Posts Tagged EA
Super Podcast Action Committee – Episode 49
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News on April 29, 2013
In Episode 49 of the show hosts Andrew Eisen and E. Zachary Knight discuss the ongoing turmoil inside EA, Nintendo’s decision to not host an E3 press conference, results of the latest poll and catch up on some mail that went into the silly spam filter. Download Episode 49 now: SuperPAC Episode 49 (1 hour, 3 minutes) 58.5 MB.
As always, you can subscribe to the show on iTunes and use our RSS Feed to add the show to your favorite news reader. You can also find us on Facebook, on Twitter@SuperPACPodcast and Google +. You can send us feedback on the show by dropping a note to superpacpodcast@gmail.com.
Credits: The Super Podcast Action Committee is hosted by E. Zachary Knight and Andrew Eisen, and produced by James Fudge. Music in the show includes “Albino” by Brian Boyko and “Barroom Ballet” by Kevin MacLeod. Both are in the public domain and free to use. ECA bumper created by Andrew Eisen.
Super Podcast Action Committee – Episode 47
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News on April 23, 2013
Episode 47 of the Super Podcast Action Committee is finally available after a rocky start to the week for Andrew and EZK, who both are apparently very sick. Nevertheless, they tough it out to catch up on the last two polls (one about dying Xbox 360s and another about punishing politicians for creating unconstitutional laws) and take some time to give EA kudos for winning the Worst Company in America for a second year in a row. Will 2014 make the third time the charm? Stay tuned! Download Episode 47 now: SuperPAC Episode 47 (1 hour, 16 minutes) 69.6 MB.
Programming note: due to this week’s show being published so late in the week (we are sorry we made you wait so long!) we will not be recording an episode this coming weekend. The next episode (barring any further calamites or illnesses) will go live on Monday, April 22.
As always, you can subscribe to the show on iTunes and use our RSS Feed to add the show to your favorite news reader. You can also find us on Facebook, on Twitter @SuperPACPodcast and Google +. You can send us feedback on the show by dropping a note to superpacpodcast@gmail.com.
Credits: The Super Podcast Action Committee is hosted by E. Zachary Knight and Andrew Eisen, and produced by James Fudge. Music in the show includes “Albino” by Brian Boyko and “Barroom Ballet” by Kevin MacLeod. Both are in the public domain and free to use. ECA bumper created by Andrew Eisen.
What Does It Mean To Win Worst Company In America?
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game Philosophy on March 26, 2013
Last year, Electronic Arts came out of nowhere and won The Consumerist’s annual Worst Company in America competition. This competition was designed to highlight the worst of the worst companies when it came to its consumer presence. When EA graciously accepted the award, it kindly reminded voters just who its real competition is by listing previous award winners.
We’re sure that British Petroleum, AIG, Philip Morris, and Halliburton are all relieved they weren’t nominated this year. We’re going to continue making award-winning games and services played by more than 300 million people worldwide.
What does it mean for the games industry, and EA specifically, to be likened to some of the largest insurance, oil, tobacco and weapons companies in the world? Companies that have a more direct connection to the quality of life of billions of people. What does it mean to be crowned worst of the worst in America?
Regardless of the over impact or seriousness of its faults, we know much of what EA did to win that award. Online passes, NFL monopolies, Spore, and Mass Effect 3, just to name a few. But really after all the brewhaha last year during and following the contest, what does it mean to be nominated a second time? Even after declaring that you were cleaning up your ways?
“I think we will see a dramatic shift in the company,” Lawder told CNET. “We’re not there yet. There’s still a ways to go before we’re considered a world-class customer experience.”
For the second year in a row, EA has been nominated for the Golden Poo award. It seems that despite Lawder’s claims, EA has yet to improve on its image. The whole SimCity thing hasn’t helped things out either. Things are so bad at EA, from a consumer perspective, that it handed Anheuser Busch a sound thrashing in the first round. Seriously, EA is worse than a beer monopoly wannabe. Add that to the list above of who EA is worse than.
So what can the games industry learn from this? Here are some lessons I think we should be paying attention to:
- If you have bad policies or terrible relations with your customers, they will complain and complain loudly. If they aren’t declaring you the worst company in America, they are certainly going to complain in private and in some cases publicly.
- Despite all the minor flaws that grate on our customers’ nerves, it is the big fiascoes that will send them over the edge. People understand that companies are run by other people. They understand that sometimes things just won’t go right or that mistakes happen. They can brush off a good number of flaws and frustrations. However, when you make such boneheaded disasters as SimCity, Spore or Mass Effect 3, you will send your customers into a frenzy.
- Making promises of change and then doing nothing positive quickly will not make people happy. EA won the award last year due to years of neglect and abuse of its customers. All that culminated in the award. People expected some kind of change for the better. Instead, they received empty promises and even bigger blunders. People expect and deserve to be treated well if they are expected to buy your products.
- Bad policies are bad and deserve to die. Whether it is high prices, DRM, too much bad DLC or whatever, if people are complaining about it, something needs to be done. EA had many years of people complaining about always online requirements in thier games and other companies’ games, yet it learned nothing and implemented it in one of its most high profile games, with disastrous results. Failure to learn from your own and others’ past mistakes will doom you to repeat them and reap the rewards.
Those are just four big lessons to be learned. But the biggest is that your customers are king. If they are not happy, they will make you miserable. So let us all take a lesson from EA, even if it refuses to learn these lessons itself, and go out and serve your fans and customers well.
Super Podcast Action Committee – Episode 43
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News on March 5, 2013
On this week’s show hosts Andrew Eisen and E. Zachary Knight are joined by James Fudge to discuss the new Six Strikes anti-piracy scheme, Time Warner Cable’s insistence that customers don’t want faster broadband and the latest poll on the PS4′s lack of backwards compatibility. Download it now:SuperPAC Episode 43 (1 hour, 14 minutes) 67.8 MB. You can also check out the show on YouTube if you prefer an unedited and more visual experience.
As always, you can subscribe to the show on iTunes and use our RSS Feed to add the show to your favorite news reader. You can also find us onFacebook, on Twitter @SuperPACPodcast and Google +. You can send us feedback on the show by dropping a note tosuperpacpodcast@gmail.com.
Credits: The Super Podcast Action Committee is hosted by E. Zachary Knight and Andrew Eisen, and produced by James Fudge. Music in the show includes “Albino” by Brian Boyko and “Barroom Ballet” by Kevin MacLeod. Both are in the public domain and free to use. ECA bumper created by Andrew Eisen.
Super Podcast Action Committee – Episode 29
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News on November 25, 2012
In Episode 29 of the Super Podcast Action Committee hosts Andrew Eisen and E. Zachary Knight discuss the shaky launch of the Wii U console over the weekend, Sony perma-bans for PS3 ‘hackers,’ and the good and bad side of Electronic Arts. It’s a show to remember unless you stopped that Wii U firmware update – then it’s a painful reminder that getting your brand new console ‘bricked’ kind of sucks! Download it now: SuperPAC Episode 29 (1 hour, 20 minutes) 73.3 MB.
As always, you can subscribe to the show on iTunes and use our RSS Feed to add the show to your favorite news reader. You can also find us on Facebook (where there’s an app that will let you listen to the show), and on Twitter @SuperPACPodcast. You can send us feedback on the show by dropping a note to superpacpodcast@gmail.com.
Credits: The Super Podcast Action Committee is hosted by E. Zachary Knight and Andrew Eisen, and produced by James Fudge. Music in the show includes “Albino” by Brian Boyko and “Barroom Ballet” by Kevin MacLeod. Both are in the public domain and free to use. ECA bumper created by Andrew Eisen.
Zynga Fires Back At EA With Claims Of Innocence And Accusations Of Wrongdoing On EA’s Part
Posted by Zachary Knight in Politics and Law on September 24, 2012
Originally Published on Techdirt.
We last left Zynga back in August with EA filing a lawsuit against the casual game company in which EA makes claims of copyright infringement. EA had accused Zynga of cloning its Sims Social game when Zynga made its game, The Ville. Well, Zynga has finally fired back with filings claiming innocence of copyright infringement as well as accusations that EA had attempted to establish a “no hire” agreement between the two companies.
In the first filing, Zynga moves to have a bunch of language from EA’s filings stricken as it feels that much of it is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent and/or scandalous.” It feels that a lot of the information presented, such as third party disputes, games and comments that do not pertain to EA’s specific claims of copyright infringement, are simply included to paint Zynga in as negative a light as possible.
Zynga also specifically rejects the idea that The Ville infringes The Sims Social by attempting to show that much of what EA claims to be infringing is either a natural part of a life sim or part of an evolution in design of other Zynga created games. This can be found in the second filing in which Zynga shows successive screen shots of its games YoVille, Cafe World and The Ville. Each with very similar UI elements.
Next, Zynga brings in a comparison of Zynga’s CityVille and EA’s SimCity Social games. It does so to highlight that even EA gives in to tropes and design choices common to the genre it works in. Coming off this, Zynga makes the claim that this lawsuit is nothing more than EA’s response to being unable to compete in the social gaming marketplace.
Finally, we have the third filing in which Zynga makes its most bold claim yet.
Zynga claims that EA CEO John Riccitiello wanted to establish an illegal “no-hire” agreement with Zynga that would prevent the company from hiring employees away from EA. The filing says Riccitiello had grown upset that many EA employees had moved over to Zynga, and had gone “on the war path” to put an end to the talent bleed.
The company also says EA filed its lawsuit in August not because it believes Zynga copied The Sims Social, but because the company wanted to discourage its employees from jumping ship.
If Zynga’s accusation is true, then EA’s attempt at establishing such an agreement is serious business. These types of agreements, in which the companies agree not to hire anyone that applies, if they work for the competing company, and will often report the employee to his/her boss, are generally very bad for workers and quite possibly illegal.
These agreements are so serious that the Department of Justice had been investigating a number of tech companies, including Apple and Google, for this practice back in 2010 with evidence finally surfacing earlier this year.
Of course, EA believes this claim by Zynga is just a smokescreen.
This is a predictable subterfuge aimed at diverting attention from Zynga’s persistent plagiarism of other artists and studios. Zynga would be better served trying to hold onto the shrinking number of employees they’ve got, rather than suing to acquire more.
Regardless of whether these claims are true or not, this shows just how far this legal dispute could go over the coming months. Here we have two powerhouse game companies fighting over something that really in the end will have no bearing on the future of the games industry.
In the end, what do we actually get out of dragging two companies’ reputations through the mud? What will either company get out of winning this lawsuit? If EA wins, it will get to claim that it slayed the big bad cloning monster and Zynga will slink away and only clone the games of much smaller companies. If Zynga wins, the games industry as it is now will continue forward exactly as it had been. Either way, nothing substantial will change. So again, what’s the point?
In A Strange Turn Of Affairs, EA Decides to Recognize Reality Of Game Pricing
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game Philosophy on August 10, 2012
Originally Published on Techdirt.
This is a strange one. A few months back, we highlighted some comments from EA in which it postulated that deeply discounted games were bad for business. This comment from the head of EA’s Origin digital distribution service was in response to Steam’s sales that it holds regularly. In this comment, DeMartini claimed that such sales devalue the games and trains people to only buy cheap games. Perhaps this comment was a prophetic statement of sorts, because EA is now recognizing the reality of cheap games.
In a recent interview with the folks at MCV, another EA exec, Nick Earl, stated that people are making the switch to free games and there is no stopping it.
The future is not about one-time payments, the future is about freemium. A decent number of people convert to paying and they may not pay a lot but most of them actually pay more than you’d think.
I don’t know if freemium gets to console but I do know that humans like free stuff. I also know humans who will pay for something if they’ve tried it out and they like it.
I’ve wondered if freemium expands beyond the tablet, Facebook and smartphones, and out into consoles? I don’t think it’s impossible for that to happen.
It is actually quite refreshing to see someone in a large game studio willing to accept this fact, something that his counter parts in publishing are incapable of doing. But this is the reality. We have seen it happen in rapid fashion, particularly in the mobile space. Because of the nature of the market, game prices quickly dropped to $1 and then to freemium or free to play. These options allow for potential customers to limit the risk of acquiring a new game. This is also forcing the games industry as a whole to reconsider how it prices its software, which some still seem unwilling to do.
Another interesting thing about this comment is that Nick realizes that it is only a matter of time before free games come to consoles. This is something else we have observed with the recent announcement of the Ouya console. One of the Ouya’s biggest selling points is that all games available for it must offer some form of free option, something not currently available on any current console. This idea and the low cost of the console itself led to a huge positive reaction from the gaming community, shooting the Ouya into record breaking pledges on the first day. So yes, people are shifting to free games.
As the market for games shift toward cheap and free options, it will be interesting to see what the current console leaders do in response. Will they all follow Nintendo’s lead and continue on the course of “premium” prices for console games, or will they recognize that there are more ways to make money from gaming than retail sales? If they do continue down the premium path, they are quite liable to be left far behind when the market shifts. Something that EA seems to be preparing itself for.
Back And Forth Cloning Battles With Zynga Continue With New EA Chapter
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News, Politics and Law on August 8, 2012
Originally Published on Techdirt.
Our first introduction with Zynga was back in 2009 when the maker of Mob Wars sued Zynga over its Mafia Wars game. Zynga was accused of copyright infringement and ended up paying a pretty penny. Later on in the year, Zynga turned around and sued Playdom over what it claimed was trademark infringement. Shortly there after Zynga was sued for trademark infringment over the name Mafia Wars. Then last year, Zynga decided to sue a Brazilian company, Vostu, for various claims of copyright infringment and even some claims that the company copied its entire business model. This lawsuit resulted in a very interesting ruling from a US Judge telling Zynga not to enforce its win over Vostu, because the US Judge wanted first dibs on the ruling. Remember this last case, because it is the most important one when reviewing this next lawsuit.
Just last week, word came in that Zynga was being sued yet again over allegations of game cloning and copyright infringement. This time the player doing the suing is none other than EA, the makers of the game The Sims Social. In its complaint, EA accuses Zynga of pretty much copying the entirity of the Sims Social in its game The Ville. In a press release about the case, EA states:
As outlined in our complaint, when The Ville was introduced in June 2012, the infringement of The Sims Social was unmistakable to those of us at Maxis as well as to players and the industry at large. The similarities go well beyond any superficial resemblance. Zynga’s design choices, animations, visual arrangements and character motions and actions have been directly lifted from The Sims Social. The copying was so comprehensive that the two games are, to an uninitiated observer, largely indistinguishable. Scores of media and bloggers commented on the blatant mimicry.
Compare that to Zynga’s statement about its lawsuit against Vostu:
Let’s be clear – it is one thing to be inspired by Zynga games, but it is entirely different to copy all of our key product features, product strategy, branding, mission statement and employee benefits lock, stock and barrel. We welcome Vostu into the arena of social games, but blatant infringement of our creative works is not an acceptable business strategy—it is a violation of the law.
In both statements, the accuser is stating that outright copying was taking place. That each accused game was a near replica of the other game. Such a claim from EA after Zynga made very much the same claims has got to be one of the largest legal karma slaps in history. One that Zynga will be very much lucky to walk away from.
Elsewhere in the filing, EA shows that Zynga’s cloning is not limited to this one case. It lists numerous instances where Zynga had been accused of cloning other popular games. It lists the afore mentioned Mafia Wars, Dream Heights, Farmville and Zynga Bingo, all games that had been publicly accused of being clones. This was done to show that Zynga has an extensive history of cloning games.
EA’s filing is also full of interesting screen shot comparisons in which it points out some of the more common similarities, such as the almost exact duplication of skin tone selections and personality types. EA even provided a video showing other similarities in animations.
Something to note in these examples is that they follow a very similar pattern to the filing Zynga made in its case against Vostu. In that filing, any time Zynga wanted to show off the similarities of the two games in question, it would show images that use as many similar elements arranged in as similar a fashion as possible. Something that EA does as well. This tactic is deployed as a method to project as much of a feeling of copyright infringement as possible. Unfortunately, it also clouds the fact that much of what is shown are in all actuality user made choices.
In response to this lawsuit, Zynga has sent a comment out to the media.
The Ville is the newest game in our ‘ville’ franchise – it builds on every major innovation from our existing invest-and-express games dating back to YoVille and continuing through CityVille and CastleVille, and introduces a number of new social features and game mechanics not seen in social games today. It’s unfortunate that EA thought that this was an appropriate response to our game, and clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic copyright principles. It’s also ironic that EA brings this suit shortly after launching SimCity Social, which bears an uncanny resemblance to Zynga’s CityVille game. Nonetheless, we plan to defend our rights to the fullest extent possible and intend to win with players.
Since we are in a compare/contrast mood today, let’s take a quick look at how Vostu responded to Zynga’s lawsuit.
Zynga has been accused of copying so many games that they’ve sadly lost the ability to recognize games like ours that are chock full of original content and have been independently created. Vostu has 500 brilliant employees working night and day making hand drawings and writing proprietary code for online games that our 35 million users worldwide enjoy. Zynga’s anti-competitive effort to bully us with a frivolous lawsuit — especially when we have some of the same key investors — is pathetic. While Zynga plays games with the legal process we will continue focusing on using our substantial resources to create games that entertain our customers.
There are two key similarities between these two defensive statements. The first is that both companies make the claim that their work is original and built with the companies’ creative talents. The other is both are claiming that the lawsuits are less about copyright and more about attacking a competitor. It really boggles the mind that a company like Zynga has missed the poetics of this situation.
While we have repeatedly stated that the practice of game cloning is something that can be dealt with outside of the legal system, it is interesting to see these two players go toe to toe. What makes this case even more interesting than a typical cloning case, as I have tried to portray, is that Zynga set itself up for this lawsuit. Not just by copying EA’s game, but also by providing the exact kind of legal precedent EA needs to win. If Zynga is to defend itself in this case, it is in effect defending Vostu’s actions. Something that Zynga probably isn’t looking forward to.
As Expected, EA Kills Servers For Games Using Online Pass
Posted by Zachary Knight in Game News on March 20, 2012
I am definitely not a fan of Online Passes for video games. These things are a waste of resources as well as bad business for gamers. One of my problems with them is the volatile nature of them. There are no guarantees that even if you buy a game new that the online pass will work 1, 2 or more years down the line, let alone be able to buy the content in the future if you got the game second hand. It looks like that future is already upon us.
EA has announced that it will be killing the servers for 14 games in the next 30 days. I can understand the need to stop services for games that have little or no use, but there are problems when the games require a server in order to function. That is the state of games with an Online Pass. Now if you decide to get one of the titles on the list you will be completely out of luck if you want to utilize any of the online content.
One thing to note here is that many of these games are barely 2 years old and are also sports titles. What this really tells me is that EA wants you to stop playing the older sports titles that you enjoy and go out and buy the newest iteration. This is a slap in the face for those players that like the features of the older title over whatever minor changes were made for the new update.
In the end, we will be seeing a lot more of this type of behavior from game companies. The prospect of capturing revenue from the used game market has blinded many publishers on how to properly handle such a move without turning off the customer. Perhaps one day we can look forward to a digital world where the game companies actually care about how the gamer feels and what they want. Until then, we will be stuck watching gamers be harmed by moves like this.
Did EA, Sony and Nintendo Pull Support For SOPA? Maybe Not
Posted by Zachary Knight in Politics and Law on January 1, 2012
One of the worst pieces of legislation to hit the US this past year was the Stop Online Piracy Act. This bill, if passed into law, would allow for private companies and the US Attorney General to censor the internet, break its security and stop the growth of new internet technologies in their infancy. It does this all in the name of stopping piracy of US intellectual property online. I have been working on an article that discusses the games industry’s view of SOPA based on the information I have at hand, but I think I need to address one piece of that now.
Prior to the creation of SOPA, EA, Nintendo and Sony, along with a number of other businesses and organizations, signed a letter expressing interest in a law similar to SOPA.
We urge Congress to enact legislation which targets those who abuse the Internet ecosystem and reap illegal profits by stealing the intellectual property (IP) of America’s innovative and creative industries. These rogue sites—those websites dedicated to counterfeiting and piracy—put American jobs, consumers, and innovation at risk.
This is pretty much at the heart of SOPA. While this letter never named any specific bill, it would seem that these businesses would support SOPA as well as the general idea of it. However, this is the one and only instance we have of these three companies supporting anything SOPA like. They have yet to send a press release or make any public comments regarding SOPA itself.
What is really surprising to see over this weekend are a bunch of headlines around the internet stating that these three companies, EA, Nintendo and Sony, have dropped their support for SOPA. Some news outlets are coming to this conclusion based on the absence of these companies on the House Judiciary’s official list of SOPA supporters. While it is true that these three companies’ names are not found, excluding the Sony Music division’s presence on the list, they have never actually claimed to be in support of this specific legislation.
If they never officially expressed support for SOPA, how can we honestly say they dropped their support? As far as I can tell, they are still very much in support of SOPA like legislation, but have yet to get more specific than that. Can we honestly say that if SOPA were to pass that these companies would be indifferent or even against that? There is not enough information to be entirely sure.
However, we do have one other issue to contend with here, the presence of the Entertainment Software Association on the Judiciary list. The ESA is a lobbying organization that works on behalf of many of the major game companies including Sony, EA and Nintendo. Are we to really believe that if the ESA is still actively supporting SOPA that its member companies are not behind that? The ESA is not an entirely autonomous organization. Its member companies have a tremendous voice in the direction it takes. I doubt the ESA would take up such a position without the knowledge let alone the blessing of its member companies.
So with all this out there, can we really say that EA, Sony and Nintendo have pulled support for SOPA? I don’t believe so. Not without an official response from these companies. Until then, the only thing we can say for sure is that these companies support SOPA like legislation and their lobbying group still strongly supports SOPA. So why are we jumping to conclusions based on such weak evidence?


