Trevor Longino

For all that people like to knock EA for making crappy games and being a corporate giant that exists to convert steaming manure into money, I really have to argue that their position as a yearly games manufacturer mandates that they produce games of a sub-par quality just to be sure that it comes out on time. I actually feel bad for them.
EA has to make yearly titles because stock holders require it. Anyone who hears the numbers (like this year) that EA sold 5 million copies of Madden alone, at fifty bucks a pop, knows that EA is meeting all of its operating expenses. Heck, they could skip a year or two to bring you a knock-your-socks-off version of Madden and still break even. But a publicly traded company doesn't get the option of making less money than it can possibly make. Shareholders won't let it.
I worked for EA for two years and I know that every single person in the company (every single one, trust me. I talked to a lot of people over two years) knows how EA SPORTS's titles are received by the gaming literati. They are roundly damned. "No new features, bad graphics, blah blah blah."
I also know that everyone at EA wants to make a great game that goes somewhere incredible every year. Time constraints force things to work otherwise. Some of the really awesome features that had to get cut in late alpha because they weren't shaping up are enough to make you cry. I sat in on a meeting where a producer actually offered his car to anyone who could figure out how to keep a feature in one of the games that just wasn't going to make it.
So the next time you slam EA because of a bug, or a missing gameplay feature, or a player rating that you feel is just awful, consider that it's not wholly their fault. Their successes have bred an environment where they cannot afford to take the time to, as some companies do, ship it, "when it's done."
And frankly, even though I don't like sports games, I think that EA makes a pretty good product. You can focus on the bad parts of it, sure, but five million people clearly got their enjoyment out of it, which is all anyone can ask from a video game.

I'm not entirely sure what the article is saying--I found the wording a cit confusing--but I can relate to RSI's and gameplay. I worked as a gameplay tester for EA for two years and let me tell you, nothing hurt my right thumb like NASCAR racing. I finally had to rubber band my thumb to my palm for two weeks so I'd stop using it for typing, opening doors, or anything else.
Of course, since then I haven't spent ten hour days turning left, so it's been less of a problem. :D

I would contend that, illness or not, stupidity or not, most people who can't read are probably not going to be in the income bracket to enjoy video games. The less education you have (according to Time Magazine, now; I'm not pulling this out of my butt) the longer hours you work. Figuring that illiterate equates to something less than a 5th grade education, time magazine suggests you'll be working something like nine and half hours a day. How would you find time to play games?
Of course, writing this I contemplate the irony of discussing longer work days for the less educated when I am working ten hour days myself most of this holiday season. Ah well, I don't have time to play games either.