Slashdot Mirror
Cliff Bleszinski: Vote With Your Dollars
silentbrad writes "Cliff Bleszinski, formerly of Epic Games, posted a blog entry titled 'Nickels, dimes, and quarters' yesterday, advocating that gamers dissatisfied with the current trend toward DLC and microtransactions should vote with their wallets. Quoting: 'The video game industry is just that. An industry. Which means that it exists in a capitalistic world. You know, a free market. A place where you're welcome to spend your money on whatever you please or to refrain from spending that money. ... Adjusted for inflation, your average video game is actually cheaper than it ever has been. Never mind the ratio of the hours of joy you get from a game per dollar compared to film. To produce a high quality game it takes tens of millions of dollars, and when you add in marketing that can get up to 100+ million. ... I've seen a lot of comments online about microtransactions. They're a dirty word lately, it seems. Gamers are upset that publishers/developers are "nickel and diming them." They're raging at "big and evil corporations who are clueless and trying to steal their money." I'm going to come right out and say it. I'm tired of EA being seen as "the bad guy." I think it's bulls*** that EA has the 'scumbag EA' memes on Reddit and that Good Guy Valve can Do No Wrong. ... If you don't like EA, don't buy their games. If you don't like their microtransactions, don't spend money on them. It's that simple. ... The market as I have previously stated is in such a sense of turmoil that the old business model is either evolving, growing, or dying. No one really knows. "Free to play" aka "Free to spend 4 grand on it" is here to stay, like it or not. ... People like to act like we should go back to "the good ol' days" before microtransactions but they forget that arcades were the original change munchers. Those games were designed to make you lose so that you had to keep spending money on them. Ask any of the old Midway vets about their design techniques. The second to last boss in Mortal Kombat 2 was harder than the last boss, because when you see the last boss that's sometimes enough for a gamer. ... If you don't like the games, or the sales techniques, don't spend your money on them. You vote with your dollars.'"
I've been boycotting all the games with DRM and DLC for over a decade and it hasn't done shit.
Also it's really too bad that there was nothing between the DLC Hell of the early 2010s and the Change-Muncher Hell of the 1980s...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
If you don't like their microtransactions, don't spend money on them. It's that simple.
Sometimes I don't mind microtransactions, but they have power to ruin otherwise perfectly good game, and that's my major problem with them.
Sure, we can vote with our dollars, and we do. At the same time, we can freely complain about EA adding micro transactions, or any/all forms of DRM.
If you have noticed, if enough customers complain about something, sometimes, things change. So asking us to just vote with our dollars is asking us to reduce our potential power. So if you don't like EA's microtransactions, or any form of always on DRM, then boycott them, AND complain about it verbosely everywhere you want to.
Gamers have just as much right to whine about a company's pricing policy as the industry insiders have a right to whine about their customers' dislike of their policy. So the industry's getting sick of the complaining? Presumably, they're worried that if there's too much publicity of the issue, customers actually will start voting with their dollars.
He's right, it's a business. A business that ignores its customers doesn't usually last too long.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
We already do you pompus twit. We rail against companies like EA for many reasons, and the games they produce is only part of it. We also rail against them because they are a HORRIBLE COMPANY TO WORK FOR. I've been approached twice for a job with EA in the last year, and twice I've politely declined despite the numbers looking good. Why? Because they suck.
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
... gaming addicts (you should know if you are one or not) are the least mentally and/or emotionally disciplined people. So talk all you like about "vote with your dollars... quarters... dimes... nickels... pennies..." and they may even agree with you (providing they paid attention long enough and actually understood any of what you said) but the moment something they want appears, it won't matter.
But this is essentially true of ALL humans. Any time people want something enough, they will mentally and emotionally justify it in the most ridiculous ways denying and defying all reason, morality or logic to their deaths. We all have that flaw to varying degrees. (Except for me... I'm perfect... j/k)
Marketers know how to exploit this human weakness. And without proper law restricting what marketers can do, we will not see an end to it. And it's not like suck measures are without precedent. Look to tobacco, drugs and alcohol advertisements. For that matter, when was the last time you saw an ad on TV for firearms? Wonder why that is?
On the other hand, ever watch some of those late-night, off-branded TV networks? The ridiculous ads and pitches there? Most of them are disgustingly targetted at the stupid, the old or both. "Hey! I've got sonic hearing!!" I'm not saying there is a hell, but if there was one, the people who peddle that stuff certainly need to relocate there. But back to my point.
Gamers -- especially gamer addicts -- will not stand up for what they believe in over getting that next achievement unlocked.
I remember buying many new and re-release full price games for £1.99 in the 80's.
Console games seemed ridiculously expensive my comparison.
I'll readily admit to spending money on microtransactions that I thought were worthwhile. Turbine's games, for instance, at least have some value in some of the transactions. The issue is that EA is so bad at veiling their attempt to suck their customers dry.
Take, for instance, today's reports from The Verge on EA's Real Racing 3. In this game, you pay Real Money to repair damage to your car, and you pay More Real Money to make those repairs take less time.
What they essentially did was say, "Here's a game that totally looks awesome, but we made it suck so that you can pay us money to unsuck it." And worse yet, they did this in a game that already has ample opportunities for purchasing value-added content (e.g., new cars, new tracks, new music, special paintjobs, etc.).
I guess when they sued Zynga over that whole Sims ripoff, they started looking at what Zynga was doing and thought it was a wonderful idea, so then they just ripped off Zynga's entire business model and turned it to eleven.
I don't buy EA games for completely different reasons regarding design and other issues I've encountered. I do play some of their Free to play. I love the free to play model because now friends can play together with little investment in the game. Most free to play games are not play-to-win. The stuff people spend tons of money is really quite pointless, but if they are supporting the game then that's fine by me. It's about like buying plastic spinners for your rims. To each his own.
I don't really care about micro transactions. If the game itself was worth $60 and you bought it, you have it. Years ago once you bought a game, you expected to play it awhile and then be done with it. Now we have DLC's that extend the enjoyment, and if the money isn't worth it to you, then don't buy it.
It's not like they are shutting you out of what you already payed for. That's what I'd really worry about, is when you put alot of money into something, but it isn't really yours. A lot of people got hosed when the Company of Heroes free2play went under. Think of all the gaming networks that have went under. Lots of games only supported multiplayer through those networks. Only in some cases did people figure out unstable hacks to get the multiplayer working again without those networks. Do you think these places like EA/Origin and Steam will be around forever? I only buy games on Steam that really cheap(i.e. old or on a big sale). I buy them knowing they won't be there forever, yet I enjoy the convenience of an easy reliable installation. I have to say that is one thing that is nice, is no surprises/junk systray junk you used to get with standalone installers. IMO Steam has a pretty unintrusive design, which I find respectable. When you right-click Exit it stops the downloads, etc. They don't even use their user's as torrent distribution network, which I bet a lot of other companies in their shoes would do.
DLC and so on exist because they make money.
If someone comes along and makes *more* money with a different business model people will flock to that.
It's not just 'don't buy it' it's 'buy something else in the same industry that is a better value'. If you want to sell me a DLC for 20 bucks (think Dragonborn expansion to Skyrim) that's a good value. It's basically an expansion pack without the box. But then you have to actually say how many copies you sold, so that everyone else knows this is a good idea.
If you make some horse armour for 5 dollars and sell a 1000 copies of it, the market has already spoken. If you make an expansion pack for 20 bucks and sell 5 million of them, the market has spoken too. But without some sales figures (and those two numbers were entirely made up), there's no easy way to know what does and what doesn't work.
If you look at Saints Row the Third on PC, on Steam. There are 3 options for the game (ignoring the strategy guide). The base game (40 dollars), the game with all DLC (50 dollars) or the all the DLC individually for 82. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they aren't selling a lot of the 'all the dlc' individually. All that DLC for 10 bucks that's not a bad deal. All that DLC for 80 is terrible. But well, I'm pretty sure it's only really rich or stupid people buying for 80 dollars what they can get for 50.
DLC that is extra content tacked onto the game is nice, it's basically a form of support you wouldn't get in the old days.
DLC that is made by cutting features before the game is released and then selling them separately is what people hate. A good example of this is the recent XCOM game. There is Day-0 DLC that opens up the option to change the visual appearance of your soldiers, including armor colors, that was obviously chopped out of the game at the last minute just to make the DLC pack. That's just bullshit straight up. A 6 week delay on it would have just added insult to injury.
The second DLC offering consisted of map packs and a scenario, and is much more what I would consider legitimate DLC. It wasn't very good, but it doesn't make me angry like the day 0 DLC did.
I read the internet for the articles.
I don't buy EA's games already. There are two problems. They continue to make crappy games, and the industry tends to follow the big leaders examples. It isn't like EA is making bucketloads of money with that strategy, they lost, what, a few hundred million last year? Something like that. Obviously, people are already not buying their games. But they aren't listening. Instead, they make Real Racing 3 and charge $80 for a single ingame car, and they've stated explicitly that they intend to focus even more on F2P, microtransactions, mobile games, and DLC to increase their revenue. Why? Because they've seen how much that strategy can make, without realizing they probably never will because their games are crap (and their prices are as well). Then we have other people who look at them going down that path, think "thats a good idea", and overall we end up with lots more shit games, and whats more, games that could be good. You see, F2P can work, but not in every case, and not when run by incompetent money-grabbing arseholes.
Which brings me to my second point. The publishers own lots of promising IP. For example, EA owns Bioware. Bioware was an amazing studio. They made one of my favorite games ever, KOTOR, and Baldur's gate, and similar. Now, though, they've ended up being destroyed and ripped apart by EA's focus on making money in the short term (which, as mentioned above, doesn't even work), and instead of producing gems like they have, they produce crap like SWTOR (sure, some people might like it, but it's nothing at heart but a cheap WoW rip-off), or the "ending" to Mass Effect 3. So we end up with games that should have been good, and even in some cases are if you move past the micro-transaction crap (like the aforementioned Real Racing 3 aparently is), but are simply stupid thanks to the publishers greed.
So in short, people already are voting with their wallets. The big studios just aren't listening, because they're run by a bunch of marketers and buzzword-obsessed executives, not by the people who actually care about the games themselves (except, of course, for the privately own Valve, which is why so many people praise them). Plus, of course, you can't get everyone to stop spending money, especially because a lot of gamers genuinely do like playing AAA titles, and if we stopped playing every game with DLC we simply wouldn't be playing AAA titles anymore. We'd just prefer not to be asked to insert our credit card every 5 minutes.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
I already vote with my dollars. Also, someone doing the "Well, we're stuck with it and you're just feeling entitled. Suddenly getting upset about this microtransaciton movement is just a phase. Remember arcades? Remember expansion packs?"
I didn't know Cliffy B trolled on /v/.
Let's break it down:
In a free to play game, I have no issue with microtransactions. I didn't pay for the game, so if I want a level 72 fuzzy strap-on I should have to pay for someone's development time. Like Mechwarrior Online or anything Zynga related. You don't have to pay to play, but you get perks if you throw money their way.
In a game where I spent a little and the primary focus is multiplayer, paying for advantages isn't so bad so long as everyone has the same chance of droprate. Like Valve's Team Fortress 2. You can buy a hat, or buy a nutblaster for scout. Or if you're patient and lucky, wait for the random wheel to drop that nutblaster you wanted.
Then there's full priced games. And this is what pisses people off. I paid to play a complete game. EA frequently has things completed and ships it with the game. It's not an expansion, it's already completed code and artwork. Contrast with WB's Mortal Kombat 9. Some of the stuff was on-disc fluff like Scorpion's outfit. Other stuff wasn't completed when the game went gold, like Rain.
EA (since Cliffy used them as the example) had a game like Dragon Age where after you come to camp a guy begs you to save his grandma. And you can save his grandma for a nominal fee of $10. On day zero of the game being released.
See, the problem isn't that we're paying for extras. We're being dicked for parts of a complete game that isn't even cosmetic. You can try to bring up arcades and expansion packs, but the truth is I owned consoles so I wouldn't be nickle and dimed at the arcades (for better or worse). And PC games. I'm old enough to remember a time when they shipped a game and it was as bug free as possible. Remember bug testing? Remember when that was a thing and the testers weren't so horribly underpaid and then fired? Remember when games weren't shipped as alpha tests with microtransactions setup that you could only HOPE the devs would fix some day? Remember when patches were to fix this bizarro world of doing 38 things that might make it so you could get out of the map instead of "clicking on cancel and then yes deletes system32"? Remember when quality MATTERED? Remember when an expansion meant that the game was so popular that they went and made MORE game for you?
And since when should I boo-hoo about living in Seattle or Frisco? You can live out in Federal Way or down in Vancouver (BC or WA) you know. We live in a society where internet is relatively cheap and prominent (and tax deductible). Why aren't you guys living in a cheaper place and coding from home? Your HQ doesn't need to be more than an office space really. Look at the guys who are making Universe Sandbox 3. That is both visually stunning AND coded by people from around the globe.
So, how about you quit crying about not affording the next lamborgini and start making games (you know, the supposed reason the industry exists) instead of tiny slot machines with a cover charge in the casino?
P.S. Captcha: unmoved
Well, not entirely. They're considered 'scumbags' because they have a habit of buying up small studios and either gutting them for the sole purpose of eliminating a competitor or forcing them to wring out their talents and IP's until nothing is left but a shriveled husk. Maxis, Bioware, Pandemic, Origin Systems; I could keep this list going for awhile yet. EA could make an entire game based around micro-transactions, but it would still be a drop in the bucket next to the greater crime of smashing every talented studio they can hit with their money hammer just to keep the little guy down.
When someone tells you to stop complaining about a product, but to simply not buy the thing you're complaining about, what he really means is:
Shut up! I can't make you buy my crap, but your complaining is getting other people not to buy it also! Now I won't make the money I'm entitled to!
The fact that you don't actually have a copy of it does not extend to just games.
Software as as service (SaaS) is not just in games. You don't actually own it, and you get the privilege of purchasing it again and again every year.
In the Enterprise world it has been increasingly common over the last many years. SalesForce, SuccessFactors, Nimble, and other big CRM companies are delivered as SAAS. Many big companies like IBM and Oracle have been moving various systems over.
That's my same argument about the latest round of SaaS Microsoft Office.
Even consumer-facing services like DropBox, Amazon's web services, and Google Office face the same issues.
This is not just EA, and not just SaaS game systems like Steam. It is huge swaths of the software ecosystem that is moving.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Industry would like to revive the change-munching model, but they forget that once the alternative of pay-once-and-own games via consoles and PCs (in the broad sense, not specific to one hardware/OS platform) became accessible, arcades began their long decline.
My favorite game? Mechassault. XBox. I bought three copies. I paid for online gaming. Microsoft promised emulation with the 360, then didn't deliver. It really is just like voting -- when your candidate loses because the game is rigged.
The only voting with my dollars I do now is not spend it in the direction of Microsoft. For that matter, with the PS4 not being compatible with the PS3 (much less the PS2) Sony won't be getting any of my gaming money either.
When a new console design treats my existing game library as if it's irrelevant, I'm going to ignore the new console design. Either incorporate the required hardware, emulate, actually design as backward-compatible, or I'm not buying.
Actually it was more of a sales nightmare. Go look over their SEC filings numbers, and you'll see that their PC division had lost nearly 55% of it's business right up until last year when they decided to scrap it.
Om, nomnomnom...
Gamers get upset when features of a game are deliberately removed or the game is shortened just to create a DLC. DLCs were originally created as a way of extending the life of the game by adding new scenarios, quests, etc. on top of the main storyline.
I finished the Dawnguard DLC and I'm just finishing the Dragonborn DLC for Skyrim. Skyrim took me four months to complete between holidays, work, life, etc. (Granted, you could play the main quest in a day or two, but I dragged it out while I did all of the side quests). The Dragonborn DLC added another couple of weeks of game play for me extending the life of the game, which is the way a DLC is supposed to work.
Free-to-play and pay entrance fee then microtransactions can both work, while a huge buy-in also works. What people are complaining about with EA is that they took (are taking?) a huge buy-in game THEN tacking the microtransactions on top of that. Paying $60 (or so) for a game then having to pay more for in game resources is ludicrus (Incidentally, there is a game I own that does exactly this, and it's not from EA). Paying $20 then being able to buy cosmetic items and side-grades (Team Fortress 2 before it went Free) is much more excusable because the cost to enter is so much lower. World of Warcraft (and other MMOs) don't cost $60 in entrance fees then your monthly, the entrance fee can be as low as $0.
Feel free to vote with your dollars, but when games are full priced new and locking out content already provided, then you can complain out the world.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
I don't get it. It sounded like he's saying: Vote with your dollars, but keep your mouth shut about it.
What he was really saying was, "Other people do DLC too, but it's bullshit that everyone picks on us."
I've got news for him. They're the punching bag because they've earned it. The one thing a wealthy person wants beyond cash is esteem. He wants to be a business rockstar that everyone loves, and it ain't gunna happen.
You can make a lot of money and still have people like you. Lots of businesses and individuals do it all the time. It's not just "image control" as he suggests, it's not being a douchebag, 100% of the time, for years on end.
You can't be an asshole and just insist that people like you anyway or keep their mouths shut. That's what bosses enjoy in the workplace, but that's not how it works between businesses and customers. Oh, and he can go fuck himself.
On the other hand, for an enormous amount of gamers, older titles that are available for very little money continue to provide enormous rewards, negating the need to spend lots of money on the latest titles, even if those latest titles "are cheaper" than new games have ever been.
Have to agree with this.
Hell, I still find myself having to fight the urge to forgo my duties and spend the entire day playing Nethack.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Simply put, customers already are voting with their wallets.
How's that working out for you?
If you don't like their microtransactions, don't spend money on them. It's that simple.
Some, maybe most, are bitching and paying because they are tools. But some, myself included, don't do microtransctions, and dislike them because they are being abused in the economic efficiency sense.
The free market is not perfectly efficient. Consumers are not perfectly informed, they don't fully amortize long run versus short run, markets aren't perfectly competitive, etc. Microtransactions may be an economic distortion, particularly in the competition and long-run v. short run sense. They shift the cost from the short run gate to the long run captive audience. That has a tendency to distort market price upward from what would otherwise be equilibrium. It also has some benefits, like inexpensive test driving -- but we are already way past, "It's that simple."
It is not that simple for everyone. Some people are playing a deeper game. Some people want our system to become stronger over time, so we can all become more productive in the long run. Those people think about system stocks, flows, forces, and feedback, and do not believe the economy can be reduced to trite platitudes.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
If you just stop buying something from a company, and say nothing, well then they really don't know why. They may make an incorrect inference as to what your problem was. For example let's say a game comes out with a new DRM that you hate, and also features a new kind of user input that you like. You don't buy it because of the DRM, but you don't speak up. Same with everyone else, they all like the new input, but hate the DRM, but are silent. The game company looks at the abysmal sales and says "Man that new input idea bombed hard, nobody wants that, let's not to that again."
When you don't like a product you very well should make it known why and not buy it.
However I will say he does have some merit in that gamers, PC gamers in particular, seem to be overly whiny and very tribal. What I mean by that is if you are a "good guy" like Valve, you can do no wrong and if you are a "bad guy" like EA you can do no right.
A great example is the unavailability of some EA games on Steam. The reason is that Valve changed their TOS for new games such that if you have DLC, that DLC must be sold through Steam, not your own site. This didn't used to be how it worked, used to be you could sell a game on Steam (and other services) and sell DLC on your own site. EA wasn't ok with that, they wanted the DLC sales. As such there was an impasse and the EA games that have DLC can't be gotten on Steam, though they can be gotten form other DD services like Impulse, Gamefly, Greenman Gaming, and so on.
Now there's not really a bad guy here, both companies have polices they aren't willing to change, and the policies are understandable, though in both cases you can argue against them. Fair enough. However gamers nearly universally decried EA as being greedy assholes that wouldn't let the noble Valve sell their games.
For that matter they got mad at EA for the same shit Valve does: Tying their games to their DD platform. New EA games wish to use Origin, and will make you log in to it. This is true even if you buy them from another DD service. Ok well this is precisely what Valve does with Steamworks. If you buy any Valve title from HL2 on, you have to install and use Steam. Doesn't matter where you get it, retail, other DD service, you are using Steam period. Same deal with 3rd party titles that use Steamworks (like Skyrim).
However when Valve does it, it is A-OK but when EA does it they are OMGWTFEVIL!!!!111.
So I do understand his point. Gamers need to bitch less, and stop being so tribal. Evaluate stuff on its merits, buy or don't, and don't cry all the time. Also, stick to your guns. An informative happening was when Modern Warfare 2 came out. PC gamers were pissed because it had been gimped on the PC. There was a "Boycott MW2" Steam group. Day one of the release? Most of the people in the group were playing MW2. They were willing to whine, but not to put their money where their mouths were.
Personally I just see in EA a sort of banal, brainless corporate "squeeze it until it bleeds dry" greed.
Steam (ie Valve's greatest product) is a giant sucking parasite perched on the carotid of modern gaming. It is the worst thing to happen to gaming, ever, and consumers are too stupid to see it.
Steam offered a brave new world of content delivery, and it was great. Except for the worm in the apple: the fact that they are NOT just a delivery organ, they are a license-management organ. No resale. No gifting of products (once they've been played). No transfers of licenses in any circumstance.*
Further, the system is stupid: if I'm logged in to Steam because I want to edit a Civ5 scenario (a game I legally own) on one computer, and want to play a quick game of Magicka (another game I legally own) with friends on my laptop, I can't, because Steam doesn't allow simultaneous logins FOR ANY REASON. So essentially, my game library is now locked behind a vault wall, with an asshole running the show who will only "let" me play one title at a time. BRILLIANT!
*Truth in advertising, I'll explain my particular beef with them, and let you decide: I have 2 sons, who until recently were minors. To manage their exposure to the world of multiplayer games, whenever they got games that were Steam-required, we attached them to MY steam-account. Now they're 16, and there's no need for me to manage their access anymore, but Steam offers no provision for me to one-time-transfer) licenses (we don't give a crap about achievements, etc) to their own Steam accounts. So now when one son wants to play 'his' copy of TF2, the other one can't play Xcom.
I even tried to actually talk to someone in Steam, I've offered to do ANYTHING to prove that I'm their father, this is a one-time deal, anything; the response I got was a flat refusal to give me a contact name, and the assertion that "we're a flat organization, we don't have managers". Right, so Gabe Newell's right there, answering tech support calls I bet?
I disliked Steam, but every time I see a title on the shelves that says "Steam Required" I hate them that little bit more.
-Styopa
Bingo. That's exactly what I was going to say. This guy is an idiot if he thinks things would be better (for EA or any other company) if nobody complained and only voted with their dollars. Hearing people bitch and complain about something that you've done to your product is probably the best way to get immediate feedback on that change, especially when other unrelated changes may have been made at the same time, or when a change to product X alienates your customers such that they refuse to buy product Y or product X+1. Do you seriously want to wait until the effects of people "voting with their dollars" propagates through the system before you know you've fucked up? Then, what? You want to have to guess what exactly it was that you did to piss everyone off? Maybe create a survey and send it out into the world, or have your marketing droids canvas shoppers at GameStop to see why they aren't buying? I can't believe this guy actually thinks that's a good idea...
When I *really* don't like something, I vote with my dollars AND by influencing others not to spend their dollars either.
I'm sure EA would greatly prefer if dissatisfied customers merely voted with their dollars, but kept quiet so as not to build a public awareness and cause others to do the same. Well, that's not how things work, especially in the modern times of widespread internet connectivity and online social networking.
I personally don't play video games much. But I recently tried a few on an iPad. My first experience, Plants vs Zombies, was fun. It seems to have been designed before this in-game purchasing became a big deal. But then I tried another, and another, and yet another... and it quickly became clear they were designed to force you to make in-game purchases. One even had 3 times of in-game resources, plus 2 types of time limits, which you could pay your way around.
Those games just aren't much fun. That's the problem. if you don't pony up real money, they're incredibly boring and repetitive... pretty much being stuck in a purgatory of inadequate resources to play the game. I tried paying on a couple. Guess what... then you've got everything you need and the game quickly becomes not very interesting either. It's a low quality experience either way.
When you make a poor product, word gets out. When an entire industry moves in a direction that's initially profitable, but ultimately results in poor products that people don't enjoy, eventually the marketplace wises up and demand for those products declines or evaporates. That's simply how free markets work.
Critical public commentary is simply part of that free market process. EA may not like it, but that's too bad. Sooner or later, as enough people vote with their dollars, EA will respond with better products, rather than wishing their dissatisfied customers would quietly go away.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
One of the main problems I have with micro-transactions is their use in competitive games. When something is purchased to give one player an advantage that another player does not have without paying that same money, that creates a imbalance that ensures only those who are more wealthy will have the edge. Sure, some of that can be solved by server configurations that disallow certain weapons, but it is less likely that those server configurations will be available. Also, wealthier people can purchase better computers that cause the game to perform better, but at least that imbalance is more subjective where-as a better weapon that somebody else doesn't have access to directly alters the maximum potential of gameplay results. Even if people vote with their dollars, many will choose to pay to gain that unfair competitive edge which may hurt the minority, but the minority still deserves just as fair a chance.
Wow. What a bitter, incoherent rant.
So, let's take this apart. The ranter, Cliff Bleszinski, is not actually saying "Vote with your dollars" he's saying, "You'll take what we give you and like it." However, the rant comes across as desperate and rage filled because that's actually false bravado, he knows that his customers don't have to take what they give them and like it.
I think a certain amount of games industry executives, people who aren't in the business because they love games as an art form, probably look at other businesses with envy. "Look at those heroin kingpins, their customers will do anything for another hit." "Look at the oil industry, it seems like they can raise prices through the roof and people keep buying." "Look a pharmaceuticals, if people don't pay their prices, well, they die." or "Look at credit cards, those earn money for the banks while the bankers are sleeping!"
However, for whatever reason, the games industry executives are stuck in an industry that lives or dies on customer service. Ask Atari how well they did after 2600 Pac -Man made all the little children cry..
So does this mean no DRM? No DLC? No microtransactions? Why no!
I've been dealing with DRM since games came on 5 1/4 inch floppies. DLC reminds me of paying for a disk of shareware, and then paying some more for the rest of the content. And while it isn't an electronic game, I don't think any Magic addict like myself could be unfamiliar with the concept of microtransactions.
What it means is that you can't push it and expect to make money. However sad it makes the game honchos, they aren't heroin dealers. They can't say "the price is the price, yo" like Badger on Breaking Bad and expect people to pay it.
If you are going to sell people a $60.00 game, it can't be the equivalent of a $5 shareware disk with DLC being necessary to complete it. That's why some companies played around with selling games as episodes at a slightly lower price... and that model didn't pan out. I think expansion packs make money, I enjoyed Yuri's Revenge but some actual effort was put into that, and Red Alert II was a fine, complete game without it.
DRM that makes the game unplayable... makes the game unplayable. That's not hard to understand, is it? If it makes it unplayable some of the time, it makes the game unplayable some of the time. It diminishes the games quality. Don't do that if you don't want a reputation for selling unplayable junk.
There are two kinds of games. Games built from the ground up around micro-transactions and games that are totally destroyed by shoehorning microtransactions into them. You can't take the latest iteration of Doom (by which I mean any FPS that can be loosely described as lone hero versus hordes of monsters), and make the player have to pay for every gun and demon. It won't work. It will make the game suck.
You might not like it, but if you don't I suggest you look for work in one of those other industries I mentioned, because an industry built around pleasing customers is clearly not for you.
"MIT betrayed all of its basic principles."