How can you spend entire podcast season criticizing a publisher whilst actively paying them monthly subscription fees?
You can’t. It’s indefensible hypocrisy that exposes the gap between stated principles and actual consumer behaviour. Both hosts subscribe to EA Plus despite spending 10 episodes condemning Electronic Arts for predatory practices, exploitative monetisation, and prioritising shareholder value over quality. The subscription fees fund the exact behaviour being criticized. The monthly payments tell EA that their business model works regardless of vocal opposition. The hypocrisy isn’t just embarrassing personal failing. It demonstrates why corporations ignore consumer complaints—because complaints don’t translate to behaviour changes that affect revenue. EA doesn’t care if you hate them as long as you keep paying. The subscription proves you will.
The Justifications That Don’t Work
The defence that EA Plus functions as extended demo service doesn’t survive scrutiny. Paying £15 for month-long trial to test games before purchasing sounds reasonable until you realise this just means paying EA twice—once for subscription access, once for full game purchase if you enjoy it. The cost structure benefits EA by generating revenue from testing period that used to be free through actual demos. The subscription also creates situations where you play more than intended because you’ve already paid and want to maximise value, which increases engagement exactly as EA designed.
The pattern of forgetting subscriptions also serves EA’s interests perfectly. People subscribe for specific game, play it briefly, forget to cancel, and continue paying for months without using service. These passive subscribers represent pure profit for EA because they generate revenue without consuming server resources or support. The subscription model was designed to exploit exactly this forgetting behaviour. The justification that you’ll remember to cancel doesn’t match reality where subscription services deliberately make cancellation difficult whilst renewal happens automatically.
The distinction between “buying demos” and supporting EA also collapses when examining where money goes. Every subscription payment funds EA’s operations, shareholder dividends, and executive compensation. The money enables the corporate practices being criticized. Claiming to hate EA whilst funding them monthly is contradiction that can’t be resolved through semantic games about subscription purposes. You’re paying EA. They’re receiving your money. Everything else is rationalisation to avoid confronting uncomfortable truth about your own consumer behaviour.
The Developer vs Publisher Myth
The attempt to separate DICE from EA fails because DICE has been wholly owned EA subsidiary since before Battlefield 1942. There’s no meaningful distinction between DICE and EA. The developers work for EA. Their salaries come from EA. The games they make are EA products. The separation some consumers maintain between “good developers” and “evil publishers” is fiction that allows continued purchase of games from companies they claim to oppose. The developers are EA. Supporting their games means supporting EA. The distinction exists to make purchases feel morally acceptable rather than reflecting actual corporate structure.
The emotional appeal about feeling bad for developers also serves to deflect criticism from consumer behaviour to abstract corporate executives. Yes, EA’s leadership makes decisions prioritising profit over quality. However, this doesn’t change that paying EA funds those decisions regardless of whether you feel sympathy for developers implementing them. The sympathy is real but irrelevant to question of whether purchases align with stated opposition to EA’s practices. Feeling bad whilst paying accomplishes nothing except making you feel better about hypocrisy.
The broader pattern of trying to support specific developers whilst opposing publishers also demonstrates misunderstanding of how corporate structures work. FIFA is made by EA Vancouver and EA Romania, wholly owned EA studios. There’s no independence to support. Every pound spent on FIFA goes to EA. The purchase can’t be targeted to reward developers whilst punishing publishers because they’re the same entity. The mental separation exists to justify purchases, not because it reflects reality of corporate ownership and revenue distribution.
What the Subscription Actually Funds
EA Plus subscriptions fund the exact corporate behaviour being criticized. The revenue supports executive compensation packages worth millions whilst studios are closed and developers are laid off to meet quarterly earnings targets. The subscriptions enable aggressive monetisation strategies because they provide baseline recurring revenue allowing EA to experiment with additional monetisation in individual games without risking total revenue collapse. The monthly fees fund lobbying against consumer protection regulations and opposition to initiatives like Stop Killing Games that would limit EA’s ability to revoke access to purchased content.
The subscription model also validates EA’s strategic shift toward service-based revenue over traditional sales. Every subscriber proves that consumers will pay ongoing fees for access rather than demanding ownership of products they purchase. This validation encourages EA to pursue more aggressive service models in future games because subscription success demonstrates market acceptance of paying for access rather than owning games. The long-term effect of subscription adoption is accelerating industry transition away from ownership toward rental models that benefit publishers at consumer expense.
The passive revenue from forgotten subscriptions also funds the exact practices that subscription allegedly circumvents. The argument that subscription lets you test games before buying suggests avoiding bad purchases. However, the subscription revenue enables EA to continue making bad games because passive subscribers fund development regardless of quality. The subscription model removes the market feedback that would punish poor quality through reduced sales. EA gets paid regardless of whether games are good because subscribers pay upfront for access rather than purchasing based on reviews and word of mouth.
The Price Manipulation
EA’s recent price increases for premium editions reaching £100-120 coincide suspiciously with subscription service expansion. The pattern suggests deliberate strategy where base game prices increase to make subscriptions appear more attractive by comparison. Why pay £70 for single game when £15 monthly subscription provides access to entire library? The pricing structure pushes consumers toward subscriptions by making traditional purchases seem increasingly expensive whilst subscription costs remain stable. The manipulation works because consumers evaluate relative value rather than absolute costs, making subscriptions seem reasonable compared to inflated base prices.
The premium edition pricing also creates multiple tiers where standard editions lack content that used to be included, mid-tier editions add back basic features for £80-90, and premium editions at £100+ include everything. This tiering makes subscription attractive because it provides premium access for less than cost of single premium edition. However, the comparison is manipulated because premium editions include inflated content that used to be standard. The subscription seems like value only because traditional purchase options are deliberately overpriced to make rental model attractive.
The long-term effect of accepting this pricing manipulation is normalising subscription model as standard way to access games. Once subscriptions become standard, publishers control pricing through adjusting subscription costs rather than individual game prices. The centralised control over pricing removes consumer ability to vote with wallets on specific games because subscription is all-or-nothing proposition. The shift from per-game purchasing to subscription access represents fundamental transfer of power from consumers to publishers that acceptance of current pricing manipulation enables.
Why Corporations Ignore Complaints
EA doesn’t care about criticism because subscription revenue proves complaints don’t affect behaviour. The vocal opposition to EA’s practices means nothing when those same critics maintain active subscriptions funding the company. The disconnect between words and actions tells EA they can safely ignore consumer outrage because it won’t translate to revenue loss. The criticism might generate negative press but negative press without financial consequences is just noise that EA’s PR department manages rather than substantive threat requiring business model changes.
The subscription revenue also demonstrates that consumers have higher tolerance for practices they claim to oppose than their complaints suggest. People say they hate live service models, predatory monetisation, and prioritising shareholders over quality. However, they keep paying for access to games implementing these practices. The revealed preference through actual spending behaviour contradicts stated preferences expressed through complaints. EA correctly identifies that spending behaviour reveals true preferences whilst complaints represent performative opposition without real commitment.
The pattern extends beyond EA to entire industry where publishers implement controversial practices, face backlash, and then continue because backlash doesn’t affect revenue. Loot boxes generated enormous criticism but remain profitable because critics kept playing and paying. Always-online DRM created outrage but became standard because outraged consumers still purchased games requiring it. The industry learned that vocal minority complaining on social media doesn’t represent broader consumer base that continues purchasing regardless of controversial practices. The subscription hypocrisy is latest iteration of this pattern where criticism is ignored because behaviour proves it’s meaningless.
The Sellout Question
Yes, paying subscriptions to companies you publicly criticise whilst producing content criticising them makes you sellout. The contradiction between stated opposition and actual behaviour demonstrates that principles are negotiable when convenience or entertainment value is at stake. The criticism becomes performance rather than genuine advocacy because it’s not backed by willingness to sacrifice access to products from companies being criticised. The performative opposition serves to signal values whilst actual behaviour reveals those values aren’t important enough to influence purchasing decisions.
The justification that “they make games we want” also exposes the hollowness of criticism. If EA makes games you want enough to subscribe to their service, then they’re successfully serving your preferences as consumer. The criticism of their business practices rings hollow when you’re voluntarily paying them monthly because you value their products. The stance becomes “EA is terrible company that makes games I enjoy enough to give them money every month.” The contradiction is obvious. You can’t simultaneously hate company and be their paying customer without acknowledging the hypocrisy.
The broader pattern of gaming criticism also suffers from this credibility problem where critics maintain financial relationships with companies they criticise. The criticism lacks weight when it’s clear the critic will continue supporting the company regardless of whether practices improve. The publishers correctly identify that criticism from paying customers can be safely ignored because those customers have demonstrated through behaviour that criticism won’t affect their purchasing. The only criticism publishers take seriously comes from people who stop paying, because revenue loss requires response whilst angry subscribers can be ignored.
What This Reveals
The subscription hypocrisy demonstrates that consumer outrage in gaming is largely performative rather than substantive. People enjoy criticising corporations, feeling morally superior through opposition to predatory practices, and signalling values through complaints about industry problems. However, the criticism rarely translates to behaviour changes that would actually pressure companies to reform. The gap between words and actions reveals that opposition to EA’s practices isn’t strong enough to sacrifice access to Battlefield or FIFA. The entertainment value of EA’s games exceeds the moral opposition to their business practices by large enough margin that subscription feels justified despite contradiction.
The pattern also explains why industry practices continue despite widespread criticism. Publishers correctly identify that verbal opposition without financial consequences can be ignored. The subscription revenue proves that consumers will ultimately prioritise access to games over principles about corporate behaviour. This revealed preference tells publishers they can implement controversial practices as long as games remain entertaining enough that consumers won’t actually follow through on threats to stop supporting the company. The calculation is correct because consumers demonstrably won’t sacrifice entertainment for principles when actually forced to choose.
The Uncomfortable Truth
The hypocrisy can’t be resolved through better justifications or semantic distinctions. You either oppose EA enough to stop paying them or you don’t oppose them enough for opposition to matter. The middle ground where you pay them whilst criticising them is contradiction that serves no purpose except making you feel better about supporting practices you claim to oppose. The honest position is acknowledging that EA’s games provide enough value that you’ll tolerate practices you dislike to access them. This doesn’t make you bad person but does require acknowledging that opposition to EA is conditional rather than principled.
The acceptance of this contradiction also means accepting that your criticism carries no weight because it’s not backed by willingness to sacrifice anything. Publishers can safely ignore complaints from subscribers because subscribers have already demonstrated their complaints won’t affect revenue. The criticism becomes background noise rather than pressure for change because it’s clear the criticism is performative rather than serious opposition that might affect business outcomes. The powerlessness of the criticism flows directly from the hypocrisy of maintaining subscriptions whilst claiming to oppose the company receiving those subscription payments.
Is paying EA whilst criticising them defensible hypocrisy we can justify through clever arguments about supporting developers not publishers, or should we acknowledge we’re sellouts whose opposition to EA is performative rather than principled?
