Talk:Electronic Arts

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Video games (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject California / San Francisco Bay Area (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the San Francisco Bay Area task force (marked as High-importance).
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.7
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

1991-2007 should be renamed[edit]

How does an entire decade get skipped in two sentences? The section title is highly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


this article should be unlocked so that people can vandalise and destroy the information in the same way that EA destroyed and vandalised Dead Space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Bunten should be changed to Danielle Bunten[edit]

I can't edit this, nor do I keep up with wikipedia's editing policy, so can someone change this for me? Though her family wanted to remember her as a man, she identified as a woman, even when she questioned her sex-change. Identity is more than gender, etc etc. Thanks! --anon

Electronic Arts wins Worst Company of 2012 over Bank of America, etc.[edit]

Somehow I feel this is more than relevant to the criticisms page. The Consumerist held a poll on which companies they considered the worst in America, and EA won with 250,000 votes. If Wikipedia hadn't locked this article (like it does with every article that arouses so much as a tiny bit of controversy) I'd have added it myself. Pippipdoodlydoo (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This is relevant, please include this information. (talk) 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Right, because charging ten dollars for an online pass and having exclusive sports licenses is much worse than helping destroy the US housing market and, subsequently, the entire economy through deceptive practices and subsequently continuing illegal foreclosures and other questionable activities after these problems had come to light. Spare me. This was an Internet (un)popularity contest that probably got all those Mass Effect fanboys all riled up again to stick it to "the man" that denied them their life-fulfilling ME3 ending. I see no reason to include this. Indrian (talk) 23:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
It's a statement of fact, not a subjective judgment by Wikipedia (or its editors) about the merit of the award. The Consumerist blog is owned by Consumers Union (owners of Consumer Reports) and the blog/its contributors have been regularly mentioned by news outlets and others, meeting the notability requirement to have their own article on Wikipedia. Comcast's article mentions their win of the award in 2010.
I won't argue as to the exact placement (other than whether or not I think it should be in the first sentence of the article? No, I think it shouldn't), but ignoring the fact that people voted EA for its practices because you believe them to be more or less evil than those of companies misses the point and just places one point of view as superior to the other. If there's notability issues, or whatever, then yeah, that's a valid reason not to include a mention in the article.
In the end, visitors to a popular and often cited blog about consumers, consumeristm, et cetera, thought that EA's practices merited them winning the award. Maybe they thought that BofA's acts were more evil, but EA was the worst company since they weren't making efforts to improve and others may not be aware of the impact they are having on their industry. In the end, I think personal opinion on whether or not the win was justified is irrelevant, and the edit should be included on the merit of its notability and relevance to content.
I will note that the article presently has a long section with multiple subsections on criticism of the company. --JDCMAN (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
My above post is to illustrate the ridiculousness of the poll. The main reason it should not be included is because the poll is unscientific and therefore useless as a gauge of anything. The Consumerist being a reliable source does not change the uselessness of the results because the content is not an expert opinion or a scientific study promulgated by the organization. They just stuck some polls out there for anyone who cared enough to participate. If and when EA wins a lot of these kinds of contests, or is inundated by protestors, or is the subject of high profile boycotts, or is the subject of multiple op-ed pieces in reliable sources decrying its conduct, then we may have a trend of public dissatisfaction with the corporation and its business practices that would be worth discussing. Winning one unscientific poll, especially when there is currently an irrational Internet subculture attempting to smear the company in any way it can, hardly qualifies as a valid subject for discussion and analysis in an encyclopedia article, which is supposed to be based on secondary research and not flavor-of-the-month Internet reporting anyway. Indrian (talk) 02:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So your main objection is that The Consumerist didn't poll everyone in America? You've said it yourself, "They just stuck some polls out there for anyone who cared enough to participate". You seem to be making a great many assumptions about the demographics behind who voted for EA and why. The fact of the matter is that there *is* a legitimate backlash against EA's current business practices, evident not just from the results of the Consumerist poll but also from a string of recent Forbes articles criticizing EA. I also don't quite understand why you're putting the emphasis here on the poll being "unscientific" and thus "useless as a gauge of anything". How exactly would you have improved the method the Consumerist poll used to determine the worst company in America? Murdox (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody polls everybody in America, but for a poll to have validity as a measuring device it needs to be structured in such a way as to capture a broad cross-section of the target group and have results that fall within a reasonable margin of error. There is no evidence that this poll does either. Including the results of such an unscientific poll in an encyclopedia article is a ludicrous proposition. Indrian (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Just throwing out two things. First your personal feelings on the poll don't mean anything. Second EA is hated for more reasons then that. They are hated for buying up popular series and then running them into the ground. They destroyed several successful companies such as Pandemic and Westwood. They work their employees ridiculous hours for no Overtime because they are all salaried. They nickel and dime like crazy with their DLC, micro-transactions, and online passes. This is about more than the ending to Mass Effect 3. Superbowlbound (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
And yet the company still makes money, ie people still buy its games. Odd that. Its employee practices (which are a systemic problem throughout the industry and not a specifically EA "evil") are properly covered because this drew widespread attention to a serious issue and led to larger debates about industry conditions in general. That was really significant stuff. This poll, not so much. Including random criticisms not backed up by extensive sourcing as to their larger significance creates biased, poorly researched, and POV articles.

I think the edit should be made. This is a significant event, even though the poll itself may be unscientific and not necessarily accurate. In my opinion not to include it would be a breach of neutrality. That being said it should probably include the caveat that the poll was an internet poll, and that some media commentators (Forbes) believed it was unacceptably harsh for a computer games computer to be voted 'worst company in America' over and above some mortgage companies and greedy banks in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis. I personally agree with that point, clearly EA are not the worst company in America, but it doesn't mean this event should be whitewashed off wikipedia. (talk) 11:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

While I do think I understand where you are coming from and your response is far more measured than the knee-jerk, "we hate EA"-style response above, I do have to respectfully disagree. A breach of neutrality would be including an event without being able to articulate its larger significance, and at the moment it is difficult to attach any to this poll. Large video game companies like Activision and EA take a lot of flak from the Internet crowd for being run like businesses, but most of this criticism tends to be uninformed and originates from a vocal minority. The fact is, if EA and Activision were really destroying all that is good about games, then they or the entire industry would have disappeared long ago. Like any business they have made mistakes, and also like in any entertainment industry, the need for broad-based appeal in an era of stratospheric budgets has led to a lack of risk-taking and originality that is detrimental to certain genres and certain types of innovations, but you don't see the Warner Brothers or the Random House or the Sony BMG page including paragraph after paragraph of criticism even though the large publishers in the book, movie, and music industries are guilty of the same thing. This poll will probably be forgotten in a year, and including it (and several of the criticism items already in the article like the Dead Space advertising info) is an example of recentism and giving undue weight to an issue. That is where the true breach of neutrality lies. Indrian (talk) 13:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you guy's really trying to make a big deal out of this? You don't need to agree with the results of the poll, but it did happen. Just add it to the article, it would only take up one sentence. (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the edit should be added. Like others have already said, I think it's really extreme that they were voted as a worse company than Bank of America. I also would agree with the critics that this is part of anti-EA sentiment that has been going around in the gaming community. However, I think that regardless of how knee-jerk or short-sighted this sentiment is, I think it is notable. EA is a very heavily-criticized company, and has been for years. Various forums and message boards on places like GameFAQs or reddit are frequent sources of anti-EA sentiment; I think this is very noteworthy. Perhaps there should be a subsection added to the Criticism section regarding this sentiment from gamers on the internet, and info about the Worst Company Award should be included there. Wall Screamer (talk) 06:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

EA is pretty despicable as a company but I don't think we can use an online poll from the Consumerist (a blog) as a reliable source WP:RS. We haven't mentioned the award on any articles for the other winners. I am sure there are other valid criticisms of EA that can be added, but as of this moment, an online poll result isn't one of them. Redredryder (talk) 04:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that EA employees are attempting to hide the facts by editing Wikipedia. It is against the policy on neutrality to not add this to the criticism section, if not the timeline of the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see multiple reliable tertiary sources reporting this same story on the first page of google. This clearly passes WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTE, WP:WEIGHT, etc etc. There is no reason to not include this. We'll have to look into an RFC if this doesn't get done. (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

EA critisized for putting gay and lesbian relationships in their games[edit]

Can we put EA's criticism for including gay (bisexual if you thought about it) characters in their games, particularly in BioWare's standpoint with the Mass Effect, Dragon Age, and Star Wars: The Old Republic series? Lacon432 (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Fiscal Year Update[edit]

Can we update the fiscal year earnings for this article, and other companies and game companies like this one? Lacon432 (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedia editors - Andy Katkin, editor of, back again. I'd like to propose the following changes be made to update the results of our most recent fiscal year update.

REMOVE: On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011. On July 27, 2011, EA reported fiscal first-quarter profits had more than doubled on brisk sales of "highly-anticipated sports and shooter games".[13] EA earned $221 million, or 66 cents a share, in the three months that ended June 30. "That's up from earnings of $96 million, or 29 cents a share, in the same period a year earlier. Revenue rose 23 percent to $999 million from $815 million."[14]

ADD: On May 7, 2012, EA reported $4.1 billion in revenues for the 2012 fiscal year ending March 2012, highlighted by $1.2 billion of digital revenue. In Q4 of 2012, full-game downloads were up 76 percent year-over-year and EA’s Origin platform for games and services had registered 11 million players and generated approximately $150 million in ten months.

We want to be respectful of this space and only make updates the community approves of. Please let me know if there are any objections. Akatkin (talk) 02:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Got a verifiable reference for that? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Info culled from EA's FY 2012 earnings report and earnings call are all over reliable gaming press and business sources. Indrian (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Frecklefoot - point taken. we'll make sure to add linked references. before posting this. thanks for the feedback. Akatkin (talk) 23:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

RFC - Should the "Worst Company in America Award" receive a mention?[edit]

A recent poll by The Consumerist awarded Electronic Arts with the title of "Worst Company in America". The poll had more than 250,000 voters and has seen significant coverage from multiple sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, the list goes on... Should some mention of this poll be included in the Criticisms section of this article? (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Support - Looking at the arguments above, I really only see one editor opposing inclusion, with the only justification being his concerns about the validity of the poll. However, this point is moot; whether or not the poll is valid, we are required to report on it when it has received significant coverage, as is the case here. That aside, this seems to trivially fulfill all typical policies: WP:SOURCE, WP:NOTE, etc. (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The anon fails to mention WP:WEIGHT, which states thus: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and NPOV, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." The Consumerist held an unscientific user poll which, for whatever reason, ended with EA as the winner over companies that have done far more heinous and even illegal things. News sites then reported on it. The significance appears to end there. Textbook case of undue weight. Nothing wrong with reporting on criticisms of the company business practices as elucidated in reliable sources, but the poll itself is meaningless, so giving it coverage introduces POV. Indrian (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
The section we want to put it in is entitled, "Criticisms (of Electronic Arts)". I'd say a poll criticizing Electronic Arts is just about as significant to that topic as can possibly be. Also, see sentence #1 from the link you provided, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." This is a significant viewpoint that has received significant coverage. (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Neither statement is true. A significant viewpoint is a viewpoint elucidated by multiple sources. This is one poll. Being reported on in multiple sources is not an endorsement of that viewpoint by any source other than the original poll. Multiple polls might make it a significant viewpoint, and multiple reliable sources independently reaching the same conclusion about the company would definitely be a significant viewpoint. In fact, most of the provided sources seem to think naming EA the worst company in America is pretty silly, so that would be a rejection of the viewpoint in the process of reporting on it, further proving this seems to be a minority view among reliable sources. Also, reporting on an event is not significant coverage, as all of these Internet news sources report on dozens of stories a day, making one or two articles per source an insignificant amount of their overall coverage on any given day. Was it a "featured" story (ie something that in a print source would be front page news)? Did the poll inspire several sources to devote a series of articles covering the topic in-depth as opposed to just reporting the facts? Is this poll still being discussed now? If any of the preceding are true, that might be an indicator of significant coverage. If a secondary source or two discussing Electronic Arts mentions the poll, that would also most likely be significant coverage. Just reporting that a poll took place and noting the results is fire-and-forget stuff. If the story has legs, then it might deserve a mention. Indrian (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't know where you're getting these interpretations of policy. I'd say a quarter of a million people identifying EA as worse than BoA is a significant viewpoint. If not a "viewpoint" then a significant event. Whatever you want to call it, it's significant, and significantly covered. What the sources think of the poll is irrelevant. We report on controversies here at Wikipedia, so if the sources consider this poll important enough to dispute, we should consider it important enough to cover. Furthermore, Wikipedia only needs one poll to be significantly covered in order to report on it. We don't need multiple polls to say the same thing in order to report on them. See Iraqi Body Count. Highly disputed and contradicted, yet significant enough to report. More completely unprecedented arguments; where the poll is mentioned is irrelevant. The sources listed are all electronic and won't work like a physical paper. Finally, when the poll was reported on is irrelevant. If that was the case, we would have to gut all kinds of articles on politics, or anything where an award was given based on voting. See Microsoft and IBM. Even historical criticisms are included. That's what we're witnessing now. History happening and then passing. We're not asking for a lot. Perhaps one sentence mentioning the poll. (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support - I have read with interest the arguments over WP:WEIGHT. I did not even know this company existed - or The Consumerist - until notified of this Rfc. I do have to say that rfcs are a great way to discover a bigger world picture - and see what people in other parts of the world see as WP:NOTE. The argument that WP:WEIGHT precludes inclusion of this matter is false. It is clear that Electronic Arts have decided to give the matter weight when they held news conferences and made comment - such as "Forbes - EA Responds To 'Worst Company' Award By Mentioning Past Winners". The LA Times Quotation is also of note. If the matter should be treated as Unscientific Polling - then EA games would be the one's needing to raise that issue and making comment - they have not. I see that the EA COO has been making comment in other places in a most balanced manner - and not calling anything Unscientific.Link. That article alone provides a most sound foundation That shows that the named parties have given the subject weight and also applied balance - allowing WP:V + WP:NPOV to be applied. It even provides balancing arguments. It's all over apart from the wording on the Wiki page. This Rfc should not even be required - Though I can see it's value in avoiding edit-wars. I detect a strong whiff of WP:COI across page and histories.
    Media-Hound 'D 3rd P^) (talk) 10:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
For someone who has been awarded a civility barnstar, you sure are pretty uncivil. Your points are valid, and I agree that EA feeling the urge to respond to the poll may be an indicator of a slightly higher level of notoriety, although your interpretation of WEIGHT is skewed because the policy refers to weight given in reliable sources and has nothing to do with how the subject of a piece of information responded, but personal attacks and lack of assuming good faith? That's bad stuff. I am not an employee in the video game industry, I am not affiliated with Electronic Arts, and while I am a gamer, I don't own anymore EA games than I do any other company, less than most really. Believing that a disagreement over content is automatically about bias helps no discussion, and I would ask you leave your ridiculous accusations out of your otherwise logical arguments. It helps in maintaining that civility you apparently pride yourself for supposedly having. Oh, and I agree an RFC was not necessary. There was a discussion about this, but never an attempt to change the article itself or an edit war of any kind. Anyone could have added this information whenever they wanted, and I agree with the anon's assertion that most people in the previous discussion were in favor of the addition. No one gave an indication that they would go against a consensus. This anon cannot add the information because the page is semi-protected. Its not my or anyone else's fault that no one with the authority to edit the page never decided to add the info.
Now, as to the info itself. I think it could be appropriate if handled well. Just adding a sentence that says EA won this poll would be bad. If however, it is part of a section dealing with gamer perception of the company along with a few other assertions (which should be easy to find) and it is also mentioned that this poll was both unscientific and active during a period when certain fans of the company were particularly mad about Mass Effect (the CNET source links the the poll and Mass Effect, so there is sourcing for that) then I think mentioning the the poll is appropriate to the narrative. That would stop the article from placing undue weight on the results of the poll as opposed to the reality that the poll happened. Indrian (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I'll see if my account is still active, and then look into adding something carefully worded to the article. (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
(The anon) While the ME3 controversy is mentioned by several reliable sources, it is not the only explanation for EA's "win" here. Day 1 DLC, poor support, devouring smaller developers, etc. are mentioned by more sources I think than the ME3 ending. I don't think it's fair, in the to-be-added section to write it in such a way that implies that this vote was just about the ME3 ending. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
A few things. First, I think the vote probably was pretty much about the Mass Effect ending. I don't know how much you followed some of the things ME fans were doing around that time, but they included a charity drive for Child's Play that was taken down by the charity itself because it was misleading. Its not much of a leap to believe that these same actors saw a good opportunity to give EA some bad publicity on this poll, and reliable sources have joined me in making that leap. Second, its DLC and developer buyout practices are not too dissimilar from several high profile video game companies, not to mention entertainment companies in general, yet one does not see so much vitriol thrown at any of these other companies on wikipedia, not even Activision Blizzard, which has received far more negative coverage in the gaming press than EA in recent years. Third, and this is a minor point, the total number of voters in the poll was 250,000 not the total number who voted for EA. Obviously at least 51% voted for EA, but I do not believe the exact figure has been released, just something to keep in mind if you add something about this. Finally, I already stated that I would be fine if this went in as part of a section on general gamer perception of the company, which would include all the things you mention above. On the flipside, however, the timing of the poll with some vast nerd rages across the Internet relating to ME3 does need to be included in order to give full context to the results. To not do so would be to violate wikipedia rules on bias. Pretty much all the reliable sources agree that the poll results are silly, so the article should reflect that while still paying attention to some of the general gamer dissatisfaction that led to said results. Otherwise the results are given undue weight. Indrian (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I was aware of the charity issue, though we can't take that into consideration here until the sources back it up. I recall reading something about gamers "campaigning" for votes for EA, but I don't know whether or not all candidates in this poll had someone campaigning for them. Do you have a specific and particularly damning source for this?
I haven't been keeping tabs on Activision or Blizzard lately, but I don't think we can make any comparison between EA and them without sources.
If I recall, the last round of voting was between just EA and BoA, and EA got 64% of the vote. I haven't looked up the exact procedure, but my impression was that the vote was pretty decisive.
I would not agree with "Pretty much all the reliable sources agree that the poll results are silly." My interpretation was that the sources were surprised that EA was more hated than BoA. Perhaps "impressed" by how hated it is. In any case, condescension or dismissiveness is not something I intend to include. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How about this:

In April of 2012, The Consumerist awarded EA with the title of "Worst Company of America" along with a ceremonial Golden Poo trophy.[1] The record breaking poll drew in more than 250,000 votes and saw EA beating out such regulars as AT&T and Walmart. The final round of voting pitted EA against Bank of America. EA won with 50,575 votes or 64.03%.[2] This result came in the aftermath of the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy which several commentators viewed as a significant contribution to EA's win in the poll.[2][3] Other explanations include use of day-one DLC and EA's habit of acquiring smaller developers to squash competition.[4] EA spokesman John Reseburg responded to the poll by saying, "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."

AzureFury (talk | contribs) 20:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think that is really good. I think this is unbiased and catches all sides of the issue. Indrian (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Glad to hear it. I've added the section to the page and removed the RFC. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 02:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done

Notable games published section[edit]

I started this section way back when, and then it only had a few entries. Others added to it and it has grown to the point that it's nearly unusable. I propose a re-ordering of the section into the format below. All I did was add three sections, which I think are in logical areas, just to break it up and make it more meaningful and easier to digest:

  • Home computer era: I think this title makes sense, based on the time when these games were released. All computers of that era were refered to as "home computers", so it doesn't omit any platforms.
  • PC era: I know this is PC-centric, but I couldn't think of a better name. They released games on the game consoles too, but I couldn't think of a name that included them as well.
  • Current era: is self-explanatory. It contains all the recent games and still active game series.

Here it is:

Some of the most notable and popular games of video game history have been published by EA, and many of these are listed below. Though EA published these titles, they did not always develop them; some were developed by independent game development studios. EA developed their first game in 1987.
Home computer era
PC era
Current era
Electronic Arts also published a number of non-game titles. The most popular of these was closely related to the video game industry and was actually used by several of their developers. Deluxe Paint premiered on the Amiga in 1985 and was later ported to other systems. The last version in the line, Deluxe Paint V, was released in 1994. Other non-game titles include Music Construction Set (and Deluxe Music Construction Set), Deluxe Paint Animation and Instant Music.
EA also published a black and white animation tool called Studio/1, and a series of Paint titles on the Macintosh: Studio/8 and Studio/32 (1990).

An argument could be made for just breaking it up into decades—1980s, 1990s, 2000s, 2010s—but that's not nearly as useful as "eras" and adds difficulty in classifying the game series that just began in those decades (such as the Medal of Honor series, which is still actively developed for). Any comments or suggestions? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'm just going to go ahead and make the change. : ) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

EA Europe[edit]

The headquarters of Electronic Arts in Europe is located in Geneva source. Prior to 2006, it was located in Chertsey, United Kingdom. Saemikneu (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


The redirection on the article says that the introduction is too long for the article. What information should be best to remove and reduce the intro? Lacon432 (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd say everything after "By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers" except the last paragraph, which can remain mostly intact. Just my $.02... — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'd just MOVE that content to a History section. It's good info, just too much for the intro. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 17:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


the edit lockout is preventing more current information from being added, such as the departure of the BioWare founders from the now combined BioWare-Mythic group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

FIFA 13 Universal Acclaim[edit]

FIFA 13 also has Universal Acclaim in Metacritic. -- (talk) 01:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012[edit]

Please change the link from [[AT&T]] to [[AT&T Inc.|AT&T]] for simplifying disambiguation, per Talk:AT&T#Incoming links to AT&T. (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

No. AT&T Inc redirects to AT&T, so there is no reason to change the link. The talk page you link to says much the same thing. Please stop making these requests until you get consenus on this change. RudolfRed (talk) 02:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Electronic Arts Victor[edit]

For the subsidaries section, can we add the Japanese branch Electronic Arts Victor as one? Could we also add all of the Electronic Arts Victor games that are on the article that are not already there add to the List of Electronic Arts games section? Lacon432 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


Lots of complaints out there about EA. Here may be an addition. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've created redirect page Criticism of Electronic Arts here if the article is needed or not like Criticism of Microsoft and Criticism of Walmart. JJ98 (Talk) 20:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe Ybarra[edit]

{{request edit}}

There is some missing and wrong information on this page that I was hoping I could have corrected. In the regards of the first employees, Joe Ybarra was actually one of the first five employee's brought into the company at the beginning of its formation, where he helped Trip Hawkins in defining the roles of Producer and Assistant Producer as well as helping to define the early principles of game design. There is also a mention of Joe Ybarra at the bottom of the page as a current employee, which he is not. He hasn't been with EA for a very long period of time, and we were hoping you could put him in past employees. Any questions can be directed to me, and I will be happy to help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamstarthegchild (talkcontribs) 21:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

have you a source for this? DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Note posted to user talk page regarding lack of a source. If no response by the requester within (say) a week, I recommend this be closed as "declined". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"As of 2010, 40% of console-only gamers were women and the average game player was 34 years old"[edit]

This sounds incredibly inflated, are there any other sources or studies that can back any of that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The reference is right there at the end of that sentence. -- (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

John Ravioli is still listed as being the CEO in infobox[edit]

The article's locked so I can't change it, but he resigned today so it should say vacant. - Sausboss (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

  • No, his resignation is effective March 30. He is still CEO at the present moment. Indrian (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Consumerist poll 2013[edit]

EA has repeated its Consumerist "win" as Worst Company in America, this time by an even larger margin in a repeat of the 2012 final against Bank of America. [1] The Consumerist poll section should be updated with this info. -- (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  • I agree. Winning two years in a row certainly makes this deserving of coverage. Whoever adds this just needs to make sure they stick to what's in the sources and provide balanced commentary as to what this means. While this certainly indicates a high consumer dissatisfaction that goes beyond a single hot issue (such as the Mass Effect 3 ending problem last year), it should not be used as an excuse for random EA-bashing. Indrian (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, why should two small unscientific poll done by a very biased source whose readers represent a very niche anti-Capitalist viewpoint be given so much weight? I'm deleting it.

Yes check.svg Done PraetorianFury (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything published by Consumers' Union should be taken with a grain of salt. CU, and its off-spring Consumer Reports has been sued for publishing fake or made-up reports. Nothing from Consumers' Union can be trusted. CU is not a reliable source for anything. Santamoly (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Funny, the article lists some lawsuits against Consumer Reports, but most of them were found in CR's favor. While they've had some erroneous testing, they've always owned up to it. They've never been sued for publishing fake or made-up reports that I'm able to find. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, they have been sued and just because they won "most" (supposedly) of their lawsuits does not mean that they were right. There are plenty of lawsuit decisions that have been questionable. And the fact they lost any lawsuits proves they are dishonest and untrustworthy. Yeah, they owned up to erroneous tests only because they were called out on it. Who knows how many faulty tests they still have hidden?

"This case is about lying and cheating by Consumers Union for its own financial motives," (George F. Ball, managing counsel Suzuki America quoted in LA Times Aug 19 2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santamoly (talkcontribs)
He had a vested interest to smear Consumers Union. The law found on CU's side every time. This isn't the place to discuss CU. If you want to improve the CU article, please do so on it's talk page. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 21:09, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

And Consumers Union has a vested political and financial interest in lying and cheating. So what's your point? I thought you said CU won "most" of it's lawsuits but now you all they won "every time." So which is it? Looks like the CU fanboys are as untrustworthy as the CU!

On the 15th of april 2014 someone going by removed the entire section about the "worst company in america"-poll from the EA page. Since i can't find any discussion about removing the section in the talk page's history leading up to april 15th, i'm assuming this was vandalism going under the radar. Can someone more proficient in wiki-editing check this out? (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done I've restored the section verbatim as there was no discussion regarding its removal (and considerable support for its inclusion). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Knights of the Old Republic[edit]

I'd like to point out that the article states EA created Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic - they did not. KotOR was created in 2003 by BioWare (who were idnependent), then KotOR 2: The Sith Lords was created by Obsidian Entertainment. There is also the Dark Horse Comics KotOR series - none of which were created by EA. The only aspect of KotOR that was created by EA was Star Wars: The Old Republic, developed by BioWare (who started work on it before being bought out - EA only came in part-way through development). Jamozk Ekhiss (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

2012 Metacritic score and response to Consumerist poll[edit]

I'd like to propose the following two additions:

1. in the game quality section, add: "In 2012, EA’s games were ranked highest of all large publishers in the industry, according to Metacritic."[6]

2. in the Consumerist poll section add: "When asked about the poll by VentureBeat, Frank Gibeau, President of EA Labels, responded “we take it seriously, and want to see it change. In the last few months, we have started making changes to the business practices that gamers clearly don’t like.” Gibeau attributes the elimination of Online Pass, the decision to make The Sims 4 a single-player, offline experience, as well as the unveiling of more new games to the shift in thinking. “The point is we are listening, and we are changing,” Gibeau said. [7]

As a reminder, I work for EA, and I always post edits to Talk for several days before making any changes to the live article. If there's any concern about these suggested edits, I welcome the feedback. Akatkin (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Where are the 1990s?[edit]

The history section skips straight from 1991, when EA was a small developer known for games like M.U.L.E, straight to 2007, when they're a giant corporate behemoth. There is nothing about HOW that transition happened, which is arguably the most interesting part of the whole article! (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Voters Have Spoken: EA Is Your Worst Company In America For 2012!
  2. ^ a b Electronic Arts Named Worst Company in America
  3. ^ EA, named America's worst company, tries to make amends
  4. ^ Electronic Arts: 'Worst company in America'? Consumerist says yes
  5. ^ In 2008, Pinball Construction Set was awarded at the 59th Annual Technology & Engineering Emmy Awards for "User Generated Content/Game Modification": 2008 Tech Emmy Winners
  6. ^
  7. ^