None of the companies that hold patents on GMO's and block any research, outside their own labs/paid for scientist, into the dangers of their products, as well, blocking any legislation that would publicly identify food products that contain them. With Autism and Cancer on the rise, who knows what it could be leading to it, but considering how things normally work with us, I'd guess its the things that go through the front hole.
There's nothing on the companies manipulating medical prices, so I can't get that.
I think I'd vote Comcast/AT&T bullshit with cable/internet prices. (Googles internet access through fiber optics can't come fast enough.)
Second would be pretty much every (cell) phone company for pretty much the same reason.
Blaming EA, is like blaming share holders, pretty much all share holders are bad, especially for games. I've hated EA ever since dead space 2. Never got a chance with Mass Effect.
Tsuvian wrote...
I didn't miss your point,
it is entirely reasonable to believe that an increase in unit sales also means that people enjoyed the game more. My reasoning is further backed up by the fact that Dragon Age II did significantly worse than it's predecessor because simply put, it just wasn't as good a game and less people & critics recommended that it should be bought and gave it lower ratings. The opposite is true for Mass Effect 3. This shows that there is definitely a correlation between the financial success of a game and quality of game-play as viewed by the general masses.
You really completely underestimate the effects of commercialism. Mass Effect 3 received more advertisement than any other title, I've seen, from EA. Also the "amount" of critics doesn't matter, its the quality of (to me, their indifference towards publishers and career status), but that's in the criteria of finding a good critic, of course IGN (for example) can easily trick many people to buy games since they are well known though..