt aware black was being created into a series?

Premature optimism maybe. EA has a tendency to shovel sequels to successful titles until the IP is drained =/ — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 23:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edited criticism section

I've amended some of the criticism section towards neutrality and removed some incorrect information. While I'd dispute some of the remaining sentences in the criticism paragraph as well, I've only amended or removed the segments that I know are factually incorrect, poorly written or overly biased.

I've also added the "game quality" paragraph as a factually verifiable balance to what is often knee-jerk critizism of EA. 62.203.128.140 21:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC) Vergon

Wondering Out Loud

"Electronic Arts' historic logo. This was often confused for EOA, but it actually does not symbolize letters at all."

If that's the case, wow, talk about how much they DO symbolize these letters! Also, on the old boxart, at the bottem where it said ELECTRONIC ARTS, the E, O and A are replaced for the pieces in the logo. The cube (square), sphere (circle) and pyramid (triangle) respectively. Just thinking out loud, but I'm pretty convinced the old logo symbolize letters. (81.71.21.114 02:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Game quality (rant)

The argument isn't really that the games of EA-acquired companies are of poor quality, which is stupid, as the games are obviously mostly successful. The argument is that they are mostly dumbed-down (as in "simplified" or "streamlined") sequels to successful franchise and those which are not sequels are usually poor ports from game consoles (as in: they do not exploit the advantages of a PC interface but rather try to emulate the console interface, thus providing an awkward gaming experience) or bug-ridden (nothing major, just many smaller glitches that only become annoying in long-term play), case in point: Command & Conquer Generals (streamlined sequel to successful franchise, very quirky, poor performance usage), The Sims 2 (mostly fixed its bugs and shortcomings through commercial expansion sets).

Of course this isn't a EA-only argument, it's a problem with the game industry at large, which tends to release a game as soon as it can be sold and would rather release bugfixes on release than delay going gold. Enter the Matrix, for example, was a piss poor console port (I think it didn't even provide a mouse pointer for the game menus) and obviously not produced by EA. Major game (p)reviewers often prefer giving known or up-and-coming developers good scores even when they give a bad review, simply because they rely on the publisher's support (obviously producers don't like bad press, so why ship a review copy to someone you know is not reliable for a good review?). Very few games by major studios get really bad scores, generally anything below 70% (that's 7/10 ffs) is considered disastrous, anything below 80% is considered bad.

It's not some weird conspiracy theory and I'm not out to bash anyone, but the fact is that the game industry mostly does what is most advantageous for it in the short term (namely, minimise expenses by relying on safe franchises, hype and eye-candy rather than experimentation, honest review and a stable game experience) -- and, possibly, in the long term, too -- rather than what they would do in an ideal world.

The only thing that miffs me is the dishonesty in claiming that they don't do what they make money with. Game developers may have made games we enjoy very much, but that doesn't make them infallible saints. There are few idealists in the industry (even less idealists who are also aware of what they are working for) and at the end of the day it's just another way to pay for your bills. That they keep the fanboys happy is more of a necessity (even though target audiences seem horribly expendable these days, even where sanity would say otherwise, e.g. Interplay's slow death with Fallout Brotherhood of Steel, the Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance knock-off) and a consequence than true intent.

The game industry is NOT your friend. That doesn't mean you have to hate them, it only means they are completely indifferent to you. Unless players change their consuming behaviour and stop buying the hype and paying for unfinished and bug-ridden knock-offs of games that used to be successful because they were innovative (which they most likely won't, because most people don't care about the way the industry is going and are fully willing to buy games by the ton rather than enjoy a few well-crafted ones every now and then -- can't blame them, if I had the time and money and hadn't seen a few gems I'd be no different) this will probably continue to be the most successful strategy for all major publishers who will continue to buy smaller development studios whenever they need fresh blood or another franchise to milk dry, while innovation (and even that innovation is rarely more than glamorous adoption of long-forgotten game concepts -- compare WarCraft III's "innovative" hero system with the WarCraft 2 knock-off WarWind or similar post-WC2 RTS games) remains rare.

[/rant] — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 11:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sims2box.jpg

Image:Sims2box.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion or HEAVY revision of support section

That section is horribly written:

• GiveMeMoney1717 is not a notable figure nor a reliable source
• Seems like original research, won't be surprised if it's from GiveMeMoney1717
• Obvious PoV issues
• Weasel words are used a bit too much

I will be deleting this section in one week if no one provides a reason why it should still remain.

--BirdKr 17:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

removed self-reference

I removed this self-ref from the page :

Wiki Editing

On August 15, 2007, Shacknews discovered various Wikipedia edits of this page altering information of EA founder Trip Hawkins and other negative aspects of the company's history. This was found using the Wikipedia Scanner to track an IP address which stemmed from an EA office. The changes were made between November 20, 2006 and April 5, 2007. The article lists many changes made to the history from the removal of business plans to the removal of Trip Hawkins entirely to deleting all mention of the EA Spouse blog.

This is not appropriate material for an article; though there is likely a page on 'wiki history altering' where this might rate a few words and a footnote. 18.85.46.172 16:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Says the anonymous user posting from MIT with no record of having ever edited anything before 198.6.46.11 17:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I learned of this from Kotaku. If there are even more sites mentioning this, it is very well appropiate.--141.84.69.20 17:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not a self-reference to mention Wikipedia if there is verifiable controversy regarding Wikipedia, which is being reported by reliable sources. It is the case with the Essjay controversy, and many others. Here, that is the case. As of right now, there are many sites reporting this story, including GameSpot, Neoseeker, Shacknews, and CVG. I'll be reinstating the paragraph, and altering it slightly for quality issues.--Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Or I would have done, if it wasn't already back in by the time I'd posted this. Still, the Google search above has more sources if needed. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work, I was just about to add this myself, read about it on Gamedaily.biz Tphi 00:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

EA Editing Its Own History on EA Wikipedia Page?

An investigative report by the news web site Shacknews has uncovered numerous changes that have been made to EA's Wikipedia page that have removed important pieces of information if they are critical of EA. Every edit made to EA's Wikipedia page now and in the future needs to be examined very carefully to try to determine if the changes came from a well-meaning Wikipedia member or whether it's a case of EA trying to write its own history.

The Shacknews article is at http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/48482 and it is a must-read as it pertains to EA's Wikipedia page.

You can also see many examples of the suspicious history-revisionism that has taken place on EA's Wikipedia page by going to this URL on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electronic_Arts&diff=next&oldid=88867334

NOTE: I am not suggesting that a section should be added to EA's actual Wikipedia page that discusses this controversy. I am merely saying that all of the changes that appear to have come from EA in the past, and any that may come in the future, need to be carefully examined to make sure that revisionist history is not allowed to rule the roost. --76.100.228.151 07:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. There was a bit of discussion of this in the section above this one. As an aside, there actually already is a section on this in the article. But thanks for bringing this to our attention. :) --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Also discussed at Dark Zero --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 21:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For easy reference, a list of all the edits the IP in question made to just this page and the relevant talk page (some of which haven't been widely publicised) are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]-(widely publicised) [13] [14] [15] [16].

There are other edits to EA-related articles (such as games published by EA), which I haven't checked, and not all of the edits above are "juicy", but still, it's there for reference. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

All of their edits should be reversed as they are or will be inherently un-neutral and represent a biased POV. Neoyamaneko 04:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, if they can give a reference for their changes, or if they are typos or grammar fixes, we can accept them. Haven't reviewed all the diffs, though. -- ReyBrujo 19:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It is not impossible to make a genuinely helpful edit just because one is associated with a topic. While many of the changes linked above are curious, such as removing criticism, or removing mention of Trip Hawkins, others simply are the kinds of minor fixes that WikiGnomes might make, like this one, for example. They don't all need to be removed on a matter of principle. However, Neoyamaneko, you may be interested in the section immediately below this one, where I have made a kind of proposal regarding the History section, which is still very similar to the far-from-neutral version the EA IP wrote. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 20:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. I have reviewed several historic versions from the EA addresses. It seems that many were additions or removal of "insider information". Although I only picked a few at random, none of the additions or removals were of referenced or verifiable facts. While this kind of "insider information" is inappropriate due to the OR and verifiable requirements, adding verifiable statements of fact can be done under the terms of unbaised and NPOV guidelines. I have just tagged many such facts as {{fact|August 2007}}. Discussions of company executes in strategy meetings at their private cabin sounds like insider information. While it is interesting, the fact that it is unverifiable causes a serious problem. Finally, having been an employee of EA in the past, I can certify that some of the removed content was removal of things that used to be true but no longer are. For example, after the EA Spouse lawsuit conditions dramatically improved at those studios. The complaints were specific to a few studios, and many of their global studios did not suffer from the same problems. These details may explain why some employees felt the need to alter the unverifiable statements. --Bwagstaff 04:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the size of EA I don't think one fairly small PR incerdent really merits a meantion in the article.Geni 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Looks like recentism or even navelgazing. Haukur 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but since when did revisionist history of this kind become "a fairly small PR incident"? This is serious business, practiced by the likes of such men as Joseph Stalin and his comrades. That the Soviet Communist Party rewrote their history numerous times in order to portray the Soviet Communist Government under the most favorable conditions; asserting that Vladimir Lenin was infallible or deleting party members who had fallen out of favor with the party from the history books, and a host of other equally absurd things; these are well documented matters of historical fact. And now we have EA attempting to rewrite their history here in similar fashion. Minor indeed! If this was only a minor PR incident, the reporting community would not have found cause to comment on it. If, however, it's notable enough to be picked up by dozens of news outlets and if their stories show verifiable truth to them, then this "little" bit of EA's history is definitely worth including here. Unless someone can come up with more convincing arguments why this should not be included than the two above, I am going to revert those changes to include that section as it was before. Braidedheadman 10:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)