Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions
Debate Rounds (3)
To start off, they have created something named "Origin". It is a counterpart to the highly successful gaming service "Steam" for computer systems. For many games created by EA, you must have an Origin account and unfortunately must be on-line at all times. This decision is rather unpopular among fans of the company's games, with a notable disaster taking place on the launch day for one of EA's games "Simcity" where some reviewers called the game "unplayable". Many Amazon customers who had bought the game were vowing to never give EA a cent of their money. To add insult to injury, any "good" reviews on the product were full of satire and mockery, making a fool of the game in general.
Second of all, it's rather clear that they treat their customers as one giant ATM. They expect money from it, and this is why they were given the title of "Worst Company in America" in 2012. Did they learn from their mistakes? Did they improve within that year? The short answer to that is no. In fact, this year they were once again named the "Worst Company in America" to which Consumerist said "Following last year"s surprise Worst Company In America victory by Electronic Arts, there was hope that the video game giant would get the message; stop treating your customers like human piggy banks, and don"t put out so many incomplete and/or broken games with the intent of getting your customers to pay extra for what they should have received in the first place. And yet, here we are again, with EA becoming the first company to ever win a second Golden Poo from Consumerist readers."
Lastly, they have made changes to many of the games that they have. The Sims 3 now requires constant internet service and an Origin account to play, greatly angering people who have been playing the first instalments of the game since they were children and those who have been lifetime fans since the main fanbase consists of people who play games in their spare time with no need for such a feature. Dead Space 3 had a complete change in tone, and was more an action game compared to a horror. This lead to poor sales. Simcity 2013, a reboot to the smash-hit franchise "Simcity" failed miserably, and an attempt to stop piracy ended up costing the company more money than what they would have lost if they kept the simple format of being able to play offline.
That is all I have to say for the first round, hopefully if someone accepts this debate they have a solid argument.
I do not feel that they are necessarily making bad decisions at this point. I feel that that EA is just trying to become more popular and wanted to beat out the competition by making Origin. They probably feel that more users will notice them with this new service and their sales would go up, but obviously that backfired.
Electronic Arts makes successful games that many people, especially kids, enjoy playing, and I'm pretty sure they would not mind making and Origin account real quick to start playing. In my opinion, EA is making the right decisions, it's just they are getting bad results and a negative impact on their company and organization.
If you look at it from that perspective, then you can excuse the idea of Origin. However, Steam generates many sales and EA is already a big company. Why would they need to be noticed whatsoever with a burden of a program that serves only to hamper you? On top of that, Steam has a large amount of sales and games such as The Sims, Mass Effect and more would definitely make a large sum of money during those periods.
As for what you said about people not minding the creation of an Origin account, I can agree with you. However, it's more the always on-line DRM feature that has appeared frequently as of late that is an issue in my eyes. And, unfortunately, I really see Origin as a program to serve one purpose: to support the always on-line DRM.
I would also like to add, as a side note, that Diablo 3 is a prime example of the downfall that always on-line services provide. However, EA went along with the decision nevertheless which supports the claim that they treat their customers like "human piggy banks".
Also, I was looking at the EA games stock and they are actually not doing too bad. If you were to look at the stock progress in the past year you would see that EA made a great climb. Although if you were to look at the five year you would be able to notice that they took a dramatic drop in sales in 2008 and stayed steady ever since. I feel that the increase this year could disprove your debate of them making bad decisions, because those "bad" decisions are making them money.
I do feel that some of those profits may be because of them using humans as a piggy bank, but it has only done good for them. I do feel that at a personal level with the customers, EA is making bad decisions, but as a big business franchise in gaming, I feel they are making the right decisions to help make money. To all businesses, not just EA, they do not care how they get their money, just as long as they get it.
I would also like to say that, while these decisions may make them money, it does not mean that fans will stick around. For example, look at the XBOX One: many people have lost faith in Microsoft for many of their decisions revolving around the console and people have switched over to competitor Sony.
This concludes my final statement. I hope you enjoyed this debate. :)
ZachyDiz forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.