The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are Electronic Arts Making Bad Decisions

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/9/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 597 times Debate No: 35416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




I would firstly like to say that I am looking forward to this debate and I hope to have fun talking about the topic. Simply put, I do not agree with the decisions that Electronic Arts (EA for short) are making.

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, as well, expect this to be a fun debate. I agree with you to a certain extent with this Electronic Arts topic. I do feel that following getting voted Worst Company in America they would have turned their company around and put forth better games, service, and trying things differently. Although this year I did not expect them to get voted it again. I feel that there are lots of bad companies out there and EA is most definitely not the worse. The voters must just have a bone to pick with EA and took out on them at the polls.

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.
Debate Round No. 1


(I apologize for going off topic, but I am absolutely elated that someone took on this argument :D )

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".


I agree with you on your last point. I feel that Diablo 3 was a big downfall for EA, but as a whole they are still a great game-making organization. Many other aspects of EA are going downhill, but EA games still has a big advantage with one franchise of games: EA Sports. EA sports is a big advantage for them. I know many people, and personally myself, that still purchase all the new EA Sports game like Madden. I was very satisfied with their ability to make such great sport games.

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.
Debate Round No. 2


While I agree that all businesses, not just EA, want money and do not really care how they get it, I would like to say that other game developers seem to produce products that aren't broken and listen to what the fans have to say. I'm not saying that all companies care, of course, but there definitely are some out there. As I've stated before, EA has completely ignored what fans have had to say and taken many franchises in a different direction. I would go as far as to say that if they keep doing what they're doing, the only thing keeping them afloat would be the sports games they produce and possibly The Sims.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.