Ce sujet est fermé
Hmm... you know I kind of see where outlaw109 is comming fromSpeaking of which they would I believe violate several federal laws include one really really old Alabama state law on aiding embezzlement. So EA probably not going to do something ridiculous like sell CC numbers.outlaw1109 wrote...
And that's your choice, but I'm not missing out on games I want to play because Origin might data mine some useless crap on my PC.jamesp81 wrote...I think I'll live.
I have nothing to hide or get upset about if EA sees it...I might be ashamed if they ask about it, but that's something else...
(thinking about it, they already have my CC info b/c I bought ME1 and 2 from the EA store, and that's the only real information I care about...)
Honestly, I am more concerned that with how negative viewer responses have been and how honestly EA might make the same mistakes that threaten Playstations solvency as a company and costed facebook a millions dollars in class action lawsuit payments.However, I most mentioned that stuff in my previous post, so I do want to point out something new. Have any of the members of this forum or Mass ever heard of a book called Compass of Pleasure by Dr. David Linden? If not you should check it out at local library or buy it sometime. Because he gave some interesting reason of why corporation take such risks such as limiting PC verson of Mass Effect 3 as an Orgin exclusive on its given platforms. Its the same deep rooted psychological reason great leader's like Casey Huden's risk in who he chose new to bring on the Mass Effect 3 project and what he decided to change from the old game.Fortunitely, you don't have to buy his book because Dr. Linden recently repeated his conclusions about psychology of corporation in an New York Times article:www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24addicts.html
Now ignoring the shallow and stupid conclusions, like "Did Dr. Linden just say that CEO are drug addicts?" or that "Do drug addicts make the best CEO?", consider seriously what Dr. Linden is saying. After all his point is not addiction under the traditionally sense of the word because their is no way under the traditional (Plus, he actually redefines the term addict if you were to read his book or know anything about the man)Baltimore
WHEN we think of the qualities we seek in visionary leaders, we think of intelligence, creativity, wisdom and charisma, but also the drive to succeed, a hunger for innovation, a willingness to challenge established ideas and practices.
But in fact, the psychological profile of a compelling leader — think of tech pioneers like Jeff Bezos, Larry Ellison and Steven P. Jobs — is also that of the compulsive risk-taker, someone with a high degree of novelty-seeking behavior. In short, what we seek in leaders is often the same kind of personality type that is found in addicts, whether they are dependent on gambling, alcohol, sex or drugs.
How can this be? We typically see addicts as weak-willed losers, and chief executives and entrepreneurs are people with discipline and fortitude. To understand this apparent contradiction we need to look under the hood of the brain, and in particular at the functions that relate to pleasure and reward.
As a key motivator, pleasure is central to learning; if we did not find food, water and sex rewarding we would not survive and have children. Pleasure evokes neural signals that converge on a small group of interconnected brain areas called the medial forebrain pleasure circuit — tiny clumps of neurons in which the neurotransmitter dopamine plays a crucial role.
This dopamine-using pleasure circuitry, refined over millenniums of evolution, can also be artificially activated by some, but not all, psychoactive substances that carry a risk for addiction, like cocaine, heroin, nicotine or alcohol. Our brain’s pleasure circuits are also hard-wired to be activated by unpredictable rewards: While a roulette wheel is spinning or horses are on the track, we get a pleasure buzz even if we don’t get a payout in the end. Uncertainty itself can be rewarding — clearly a useful attribute for high-risk, high-reward business ventures.
So why do some people become addicted to drugs, alcohol, gambling or sex while others can indulge in a moderate, noncompulsive manner? One hypothesis is that addicts feel those pleasures unusually strongly and are motivated to seek them more intently. It’s reasonable, but wrong. Evidence from animal experiments and human brain scans indicates that the opposite is true: Addicts want their pleasures more but like them less.
We’re now starting to understand the biology behind the blunted pleasure of addicts. From studies comparing identical and fraternal twins, it is estimated that genetic factors account for 40 to 60 percent of the variation in the risk for addiction. But we are only in the early stages of understanding the role of genes in addiction; there is no one “addiction gene,” but it is likely that a large number of genes are involved in this complex trait.
Crucially, genetic variants that suppress dopamine signaling in the pleasure circuit substantially increase pleasure- and novelty-seeking behaviors — their bearers must seek high levels of stimulation to reach the same level of pleasure that others can achieve with more moderate indulgence. Those blunted dopamine receptor variants are associated with substantially increased risk of addiction to a range of substances and behaviors.
Is there a silver lining to the addictive personality? Some of our most revered historical figures were addicts — not only the obvious creative types like Charles Baudelaire (hashish and opium) and Aldous Huxley (alcohol and the nonaddictive hallucinogens mescaline and LSD), but also scientists like Sigmund Freud (cocaine) and warriors and statesmen from Alexander the Great and Winston Churchill (both known to be heavy drinkers) to Otto von Bismarck, the unifier of Germany, who typically drank two bottles of wine with lunch and topped them off with a little morphine in the evening.
Leaders in America rarely admit to addictions in public, but one recent example is Henry T. Nicholas III, a founder of Broadcom, a multibillion-dollar company that makes microchips for cellphones, game consoles, wireless headsets and other electronic devices. Starting with a $10,000 investment, Mr. Nicholas and his partners created a company that now has 9,000 employees and 5,100 patents. Along the way, he struggled with alcohol, cocaine and Ecstasy; he entered a rehab program in 2008. (He also successfully fought off criminal charges related to backdating stock options and drug distribution.)
The risk-taking, novelty-seeking and obsessive personality traits often found in addicts can be harnessed to make them very effective in the workplace. For many leaders, it’s not the case that they succeed in spite of their addiction; rather, the same brain wiring and chemistry that make them addicts also confer on them behavioral traits that serve them well.
So, when searching for your organization’s next leader, look for someone with an attenuated dopamine function: someone who is never satisfied with the status quo, someone who wants the feeling of success more than others — but likes it less.
In fact, if you don't get this, lets go to an extreme and consider what Linden said about politics:http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2011/07/15/the-brain-science-behind-gambling-with-the-debt-ceiling/ " The debt ceiling debate is raging in Washington. But what’s going on in the minds of the politicians working on the seemingly intractable problem? Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner and Eric Cantor are all taking calculated risks — bets — that they can win the standoff and get more out of the deal than the other side can. Their strategies are rooted in their politicals beliefs and theories on how government should operate, but their tactics come from the part of the brain that covets social acceptance and individual rewards.
...
humans get caught up in the risky thrill of winning big, sometimes at the expense of correctly understanding what they have to lose. They also compare themselves with their competitors and derive satisfaction from outperforming them — something Linden says humans are simply hardwired to do."
Thus, my point is that the leaders at EA fundamentally do not realize what they have to loose in the risk introducing Mass Effect 3 as Orgin-only for PC without over-addressing some of the user complants of previous issues with Origin.(see *) Its not becuase they are uncaring as they are deeply empathic, but fundamentally becuase they are innovator's and leadership. As David Linden has shown with gift true leadership comes the curse an addiction to improve and never be as sastified as other with ones improvements. (The latter is why we start thank you cards
Because they risk loosing them becuase Origin does not feel like a safe on the internet, they need to address that issue as the other issue of price and the issue quality of service can be worked on in how they introduce Mass Effect 3. Safety on the other hand is something EA has to build like a house over time staring with fixing the foundation. Its a foundaiton that has a few cracks so get fixing. I feel like by reading this thread than any other thread on this topic, the CEOs at EA can at least get an idea of this risk and idea how best to address this safety issue.
Also don't blame EA for taking risks as when has blaming ever resolved anything? Instead, I personally think people who feel strongly about this issue should remind EA of their concerns in a calm collected manor.
(*)Heck I personally now thinking put Origin as Mass Effect 3 is an interesting and good idea since they can provide more direct custumer support. Lets face Steam support simply tails into Bio forums anyways. It how I found out about youg guys and wonderful people like Chris and Stanley. However, the goodness of an idea like this was do not lessen the great risk they are taking.
Modifié par hidden185, 12 janvier 2012 - 04:17 .
Retour en haut
