> They're a publicly traded company.

Period.

Few - if any - at the 'C' level are a game developer or likely even a gamer. Their job is to make a profit selling potatoes or car parts - it doesn't matter.

Depends on the company. I could be wrong but both Sony and Nintendo have a decent number of former developers or engineers as high level execs. Even then, it's just really hard to not be reactive to the markets. There are very few CEOs with that superpower

Yet even then, you can turn a profit without pushing gambling on children.

Them being a gamer or developer doesn't actually add a great deal of value to their leadership abilities. Many are the examples of management justifying bad decisions as a "one of us" move.

What EA and any company of that scale needs most at the top is people who are interested in large-scale workflows, IP management, and labor issues. Some aspects of these things are tied to the creative and intellectual parts of the work, others aren't. But the point of being that big should be to capitalize on unique opportunities to do R&D or push larger-scope experiences. It's not the nickel and diming that makes for lasting success.

The current CEO of the company started as a designer at EA Australia. Many of the people at the (S)VP level had development experience and play games.

Too bad their greed outweighs their good will toward the rest of us. Plenty of dev studios turn a profit without exploiting the weaknesses of their customers. EA's actions aren't really defensible.