Forum

Quoted from Spike Himself

What a load of bollocks. All the guy is saying is “ok we missed a few things here and there, it happens, but look what we’ve done right” – he’s just making the point that the award is unjustified. Which it probably is.

It is a sad fact in itself that “worst company in the US” goes to a games developer/studio/whatevertheyare. To throw in a random example; maybe they should have a look at oil companies and the like – I’m sure they do a lot more actual awful things.

huehue my computer game doesn’t work #firstworldproblems

…

SHRUGGING OFF CONCERNS
In his statement, Mr. Moore begins by questioning the merit of Consumerist readers’ opinions on what constitutes a “worst company.”

“This is the same poll that last year judged us as worse than companies responsible for the biggest oil spill in history,” writes Moore. He’s obviously referencing the 2011 champ BP, except BP wasn’t even in the bracket last year. In response to Moore’s statement, we’d like to take a moment to explain that our “Worst Company in America” contest exists within the context of this website, which is about consumers and their relationship to the marketplace and to businesses. Just to be clear: The point of this contest, now in its 8th year, is to enable consumers to send a message to a company that provides goods or services to them. Winning this contest means your customers are trying to tell you something. And that something is that you, out of all the companies, most deserve a plastic poop trophy.

Mr. Moore continues, “The complaints against us last year were our support of SOPA (not true), and that they didn’t like the ending to Mass Effect 3.”

If I buy milk in the supermarket, first of all it has a ‘best before’ date on it, and second of all, after purchase I now own that particular pack or bottle of milk – it is entirely mine and nobody can alter the contents of it but me. As such the product has to be finished and perfect.

If I buy a game through a distribution plattform (be it Steam or whatever these guys are using), the developer is still able to release updates with additional features or bugfixes. What that means is that, unlike 15 years ago, where you’d buy a game on a CD and that was it, it’s relatively okay to not have a perfectly finished product yet.
This saves a lot of time and costs for developers. The target audience can give feedback on what they miss most or what bug is the most annoying and the developer can focus on that, instead of setting a priority list themselves and spending another 2 years before releasing the game.

Of course I’m not saying that because of this, it’s ok to release broken games, but if anything it’s not really a big deal if a game is only 90% functional.

TF2 was released without hats, to throw in a random example. That doesn’t make Valve a bad company – they simply didn’t know yet it was a good idea (for them) to have this feature.

If EA was truly so terrible, how come nobody here have replied “who are EA? I’ve never heard of them..”? The blog that guy wrote starts with the tag line “high trees catch the most wind” – that’s pretty much indeed all that happened.

With all that said, I’m not really here to defend EA. Personally I don’t really care for their games at all. Just saying that you can only be voted worst company if you have a lot of customers, and in order to get a lot of customers you must first achieve a lot of good.

Quoted from Reservoir Dog

[…]

EA BAD GRR…

EDIT: On another note, I come from a 3rd world country and so do many other players, so I guess it’s not a 1st world problem (only) :D

Actually I think you’re from a 2nd world country just to nitpick.

EA have a lot of good reasons to dislike them. It’s not just buying X game and being disatisfied and then experiencing poor service. It’s not just buying Y game and realising that on publishers orders content was cut entirely to save money or held back to generate more money.

It’s about business practice in an entertainment firm. It’s seen as worse due to the fact that it is a firm that is supposed to bring you joy/relaxtion/escapism.

This firm then indulges in business practice which makes a mockery of those that purchase their goods and damages the entire sub-sector of the entertainment industry. This can be seen through the myriad of good companies purchased and run into the ground (eg Westwood Studios) for a quick profit.

They routinely treat customers as little more than walking wallets with the intellectual capacity of a brain dead goat and act surprised when this creates anger.

They hide their dubious reputation behind a wall of LGBT claims that has a large number of that community up in arms. as a further note they do this largely through bots claiming to support the piss poor writing that forces homosexual encounters into a peculiar and jarring position in plots.

I could go on for a lot longer. The reality is that EA is a cold un-emotional company which is trying to continue to find growth in a particular area of the entertainment market. An area which has continued to experience rapid growth in almost all levels in the last five years. The failure of EA as a company to adapt and it’s reckless abuse of competitors, allies, assets and customers has engendered a significant amount of negative emotion which is fully deserved.

I doubt it can compare to the dubious economic, social or moral practices of other firms in the listing. Certain financial institutes in particular. However it does stand out significantly from it’s own contemporaries.

sums it up fairly well
http://www.nerfnow.com/comic/994