EA Building Microtransactions Into All of Its Future Games

An anonymous reader writes "Develop reports on comments from Blake Jorgensen, Electronic Arts' Chief Financial Officer, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference. As you may have guessed from the name of the conference, the business aspect of EA was the topic. Jorgensen said, 'The next and much bigger piece [of the business] is microtransactions within games. ... We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business.' This is particularly distressing given EA's recent implementation of microtransations in Dead Space 3, where you can spend money to improve your weaponry."

Comments

And in a nod to Xzibit

[Anonymous Coward]

They will soon be building microtransactions into their microtransactions, so you can pay money while you're paying money.

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[secondhand_Buddah]

EA are planning on getting a banking license?

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, a license to print money...

That's what banks do. 97% of the money in existence was CREATED, out of nothing, by banks.

www.positivemoney.org

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[Stuarticus]

Not by the people who worked to get that money to give it to the banks?

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[somarilnos]

I have mod points when it's already at 5 :(. This is unjust that we can't mod it up to 11.

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[Anonymous Coward]

The money you worked to earn and give to the banks is then listed once in the liability column of their ledger. Then they take the same amount of money and loan it up to 6 times, to potentially 6 different people, and charge interest. Those loans go in the assets column. There are always more assets than liabilities, and the money they give out 6 times comes from other bank member deposits. Which is why a run on the bank is a great way to start a riot. Most money is virtual. Banks prefer gold for real money. None of this trust crap. That's for suckers like bank members.

Re:And in a nod to Xzibit

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like my bank!

Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Any time you can buy your way to victory is a quick way to lose any hardcore fan base, and most likely the audience that will keep playing your game after release-hype

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Darinbob]

Why is it bad? Is this another one of those things where everyone assumes it's a competitive multiplayer shootemup and you're worried about not keeping up? The issue in single players is irrelevant unless the base game without microtransactions is not fun.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[DrEldarion]

Why? I can see how this would be disastrous in multiplayer, but in single player, being able to buy things to avoid having to grind for them isn't bad, assuming:

1) The cost is reasonable.
2) They don't screw with the game mechanics to make people more likely to want to purchase things.
3) The same content can be unlocked with effort/talent rather than money.

I can think of several games (JRPGs are notoriously bad with this) where to get a certain item or to get to a certain boss, the process was basically "spend 10 hours doing mindless tasks". Currently, there are two choices: don't see the content, or spend valuable time on meaningless tasks unlocking it. Microtransactions provide a third choice.

Again, I want to reiterate that this should always be OPTIONAL, and that the mechanics of the game shouldn't be changed to force people into it. Traditional games should not be turned into Zynga abusefests.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Skapare]

But it's the only way spoiled rich kids can compete.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[sesshomaru]

Game Tester: Wow, you know the single player mode in this game is a lot of fun even without having made even a single microtransaction.

EA Executive: Programmer, make it not fun unless the player pays for microtransactions.

Programmer: By your command.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[GodfatherofSoul]

You mean like how people stopped playing Battlefield when people started buying cheats?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

EA doesn't have "hardcore fan base" to lose, it's been all-casuals for a long long time.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[JMJimmy]

Here's why it's bad:

They're trying to maximize revenue from every game, which on the surface seems like a good thing for them as a company. Unfortunately it's incredibly shortsighted.

Given these assumptions
  - People only have so much money to spend on entertainment.
  - Given finite resources, if you spend more money on one title you have less to spend on another.

There are two real possibilities that I see

1) In a market with little/no competition where gamers spend their money in fewer games because they are concentrating their resources on the games they play most. This means that there will be fewer titles produced because fewer will succeed - the blockbusters will dominate. Fewer games = bored gamers or danger of a massive investment in a blockbuster flopping (see Too Human, Kingdoms of Amulur, etc)

2) In a market with lots of competition they will make themselves less relevant. Smaller publishers do and will offer better deals on games that are just as entertaining. The big publishers are really backing themselves into a corner by rehashing the same game over and over.

3) The free to play trap. Certain games do very well with offering a solid game with optional purchases, but then greedy companies like EA and Microsoft twist that to offer as little as possible to get a person interested and then try to gouge them on "optional" purchases. So called micro transactions running as high as $20 when full retail games can be purchased for less.

By doing any one of these things they alienate their customers, shrink their market (not to be confused with their revenue), and the end result is fewer people playing fewer games. This has already happened to the movie industry where prices are too high to bother, sequels dominate, big budget movies are the name of the game and there are fewer and fewer every year. End result: The demise of the rental industry, fewer people in theatres, and rampant piracy.

Study after study has shown: the more people do something, the more they talk about it with their social circles, the more people become involved. While you may not get as much out of each person, by keeping prices as accessible as possible and a diverse product line you safeguard against major losses and increase the chances of major successes.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Hadlock]

Go read any of the ten page manifestos Valve has written on the subject. Or google this. Or talk to anyone who played TF2 before 2010.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that even if it's only the option of paying for better equipment the the people who aren't paying will feel like they are using an inferior product that they still payed AAA pricing for.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Charliemopps]

That's not the problem. The problem is simple: Microtransactions give the game designer a monetary incentive to make the game grindy and unfun, with paid keys that unlock the grind. This is very clear in most modern games as the biggest selling items are XP boost items. Without them it can take 2 to 4 times as long to advance. What exactly is the publisher selling when they sell XP boost items?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Seumas]

Buying your way to victory very often isn't the case. Take DOTA 2, for example. It's riddled with microtransactions for the F2P title. They don't actually *do* anything. it's still kind of gross, though. Not so much in a F2P game as in everything else, though. Nothing like having a giant "BUY DLC HERE!" or "YOU CAN GET MORE GOLD TO BUY WEAPONS IF YOU PAY REAL MONEY!" buttons in the middle of the game you paid $65 for.

Video games are, increasingly, becoming a demonstration of what happens when a form of art and creativity is taken over completely and absolutely by business. Buy guys who don't refer to things as "games" or "movies" but as "intellectual property". That isn't to say there's anything wrong with treating it like a business, but it's a business whose product is compelling creative content and unique experiences for their customers. Instead, they're finding ways to simultaneously devalue the experience while putting a value on every single thing. It's gross.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Belial6]

They are telling you that their game is so crappy that you will pay them cash to not play it.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think they really care about people who play after the release hype or the hardcore fan base. They certainly aren't going to make much money from them

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Any time you can buy your way to victory is a quick way to lose any hardcore fan base, and most likely the audience that will keep playing your game after release-hype

Buy your way to victory? Oh you silly little consumer you! You'll have the chance to buy your way to parity with all the other people who are buying their way to parity! The best race is the one where you have to run as fast as you can just to not fall behind!

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Luckyo]

So basically you're trusting a corporation to go against its own interests by making a game where 2. doesn't apply and 3. isn't made tedious and boring to maximize profits.

So, I'm living in 21st century. What time are you living in?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[viperidaenz]

You forgot: People don't allocate finite amounts of money to specifically spend on games. If you spend more time playing games, you may spend less money on other forms of entertainment. Spending a little more on a game to get a little more entertainment out of it doesn't mean you will spend less on games in the future. It may mean you spend less on DVD's or something EA/Activision/Blizzard/GameCompanyVendorHere doesn't sell.

Also, if you don't release a few new games every year, you want your customers to keep spending their disposable income on your games, not your competitors.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you pay extra for the ability to skip chapters in a book?

YOU ARE A FUCKING MORON!!!!!!!!

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmer: No, fuck off.

^ That is the correct answer.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[razorshark]

Ha! You assume a typical programmer has the kind of leverage to say such a thing.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Golddess]

EA Executive: You're fired.

^ That is what would happen.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Golddess]

Would you pay extra for the ability to skip chapters in a book?

I don't know, what do CliffsNotes generally run compared to the actual book?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[TubeSteak]

3) The same content can be unlocked with effort/talent rather than money.

Remember when the same content could be unlocked with cheatcodes?
IDDQD, IDKFA, and IDBEHOLD want their microtransactions back

I can think of several games (JRPGs are notoriously bad with this) where to get a certain item or to get to a certain boss, the process was basically "spend 10 hours doing mindless tasks". Currently, there are two choices: don't see the content, or spend valuable time on meaningless tasks unlocking it. Microtransactions provide a third choice.

Cheat codes provide a 3rd choice.
Microtransactions are an anti-gamer 4th choice.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[SerpentMage]

One word... Zynga!!!

Take a good look at that company and how it fared. What EA is proposing is a social game a'la Zynga. The problem is that such a business is showing that it does not work. People get excited about things, but then quickly move away because they are being nickled and dimed to death. People are lazy and the moment you have to keep ponying up money is the moment you say, "is this worth it?" And the moment a player takes a step back and makes that thought you the game producer have lost.

Here is how it goes:

1) Awesome game and I will tell my friends.
2) My friends are into this game
3) Friends have bought feature X and they are playing much faster than I
4) Many I need feature X as well
5) Feature X is awesome!!!
6) Oh wait cool Feature Y is out and I will tell my friends to get it!
7) Now I have Feature X, and Y! Awesome game play
8) Feature Z is out and it is way more awesome.
9) Wait, will there be a feature AA? What is Feature Z going to cost me? How much money am I burning through playing this game?

Step 9 is the brutal step and once your company is associated with this, its game OVER for your company. Hence why I say, look at Zynga. So how is Zynga trying to get out of the maliase? Simple online gambling! Yes the company that tried to make legal and legit games has to look at gambling and addictions that cause you to loose your money.

When will EA, and Activision hit gambling? Earlier than you think IMO.

Re: Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[kainewynd2]

^ Disagree. Hardcore gamers will just play the game as usual. As long as they don't make us pay to *finish* the game, then go for it. That said, I do take issue with Online play microtransactions. In those cases you're forced to suck forever or buy into the culture.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Nefarious Wheel]

Ooohh.... I want to play EA's new game, "Jump the Shark".

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Kreigaffe]

Are they firing programmers now? Last I knew, some penny-pincher figured out it was cheaper to just take them out back and shoot them..

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the mobile game market. It takes months to level up in anything unless you drop cash. Megapolis, The Sims FreePlay, The Simpson's Tapped Out, etc, etc...

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how they killed Tribes: Ascend.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

EA already has added "gambling" to SWTOR.

You can spend REAL money to buy these crate things that contain RANDOM items of questionable in-game value. Now, you can't exactly turn that back into real world money, but you're essentially falling into the Pokemon style situation where you could end up paying hundreds of dollars to get that one "card" you really wanted. Another guy could get it on the first "pack" bought.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[JMJimmy]

a) I prefaced with "given the assumption..."
b) You may not, and not everyone will, but people certainly do. Personally, I won't spend more than 5% of my income on entertainment - 3% of that is earmarked for games. 0% goes to EA, Activision/Blizzard anymore. It mostly goes to used game stores, Valve/2k/Zenimax/Ubisoft/Microsoft though I'm considering dropping Ubisoft from that list due to their abruptly discontinuing servers without notice.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Given Diablo III's loot tables, I think Activision has already jumped the online-gambling-shark, as it were.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[chrismcb]

Here's why it's bad:

So why is it bad? You basically talked about capitalism. What you said is true, whether or not EA uses microtranscations.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[chrismcb]

1) The cost is reasonable.

I'm playing EA's Simpson's Tapped Out right now. And the problem is the "micro" transactions, aren't exactly micro. The largest payout is $100 and lets you buy one of each of the special items. But if you buy it in smaller batches you can easily spent 150 or more. That is insane. Yet it is one of the top gross games on the iPad.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Lisias]

They're trying to maximize revenue from every game, which on the surface seems like a good thing for them as a company. Unfortunately it's incredibly shortsighted.

They, you, me and everybody else are trying to maximize revenue from every [insert your selling product here].

This is allright while the customer has the choice to give them the finger and go buying the thing/service/whatever from someone else.

It's when you get a lockout and starts to abuse the revenue over your customers that things go bad.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[blahplusplus]

", being able to buy things to avoid having to grind for them isn't bad, assuming:"

How is this getting modded up? In the 'bad old days' hard games had cheat codes for people who hit a challenging spot or who don't really like videogames but just the movie bits.

Why you would want to pay for things you can cheat / edit an ini to get is just disturbing. The idea that slashdot users would mod this up is a special kind of stupidity. Are there no gamers left who gamed during the 90's?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[julesh]

Are they firing programmers now? Last I knew, some penny-pincher figured out it was cheaper to just take them out back and shoot them..

Why d'you think they call it "firing"?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Opportunist]

From a moral point of view, maybe, but ya know, despite the rumors and snide jokes, even game programmers want to have a home and live off something but instant noodles.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Opportunist]

You cannot fire game programmers. According to the law, slaves have to be sold.

Then again, considering the average wage of a game coder... you have to feed and shelter slaves... salary is probably lower.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Opportunist]

Now let's ponder for a moment why there is still such a huge market for desktop gaming when everyone and their dog has a mobile device and the games there are cheaper... hmm... could it be that a lot of people do NOT like that kind of game model?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Opportunist]

The danger comes in many forms and has many ugly heads.

The most likely one is that they will deliberately put parts into games that make you WANT to spend money. Tedious grinds and other obstacles that are simply boring and annoying and keep you from playing the game the way you wanted. How about having to run around the map and harvest food every couple hours in that next RPG, or get the everlasting loaf of bread for 5 bucks?

And how long until handing out save games where that hard part you can buy away becomes illegal because it cuts into their profits? What about editing save games to give yourself that awesome weapon that you'd otherwise have to buy, will it be outlawed? Because it's "stealing"?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Opportunist]

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah all those poor programmers who choose to work for EA or an EA owned developer and who choose not to unionize.

They can go to hell. You can't have it both ways. Either unionize and get some muscle for bargaining or don't and get stepped on by the other party. There is no other option.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot: People don't allocate finite amounts of money to specifically spend on games.

Yes they do.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the record bonus the CEO gets before he leaves the company.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[jools33]

Yeah I did this iteration in my head before downloading a single Zynga title. I'd much rather pay once and get a decent game, to hell with micropayments.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Mabhatter]

This is DIABLO... Surely they are more creative usung "fire". ... And sucking souls!

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Mabhatter]

Don't bring legitimate purveyors of "paper crack" into this.... Even in those cases, hat least you get a physical product and "the company" doesn't get any cut of the secondary trading market.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Kingdoms of Amalur sold half a million copies. That is not a "flop." The only reason the company went under is that some moron bet the whole company on the game selling at least 3 million copies. Not very many games sell 3 million copies.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[sapphire wyvern]

I wish I had a mod point for you.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[usuallylost]

Video games tend to be fairly cheap entertainment on a per hour basis. Most of these companies are looking at it as if I can get you to part with an average of a few cents per hour played I make many millions of dollars. I don't necessarily have a problem with them making additional profit as long as it doesn't force me buy stuff to play the game competitively. So if they offer me a variety of vanity gear for my character or cooler looking versions of some weapons for a nominal fee fine. If on the other hand they start charging me for ammo or the special widget that unlocks the 2nd half of the game or something then I have a real issue. My pattern so far is if I can play the game just fine without spending money I might occasionally fork out for something. If I can't be competitive without paying I just go find another game. Unfortunately EA has a rather poor record when it comes to doing the right thing for their customers. So in their specific case my plan is to just wait until there are real reviews out before I buy any of their games.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[dywolf]

Tribes Ascend was fun for a bit. And then they start releasing overpowered instant kill weapons for $$$. And that's when it became unfun. People want to feel like they have a chance in competitive games. Releasing game breaking gameplay elements for money ruins that.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

that argument almost has merit. you can choose to skip parts of a book if you don't wish to read them; I skip a few pages here and there if it gets too slow and detaily on occasion. You can't skip a boring/slow part of a video game (in most cases) unless the game has a built in mechanic to do so (codes, console commands, microtransactions, etc). That said, I'd still be more likely to put down a game and just read a summary of the plot online if it the fun was gone and it became more like a chore to play.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I /loved/ the Dead Space 3 method of microtransactions... largely because it was so easily bypassed with a trainer.
Load the trainer, load the game, pound on the hotkeys for ten or fifteen seconds and I had all the resources I could ever use.

I upgraded my weapons to max and bought all the weapons without paying a cent (well, except for what the game cost. But I bought the damn CD so I should be able to do with it what I want).

Mind you, the game wouldn't have been half as fun if I actually had to play WITHOUT those weapons or - worse - grind for the resources. Ammo and health were plentiful, but it would probably have taken six or seven replays to earn those same resources that a few seconds of slamming the trainer's hotkeys got me.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a better idea. Between the DRM, the requirement for always-online connections, and the micro-transactions (pay $$$$ for the game, then pay $$$$ to stay online, then pay $$$$ for in-game items), what's in it for me to purchase or play their game?

This "micro-payment for everything" disease is already ruining the market for mobile games, and now they want to bring it to desktops and laptops, too? Screw it. Instead of paying THEM not to play their game, I'll save my money, leave it rotting on the shelf, boycott it, and thereby pay myself.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[sesshomaru]

I just thought that the programmers working for EA were 70's style Cylons.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[sesshomaru]

You'd think they'd have gotten a clue from the interview.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, I for one hate swiping my finger across a tiny screen to play a game. I grew up using a mouse ad keyboard, went to the consoles because of friends, until season pass' and micro transaction started to shorten the game length. I also stopped because I have had enough with the crappy multilayer that consoles have, when X-box decided to take away system link that was a bad move IMHO. Now with the PS4 neutered desktop coming out, I look at my gaming rig and think, damn that thing still blows the PS4 out of the water, and I built it 3 years ago. Even the Rig I had from 10 years ago was comparable to the PS4, granted i didnt have 8 cores but I could still play Crisis on it.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

and If you really want, you can sell those cards on the second hand market.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

So if you plan on selling 3 million, and only end up selling half a million, and end up going out of business, you don't consider that a flop? In any other instance that would be considered a huge flop.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the book Twilight?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[JMJimmy]

That's where things get twisted - it's not just "maximizing revenue", it's maximizing revenue over time.

There are two ways this gets lost in our system

1) Selling too cheaply in order to sell volume. This saturates the market and while a lot of people will have your product, because they all do you lose the ability to sell over the long term. If everyone has one, no one will buy one.

2) Gouging. People may fall for it once, maybe even twice, but they'll catch on that they're spending too much on one product and stop buying and possibly leave the market altogether. If people expect to be gouged they won't buy (unless they have to... damn Canadian internet prices)

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Microlith]

even game programmers want to have a home and live off something but instant noodles.

Well given this is EA, they might earn enough to buy a home and something better than instant noodles, but they'll never have time to go home and enjoy them.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

XP boost items save you time. So what they're really doing is selling your life back to you.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Translation Error]

I wish I had a mod point for you.

Click here to buy 5 mod points for $1!!

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

Is more like:

Game Tester: Wow, you know the single player mode in this game is a lot of fun even without having made even a single microtransaction.

EA Executive: Programmer, make it not fun unless the player pays for microtransactions.

Programmer: By your command.

Gamer: Wow, this game is trash, won't spend a dime.

EA Executive: Game Tester, why is this game not selling?

Game Tester: The last modifications made it not fun.

EA Executive: Programmer, you are fired.

EA Executive: Need new game, where are those Diablo guys?

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

To move a pawn, please insert a quarter, to move a biship, insert a dollar, to move a rook, insert a fiver! I'll be rich!

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Lisias]

I see your point. You're right.

I just don't se the words "maximinize revenue" as the best choice for what you are describing - but granted, I'm not a native English speaker. This could be due cultural differences.

You call it ape, I call it monkey. But if "it" calls himself "Cezar", just one of us will get killed. :-)

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

I still have a lot of fun playing C&C Tiberium Wars in off-line single-player mode. I've never logged in to play online because they've made the process so irritating.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Raenex]

I'd buy that for a dollar.

Re:Microtransactions that modify gameplay is bad

[Anonymous Coward]

NO.

Mobile devices do not sport 21" (or greater) displays, neither do they have 5.1 (or better) surround sound!

And..

[Anonymous Coward]

All their games will be free now right?

Re:And..

[cheater512]

Course not.

Oh and in 6 months time they will add advertising to their games as well.
No the retail price won't change with that either.

Re:And..

[GodfatherofSoul]

Actually I like the way ads are added ingame to titles like Battlefield 2142 with the real billboards and posters.

Re:And..

[cheater512]

Oh that must mean its a free easily downloadable game then......huh no it isnt.

You are paying to see ads. Its supposed to be the other way around.

Re:And..

[Anonymous Coward]

They are for me.

*cough*

Re:And..

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Actually I like the way ads are added ingame to titles like Battlefield 2142 with the real billboards and posters.

Because all those vintage 2013 products, services, and brands add so much to the realism of the frozen battlefields of the 22nd century?

Re:And..

[Anonymous Coward]

Ads always start out tasteful and reasonable. It won't last.

Re:And..

[Anonymous Coward]

As an avid Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield 2 player, I did not purchase Battlefield 2142 despite enjoying the demo for the sole reason of the in game advertising.

Re:And..

[L4t3r4lu5]

You are paying to see ads. Its supposed to be the other way around.

Ads paying to see you? http://www.facebook.com/

Re:And..

[gameboyhippo]

Actually, last I heard, they were wanting to up the price to $69.99 on "next gen" games. It's a good thing they don't make anything I enjoy playing.

RIP

[zlives]

Alas, poor EA! we knew thee well

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Rot In Pieces.

EA are bastards, and I for one, will not miss then if they die.

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, poor EA! we knew thee well

Yeah, yeah, we've been hearing that "Rest In Peace [INSERT TRIPLE-A DEVELOPER HERE]" shtick for years now, including for EA repeatedly. Just give it up and accept that you're no longer a part of the lucrative video game market you once were when you were a kid. It'll save you all sorts of disappointment.

Re:RIP

[Omestes]

Just give it up and accept that you're no longer a part of the lucrative video game market you once were when you were a kid.

Despite the fact that I now have a disposable income? When I was a kid I had to beg for game cartridges, and I might have, if I was lucky, gotten one for Xmas and one on my birthday. For the PC I generally only got them from the bargain bin, or used from places like EB (before they were bought by Gamestop). I remember saving like hell for Blizzard and Interplay titles, then beg the remainder from my parents.

Now I might buy a $60 game a month (I generally don't, since there isn't that many good games coming out each month), it isn't that big of a deal. I don't even want to know what I spend on cheap games at GoG and Steam. I can spend money now, I couldn't as a kid. I don't have as much time for bullshit, but I have more money to reward good developers and publishers with. I'm not alone in this, most of the people I know in my age group still play games, tons of them, and now have money. Further, they control the purchases of their children now.

I'd say I'm still very much part of the market.

Re:RIP

[Elbereth]

EA started to suck the minute that Trip Hawkins left.

Re:RIP

[epyT-R]

Rot in feces is more apt..

Re:RIP

[halivar]

They sucked from the moment they bought Origin and ruined it.

Re:RIP

[luther349]

your correct just like the music going to shit and them blaming pirates. the game world shifted to a few select pc games because the stuff on the consoles are total garbage now just like music they keep reusing the same old titles and if that was not bad enough now they dump ads and dlc in them for no reason other to nickle and dime the player base then they wonder why the game console world is inpolding of course they are blaming the economy and older console hardware. not the declining quality rising prices and dlc.

Re:RIP

[Rennt]

The lucrative video gaming market you were a member of no longer exists. It's been replaced by a lucrative consumer milking machine.

Sure, a new video game market is forming around the fringes, but it's far from lucrative.

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

They sucked before that.

What, nobody remembers Fountain of Dreams?

Re:RIP

[Omestes]

Sadly these games still make a ton of money. When you have a market that large, you REALLY have to piss off your customers to make any difference. Further I think most people who play consoles grew up with them exclusively, so never really question things. I don't really know the problem, I'm older, and I've always been mainly a PC gamer so I have a hard time seeing things the way a lot of people do. That isn't an elitist statement, my background is just different.

Re:RIP

[Omestes]

I doubt that. It might not be AS lucrative, but it is still there. How much money do strange retro projects get on Kickstarter? Poke around on Steam and notice how many non-exploitive games are coming out, especially those built on "old school" premises? Sure, we're not talking about as large as console "flashy" games (most modern console games make me think of Michael Bay movies), but it doesn't have to be gargantuan to be profitable.

There are still plenty of big names catering to people like me. CD Projekt RED comes to mind (Witcher franchise), as does Bethesda (for now, at least, who knows with TES online), and Obsidian. Blizzard was a good guy up until really recently (like the last year). Valve is always good, ignoring their love of hats (though TF2 has one of the best free business models, though). On the publisher front Take-Two has generally stayed good guys, as have, again, Bethesda (Zenimax).

On the PC front, at least, things are as dire. I'm not a console gamer, but there is still some hope floating around out there too. Sure, big triple A titles, published by the big two (EA and Activision) generally suck. But there are tons of other games floating around that aren't out to completely exploit me.

Re:RIP

[Hatta]

Hey, I'm in my 30s and I still eat. That doesn't mean I'm part of the McDonald's market. I play a ton of video games too. That doesn't mean I'm part of the EA market. They don't need my money.

Re:RIP

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just playing devil's advocate here

Despite the fact that I now have a disposable income?

Actually, from what you described, you had disposable income back then too. As you said, you managed to save and beg your way to buy games. The difference is more about where the money came from, not the amount of money that went to the industry.

As you also admitted, you don't buy a $60 game a month these days, even if you could. And remember inflation: even if you didn't buy games frequently back then, the few times you did you were giving them good money.

Contrast that to the kids today, who don't mind throwing money consistently at the industry.

Further, they control the purchases of their children now.

That contradicts your earlier account of how you were able to beg your parents help pay for your games. I suspect kids these days are just like you back when you were a kid, and they could save and beg their way to buy the games they want (that is, the Call of Medal Battlefield 23998, the first day DLCs, etc.), so their voice in the market is just as loud if not louder than yours.

So while you may still be a part of the market, you are now a smaller part of it. In an ideal world, every segment will have companies chasing for their money. In the real world, there are always gaps and inefficiencies.

You basically have two options in the face of these gaps and inefficiencies:

1) Just to accept the inefficiencies as a consumer: pay when something you like shows up, go without when nothing turns up. Complain about it and hope somebody else decides to throw you a bone.

2) Do something about it yourself. Invest or start yourself companies who make the type of games you want. Don't just be the guy funding Kickstarter projects when they show up on the site. Be the guy who's giving money (or doing the work himself) before a Kickstarter page even existed.

Re:RIP

[Omestes]

Actually, from what you described, you had disposable income back then too. As you said, you managed to save and beg your way to buy games. The difference is more about where the money came from, not the amount of money that went to the industry.

Technically you are correct. Though back in the Atari and NES days, I couldn't save, and had no income being pretty young. So It was more of a disposable handout, since my parents really didn't get, or like those video game things. More often than not all the neighbor kids would just trade games, or play in someone elses living room. My "spending" was really around $60-120 a year. Later, in the 90's, when Interplay and Blizzard were at their primes, I was old enough to do odd jobs, and actually had my own money. This later part I'd consider disposable income, technically, at least.

As you also admitted, you don't buy a $60 game a month these days, even if you could. And remember inflation: even if you didn't buy games frequently back then, the few times you did you were giving them good money.

It would be interesting to see how much money I shove into the industry now, versus then including inflation. Poking around a bit, it looks like $60 in 1984, is around $104 now. I'm not sure how accurate this is. So I'd have to spend around $200 to break even with my past self (or rather my parents). I know last year I probably beat it, but that was a rare year, and back when I played WoW, I far exceeded it. Its hard to tell, with incidentals like micropayments, small purchases during Steam sales and GoG, and factoring in upgrades and peripherals.

I do see your point though. I'm also a smaller part because the market has grown exponentially since then. Gaming is everywhere, it is ubiquitous and accepted now.

2) Do something about it yourself. Invest or start yourself companies who make the type of games you want. Don't just be the guy funding Kickstarter projects when they show up on the site. Be the guy who's giving money (or doing the work himself) before a Kickstarter page even existed.

This would be nice, but sadly I lack the skills, or enough money to actually fund at the ground-floor. If I did know some folks making a good indie game, I'd buy them a beer, though.

I really don't think everything as as doom-and-gloomy as we think it is. I really do think that we are living in the golden age of gaming, right now. Yes, the big studios are moving to the darkside, but thanks to good distribution networks, and people who grew up on games coding, the market has diversified further than it ever has been. Its getting like music, where it is very rare that I buy something from a big publisher, more and more of my money is going to smaller studios. Sure its less money per purchase, but it feeds more fish now. Which is always a good thing.

Re:RIP

[DiEx-15]

Wait... thought they were dead already? What happened? They become a zombie?

$60 for the game

[Anonymous Coward]

$5 to unlock the start menu

Re:$60 for the game

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's the Windows 8 of gaming. Either pay $5 for start8 or get a free one that's hardly friendly.

Re:$60 for the game

[De Lemming]

Reminds me of DLC Quest, a game which parodies this. You have to pay (with in-game coins) to unlock "features" like moving to the left, sound or animations. I got it a few days ago in the latest Indie Royale Bundle, but that offer has expired now.

Re:$60 for the game

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 8 is a bit more than $60....

This is replacing cheat codes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is replacing cheat codes in every game. Paid cheat codes. And eliminating the old market for "selling your character" on E-Bay by cutting out the middleman and directly funding the game company.

Re:This is replacing cheat codes

[Opportunist]

It's worse. With cheat codes, there was no incentive for the company to make you want to use them. With money, there is. There's a very big incentive to make the game so hard that you want to buy that superspecial weapon and so tedious that you want to buy whatever lets you skip it.

Class system in games

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty soon you will be able to tell if a person is rich by the gun they have in a game. The poor will walk around with pistole's the rich will drive tanks.

Re:Class system in games

[Anonymous Coward]

so its a reality sim?

Re:Class system in games

[IndustrialComplex]

so its a reality sim?

No. In a reality the poor drive around in tanks at the direction of the rich who are too busy playing with pistols at an exclusive game reserve.

Re:Class system in games

[Kenja]

The difference between this and a class system is I can just say to hell with them and play something else. Not that EA isn't already on my "do not buy" list.

Re:Class system in games

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why I just can't take part in this whole generation of games.

I play games because I don't have the money to spend on the things I'd really like to do. Not to remind me that I'm a poor bastard that just can't get ahead no matter what I try.

Re:Class system in games

[argStyopa]

It already happens.
It's quite clear in Planetside 2 who are the players loaded with top-of-the-line optimized gear, vs the shlubs slogging along in the Free 2 Play version, but honestly I don't mind as the game IS free to play. Fair trade in my mind, although it's sometimes a little frustrating to run up against someone who has decent skill AND all the $-bennies...they're simply unbeatable.

No, I'd say the first evidence of what you're talking about are sparkleponies in WoW...in vanilla, it would have been something they threw into a patch update, perhaps a drop from an endgame boss. But they decided to sell it, which meant two things:
1) suddenly TONS of people had it
2) they were almost universally mocked as a blatant example of people who have too much $$.

Re:Class system in games

[gameboyhippo]

Actually in real life, the poor often times spend more wastefully than the rich. They often do this to pretend to be wealthy.

Including retail games?

[Lisias]

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.

But if I pay the full retail price, I expect to be able to enjoy the game in full experience. Paying twice for the privilege of playing an already paid game is not an option for me. It shouldn't even be allowed, at first place.

Re:Including retail games?

[xevioso]

The problem with this is that it undermines the community aspect of games. SimCity 4 has 10 years worth of community-built content, all built for free. It's amazing, truly.

But SimCity 5 most likely will not have this sort of thing, seeing as how you must be online the entire time. What developer wants to make the Empire State Building with their own spare time if EA is going to put it on their store and sell it as a micro-transaction?

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

More to the point, why would EA let the community develop and share their own Empire State Building, when EA could sell it to them each for $6.99 a pop?

Re:Including retail games?

[yoshi_mon]

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.

So you are against the First-sale Doctrine. Ok. That is a common thing these days from people who don't fully understand and or have a much more right wing view of copyright.

I assume you are looking to repeal that also so that books, movies, and all the other things that it covers are changed as well?

Re:Including retail games?

[SydShamino]

More likely, EA would let community developers create an Empire State Building, then sell it via EA's microtransaction site for $6.99, with EA taking a $2 cut.

Then, with huge records showing what items sell best, EA can create their own version of the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building and Lolcat Statue, etc., ban the third-party "copies" from the marketplace, and take all the money then on for themselves for those items, all while letting the community developers make pennies on the rarer stuff to keep the "marketplace thriving".

Re:Including retail games?

[tompaulco]

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.

So you are against the First-sale Doctrine. Ok. That is a common thing these days from people who don't fully understand and or have a much more right wing view of copyright.

I assume you are looking to repeal that also so that books, movies, and all the other things that it covers are changed as well?

I don't know about the gp, but I prefer to pay full price for my software and have it all work. If I pay $60 for a title, I had better not have to buy anything extra to get 100% or to be competitive (if it is online). If someone wants the "free" version of the game, and then has to buy $100 worth of stuff, $1 at a time to play the whole game, that is fine with me. The Banks have managed to do this with "Free checking", where you actually pay more per month than if you bought the next higher level of checking (although why we have to pay someone to earn interest on my money I still can't figure out). But what I simply won't stand for is when I pay top dollar for a title and then have to pay extra just to have basic functionality. Case in Point: Quickbooks. You pay full price for the software, and then they want to charge you extra for payroll services, which were included in the cost in previous versions. They won't let you print W-2s without paying extra. I could go on and on.

Re:Including retail games?

[sesshomaru]

Market Research Guy: Wow, we are making a lot of money on these free, microtransaction oriented games.

EA Executive: Programmer, add microtransactions to our premium $60 retail games. Don't let the players see the best parts of the games unless they pay.

Programmer: By your command.

Re:Including retail games?

[Lemming42]

The answer to your rhetorical question is "because EA gives you a cut of the sales".

Just look at Valve's current efforts with "Steam Workshop", where the community is allowed to build items for their more popular titles.

They recently disclosed that at least one of the people who contributes content has already made over $500,000 from sales of their items.

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same with the Battlefield franchise. No more user created mods or maps. The game is the worse for it.

I got browbeaten by my platoon into buying 'premium' in BF3. Have been disappointed, and will be uninstalling origin in the not too distant future. I certainly won't be buying BF4.

There are so many more indy games to play now, so it is not as if we don't have choice.

Re:Including retail games?

[Murdoch5]

Just offer free and paid in game action like D3. It's fine if you buy the game and then want to go buy the the new gun for $20, as long as that same gun can be earned by someone playing the game for free.

Re:Including retail games?

[luther349]

i miss the old sim city and the crazy expansions it got like streets of sim city and sim copter.

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone wants the "free" version of the game, and then has to buy $100 worth of stuff, $1 at a time to play the whole game, that is fine with me.

Fine with me, too - but they need to be able to resell each of those $1 items to whoever they like, to comply with the doctrine of first sale.

Re:Including retail games?

[hedwards]

Get a better bank. I haven't given my banks any money in years apart from their share of the transaction fees when I use plastic and the interest they make by lending the money out.

Also, as much as I hate MS, Intuit is far, far worse. They charge banks to support their format, and then insist upon changing it from time to time. The thing which really disgusted me was that they're so locked down that at the time, they wouldn't even accept imports from MS Money or anything else.

Re:Including retail games?

[Lisias]

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.

So you are against the First-sale Doctrine.

I can't see the link between my opinion and your conclusion.

I didn't ever touch the used itens problem. There's nothing in my post that can be used to even imply I'm against the First-sale Doctrine. Are you trolling?

By since you touched the matter, if you paid the "full retail" DVD/Blueray/whatever, then the game is yours to do what you want - including selling it for less or for more if you find someone willing to buy it from you.

I assume you are not looking to repeal logic and/or grammar, are you?

Re:Including retail games?

[Lisias]

Just offer free and paid in game action like D3. It's fine if you buy the game and then want to go buy the the new gun for $20, as long as that same gun can be earned by someone playing the game for free.

I don't buy it. As a purchaser, I expect the same experience than the micro-transaction version.

I would not mind someone geting a hard to get issue for 20USD on the micro-transaction version, if I (who paid premium on the retail version) could get the item by a cheat code and have the same experience.

Re:Including retail games?

[ArmchairGeneral]

I was initially excited at the prospect of SimCity 5 being released, but after reading into the design and the plan, I can safely say it's going to be a load of crap. It requires an always-on Internet connection, they say it's for a community based experience, and a little bit for DRM. And when they decide to turn off the servers, that's it for SimCity 5.

I also believe there will be no player-customizable content, certainly at least not to the extent that SimCity 4 still has. And that is why I won't purchase it, and it frustrates me because I know full well others will buy it expecting an improvement over SC4, and it won't, it'll be such a piece of crap. And if it sells poorly, EA will decide there's no future in the SimCity games and kill off any further expansions, and if it sells well, they'll kill it with more microtransactions. I hope someone starts a proper City simulator through KickStarter or similar, I'll throw money at that.

Re:Including retail games?

[Opportunist]

Knowing EA, 2$ will be your share of the 6.99. After you pay 99 for some development kit that lets you build that content and a contract the likes of which are usually signed in blood and handed to you buy some goat legged fellow.

Re:Including retail games?

[Rogerborg]

Steam is not EA though. EA is your dad crashing your party with a baseball hat on backwards, saying "Yo yo wazzup mah whiggas, I'm jiggy wid it".

Re:Including retail games?

[afxgrin]

I really disliked Cities XL. On the surface it seems like a reasonably polished product, but certain game concepts seemed kind of weird. I definitely didn't like the method of zoning - zoning residential space for 'working class' or 'business' workers is one example.

Sadly, I'm such a fan of the SimCity franchise that I'm likely to buy this always-on Internet shit. I get the impression SimCity is moving to a persistent online franchise like WoW is, where you just end up purchasing additional content packs and over the years we'll see incremental graphics improvements to match increasing screen resolution sizes, etc. I'm assuming the only way they can combat annual operating costs for the multiplayer experience is to sell more content to existing customers unless they gain X number of new players per year. I can't see it growing indefinitely, but there is likely some upper limit of subscribers.

I'd imagine a game like WoW has a shrinking user base now considering that game was released almost 10 years ago however according to this article they still have 10 million subscribers, which is only slightly down from their peak of 12 million. That's still $1.7 billion in revenue per year ... I'm sure EA would love to replicate this milking machine.

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

EA is much worse than that. s/dad/grandmother

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

The developers get a cut of the microtransactions?

Re:Including retail games?

[Hatta]

Then, with huge records showing what items sell best, EA can create their own version of the Eiffel Tower and Empire State Building and Lolcat Statue, etc., ban the third-party "copies" from the marketplace, and take all the money then on for themselves for those items

The Empire State Building and Eiffel Tower are trademarked.

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indy? As in racing games?
Yes, now we have a choice between "retro" platformer 453545 and "retro" platformer 546456456.

Re:Including retail games?

[gstoddart]

But if I pay the full retail price, I expect to be able to enjoy the game in full experience. Paying twice for the privilege of playing an already paid game is not an option for me.

I've decided that games which require an internet connection are complete non-starters for me for similar reasons -- because when I started getting ads in my XBox games I decided that Microsoft and the game publishers can screw themselves and disconnected it from the network.

I absolutely hate the trend to put everything into these stupid micro transactions. First I buy the game, then I discover that it's geared in such a way that you can't achieve anything without constantly buying more crap.

The only EA game I'm playing these days is one of the Tiger Woods golf games -- and it's heavily geared to buying shit and steering you towards premium content. It pretty constantly puts up notifications of all the awesome paid shit I'm missing out on.

Me, if the package doesn't say requires an internet connection, I'll consider the game. And once I'm there and don't even have my console hooked to a network .. the micro transactions can just piss off because there's no way I'm participating.

I'm not here to be advertised to or monetized in my game play. I've bought the game, and you don't get anything else from me. If your game required an internet connection, it won't have gotten bought in the first place. If your game can't be played effectively without in-game purchases, well, that's what reviews are for.

Re:Including retail games?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have yet to pay for a steam workshop creation. You can find them almost all for free, or a variation of them. Fallout New Vegas and Skyrim have both given me hours and hours of replay due to the creations of other people, and myself.

Re:Including retail games?

[qwak23]

I really disliked Cities XL. On the surface it seems like a reasonably polished product, but certain game concepts seemed kind of weird. I definitely didn't like the method of zoning - zoning residential space for 'working class' or 'business' workers is one example.

*troll* So what you're saying is that it's the communist version of sim-city? */troll*

Re:Including retail games?

[yoshi_mon]

I can't see the link between my opinion and your conclusion.

As long you you didn't pay for the "retail" version (a.k.a. DVD / Blueray delivered ones), I don't see a problem. The developers has to be paid somehow, and if some people wants to pay for their games this way, no problem.

But if I pay the full retail price, I expect to be able to enjoy the game in full experience. Paying twice for the privilege of playing an already paid game is not an option for me. It shouldn't even be allowed, at first place.

Note the bold there.

Where are you going to go?

[rsilvergun]

If you like big budget titles? Activision's just going to do the same thing you know. Heck, Blizzard already does. I remember watching the 40k players complain about the massive price increases from the last year, but they kept right on buying...

Re:Where are you going to go?

[murdocj]

Blizzard does not do this. The stuff you buy from Blizzard is cosmetic, it doesn't affect gameplay.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

The stuff you buy from Blizzard is cosmetic, it doesn't affect gameplay.

I guess you haven't played Diablo 3.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

See the second part of this article as to how Blizzard chased away a lot of their old D2 fanbase from Diablo 3. Note that although the real money auction house transactions are between players, Blizzard does take a significant cut.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not buying things from Blizzard, you are buying things from other players and Blizzard get's a cut of the action.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not in Diablo III, you can buy the Codpiece of Everlasting Stamina from the realmoney auction house and drastically affect gameplay.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Nemyst]

Nah, instead they just force you to play online even in their so-called "singleplayer" mode.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not buying things from Blizzard, you are buying things from other players and Blizzard get's a cut of the action.

You are not buying things from other players, you are buying things from Blizzard and they give the players a cut of the action so someone plays their shitty game.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

why does that matter? you don't HAVE to buy it. the items for sale in dead space were nothing more than regular powerups you could otherwise obtain in the game by putting the time into it (playing through multiple times, etc). so you can just ignore the shop if you want and play dead space exactly the same as always.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[r0xtarninja]

Diablo 3 is built around the assumption of an auction house. Whether you pay in time via the gold auction house, or in cash with the real money one, if you want to play the game to any appreciable level you WILL use that damn auction house. Drop rates in the game are abysmal to the point where you really cannot properly outfit a character with only items you acquire yourself. THAT is what ruined the game for me. I know people can argue that you are buying items from other players and not Blizzard under this arrangement, but even if you only use the gold AH or just don't participate at all, your gameplay experience is affected.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

More than the AH, the game was just not good, and the things that made it not good (AH included) were terrible elements that seemed to have been lifted from WoW. I tried to remain skeptical (I'm weary of the internet loudly proclaiming that $sequel is officially The Worst Thing Ever and They Changed It Now It's Ruined), but after seeing it in action, the game really isn't good.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[hedwards]

Seeing the video where they were explaining how they could have given a singleplayer game, but that you'd have to start over again if you wanted to play multiplayer and how they were sparing us the work to redo it, was pretty much the death of me giving them any money for the game.

I don't really have any interest in having to play with strangers or connect to the net, because Blizzard is on a power trip.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Dahamma]

True - but that's really not much different from giving your REAL money to a non-FDIC insured investment broker. You give cash and deposit stock to Charles Schwab because you trust they will take your money and stock, digitize them, and not screw it up.

And while I don't think I would trust EA with much, Blizzard has in fact proved - with the most popular MMO in history that deals with bits in databases people value very much - that they are at least moderately trustworthy and won't arbitrarily screw their customers over.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[fredprado]

Simple. If you formerly liked big budget games and they turn into something you can't possibly like anymore you try other things. There are a myriad of smaller budget developers out there, from indies to small and medium companies. Nobody really needs to accept these practices.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Really? What killed D3 for me was the lack of any recognisable variation in repeating levels. Really, too little content.
I'll stick with WoW for the time being.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[julesh]

Blizzard has in fact proved - with the most popular MMO in history

Interesting. I didn't know Blizzard wrote Runescape.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Opportunist]

Which is fine and ok, as long as it stays sane. But given that it's EA we're talking, how long 'til you only have the option to either play the game back to back a zillion times or spend five bucks for even the measliest kind of upgrade?

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Dahamma]

Yeah, fine, I admit I used the wrong word, as we are talking about MONEY in this thread, not useless inactive registered users. I should have said most "profitable" MMO in history. Feel free to debate that.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[BlueParrot]

There's nothing stopping you from setting the difficulty a bit lower and just using items you found yourself. The game has a 10 point difficulty scale, so if you find it too difficult without using AH items, just set the difficulty down. This is by design. People who want to use the auction house can set the difficulty high and bid for items. If you don't like that just set the monster power a bit lower so you can beat the game without resorting to auctioned items.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[DrXym]

It might be that sales are player to player but it's Blizzard which is consistently getting a cut from the action. And Blizzard determines which items are "rare" and their desirability in terms of the traits they bestow. So they control the market and can game it any way they want. There's nothing either to stop them rolling fake players to sell goods to meet demand.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

D3 is filled with unused features that don' do a damn thing. Ok, now I do 300 fire damage! And it's exactly the same as if i would do cold damage, or any other damage. Yeah, maybe there is some slight bonus agains some monsters, but it's so unnoticiable that it doesn't matter. Ice doesn't freeze anything, fire doesn't burn, poison doesn't stack or anything. Drops are rigged. There is no way in hell rng could have given the same unique to both me and my brother both twice in a row at the same time in different games. Basically means some uniques just don't drop. There is no way to get them w/o playing the AH game, which is frankly very boring. Skills were pretty much removed with the re-distribution option, so the only way to actually build your char are the items, that have huge problems.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[dywolf]

no, Blizzard lost a lot of the built in fanbase by releasing a completely linear game with almost 0 replayability.

you dont have to use the RMAH. no one is forcing it.
people do however because the game itself is so utterly boring and uninteresting after the first one or two play throughs. it is almost completely linear. tiny pieces are random, such as "will this one room basement be open on this playthrough?", but that's about it. This makes actually playing the game long enough to get that specific thing you're looking for utterly boring and mindnumbing. Diablo 1 and 2 on the other hand were almost compeltely randomly generated, EVERY TIME. This makes that quest to get something constantly different, the sense of adventuring always there. it takes far longer for boredom to set in when the maps are randomly generated.

the overbearing linearity is what doomed D3. And, given the reason D1 and D2 were so appealing and popular was largely due to that very non-linearity, I'm surprised whomever abandoned that aspect of the core game world didn't get fired.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[dywolf]

the "talent system" was another turn off. and then they infected WoW with it too.
Even worse, all the talents, at least for the witchdoctor and marksman, might as well not even be very different. every "skill branch" seems to have "escape ability X", "AE ability X", "Single target abilty X", "Regenerate X", and so on. just the names and graphics are different.

so basically it boils to whether you want to hit the 1 key to heal, or 2, and want 3 or 4 to be your spam ability....its silly. and jsut a further reflection of the "sameness" that pervades the game, right down to the compeltely linear map design.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Hatta]

That's a shitty implementation of a difficulty slider. Why turn the difficulty up if you're just going to cheat with the auction house?

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

World of Warcraft has high far high active player based than Runescape. Only guild wars has come to close to matching it.

Re:Where are you going to go?

[Anonymous Coward]

well I was playing in hell difficulty things were hard and at one point I was just getting slaughtered.
I took a look at my gear and realized I hadn't found a drop in like 10 levels for my character, and over half of my items were from my first run through. meaning i had played the entire nitemare mode with nearly no upgrades droping for my character.

Went to the AH walked through the rest of the game.

inferno mode is a bit challenging, but when I realized for 10 bucks I could make my character 2000% better, I quit.
Sure i could grind for 100's of hours for that one drop, hell i might have but the grinding wasn't fun.

Micropayment logistics

[Anonymous Coward]

Fine. Charge me micropayments I consent to. Concatenate them monthly or quarterly based on volume. >$15, then bill. Less than that defer to the next cycle or let me opt to prepay with a credit balance. I don't want transaction charges to approximate actual revenues.

JJ

The future of gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

If this is the future of gaming I'll probably retire. I tried Tapped Out (a Simpsons city building type of game) for the Android, and to have a "complete" building set you'd have to spend something like $100 for what's very simplistic gameplay.

Facebook Gold Account

[cosm]

You must be a Battlefield 3 Premium Player to see this comment.

doubtful that consumers are enjoying it

[Trepidity]

Consumers might be "tolerating" it, and many of them might be suckers who're going to buy this stuff, but I doubt there are really many gamers "enjoying and embracing" it.

Didn't they use to call this....

[MasseKid]

Cheat codes? Or you went and downloaded a "trainer"? Seriously, what the hell is this crap where I don't own the game I bought? You want to run a freemium game? Great! I'll happily support the developers for that business model. I will not however buy "half" of a game.

Re: Didn't they use to call this....

[dfeifer]

Actually, you DON'T own the game you bought. The only thing you get with your money is a license granting you the right to play it. Been this way for a while now.

Re: Didn't they use to call this....

[hedwards]

So, they say, but the fact of the matter is that you've bought something, their ability to put their fingers in their ears and go "NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa" doesn't change that. It's certainly not the way that games are advertised in shops nor is that the conclusion most people would make with all those piracy PSAs that decry the stealing. If it's not sold, then that's even more meaningless.

In fact, it's pretty much just the industry that believes that they're licensing things.

Re: Didn't they use to call this....

[nitehawk214]

So, they say, but the fact of the matter is that you've bought something, their ability to put their fingers in their ears and go "NaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNaNa".....

BAT-MAN!

Re: Didn't they use to call this....

[Ostrich25]

I mis-clicked my moderation, hitting 'overrated' instead of 'funny', and that's the only damn reason I'm replying to this thread.

Easy for me

[Anonymous Coward]

I refuse to play games with microtrasactions. Erased my favorite game that I had paid for from my phone when the develop implemented them. This will make decisions in the future easier, EA logo = Bad.

Re:Easy for me

[L4t3r4lu5]

Because Origin and always-online DRM for single player PC games wasn't enough for you?

Re:Easy for me

[Anonymous Coward]

You should try Path of Exile. F2P with only cosmetic microtransactions. The game is still in BETA, yet it is already better than many finished products. You can tell the developers are hardcore, old-school gamers and love PC gaming. They are adamantly against P2W. It's a real breath of fresh air in the fetid world that online gaming has become. The only negative aspect is it's online only, which many people dislike. But it's free, so no harm in giving it a go.

Planetside 2

[StormyWeather]

I personally like how ps2 does this. Weapons can be purchased or cert points can be used. Most default guns are great with some certs put into them, but the other guns are more situational sidegrades. I played a month before spending a dime and didnt feel abused, now I subscribe because I decided I enjoy the game and decided I want to support it. The developers are highly accessible yet firm on decisions. I have seen a few plqyer ideas directly impact the development course of action.

Now, microtransactions in a full retail game? Fuck that. I wont buy it even to give it a chance.

Re:Planetside 2

[Dyinobal]

Ya but sony hasn't really figured out the Micro part of the microtransactions. The only reason I bought anything in that game was because of triple SC day and then spent it on Packs, and daily sales. Doing that stuff was pretty cheap but otherwise a gun costs 7 dollars and you can only buy cash in 5 dollar increments. It's stupid and counter productive if you ask me.

Re:Planetside 2

[tompaulco]

I "purchased" a Red Dead Redemption DLC when it became free. I already paid for the game. If they want to make extra content available, that is fine, but I don't see why I should have to pay for it. Fortunately, RDR did not require you to buy any DLC to complete the game, it was all just extra missions and stuff. If the DLC provided enough extra entertainment value it might be worth it, but some of the DLC was about 1/4 the cost of the game or more. I doubt that it is really worth buying another whole 1/4 of the games price. Maybe if they had enough new missions to where it extended your playability time by 25%, but I doubt it.

Re:Planetside 2

[Omestes]

Weapons can be purchased or cert points can be used.

For a RIDICULOUS amount of cert points. I still haven't really saved up enough certs to fully arm a character, much less upgrade my vehicles. You don't have to spend real money, but if you want to be competitive in under 6 months, you need to. That said, the default weapons aren't bad, and are generally pretty usable. Though if you're a VS Infiltrator you're really going to need a bolt action rifle, and upgrading AA in Max's is pretty much mandatory. I did play several months from launch, and didn't really feel the need to spend real money until I started to get serious about it.

Now, microtransactions in a full retail game? Fuck that. I wont buy it even to give it a chance.

Agreed. The only one I don't mind is Guild Wars 2, since microtransactions are covering server costs and their constant content updates, and don't increase power at all. I've thrown Arenanet a few bucks just because I want to support them, since I like what they are doing, and want them to keep doing it. In GW2, its optional, which is the most important thing for any game with microtransactions. The second I feel like I have to buy something, or the second I get out-competed by someone for anything other than skill, I quit.

I generally give money to F2P games I like, and don't play the ones that try to force it one me.

I'm really sad about TFA, since I've been trying to care about SimCity 5. Always on doesn't bug me as much as it does some, but the fact that they are going to make it like The Sims... that is probably a deal breaker. If ever a game had an annoying business model, it is The Sims.

Damn you Maxis. You were one of the best studios, and now you're pretty much dead.

Re:Planetside 2

[Anonymous Coward]

I have declared you a foe. YOU are part of the problem by contributing to this awful business model. You should feel much shame, but I doubt you do. Your transgressions harm us all.

Re:Planetside 2

[Pubstar]

Blacklight: Retribution has the perfect F2P model. All items can be rented pretty cheap (1 match of in game currency), and it usually takes 5 hours to get an unlock paid for (besides back pack items that take forever). The game is super fun to play, and with the rental system, it stays away from pay 2 win.

Re:Planetside 2

[Pubstar]

Forgot to add: The only things you can't get with in game money are custom camos and certain taunts.

Or, another way to look at it...

[klingers48]

"Moving forward we will balance and tune all our releases towards deliberately-engineered artificial resource scarcity. This will in turn incentivise you opening your wallet to get your game back towards a playable state.

"Please form an orderly queue at the money pit."

Re:Or, another way to look at it...

[Anonymous Coward]

deliberately-engineered artificial resource scarcity

So game goes from 'fun' to 'grinding'. How many people quit playing games because they have to grind? I know I have abandoned hundreds of games because it went from 'this is a blast' to booooooring.

Pet Rock & Carbon Credits

[CncRobot]

I often feel stupid when I hear about the dumb things people sell and my initial reaction is "that has got to be so stupid no one would buy it". Yet over and over again I am proven wrong. Pet rocks are nearly the ultimate of this, along with the green painted ones that were Kryptonite. That was until carbon offset cards were first sold and I was trying to figure out what you were buying with them. As bad of an idea as this is, I already know it will work like gangbusters even when I don't participate.

One day I too will come up with something so stupid and easy to make that everyone will rush out to buy. The only problem is I will think its so dumb I won't bother doing it.

Congratulations EA.

Re:Pet Rock & Carbon Credits

[penix1]

It is simply what all software companies want. A subscription based platform where they can nickle and dime you to death. And you know what? It works. Just look at the thousands of apps for phones that do just that with recurring charges. I have a crap ton of apps on my Nokia (yeah, I know but it works for what I need it to do) that are subscription based. Worse, they are considered a part of the system and cannot be removed. So yeah, a sucker and his money are soon parted.

Re:Pet Rock & Carbon Credits

[kaatochacha]

i had one of those green painted ones. As a kid, I loved that thing since it glowed in the dark. How could a kid, back then, not like anything that GLOWED IN THE DARK???

Or, to put it another way:

[ductonius]

EA Effectively Discouraging Me from Playing All of Its Future Games

Re:Or, to put it another way:

[Anonymous Coward]

For starters, if you weren't discouraged from buying EA games, I have no idea what will discourage you.

Further on, if it does discourage you, you are not their targetted market, EAs targetted market has for a long time been suckers with money that will take any possible abuse. Kinda like pc gamers that were pissed off at COD:MW2 for not having dedicated servers and still bought the game (like my brother, the good thing is you get to see how bad online multiplayer on console can be without even owning a console). If you are among those kind of people, you are exactly who they target.

And lastly, its not like all of their past games have been that great.

Re:Or, to put it another way:

[Anonymous Coward]

Already happened for me when they started making games Origin exclusive

Gah more freemium?

[Anonymous Coward]

I sure hope not. EA has had a bad trot lately and to go the way of Gameloft and Zynga is going to leave me with a road rash I will long to forget.

The good 'ol days.

RIP EA

EA can suck it...

[Anonymous Coward]

So many games turned to total crap after they touch it...
Warhammer aor is a good example...

The Sims 3

[perlith]

started this a LONG time ago with SimPoints. There is a good bit of fun to be had in the base version of the game. However, if you want a laundry basket in your bathroom you have to pay for it!

P.S. I have an alternate suggestion for EA: Season passes. For the Sims3, sell me a season pass for $25/year. You will probably get the same total amount of money out of me over time with this method vs. selling each expansions/stuff packs individually. However, you will have a continuous revenue stream from a flagship game ... something every gaming company desperately wants but has difficulty pulling off after initial release.

I'm Commander Shepard...

[BitwizeGHC]

... and this is my favorite in-app purchase on the Citadel.

That's some executive decision at its finest

[__aaqvdr516]

It takes a good game developer to make a micro transaction model work for a single particular game.

It takes an EA exec to force that model upon every game a publisher makes.

Very different than what I envisioned

[Grayhand]

Five years ago I was researching in game purchases by opening a browser within the game. I saw it as a way to make purchases within a game. Personally I see micro purchases as a major negative if you need those purchases are needed to actually complete a game. If where we are headed is needing to spend even more money to complete the game I just bought I will stop buying games. Enhancements are one thing but I see greed driving the sales and the in game purchases being a part of the game.

Re:Very different than what I envisioned

[Anonymous Coward]

Eventually games will just get difficult. Really really really freakin difficult. This is a boon for hardcore players but they don't get to show off since everyone else buys their way to victory. Eventually games may get so difficult that buying the way through is the only way. A content toll bridge, so to speak.

Pay to play, pay to play effectively, pay to complete, pay to watch the real ending, pay to see the credits, pay to play again, pay to chat in-game. There isn't one thing in this world they can't make you pay or pay twice for.

Misleading Title - EA doesn't do MICROtransactions

[Anonymous Coward]

There's no such thing as MICRO in EA's micro-transactions. They are always in the dollars (plural) range. Micro would mean, at least to me, less than $1. But no just go compare prices. Probably 95% minimum of their digital stuff sells for more than a dollar, and I've seen plenty of "items" that would buy you an ENTIRE GAME on Steam or GoG for the same price, and I don't always mean during their 75% off sales either where games are $5 or less.

The idiots out there can keep supporting this BS, but I won't. Not ever. And you really need to stop calling them micro transactions when they're anything but micro.

captcha: reproach

Kills the fun

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we all love getting our asses kicked by the fourteen year old with the trust fund.

Re:Kills the fun

[tftp]

Doesn't even have to be that bad. Plenty of missions in the GTA games are timed so that you have to run 5-minute mission and at your best you can beat it only by one or two seconds. Want to buy a time dilation pill? Only $3, but this will save you a week of frustration when all of a sudden the mission impossible transforms into a very pleasant boat trip. (Naturally, the pill works only once.)

Or, if you are not playing GTA, try the first encounter with the swarm in the Resistance - when you have no effective weapons, no distance, no cover, and have to retreat while shooting behind your back (which isn't possible.) That swarm may be a boss, but the mission should have a navigable way, a strategy of winning - not just randomly running away and hoping that one of 50 attempts puts you into the elevator ten milliseconds ahead of the foe. To compare, the Cathedral, and the City Square all have effective strategies, and those locations have good replay value. The bad missions completely block your access to good missions until you spend another day, or a week, randomly flailing against the boss that is too strong for you.

A good game should always have a switch that allows you to skip some missions. Not everyone is equally capable - mentally or physically. Why should a one-armed player, or a player with some other disability, be prevented from playing those missions that he chooses to play? The money had been paid for the whole game, shouldn't it be your choice what missions to skip? There are no Nobel Peace Prizes given for beating the game anyway (not that they are worth anything now.)

Re:Kills the fun

[Opportunist]

All nice and fine, and yes, games should have an option to skip a part you simply cannot make. But when that switch has a price tag attached, it becomes mighty tempting for the studios to make it SO hard that you simply cannot solve it without a cheat or by forking over money.

To me it feels a bit like we're heading into computer games that are much like a ring toss game with the rings being too small for the targets. You THINK you could somehow make it, but you simply have no chance unless you give them what they want. And THAT is where I see the real danger with this.

Re:Kills the fun

[Anonymous Coward]

"A good game should always have a switch that allows you to skip some missions. Not everyone is equally capable - mentally or physically. Why should a one-armed player, or a player with some other disability, be prevented from playing those missions that he chooses to play? The money had been paid for the whole game, shouldn't it be your choice what missions to skip? There are no Nobel Peace Prizes given for beating the game anyway (not that they are worth anything now.)"

Yeah, they used to be called "IDDQD".. umm cheat codes, I mean.

Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

Hasn't EA reported nothing but millions in losses and declining revenue the last few quarters? It would seem not enough people are enjoying their new revenue models.

Hollywood

[asmkm22]

The game industry is mirroring Hollywood in more ways than budgets. We have 90% of the content being released by just a few very large studios, who seem averse to anything that isn't a sequel or a remake. What really sucks is that we spent the last 20 years trying to improve the gaming experience enough to really get players immersed in the game, only to have the whole concept of immersion take a back seat to shareholder earnings.

In hindsight, it's no wonder the gaming industry has been so paranoid about piracy; I think they've purposefully been using the Hollywood model for inspiration.

Re:Hollywood

[Anonymous Coward]

The game industry is mirroring Hollywood in more ways than budgets. We have 90% of the content being released by just a few very large studios, who seem averse to anything that isn't a sequel or a remake. What really sucks is that we spent the last 20 years trying to improve the gaming experience enough to really get players immersed in the game, only to have the whole concept of immersion take a back seat to shareholder earnings.

In hindsight, it's no wonder the gaming industry has been so paranoid about piracy; I think they've purposefully been using the Hollywood model for inspiration.

Let those bastards die under their own microtransaction crap.
Go indie all the way, and readjust your expectations graphics wise. You'll find much more enjoyment and you won't be bled dry.
I started playing in the early ninties, and for me the pinnacle of gaming was 1998-2000. After that it went all downhill with the death of simulations. Nowadays I play freeware games (orbiter for instance an excellent space sim, what Microsoft Space Simulator would have been if Microsoft hadn't drop the ball after the first iteration), old Janes simulators, Falcon 4 (and its various off springs) as well as Dwarf Fortress (this one is hell to get into). I enjoy what I have, and for the rest only indie games. May the big publishers (including Valve) die in flame. They'll never ever get another cent from me. They've taken all the fun out of games.
The day when AAA developers would cherish the player base is all but gone.

Re:Hollywood

[guises]

It's not even close to 90%. Just with the DRM free stuff from the Humble Bundle and Good Old Games I have more than I can play. Yes, the blockbusters have been compromised, but, like Hollywood, there's still plenty of good stuff out there if you're willing to put the barest effort into looking for it.

The Hollywood analogy is a good one, but also a reason for optimism.

Plants vs. Zombies 2? Get off my lawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

"PopCap is pleased to announce that, in a strategic partnership between EA and Monsanto Corp., all of our future releases will contain virtual genetic use restrictor technology. We're confident that gamers will love purchasing new and interesting plants between levels at reasonable prices. We're also adding an auction house, exciting multiplayer and hats. Please note that, due to the multiplayer features, a constant connection to the internet is required. Pre-order at GameStop for the sunny day bundle, Best Buy for the pea pack or Amazon for the potato sack and get exclusive plants you won't find anywhere else! Season passes will be available and we'll be announcing the announcement of the contents of the Digital Deluxe version at E3!"

Last time I buy any EA product then...

[jonwil]

And to think I might actually have been willing to PAY for whatever comes next in the C&C franchise if it was as good as previous titles (the abomination that is Tiberian Twilight not withstanding)

Will be interesting to see how they put micro transactions in the EA sports titles... Will people have to pay real world money to get a full set of clubs in EA Sports Golf? Or worse, real world money every time they loose a golf ball and need a new one?

Re:Last time I buy any EA product then...

[stfvon007]

No, you will just have to pay real world money to have a caddy and a golf cart, so you don't have to virtually walk the entire distance between every hole while pressing a button that keeps you from dropping your golf bag on the ground, and you only have to pay for a new golf ball if you don't want to do the golf-ball pixel hunt mini game! And in madden, you just have to play real world money to recruit the top players. As long as you are ok with a quarterback that you drag out of a virtual alley a few blocks from the stadium with a severe drinking problem (all realistically simulated in game), you don't have to pay a cent!

Re:Last time I buy any EA product then...

[Anonymous Coward]

I stopped buying EA products many years ago. This concept isn't entirely new, but they have always been the ones to screw the game developers and its fanbase. They buy dev companies and fire most of the staff. I can't tell you how many people I know who's been through all of this. I won't go into detail but they screw both the customer and their staff.

Re:Last time I buy any EA product then...

[codepigeon]

Will people have to pay real world money to get a full set of clubs

They already do this. See my comment below about the "trading cards" system. In the EA hockey game there is another mode called "be a pro". Yes, if you want to get better equipment or stats you have to purchase with real money or use the hard to earn in-game points.

Nothing is sacred anymore, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm really sick and tired of this kind of crap.

I don't want things like Facebook and Twitter integration. I don't want things like micro-transactions and always-online "DRM" (which, in fact, isn't DRM at all- all the game logic runs server side in SimCity and Diablo 3, what you've got on your computer is just a dumb client- this kind of thing is a design decision, not a DRM system tacked on after the fact).

Is it too much to ask for a nice local offline only experience these days? I just want to enjoy the universe the developer has spent so much time and effort on creating, without being constantly reminded that I don't own the full product ("Oh sorry you clicked on that button by mistake did you? That'll be $5 please to unlock this functionality") or that I should sign into some lame online account for the benefit of someone other then me. The only thing any of this stuff serves to do is remind me that I shouldn't buy anymore games in the future because I'm tired of being repeatedly let down by lacklustre entertainment compacted by the forced inclusion of DLC and micro-transactions.

I'm sure most companies would tell me I'm being anti-social by saying this and that I should embrace their newfound principals for disrespecting my offline privacy, but frankly, fuck them. I'll happily vote with my wallet as I've been doing so for the past 6 months when I passed up the numerous chances to buy several games I'd previously been eyeing up.

If we took any of the modern day games we've got today and stuffed them in a time machine and sent it back to 1996, I have no doubt that the games would pop right back out again in the future with a hand-written note (given that people still remembered how to write back then) that says "No thanks, we're good". Nobody in their right mind would ever put up with this sort of thing, and I'm kind of surprised that I feel like the only person who remembers a time when this sort of behaviour would have been considered evil and unthinkable.

Re:Nothing is sacred anymore, eh?

[kaatochacha]

The problem is EVERYTHING in the world is moving towards this, not just games.
Always on. All the time. If you dislike this, you're a Luddite.

Pardon me for being a game idiot ...

[Skapare]

... since I don't play games anymore ... but this isn't an online game where people expect a level playing field, is it? Oh wait.

This doesn't *have* to be a bad thing..but it's EA

[dexotaku]

I don't think that microtransactions are an inherently bad thing, but in this case - well, it's EA, so it can ONLY be bad.

Take a look at Need For Speed World for some indication of the future.. the worst-implemented and maintained MMO that I'm aware of [noting that I know I'm not an expert on MMOs, but NFSW is truly shite].
The game is ostensibly "free to play" and centred on multiplaying racing.. but:
* As with most EA fare, the game is run almost entirely by the marketing department [I actually feel sorry for the devs, as it's evident that they're effectively bound & gagged by the marketing department]
* the devs and marketing people actually stated, "You can't buy victory," despite the fact that the best of everything are available only for real money, and the best of everything totally affect gameplay and shift all advantages easily and quickly to any fool with a credit card
* There's effectively no matchmaking most of the time, so the chances of being able to enter a public event with even remote chances of winning a round depend mostly on how much you've put into real-money-only cars that make up nearly all of the top performers
* there's no chat system for users to communicate publicly; they had to disable it >1 year ago because the devs aren't competent enough to make anything even remotely robust or secure, script-kiddies would constantly cause the game to crash for other players with simple buffer overflows
* EA obviously don't get what the "micro" in "microtransaction" is supposed to mean: all transactions are in dollars or greater; if you were to compare NFSW to any other NFS title and try to get the same gameplay out of it, it would cost thousands of dollars of your real money to even get close [and there are players who've put in thousands, insanely]
* "Exclusives" cost up to $50-75CAD for things that are only special because of a repaint by the art department [exclusive monacle, anyone?]

I could go on and on.. yeah, it's only a game, but compared to their off-the-shelf titles this "free to play" game is effectively several orders of magnitude more expensive.. which make little sense given that the real multiplayer aspects of the game are either disabled, broken, or simply not present. The game is basically, at this point, not really a multiplayer game.

This is the future of gaming, going by EA's ethics-free "screw the customer" business plan: make the client free, but bleed players dry hundreds if not thousands of times over if they want to "achieve" the same things they can by buying last year's single-player+muliplayer title down-to-$10 at any brick&mortar store.

I feel sorry for the smallish studios that EA keep buying up - the devs lose all freedom to determine the direction they want their games to go, and live under corporate policies that amount to "leave the customer completely in the dark while charging them as much as possible." The future of gaming, indeed.

Guess its good i'm getting old

[codepigeon]

I was lucky enough to be around for the early days of PC gaming. I remember when the manual actually told you to make a backup of the floppy. (for you young viewers, manuals were small booklets that used to come with games giving you tips, backstory, art..)

I guess it's good that I am nearing 40 and don't get into gaming as nearly as I used to. This stuff is just turning me off completely.

Considering the typical audience here, there are probably not a lot of you that play EA's NHL (yearly susbscription game). They have already been testing the waters for this from at least 2011 when they indroduced a mode of play called "hockey ultimate team". In this mode you build a team by using "cards". The cards actually come in foil packs that you can buy (all virtual of course). They offer a way to pay for the packs with earned in-game points or real-world money. My son plays the NHL13 version of this game and it is obvious that the system is entirely designed to get you to need to buy more packs of cards to continue paying.

As expected the good hockey players are "rares" (and i mean really rare), and you continually need to feed contract cards and injury repair cards to keep playing. The amount of points required to get the medium and larger packs are so high it is difficult if not impossible for a weaker player to ever purchase with earned points. I'm a software engineer, I see the patterns and thresholds and how they are clearly designed to maximize the need for more "cards". it is completely obvious to me; my son however is too naive to see this....as are probably many other people under the age of 20 or 30. And that is why these microtransactions are "popuar". Mom drops $20 into the kids account and he blows it on virtual garbage. (I refuse to allow my son to buy with real money)

F**k EA. F**k the industry for....well...becoming an industry with the corporate greed that comes with it.

\end-rant

Re:Guess its good i'm getting old

[Anonymous Coward]

I was lucky enough to be around for the early days of PC gaming. I remember when the manual actually told you to make a backup of the floppy. (for you young viewers, manuals were small booklets that used to come with games giving you tips, backstory, art..)

Yes, but let's not forget WHY they told you to make a backup: because the media back then was not very reliable/durable, and they did NOT want to handle all the support calls that resulted from failed media, whether due to mishandling, or simple bit failure. Back in the day, I used to wear out floppy disks that were used often, and it really mattered a lot if you got Maxell or Fuji 5.25" floppies, because the random knock off brands (like the ones used to ship you software) definitely did not last.

Re:Guess its good i'm getting old

[razorshark]

I feel the same way. Although I'm approaching 30 and want to get off most gaming for reasons of thinking that it's a horribly wasteful hobby and I should be doing something more interesting, like creating content or working on some electronics projects or something more intellectually stimulating. But I still am disappointed with the direction the gaming industry has taken of late as well, so it helps push me in the appropriate direction.

Re:Guess its good i'm getting old

[Anonymous Coward]

I was about to buy this game. Damn. I guess I'll get 2011 or 12 then.

Re:Guess its good i'm getting old

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 90s most people had moved to 3.25" and they were alot better at withstanding abuse. then we had a wonderful thing called a Compact Disk. Also, how many AOL floppies did you have at any given time? 10, 20, 100? I know I had tones.

and now I'm done with EA

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't felt good about buying EA games for a while now, but now the greed has gone too far, and they need to go out of business.

Yay, more reason to buy EA games

[locater16]

Because hit titles like Dragon Age 2 and Dead Space 3 are just what I w- oh no wait I don't care.

Still, I'm SURE this will do it. Yes EA, this will save your continuous quarterly disappointments. Just like every game you make having multiplayer, or desperately chasing such growing franchises as Call of Duty (declining year over year for two years straight) or companies like Zynga (desperately cutting studios and employees to remain in business).

Yes EA, your recent history of brilliant strategies will save you this time. "Let's make people who seem uninterested in paying in first place for games like Warfighter, PAY MORE FOR THEM!"

Umm... Ok.

[Sable Drakon]

I'm struggling to see why people are having a problem with this? So long as these microtransactions are 100% optional, who cares? Nobody's forcing you do buy them, and in the case of Dead Space 3 and Mass Effect 3, they're attainable with in-game currency.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[codepigeon]

why people are having a problem with this...they're attainable with in-game currency.

Oh...thank goodness. I was worried that when i spent $60+tax on the game, that I was going to get everything that was on the disk. Glad to know at least some of it stays locked behind a pay gate!

Re:Umm... Ok.

[Sable Drakon]

You're forgetting that this is a modern age of licensing.. Just because you've paid 60$ for the game license and disc, that doesn't mean the license you bought covers everything on that disc. It sucks, but that's what we've gotten ourselves into with the coming of the digital age.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[codepigeon]

but that's what we've gotten ourselves into

The digial age started in the 1950's. What we have here is greed. The blood suckers smell fresh meat. And people like you just roll over and take it. It's not the digital age coming, its the apathy and ignorance of the populous.

I know you are tyring to be fair, but your comment enrages me.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[Sable Drakon]

No, the digital age as we know it now started in the 1990s and early 2000s. Again, this all boils down to license agreements. You've got to remember, you're not buying ownership of a game anymore. Haven't been able to buy legitimate ownership of a game for coming up on 10 years now. You're buying a license, that's it. That license doesn't entitle you do everything on the game media, it entitles you to whatever the license states. You may not like it, but that's the truth of the matter.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[epyT-R]

Technically, yes they're optional. In reality, the game is almost unplayable without them, esp once you're dealing with multiplayer where some players paid for the extra content and others did not. Voting with wallet isn't going to fix this unfortunately. For a growing number of us, it's time for a new hobby.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[Sable Drakon]

That's a load of crap. Team Fortress 2 has micro-transactions, perfectly playable. Every major FPS game has DLC map packs, they're all perfectly playable. So yes, they are optional both in technicalities and reality. Don't believe me? Try it yourself. In the case of map packs, all of those games have special playlists just for those maps. That doesn't prevent you from playing in the stock playlists.

Re:Umm... Ok.

[Jaysyn]

Nope, you are referring to the IP age. The digital age started with the advent the microprocessor.

EA talking to investors ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... first it was yes, we'll develop for the Wii U .... it will save the industry .... then it was, no no ... Wii U isn't where we are at ... quick, look over thee .. it's a PS4 ... we'll build for that ....now it is .... see investors we have micro transactions.

All this is complete EA bullcrap that they are feeding to investors. I don't even have to look to suspect that over the past year their stock has been sinking. Am I right?!

pay-to-win+

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buy it and pay-even-more-to-win"

Unstuck in time...

[sesshomaru]

Uh-oh, I've become unstuck in time. Well, at least people can enjoy this comment on EA from 2004:

What's going on indeed... by jayhawk88 (160512)

"The past is never dead. It's not even past." -- William Faulkner, Requiem for a Nun

The weird move by EA with deadspace...

[GodfatherofSoul]

...how they've tried to treat a primarily single-player FPS like it's primarily multiplayer. I ran through DS 1 and 2 and never got much exposure to weapons because of the slow upgrade rate speed. it was like they assumed you'd play it 4-5 times through. My favorite single players I run through *maybe* 2 times. They need to scale everything back to the 1-2 runs most players will actually spend.

I imagine that they're giong to crank up the difficulty so you have to buy stuff to finish the game.

Go to hell EA

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate EA I haven't bought any of their games and never will especially after they start this crap. People who support this are nuts, let them drown, stop buying their games!

Games so bad you will pay cash not to play them.

[Belial6]

You just described how people can pay to overcome crappy game design. Letting people pay to skip part of your game is openly acknowledging that your game is so crappy that people will literally pay to not play it. Even if that is just part of your game, that isn't a good thing.

Don't buy from EA/Origin

[morian97]

I don't care what they plan to build into their games, they are on downward spiral. They false advertise and fail to honor the deals. EA customer support is horrible, and attitude towards customers degrading. Good luck EA, good luck!

EA Crippled Deadspace Gameplay for this

[l0ungeb0y]

EA ripped off the Weapon Blueprint system from Dead Island and then made it so you could create your own custom blueprints.
That was a good thing.

Then EA decided that they couldn't "give away the farm", so made it so you could not give other players special parts only available as DLC, which NO ONE PAYS MONEY FOR -- they use Ration Seals, which are found in-game.

They also decided that any Blueprint you make that references advanced parts found in-game or DLC parts CAN NOT BE SHARED with other players, regardless of whether or not they have the part themselves.

In this greedy, short-sighted bone head move, EA crippled a much touted feature, this so called "Blue Print Sharing" to be totally useless for anyone who has spent more than a couple days playikng, because as son as you're more than half way through the game, you're building guns that use special parts -- so this feature no longer works, with no explanation to why other than a unhelpful screen that says "THIS BLUEPRINT CAN NO BE SHARED!"

I have never seen a company so blatantly throw their core product (gameplay) out the window in what can only be seen as a short-sighted cash grab.

The irony of it is that no one in their right mind would pay CASH for this DLC when you can spend a few ration seals (hell, I have over 1,000 ration seals and can't spend them fast enough) so they aren't making any more money by pulling this shit.

For what it's worth, I wrote in a request through support channels that they either uncripple this feature or remove it entirely. I doubt they wil change anything and I am rather certain they will cripple other gameplay features in future games with this BS, so I've resolved myself to never buy another EA title until I hear that they have stoppe pulling this crap.

I'm not against them making money, I'm not against micropayments. I am against crippled gameplay features for obvious and petty reasons.
As such, I no longer see EA as a game company, they are profit hounds who seek to disguise vending machines as games.
Gameplay should be first and foremost for any game company. If the game is good and the game play is not broken, I will happily buy DLC expansions to add to my enjoyment.

Re:EA Crippled Deadspace Gameplay for this

[gweihir]

Well, to be fair, Dead Space 3 is pretty easy on normal with the plasma cutter only. I experimented a bit with the weapon-crafting, but could just not find it in me to care and went back to the plasma cutter. The whole "crafting" section feels uninspired and "bolted on" to me. The ration-seal packages are nice initially, but strictly optional as well.

Re:EA Crippled Deadspace Gameplay for this

[l0ungeb0y]

Well, maybe you aren't as social as me. I have many PSN friends who I play with and we like to share in-game loot while we chat and kill things.

And I liked the weapons building -- having seen it first in Dead Island, and seeing it made more freeform in Deadspace 3.
I hope Dead Island: Riptide (not an EA Title) rips EA off in return and incorporates the build your own weapon feature.

In my experience, all my friends have tried sharing guns with me at some point only to find they can no longer share, or just can't share. It took some doing to figure out why.

Funny how they ADVERTISED "Blueprint Sharing" on their packaging and in their Demo and how they offer a "trophy" for creating and sharing a blueprint.

EA made this feature a major selling point, and regardless of wether or not you use is, others do.
And it's clearly broken.

ohh --and who plays on "normal"? Impossible is they way to go. Especially for the co-op mode. Not slamming you, but the default setting for classic, survival and hardcore is "hard", I recommend adding some spice to the game.
It's supposed to be survival horror, not a simple stroll through the park.

Re:EA Crippled Deadspace Gameplay for this

[gweihir]

Ah, yes. My comment was on single-player only. I have actually not tried multiplayer in DS3, as none of my friends is currently playing it.

I do agree on the difficulty setting, but I was already deeper into the game when I noticed "normal" was really too easy.

It surprises me how long this took.

[doctor woot]

Considering the cheesy shit publishers have done to increase profits from sales with on-disc DLC, preorder bonuses, multiplayer passes and the like, none of which EA has any qualms about implementing into their games, I find it odd that it took this long for EA to come to this decision. Brings me back to when Activision's CEO Bobby Kotick openly fantasized about making every game subscription based.

Honestly though, I don't mind that EA is trying this. Publishers don't exist to bring us quality games, that's what developers try to do (some, anyway.) Publishers exist to squeeze every last penny out of IP laws that they can, and tack whatever contrived bullshit onto their games that they think they can get away with. Remember these? Publishers are more often than not just like loan sharks, only where the mafia tries to hide from the scrutiny of the DoJ, corporations can just pay them for even more invasive copyright laws. And if you dare oppose it, you're an un-American anti-capitalist who hates successful people and heartlessly steals from the efforts of hardworking programmers who pour their hearts into their work. They've practically got a free ride at this point.

No, what bothers me are the people who buy into this abusive relationship with people who sell intellectual property. Or lease, I should say, since apparently you don't even own software that you purchase. As long as there's a market that will kowtow to this sort of behavior, IP owners will keep pulling goofy shit like this. And they'll come out winning.

This is why videogames are dead to me

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the day...

Arcade games were designed to make money, and some games were notorious as "quarter munchers" with overly difficult levels designed to keep the quarters flowing. Those games, while fun, never really had any staying power after the initial thrill.You could tell the experience was broken because of the incredibly high difficulty and cheap hits.

Same story with micropayments. Hot new games come out, doing anything remotely fun or creative requires spending even more money, and people pass on them once they realized the games are shipped crippled and adding money is the only way to make them enjoyable.

Dead Space 3 is a good example of a game that was "made broken" and playing it without micropayments is tedious.

As others have said there's little sense of accomplishment for most people by buying your victory. Just like in the arcades, you can shovel $10 worth of quarters into a quarter-muncher game, but it's not that fun and is a waste of money. There will always be money in micropayments, but I'd like to think most gamers will pass on it and the industry might see it's a product-killing feature that only has short term financial benefit.

It was inevitable.

[B33rNinj4]

I'm fine with microtransactions as long as they are for in-game vanity items or bank/character expansions. When you start using microtransactions for items that give a player an edge, that's when things get a little gray.

Well, games have gotten too easy anyways

[gweihir]

This way, there will be a wimp mode for those that have to pay to win (considered pathetic by all true gamers) and a normal mode for all those that have at least some skill. For example, I am playing Dead Space 3 on normal at the moment with the plasma cutter only, and there is absolutely no need to pay for anything. I do use the the $2.99 packs you can also buy with in-game currency collected by gathering robots, but even those do not make that much of a difference and I could well do without them. The "normal" mode is still pretty easy without paying for anything besides the basic game. If EA messes this up even more and makes games to hard or not fun without paying extra, I will just stop buying from them completely. There are enough other entertainment sources.

I think that those are already built-in...

[denzacar]

Taxes?

Re:I think that those are already built-in...

[davester666]

Only the gov't taxes.

Just another 'user fee'.

Re:I think that those are already built-in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except they heard you had taxes, so they got taxes for your taxes too.

Re:I think that those are already built-in...

[RaceProUK]

Except they heard you had taxes, so they got taxes for your taxes too.

I already pay enough tax tax at the petrol pumps - no need to pay any more.

Re:I think that those are already built-in...

[Anonymous Coward]

'service fees'

Years of grinding

[tepples]

It's fine if you buy the game and then want to go buy the the new gun for $20, as long as that same gun can be earned by someone playing the game for free.

Is it also fine if the choice is between $20 and years of grinding? Because that's what one of the My Little Pony games requires.

Re:Years of grinding

[Murdoch5]

yes

Pricing by country?

[simplexion]

I'm guessing in Australia we will have to pay much more for the same items than Americans. I will only pay if pricing is balanced.

Horray for pay-to-win gaming

[Anonymous Coward]

That is all.

Required?

[borrrden]

As long as it is not required (or not unreasonably hard to continue the game without buying), I don't care. I went through all of Dead Space 3 without any urge to purchase anything, and finished the game. As long as I can keep doing that, I am happy. If not, however, there will be hell to pay.

Budget concerns

[Todd Knarr]

I look at this and look at my entertainment budget and just sigh. I'm trying to get the most value for my dollar out of games, and this... ain' it.

And for multi-player games, there's another factor to consider. If you can buy better weapons/gear/skills/etc., then the game's going to be dominated by the professional players, the ones who're literally making a living playing the game. I've dealt with that kind of situation, and all I can say is I don't need the hassle. Especially if there's any sort of PvP component to the game. Being forced to spend my hard-earned money to stay on even footing with them... not my idea of a fun way to spend an evening. Frankly I'd rather wrestle with a nasty graph-theory problem involving logistics and determining optimal routes, and that's the kind of thing that gives most non-certifiably-insane people migraines. When that's more fun than the idea behind a game mechanic...

pay to play

[db10]

..and keep paying nerds, lear jets ain't cheap!

Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[HockeyPuck]

I played Diablo 1 and D2 and thoroughly enjoyed them. D3 came out and in the beginning I enjoyed it. Then I realized that to get better gear I had to visit the Gold Auction house.. so I would put my stuff up for auction and try to buy new/better stuff. 99% of the time I couldn't move my old stuff b/c there was always something better in the auction house....

Which would be great if I had tons of gold... so how do you get more gold?

1. Grind grind grind... kill the same dungeons over and over again. Pickup the gold, and whatever trash you find, sell it to the merchant for more gold. Grind grind grind.
2. Win the lottery. Something drops that actually worth something in the gold auction house.
3. Buy gold with real money.

The problem here is that gold in itself in D3 is basically worthless. I can recall when certain items were 10million gold. Then a few weeks later those same items were 40million gold. Are they more rare? Nope. There's just more gold available in game. So let's say you sold that item for 10million because you couldn't use it (wrong class). And you go on vacation for a few weeks. An equivalent item for your class would now be 40million gold. So now how do you get 30 million more gold?

Grind grind grind or hope something drops for you or say f-ck it and pay Blizzard a few bucks to get 40 million gold. Knowing that in a month's time that instead of you paying $5 to get the item, you'd need to pay $10 because you'd need 2x as much gold.

This is why I stopped playing D3. I realized in order to continue to advance I was playing to get gold for the auction house.

I uninstalled back in October and haven't gone back since.

Re:Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[Swistak]

And it took you so long to figure it out?

Wake up people. This is happening becouse we let them. You could've read sane reviews on net that pointed it out. And guess what - not buy a game!

I spent 200 PLN on Starcraft I when I was 16y old kid - it was almost 1/4th of my mothers salary. I mowned lawns 2 months for it.
But guess what - you could set up lan party and run that one copy on all 4 computers as long as CD was in one of drives - completely legally!
Me and my friends spent whole summer playing this thing day and night. Friend got hooked up on Diablo2 - played it for months on BN in Hardcore mode.
No Blizzard is selling 1/3th of Starcraft2 for 250PLN and I simply refuse to pay for it. A) It's fucking 1/3th of game! B) You cannot even set up lanparty without internet access. Diable III ? Don't get me started on this shit. Pure grinder, patches that destroy gameplay. Rampart inflation. Full of bugs.

why the fuck would ANYBODY buy this shit?
Yet you do. I don't. but YOU do. And this is becouse YOU that we get this shit. Becouse idiots like you that spend money on game before thinking, then come here to vent on how you spent $$$ and realized Blizzard only wants your money. Guess what You've already been screwed. Blizzard does not care.

Next time just don't buy something just becouse it says Blizzard on cover. Read reviews and refuse to buy anything that has microctransactions in it. And refuse to pay for anything that's single player with always online DRM. You'll make word better place.

Re:Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[GuB-42]

For Diablo III (softcore), I noticed just the opposite : on average, gear quickly lose value.
This is understandable because the auction house, with its 15% commission makes a very efficient gold sink : if the prices get too high, more gold will get destroyed by this commission, but it won't be created any faster. It is effectively a negative feedback loop that stabilize the prices. In the last patch, the new actually useful crafting recipes added even more gold sinks. OTOH, once a good item enters the economy, it stays. And once people upgrade they are likely to sell their lesser items for cheap. And now these lesser items are actually quite rare and good enough to clear the game in its hardest difficulty setting.

Re:Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[Anonymous Coward]

If you like Diablo type games, you should try Path of Exile. It's everything D3 failed to deliver. I already mentioned it in an above comment, but it's F2P with only cosmetic microtransactions to support development. If at the end of the day you find out it's not your cup of tea, you won't have spent a dime trying it.

Re:Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[bunkymag]

Try Path of Exile. It's entirely free to play (or as they call it 'fair to play' to avoid the growing stigma), start to finish. The only things you can buy are entirely cosmetic - except extra stash tabs & character slots, both of which as unnecessary unless you're putting a substantial amount of time into the game (trust me, it's generous). Maybe not as flash looking as D3 but far more deep and complex. And, y'know, moral.

Re:Blizzard did the same BS in Diablo 3

[MotorMachineMercenar]

Using (RM/G)AH is your CHOICE. I beat Inferno without AH, as have numerous others.

Slippery Slope regardless of 'tread'

[Anonymous Coward]

It can be said with confidence that the vast majority of PC publishers looking to do microtransactions in paid for single player games INTEND the dedicated gamer to do just fine without paying extra money. This is one time where I would agree the 'intentions' start from a good place. The idea is to soak the casual or lazy gamer, and this is seen as a deserved punishment by developers with a PC background.

Sadly, this logic is horribly flawed. The first publisher that DARES to demand further cash from any gamer seeking a proper experience from the game they bought, and gets it without damaging sales, will set a model every other publisher will follow. This is what we really mean by a 'slippery slope'. Sure, everyone 'knows' the slope is slippery, and takes caution to compensate and maintain grip, but sooner or later everyone inevitably ends up sliding to the bottom.

This is why a recovered 'drunk' never takes that first drink. One drink won't make you drunk, but one drink accepts the idea that you are drinking again.

Microtransactions for bought games turn the publishers into 'whores', and once you are a 'whore' you might as well maximise that business model.

So what will happen? Weapons you can only own if you buy ingame. Levels you can only play for more cash. Extra playable characters if you pay again. All these and more already happen in a game like 'Borderlands 2', disguised as DLC, or a subscription called a 'season pass'. Of course, in this case, the DLC cleverly lies outside the main game, but all the new elements provided by the DLC can also be used in the original game as well. 'Borderlands 2' does not offend because the original game is massive, and already well stocked with variety. The DLC just lays down a future principle that can be abused in a micro-transaction system.

As I said at the top, no big publisher currently plans to abuse the gamer- not least because they would expect such acts to back-fire bigtime. But people are very inventive. DLC is now accepted, so the trick is to integrate the DLC more visibly as a paid for option in the original game. 'Dead Space 3' had 'co-op only' doors. What if they had been pay-walled with the excuse that your two dollar fee paid for the matchmaking service that found you an online 'friend' to play with you when you passed through the door?

A game like GTA 5 could hold 'live concerts' ingame that players could attend for a fee. Indeed, given that EVERY major game of import will be open-world once the new consoles are released at the end of this year, I think everyone here could invent excuses for micro-transactions that would seem reasonable in an endlessly open environment.

Of course, at the end of the day, gamers have finite resources to spend each month. The reality of micro-transactions at the highest level is simply funds moved from TV or the cinema to games. The cash is really coming from the same pot, so it's just a matter of how the distribution goes. We could all imagine how a totally compelling open-world game with new content each month could easily aspire to the same monthly fees as cable TV. But if honest games services were already earning high monthly subs, would micro-transactions sit well on top- I doubt it. If this were the case, micro-transactions would be a big part of the pay TV biz, and they're not.

That's drug dealers' business model

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the difference between videogames with micropayments and drug dealers that sale the first dose at a discounted price ?

Re: paying the bank money to hold your money...

[girlinatrainingbra]

Re: Get a better bank.
.
Or consider banking with a local financial cooperative such as a Credit Union. I just set up my account in December and there are few to no fees for the basics like simple checknig accounts and savings accounts. There is a requirement to keep a $5 share minimum in one account, but considering the minimums required at BoA [constrictor, Bank o' America squeezes all of the money out of you!] or other banking institutions, the $5 is almost nothing.

It works in eve

[Anonymous Coward]

The article said you could either grind your way to credits, or buy them. And then with the credits buy what you want.

It seems all comments this far are saying it can't work, but it does work in Eve online, and has worked for quite many years...

Re:It works in eve

[masternerdguy]

No it fucking doesn't work in EVE Online. I also control the character 'masternerdguy' who is an EVE veteran and let me tell you that PLEX (an in-game item that represents 30 days of game time) seriously damaged that game. First of all PLEX exists to try and reduce RMT (and by reduce I mean move the profits to CCP). For those who don't understand the system, a PLEX is bought for about $20 a unit (or less if you buy in bulk) and is traded for in-game currency, ISK, on the free market. So if I wanted to sell a PLEX I'd pay my money, get a PLEX, and sell it in Jita for about 500 million ISK, assuming that another player wants to buy it from me. While it is true that PLEX is a zero sum game (no ISK is created, it only changes hands to a willing buyer. The buyer wants a PLEX because they can pay their subscription with it using ISK) the system results in bizzare wealth distribution. You get 30 day old players flying 10b ISK officer bit Vindicators ( which die hilariously and are made fun of on themittani.com ) because they have a big credit card. PLEX isn't pay to win, but it does allow you to buy things you shouldn't be able to afford yet. You shouldn't even consider stepping into a Vindicator for 6 months after you start a character.

Re:It works in eve

[daid303]

A 30 day old character doesn't have the required skills for a Vindicator.

Re:It works in eve

[masternerdguy]

It takes 16 days to go from 0 to sitting in a Vindicator.

Re:It works in eve

[Punko]

He didn't say 30 day old character, he said a 30 day old player. Idiots with cash buy established payer accounts all the time and so these guys paying for less than 30 days AREA flying 10B vindicators.

Having said all of that, please, let them continue.

That idiot, spending all that PLEX to die in many horrible ways, makes it so there is enough PLEX on the market to keep it cheap enough for me to continue to earn ISK ingame and easily buy my next 30 day PLEX. PLEX is not play to win per se, and someone sold that character to the idot for ISK.

Therefore, more idiots with credit cards and no comon sense = good.

Dear EA

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear EA,

I can tell you this right now: I'll never agree to an in-game purchase. No matter what your TOS says, I'll never agree to it.

And to make sure that never happens, I'll go spend my money with another publisher if you try to require me to have a credit card on file with you to play your games, because I don't want to have to spend my time worrying that I'll accidentally spend $0.000001 if I click something shiny.

In conclusion: You should reconsider this decision if you want any of my money, because I view this as a completely black-and-white issue. You get some of my money without micropayments, or you get none of it with micropayments. You choose.

Signed,
an Anonymous Coward

EA Pay to Win Games

[Nyder]

If you've played any of EA's free games, you'll find they are almost all "Pay to Win".

Guess they'll be bringing that to pay games now.

Am I the only one who thinks this cheapens it?

[Opportunist]

People play for different reasons. I guess it's safe to say we all play for enjoyment.

Much of my enjoyment comes from the "I did it!" feeling at the end. I saved the world. I beat that boss. It took me long hours, it almost made me throw that controller against the wall in frustration, but finally, finally, FINALLY, I did it. Or after long hours of playing finally the epic item that I wanted so much is finally mine. And while I'm not much into bragging usually, it gives me a little bit of satisfaction to tell myself that I did something that probably not many actually have accomplished. How many didn't make it past that half-time boss that was so hard? How many didn't have the stamina to sit through all those hordes and didn't have the patience to wait for the right time for the ambush?

When I now can get the same by forking over some cash, I don't want it anymore. First of all, it's not mine. What did I do for it? Spent a minute at work? Erh... yeah, that's great. Woo-hoo me. I now have the awesome sword of slaying because I convinced a customer that his backup plan is flawed. The whole work-reward relationship is destroyed. And this in turn doesn't give me satisfaction.

On the other hand, because I can already hear those replies, "but you needn't buy it", on your fingertips: No, but not buying it would be incredibly inefficient. It would bother me that I spend 5 hours to reach a goal when I could have gotten the same for 5 bucks.

Well, that's me, and who am I to tell an EA exec what the people playing his games want, I'm sure he has done some really deep market research to come up with that conclusion. And if he really believes it himself, I have a very nice bridge with a good view of San Francisco for sale.

WoW became popular before Microtransactions.

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, now people are in, they have invested a lot of time and effort in this and are less likely to leave when microtransactions are put in.

Re:Games so bad you will pay cash not to play them

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described how people can pay to overcome crappy game design.

You also described the very method which would prettymuch force people to make those micropayments: by inserting tedious, good-for-nothing and not the slightest bit amusing, hours (if not days or weeks) costing time-sinks.

So in the future what you refer to as "crappy game design" will than be "a corporate strategy", nothing more than "an incentive" to pay up, and used liberally thru-out the game ...

Oh well, more power to the people who make "trainers" and the like. Maybe the name "hacker" or "pirate" will one day evolve into something like "game cleaner". :-)

I've certainly been alienated.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've already sworn off installing EA games on my PC, (Spore's DRM), which just left me with the PS3 for them to play with. Other bullshit has pretty much limited me to Bioware games on that one. This might causes me to abandon EA altogether.

Dear All Game Reviewers Everywhere Forever

[Rogerborg]

Please ensure that you review the base game, without all the free DLC that will be gifted to you.

DLC Quest!

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole story and commentary reminded me of this fine parody game: http://goingloudstudios.com/games/dlc-quest/

As long as they stay irrelevant to gameplay

[Anonymous Coward]

Microtransactions inside games are great, as long as they are for those who actually want to skip playing the game by paying, or for those who want to buy different color pants or a monocle for their chars. If the game requires microtransactions to play or to win the game can burn in hell. DO NOT WANT! I'm never ever going to play a game that milks me for pennies during the game. Oh.. almost forgot, EA sucks donkey balls anyway, so I just don't give a rats ass what that particular company does, thay can ask for the first born children of they customers for all I care.

EA can DIAFOA

[Holammer]

It's sad to see how consumers have been lulled into an accepting stupor. Back when they planned on having weapon DLC for the Bad Company games some years ago, shit hit the fan. Now they get away with releasing a Dead Space game with a bunch of DLC options and I suspect that Battlefield 4 will take it to new level.

Re:This doesn't *have* to be a bad thing..but it's

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the future of gaming, going by EA's ethics-free "screw the customer" business plan: make the client free, but bleed players dry hundreds if not thousands of times over if they want to "achieve" the same things they can by buying last year's single-player+muliplayer title down-to-$10 at any brick&mortar store.

I feel sorry for the smallish studios that EA keep buying up - the devs lose all freedom to determine the direction they want their games to go, and live under corporate policies that amount to "leave the customer completely in the dark while charging them as much as possible." The future of gaming, indeed.

If that's the future of gaming I won't be a part of it, plain and simple. I'll find some other things to do with my time and money.

The thing I don't get is why would anyone sell out to EA. I mean, yeah, you'll get money. But all the good games are done by some people who wanted to make a good game and had enough freedom to do so. Games designed by committees, executives, and marketing all suck. Luckily the indie studios are getting bigger all the time, meaning they can add more costly things to their next games ( better sound, graphics ) and keep making great and interesting games. At some point they will get ruined by some idiot exec that thinks now is the time to make more profits! But there are others.

nope

[slashmydots]

and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business Nope! By the way, the magic rule of in-game stores is cosmetic and convenience only. You let someone level twice as fast or buy a better weapon than you that you can't get in game naturally and you're going to have some very angry customer. Just kidding, they won't have any customers.

This is what happens...

[stinkbomb]

...when you let Finance and Marketing run your company.

And there it is....

[Anonymous Coward]

The downfall of true gaming has finally killed gaming..

Damn it EA!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It was bad enough when you brought out 'Origin' but now THIS!!
I for one will NEVER buy or play a game with microtransactions, IF EA go ahead with this hair brained idea it makes my future game purchases a little bit easier, EA logo = NO buy!!

to paraphrase

[Bobtree]

EA: "We are making all our future games worse."

RIH

[Anonymous Coward]

Alas, poor EA! we knew thee well

Screw them. Rot In Hell(RIH) EA, you suck and we hate you!

Boycott EA

[Anonymous Coward]

Booooooooooooooooooooooo! I'm starting a boycott.

Microtransations work

[GuB-42]

At least on Android : https://play.google.com/store/apps/collection/topgrossing
Most apps are "free". Which means their income results from in-app purchase.

yes do ponder

[Anonymous Coward]

its cause i can i dunno , upgrade the desktop when i want , ya know like graphics cards vs ten year old xbox 360 and ram and ...well ya but see ms is going to make this not able to be done see with winstupid 8 you get a tablet operating system and its the END for microsfot ona dekstop
i told the place i bought a new pc if it comes with win 8 forget it ....

that i can play tons a of games i could not before with my 6 year old pc and have a top end graphics card and 32 gb of ram for 3d development and animation means nothng ...dazzed is cool and cheap enough for me and i can make my ships and other stuff ...suddenly those numb nuts at EA got actual competion in hobby gamers
and like path to evil which is how diablo 3 shoudl have been ...well there ya go.....then yo uhave trek online that actually makes it so that if you really dont want ot pay you have a way albeit very slow you can save up and get anyhitng in the game .....THAT made me support it cause its cool to have a system like that BUT see there online games ...what happens if i move to my elderly dads and only can get 3 megabit wireless net? WELL im done fo rgaming of any kind online and this system of screw home users by nickel and dimin g us is going ot stop .....slowly but surely the dummies are dying off.

gambling

[Polo]

I think gambling laws should be expanded to include this kind of thing.

I see gambling as pay-as-you-go entertainment. Yes you could win, but people just gamble the winnings to extend their play time.

No more EA games...

[Anonymous Coward]

Check.

Not a chance on this green earth I will spend $60 on a game to "buy" it and then have to spend even more money on it to get better items to be able to finish the game. $60 is already too much money, in my opinion, to pay for a game. I realize programmers, voice actors, 3D artists, etc all need to make a living but really???

And yet another reason not to buy or play

[rpresser]

any EA game, ever again. As if we needed any more reasons. EA games were fun, once. We need to remember that with fondness and respect, as we scatter the ashes of its burned corpse so it can never infect us again.

Mass Effect 3 MP

[Anonymous Coward]

It worked out fine for them in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer. You can spent in-game money or real money for packs of stuff to use in the game. I never spent a cent, but because someone else did, there were 5 large DLCs.