Talk:Electronic Arts/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rumorang

Is it related to Numberwang? Davhorn (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:EA Sports.png

The image Image:EA Sports.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:The sims 2.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Maxis - both current and former?

Maxis is both listed as a defunct EA studio and a current one. Technically, this is correct as Will Wright's development studio is now based in Emeryville, and the Maxis brand has been transferred with him. What was Maxis is now an EA studio. Perhaps some better delineation between 'old' and 'new' Maxis is necessary (both in this and the main Maxis article)? Sslaxx (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Article Links

Someone needs to link Mirrors edge to the game's article as I cant get it to link. Vexrog (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What are you asking for? Here's a link to the game article, however: Mirror's Edge. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is EA hurting the industry?

EA's always acting in it's own corporate interest, as any company should be expected to do, but critics all over the internet allege that EA is hurting the videogame industry. Critics in forums, in videogames, on youtube, in blogs, and even in fairly high profile game reviews and "infotainment" have formed something of an EA bashing band wagon in which EA is accused of writing it's own reviews and citing them in commercials, attempting to take over and liquidate their competition to establish a virtual monopoly, and attempting to flood the market with low quality and cheaply made games relying on commercial advertisements and hype to sell them.

I don't know how much of this is true, but it would make for interesting discussion since there are plenty of sections here on the Electronic Arts page that seem to be criticizing EA--67.58.85.10 (talk) 05:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you can find verifiable and reliable refs, go ahead. But don't unbalance the article. EA got to where it is by releasing popular games. Sure they put out a lot of crap too—most publishers do. But they couldn't survive if that's all they put out. Writing their own reviews? Where? Sony did that with movie reviews and it really bit them in the butt. I'm not in love with EA, but this type of hype is levied against most large businesses. Verifiable, reliable refs (FYI, forums, YouTube videos and blogs are not valid refs). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 13:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually not calling for any additions, I just thought it would be interesting to see people discuss in an intelligent manner. Wikipedia is great for this because people actually have to back up their claims, so unlike on an Internet forum or in Youtube Video or in video game chat interfaces people can't just throw out a bunch of claims and hope some of them stick. I had read that EA wrote their own reviews for Skate 2 and highlighted them during their TV commercials, which were highlited on Youtube, but I'm unsure of this and being the skeptic that I am I try not to take too much of anything at face value after all. 67.58.85.10 (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the talk page is really only for discussing changes or improvements to the article, not random discussions. Sorry, but if you aren't actually looking to change the article, you should bring your discussion somewhere else. Yes, on Wikipedia editors have to back up their claims, but only when looking to change an article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Major layoffs

I read yesterday that EA is laying off 1100 people, about 11% of its workforce (I'm not gonna put a ref in here, there are hundreds, just do a search on Google News). I was looking for a place to insert this information, but there isn't an obvious place. After the lead-in, the article launches immediately into criticism (this doesn't seem very NPOV). There is a "Corporate affairs" section, but all it talks about are EA's logos.

I seem to remember there used to be a "History" section to the article (such as in this version), but that is long gone (but seems an obvious topic for an encyclopedia to cover). Where should this news be inserted? Will it require resurrecting sections that were deleted (for who knows why) long ago? Or undertaking a major restructure to the article? Please chime in. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Silly me, I was looking at a vandalized version of the article. Thanks to Indrian for restoring it. I added the above information to the bottom of the History section. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 16:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It's great to know that the EA CEO and board still have enough money to fly on private jets, gamble constantly, eat the over priced refuse of the food industry (fish eggs and the like) and take long tropical vacations between conferences and media showings. --67.58.85.10 (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least they're not doing it with taxpayer money. :-) — Frecklefσσt | Talk 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you use the real EA logo for a change.

Seriously.

This article is supposedly about being accurate, yet for several years now Electronic Arts has change the company logo on the majority of products (aka the non-EA Sports ones) into that oval shaped EA containing image. How do supposed experts of Electronic Arts manage to not keep up with simple marketing/branding image changes done by this company? Yet they are all over the negative publicity in this article.

--EMU-LMAO (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• And yet, if you visit their forums, they have not kept their logos up to date either, by your reckoning. So then what really is your point, aside from trying to start an argument? Rather than complain, why don't you take some initiative and do it yourself if it bothers you that much? Would it not have been easier to change one line in the image tag as opposed to typing out a 90-word complaint here? Frankly, with the literally dozens of different logos that EA continues to use even today, I'm not that interested in which one you think is "most current". You want it changed? You do the leg work. Braidedheadman (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't live in these internets where you clearly live in. Are you one of those Netizens we hear about in the real world? In the real world we have a fancy EA logo which has a big oval circle around it and is usually black on the box. By the way, I just love the Wikipedia politics, which is a total turn-off. Maybe you can work on a free encyclopedia with smarty know-it-alls that apparently live and thrive on the words found on the Internet, and not the real world.

Summary. So EA logo with an oval circle around it, usually black. Use that, since EA puts it on every product they ship to these amazing retail outlets in the real world. --EMU-LMAO (talk) 04:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

EA Partners

I'm seeing things in various articles referring to the EA Partners program, but nothing really in this article. I read an article in Game Informer about it and was looking for more information, but didn't really find any. I think it would make a good addition to this article, and quite pssibly have it's own article, since it has been around for 12 years and helped put out some truly awesome games (System Shock 2, Left 4 Dead). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorddragyn (talk • contribs) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody should mention that John Carmack and id Software bailed from the EA Partners program once the acquisition deal with Bethesda fell through. I don't know how to put it, though. I'm not editing to preserve quality standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.26.199.219 (talk) 05:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Excessive copyright tag

Why is there a tag claiming there's improper use of copyrighted materials? Everything in the article seems to be acceptable as fair use. Maybe EA is up to their old tricks again... Dashwarts (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to change "EA" from Electronics Arts primary topic to disambiguation page

See Talk:EA (disambiguation)#Requested move 2. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

History?

This revision of the article has a comprehensive history, but it's missing from the latest versions of this article. What happened to it? Why was it removed? Was it simple vandalism or was it removed for some other reason? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this revision from back in February is responsible for deleting the history. I'm restoring it. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia section

I removed the section on "Wikipedia". In the context of a multi-billion dollar business, whose other "contentious issues" are things like employment policies and anti-trust lawsuits, the fact that someone from the business once tried to edit Wikipedia as an IP in a biased manner just isn't due weight, unless it really did become (or was connected to) a big scandal. I've removed this. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This should be removed and kept off as truly inconsequential. You will probably have an uphill fight against a couple of editors here, however. This is not the first time we have tried to get this out. Indrian (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I never thought it was very noteworthy. Who's to say it was EA management that did the editing and not some random employee. Thousands of employees have an EA IP address when accessing the Internet from the workplace. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 11:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree either and the only reason I reverted was that I thought it should be a discussion, which it has now become. If the section was deleted, I would have no issue and totally understand the logic behind that. MrMarmite (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, I've re-removed the navel gazing. –xeno^talk 15:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection: Vandalism

I think the article should be temporarily semi-protected due to explicit vandalism, it's getting quite annoying, and the vandalism is coming mostly from IP addresses. GWPSP090 (GO!) (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Whole Lotta Bitchin' Going On

...in this article. I have read previous comments explaining that the Criticism section was introduced or expanded to counter Corporate fluff. Seems to me that two wrongs don't make a right. Wouldn't it be better to edit the article to be neutral/unbiased/whatever rather than just placing heavier and heavier weights on each end of the see-saw? 92.234.49.13 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please correct.

Just a small recommendation. It should read at the very beginning that EA is an American company and not an international. A company is from the country that its headquarters are located in. If you look at all the other big companies like Suare Enix, Ubisoft etc. they are listed as companies from countries that their headquarters are located in (Japan and France for those two) and not as international ones even though they have offices and employees all over the world. EA is not any different. EA was founded by Trip Hawkins (an American), and it's based in Redwood City, California, U.S.A. Therefore it should say at the beginning of the article that "Electronic Arts, Inc. (EA) (NASDAQ: ERTS)[3] is an American developer, marketer, publisher and distributor of video games." "An international company" would mean that a company was actually owned by many countries which none of those companies are since they all are privately owned. And all the offices and studios those companies have around the world are still owned by those companies and not by those countries. So when you write something that it's meant to be an informational article about a company you should use the country that company is actually from and not the term "international". Please correct that. Thank you.

P.S. Please excuse any writing mistakes I made. English is not my native language.

Points well taken. Changed article lead to your recommendation. Fair warning, though, it may be changed by other editors. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Update To Overview

As a representative of Electronic Arts, I would like to make the following suggested changes to 2nd and 3rd paragraph in the overview section. These changes are primarily meant to bring our entry up-to-date. Feedback on the proposed updates is welcome -- Andy Katkin, Editor in Chief, EA.com

Originally, EA was a home computing game publisher. In the late 1980s, the company began developing games in-house and supported consoles by the early 1990s. EA later grew via acquisition of several successful developers. By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers. On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011. EA has moved into providing new digital gaming goods and services (including downloadable games, paid do wnloadable content, mobile games and social games), and reported $833 million in sales of digital goods for the 12 months ending in March, up 46 percent from the year-earlier period. "That figure blew away analysts' estimates of about $750 million, with the company now tracing 22 percent of its $3.8 billion in revenue to virtual wares. It expects digital sales to pass $1 billion this year."

Currently, EA develops and publishes games under several labels including EA SPORTS titles, Madden NFL, FIFA Soccer, NHL, and NBA Jam. Other EA labels produce established franchises such as Battlefield, Need For Speed, The Sims, Medal of Honor, Command & Conquer, as well as newer franchises such as Dead Space, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Army of Two and Star Wars The Old Republic, produced in partnership with LucasArts. EA also owns and operates major gaming studios in Tiburon in Orlando, Burnaby, Vancouver, Montreal and DICE in Sweden.

UPDATE - June 29th. Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and move this text over to the live article. If anyone has issues with this update, please leave me a note. We're eager to work with the Wikipedia community to keep our entry as factual and current as possible, and we want to do so within the guidelines and accepted community standards of the site.

Akatkin (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional Updates To Overview

Hello Wikipedia - This is Andy Katkin, editor for ea.com, back again with some additional updates to the overview section fo EA's Wikipedia entry. As with the previous updates, I am suggesting these changes as a representative of EA and would be happy to work with the community to reach consensus on the text if any objections are raised.

The new text updates and augments the content in the 3rd paragraph. The 1st two paragraphs, and the first 3 sentences in the 3rd paragraph remain unchanged. New text follows:

EA began to move toward direct distribution of digital games and services with the acquisition of the popular online gaming site Pogo.com in 2001. In 2009 EA acquired the London-based social gaming startup Playfish, and in June 2011, EA launched Origin, an online service to sell downloadable games directly to consumers. In July, 2011 EA announced that it had acquired PopCap Games, the company behind such hits as Plants vs. Zombies, Bejeweled, Peggle and Zuma.

EA is currently the No. 1 publisher in Western markets with a 16% segment share. With the acquisition of PopCap, EA regained its position as the No. 2 publisher of games on Facebook.

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.” 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.”

EA has moved into providing new digital gaming goods and services (including downloadable games, paid downloadable content, mobile games and social games), and revenue from digital sales this year “will likely total between $1.1 billion and $1.15 billion, representing a dramatic change in the company's business model.” EA earned $833 million in digital revenue last year.

EA’s earnings are marked by an ongoing difference between non-GAAP and GAAP accounting – which, for example, mandates deferrals of revenue related to services provided for online-enabled packaged goods and digital content. Consequently, EA’s quarterly reports reflect hundreds of millions of dollars which, under GAAP accounting, are deferred for a period of months – then appear in the earnings over multiple quarters subsequent to the original sale. Other companies with significant online revenues face similar issues. This can make it extremely difficult to understand the company’s GAAP profitability.

UPDATE AUGUST 8: Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and update the live article for EA.

Akatkin (talk) 19:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Other games

There are upcoming 2011 and 2012 games that are not on the "Upcoming games" list, such as NFL Blitz and Grand Slam Tennis 2. Some of these games would be redirected to articles relating to them, but would still be shown on those articles and confirmed by EA's website. Can I add them? Lacon432 (talk) 17:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Update On EA's Digital Growth

Hello Wikipedia - It's Andy Katkin, the editor for ea.com, back again to make a few more updates to the Wikipedia entry for Electronic Arts. These updates focus on EA's recent reorganization of its digital division, as well as a recognition that in 2011 EA earned over $1b in digital revenue. If anyone has any feedback on the proposed changes, please let me know...

Changes begin with the 2nd paragraph which would be updated to read:

Originally, EA was a home computing game publisher. In the late 1980s, the company began developing games in-house and supported consoles by the early 1990s. EA later grew via acquisition of several successful developers. By the early 2000s, EA had become one of the world's largest third-party publishers. On May 4, 2011, EA reported $3.8 billion in revenues for the fiscal year ending March 2011, and on January 13, 2012, EA announced that it had exceeded $1 billion in digital revenue during the previous calendar year. [ADD CITATION: http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-reshuffles-after-1-billion-in-digital-year/]. In a note to employees, EA CEO John Riccitiello called this “an incredibly important milestone” for the company. [ADD CITATION: http://kotaku.com/5875652/this-is-what-eas-up-to-on-the-day-zynga-hired-one-of-their-top-guys] EA began to move toward direct distribution of digital games and services with the acquisition of the popular online gaming site Pogo.com in 2001.[4] In 2009, EA acquired the London-based social gaming startup Playfish,[5] and in June 2011, EA launched Origin, an online service to sell downloadable games directly to consumers.[6] In July 2011, EA announced that it had acquired PopCap Games, the company behind hits such as Plants vs. Zombies and Bejeweled.[7]

Paragraph 3 would be added:

EA continued its shift toward digital goods in 2012, folding its mobile-focused EA Interactive (EAi) division “into other organizations throughout the company, specifically those divisions led by EA Labels president Frank Gibeau, COO Peter Moore, and CTO Rajat Taneja, and EVP of digital Kristian Segerstrale.” [ADD CITATION: http://www.gamasurtra.com/view/news/39623/EA_reorganizes_after_a_landmark_1B_digital_year.php]

Paragraph 5 which begins with "EA has moved into providing new digital gaming" would be removed.

As always, we are eager to work with the Wikipedia community to make sure these updates are vetted before going live. Please let me know if you have any feedback.

Akatkin (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hearing no objections, I am going to go ahead and move this new text over to the live article.

Akatkin (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Query re: EA updating their own entry

Why are we letting EA write their own Wikipedia entry? Half that text is unnecessary fluff rather than neutral POV facts.

EA Gothenburg

EA has just opened a studio in Gothenburg, could someone please add this (protected). The sources are this job page and this article: https://jobs.ea.com/search/advanced.do?q=&globalRegionID=a1W500000004CCcEAM&locationID=a1W500000004MBOEA2&jobCategoryID=

http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/05/ea-opens-ea-gothenburg-studio-focused-on-frostbite-2-projects/ --Hentheden (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2012

Add Mass Effect 3 as an Electronic Arts game release in 2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_Effect_3)

46.59.28.80 (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done for now: The list at Electronic_Arts#2012_release, to which I assume you are referring, is a list of "Games in development". Mass Effect 3 was released on March 6 2012.

If you, instead, were requesting to add it to the "Notable games published" list, you'd need consensus for that, I think, especially as it is a new title.

FYI, there is also this article: List of Electronic Arts games, which is a list of games. This article is primarily about the company. Begoon ^talk 04:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)