EA's 'Star Wars' PR Disaster Finally Pushed Gamers Into Open Revolt Against Loot Boxes (rollingstone.com)

In other news, sales of peanut M&Ms reached re by JoeyRox · 2017-11-14 03:27 · Score: 1, Troll

Get out of the house and try talking to a woman.

Well by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is the inevitable result of microtransactions.

Long gone are there days of just making a game and shipping it.

Re:Well by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:10 · Score: 1, Interesting

Yeah, but that can actually be a good thing. I am playing a few early access games that change every other month, get better and better, get more and more features, some of them being a totally new game every half year or so, all for the price of a pizza.
Granted, sometimes I get a stale pizza, but in the end, I come out ahead. And way ahead of any AAA titles I ever bought.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 04:51 · Score: 1

NWN and NWN2 were spectacular, one time buy games. You could buy the extra modules from them if you wanted but you weren't required. In fact, the best stuff was all user made.
Diablo and Diablo 2, as well as starcraft and warcraft rts games were all one time buys but I more then got my money out of those 100x.
Sadly, I realize all the games on my list are all over 10, some 15 years old. Diablo 20.
The newest game I have spent enormous time on is Mount and Blade: Warband and a module POP3. One time cost. Guild Wars 2 is one time buy though I am sure you want to spend more money to speed up some tedious stuff, but you can explore the entire open world, do all the quests and what not. Takes forever and I never really finished but it was a beautiful game that was fun to play. The pvp even has two different forms, both were fun but I was never good enough to feel competitive.
Wurm Unlimited is another one time buy. Great game and you can host your own world or play on a hosted server. All for one time buy.
I bought Xbox just to play Halo. Totally worth it, though I was a late comer to xbox so it didn't pay that much.
Still some choices out there, but it's harder to find good games. Games today look absolutely amazing but are a lot of rehashes. As a kid, it would not be a bad time to be a gamer. If the new madden or FPS was your first experience, it is actually going to be pretty awesome.
Re:Well by interkin3tic · 2017-11-14 05:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd argue this is more a result of most consumers being so young.

I worked at gamestop about 10 years ago. Kids would bring in their entire collection, would get $10 for 20 games. Well worn copies of good games they obviously loved and had value "I can only give you $2 for this game you've obviously put at least a hundred hours into." They just stood there, either staring at me waiting for me to give them the shiny new game in exchange for their memories or staring directly at the game waiting to play it.

Kids have more money than taste. I was that way when I was buying "Hootie and the blowfish" or "Ace of Base" CDs with my money from mowing the lawn, my parents were like that when they were trading baseball cards. It's just a fact of life that kids make dumb decisions with their purchases.

That it's messing up entertainment for the rest of us isn't even new. Music has been catering to the young and dumb crowd again for generations. See my above musical tastes.

What is new is that gamers are starting to age to a point where we're whining about the good old days, AND have a forum to whine about it collectively.
Re:Well by kwerle · 2017-11-14 06:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

No... games without micro transactions are the only ones I play - and there are plenty of 'em coming out.
If you support micros, that's the road you've chosen. There are plenty of others.
Re:Well by Darinbob · 2017-11-14 06:58 · Score: 2

So just don't buy the game, don't pay for the microtransactions. if a game *requires* microtransaction to "win" then boycott it. Granted, some players have bizarre definitions of "win" though. But if you need to buy a crate or unlock a character just to enjoy the game then it's past time to go outside and take a deep breath. That's far simpler than going on a rant and sending death threats - if you have that much energy then please spend it doing something useful. Of all the injustices in the world that need fixing, this microtransaction issue is insignificant.
The smart thing is always to find out about a game first before buying it. Never pre-purchase a game, that's just dumb. Especially from a major publisher as those are almost always the most hated companies in the country. (seriously, who still buys a game from EA or uses Origin??)
Re:Well by Darinbob · 2017-11-14 07:03 · Score: 1

They have them in the mmo I play. But they don't affect gameplay much, and subsidize the game for those who can play from start to end for free. It's a choice for players to decide to play free versus buying microtransactions versus subscribing.
Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 07:36 · Score: 1

You should try Pillars of Eternity. The studio is still around--and not owned by EA yet
Re:Well by rogoshen1 · 2017-11-14 07:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd take the witcher 3 over just about any game I've ever played (and there's been a lot, going back to the early 90's) -- and definitely would take it over a pizza, stale or not.
Good games that are fun and have artistic merit are out there; just sadly not as common as they once were
Re:Well by war4peace · 2017-11-14 08:10 · Score: 1

Path of Exile has a plethora of microtransactions, all of them having zero impact on your gameplay because all they are is cosmetics and stash tabs.
Proof that a game solely relying on MTS can thrive, be replayable and have a large, stable community.

--
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Re:Well by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 08:31 · Score: 1

The amount of really crappy games has always been staggering. Just as with everything, you just remember the classics and those that you tried once and tossed into the corner right away, you forget because you only played them once.
It's a bit like when people say that music was better in the old days (whether that's the 50s, or the 90s, music was always better in the "old days"). Nope. It wasn't. Was the same mix of 90% cash-grab garbage and 10% actually good stuff. The only thing is that you forget about the 90% and only remember the timeless classics.
Want proof? Ponder for a moment how many games you remember from the 80s. Now ponder if that can really be all you ever played and copi... I mean bought.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Well by Stan92057 · 2017-11-14 08:52 · Score: 1

That game "Witcher 3" is great because the people who make it actually care about the game they make, Hope fame doesn't go to their heads. unlike EA who doesn't care about games but only how they can ass rape people to buy mod maps they once allowed users to make. Wall street Greed has destroyed EA, the people that work their don't care about games anymore and its showing.this is what happen when a company goes wall street..Google a non gaming prime example as well of what happens when stock market numbers control what you do.

--
Jack of all trades,master of none
Re:Well by rogoshen1 · 2017-11-14 09:09 · Score: 1

That, and I hope they make a Witcher 4. The story line, characters, and world are just too damn deep to leave alone (with or without Geralt)
The absolute vicious irony here is that there's a ton of IP out there that's been done to fucking death. Rehashed sequels that are nothing more than iterative churned out crap used make a bit of easy profit. (How many battlefield, COD, rainbow six games do we really need?)
Contrasted to something like the Witcher whose universe is almost Tolkien-esque in terms of depth, and they make 3 games out of it, then move on.
Boo.
Re:Well by antdude · 2017-11-14 18:17 · Score: 1

Same for DRM. Frak it.

--
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Re:Well by Cederic · 2017-11-14 22:59 · Score: 1

American Truck Simulator, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Dishonored, The Witcher 3, Rocket League, Divinity: Original Sin (and D:OS 2), Starpoint Gemini (2 and/or Warlords) are all 'buy once, play for ages'. Some of them have additional content you can purchase but it's definitely just extending the game rather than necessary to complete/enjoy it.
For online play things like GW2 (which you mentioned), Secret Worlds Legends, World of Tanks, War Thunder, Overwatch all offer interactive gameplay of various forms and I've bought no DLC for any of them.

Still some choices out there, but it's harder to find good games.

Nah, there are some stunning games out there. Hell, millions are playing PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, GTA V still has massive sales, the Total War franchise remains popular (and keeps changing its offering) and the Indie market continues to deliver excellence - if you can find it.
Must admit though, I am still quivering in anticipation of Mount & Blade 2: Bannerlords. Give!!
Re:Well by Cederic · 2017-11-14 23:01 · Score: 1

Rather than Witcher 4 they're more likely to switch main character and give us a Ceri based adventure.
However, first they're doing something that absolutely isn't a rehashed sequel: Cyberpunk 2077.
The care and writing that went into Witcher 3, in a cyberpunk setting? Oh yes!
Re:Well by Cederic · 2017-11-14 23:05 · Score: 1

Microtransactions for cosmetics I generally ignore. Rocket League must make millions for its dev team based on the cosmetics - but it also pays for the continued game development and server support.

they don't affect gameplay much
Too much, then. In a single player game there's no call at all for gameplay changing microtransactions and in a multi-player one they immediate break game balance (and often damage its entertainment value - the devs invariably punish their non-microtransaction-buying customers to incentivise further purchases).
Keep microtransactions out of gaming ffs.
Re:Well by Wraithlyn · 2017-11-24 12:53 · Score: 1

"90% of everything is crap"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

--
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Re:Well by thewolfkin · 2017-11-28 04:22 · Score: 1

Yeah, but that can actually be a good thing. I am playing a few early access games that change every other month, get better and better, get more and more features, some of them being a totally new game every half year or so, all for the price of a pizza.
That's called a beta version with open or closed access and it used to be free.

--
Just another second banana

Come on, come on by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:27 · Score: 1

Fingers crossed we get our very own Crash of 1983 in the near future.

Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think we are currently witnessing it.
What we deal with here is something that is, essentially, an impossibility. A gaming corporation. The combination of "gaming", an activity that requires something that is fun, exciting, interesting, and engaging, and "corporation", which is the exact opposite thereof. The reason it managed to stay afloat is in the case of EA mostly that they keep hoovering up studios and franchises that actually give players fun, exiting, interesting and engaging games and "corporatize" them, i.e. milk them dry and shell out lines of rehashed sequels that are, essentially, the same game with some minor, insignificant gimmick, sold to fans of the line as new angle. That works for some time, and afterwards, they just throw away the franchise and studio and continue with the next.
All this only works if they up the technical angle. Better graphics. Better sound. Better physics. Better textures. Better AI. Because the game is still essentially the same. It has to be. They bought the franchise and players do have a certain expectation for it. Dare to make a RTS Battlefield spinoff? Remember how Command & Conquer: Renegade was received when Westwood tried the opposite? Don't even think about it. There is no way to "improve" the gameplay.
And all these things, graphics, sound, physics, textures and AI, they are prohibitively expensive. Note how those Indie-Games you like so much all come with mediocre graphics (if they're not even one of those "pixel graphics" rubbish that for some odd reason is so en vogue right now) and generally tech specs from the 2000s? Unlike EA, indies can actually go for "better gameplay". EA has to toss funds into the graphics/sound/physics/AI money sink.
This is why the 60ish bucks you can ask for a game isn't enough. Not even close. But 100 bucks isn't a price tag even the most devout fanboy would pay for a game. So they go for boiling the frog slowly. Pay 60 now, then 5 bucks here, 10 bucks there, 20 for the DLC (that is oddly available from day 1 and the game can't sensibly be played without), then every other month another 10 for the new guns that you need if you want to play online and don't want to be cannon fodder.
This does still work. Or rather, as we see right here and right now, it does not anymore. Gamers are not only fed up. They start voting with their wallet. They don't want to play games that cost them 200+ bucks only to find out that they threw that money into the gutter eventually because EA turns off the servers to play it because you're supposed to buy the successor for 60 bucks that is essentially the same game but with another 150 bucks of DLCs waiting to be bought.
I have this feeling that we're about to see this business model come to an end.
At the same time this could well be the death spell for corporations like EA. Their business model is, as stated before, watching which franchises work, buy out the studio, then milk it. This isn't viable anymore if people don't accept the "pay while you play" model with upfront costs that cannot be covered with a price tag of 60 bucks.
And corporations are like oil tankers. Hard to turn around once they have a course set.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Jeremi · 2017-11-14 04:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

The combination of "gaming", an activity that requires something that is fun, exciting, interesting, and engaging, and "corporation", which is the exact opposite thereof.

That's kind of silly logic, isn't it? There are literally millions of corporations who successfully provide people with fun, by offering products ranging from bicycles to board games to ocean cruises to pogo sticks to software.
If EA can't manage to offer fun, it's because EA is screwed up, not because corporations and fun are inherently incompatible.

--

I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Re:Come on, come on by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 04:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Nice post.
But I disagree on one point:

Gamers are not only fed up. They start voting with their wallet.
They really don't. Preorders and Early Access orders are still widely used.
Re:Come on, come on by Gr8Apes · 2017-11-14 04:33 · Score: 1

You set up a nice strawman there. Yes, EA is guilty of everything you state, and more. However, a certain class of gamers appear to thrive off of what they're selling, so they'll continue selling it. They may just have squeezed the turnip too hard, and are backing off. If they're lucky, they did it in time and will regain a portion of those gamers they were in danger of losing, and thus increase their profit.
Regarding Indies, I still root for them. I buy them on occasion just to support them. However mostly, when I play, I tend to play older games that don't require network connectivity and DRM services and don't require spending 8 hours a day to play or you'll be a bottom feeder always. In fact, I'm not much of a team gamer, preferring solo games that can be played in as little as 10 minute chunks across days or weeks. Then again, I'm not EA's target audience.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Come on, come on by Megol · 2017-11-14 04:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

EA existed (and was hated) long before DLC and microtransactions were a thing.
Computer games designed and sold by corporations are an old thing, corporations isn't incompatible with fun. The idea is ridiculous - many old games that is still spoken about as innovative, fun by nostalgic geeks were in almost all cases designed by and distributed by specialized game development companies. Including EA.
And about franchises not being able to change: Fallout. Heard of it?
Re:Come on, come on by Calydor · 2017-11-14 04:39 · Score: 1

Since you use RTS as a base of your hypothesis, remember what happened when a game company turned a successful series of RTS games into an MMORPG?
Yes, I'm talking about Warcraft.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:48 · Score: 1

Preorders and Early Access orders are still widely used.
The "still" is the critical part in this sentence. If you take a closer look at sales numbers, you will notice that they are very much in decline.
What can be observed in the past year is that people get more wary of preordering titles. Too many crappy knockoffs have been littering the gaming landscape lately, the only things that still sell very well in preorder are multiplayer titles that entail some kind of early access which grants competitive players an edge by learning the maps and gameplay details before the ladder starts. Else you can see a lot of games getting most of their sales 3-5 days after initial release when the first verdicts are in.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:52 · Score: 1

Bicycles are hardly something that needs a lot of innovation, aside of better materials and some advances in technology. You don't have to put "fun" into them, that's something the user brings along himself. Board games in turn are suffering from pretty much the same problem computer games are, with most of the more interesting games that push the envelope being developed by independent developers that either kickstart their idea themselves or sell it to MB or Hasbro, who in turn only buy into it once they noticed that the product has a market.
So ... no.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:55 · Score: 1

I'm certainly not EA's target audience, caring more for gameplay and innovation than graphics. It just pains me that a company that I used to like for their games has turned in the past 20 years or so into something that does nothing but crank out one cookie-cutter copy of games that I used to like every single year, with zero innovation or any kind of initiative to improve.
Though I'd like to know where you see me putting up a strawman. What did I misrepresent?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Frobnicator · 2017-11-14 04:59 · Score: 4, Interesting

The idea is ridiculous - many old games that is still spoken about as innovative, fun by nostalgic geeks were in almost all cases designed by and distributed by specialized game development companies. Including EA.
I'm reminded of older games, and even new games, when I read these.
The complaint is that it takes about 40 hours of gameplay to unlock. Similar multiplayer match games report that mainstream players often spend 15-20 hours per week for about a month, then settle to about 10 hours per week until the games fall out of favor. Their hardcore players can log 80+ hours per week. This means many players would be able to unlock one hero before the end of November, and hardcore gamer teens will likely unlock one or two before Thanksgiving. Most players will unlock two or three before Christmas, hardcore gamers could unlock all the heroes before Christmas under the old structure.
In the older games the high-end unlockables were not available until near the end of the game, often requiring 100+ hours to achieve. And those were single player games played once, not the online match games where statistically people replay them for over a thousand hours on average before moving on.
With the update math suggests they're unlocked with about six hours of gameplay. All of them can be unlocked with 80 hours of gameplay, meaning hardcore players will likely have them all unlocked before the Thanksgiving holiday is over, more casual players can have every character unlocked before Christmas. Far too easy for such a long-running game, in my view.
I think EA was trying to bypass the claims that only the unemployed teens devoting extended hours to the game could unlock those characters, so they added an alternate way to achieve them. Players have been calling for this type of unlock for years, and few games offer it. At 40 hours to unlock and $80 for Darth Vader, that's about $2/hour. Lesser characters were closer to $1/hour or $0.50/hour. While I rarely buy in-game content, those prices don't feel outlandish. Unfortunately and ironically, by providing exactly the thing the players demand, the players revolted.

--
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Re:Come on, come on by allcoolnameswheretak · 2017-11-14 04:59 · Score: 1

Note how those Indie-Games you like so much all come with mediocre graphics (if they're not even one of those "pixel graphics" rubbish that for some odd reason is so en vogue right now)

Why would you call pixel graphics "rubbish"? Pixel art has a charm of its own, and many players prefer to have good, innovative gameplay over the shiniest and latest graphics. Indie-studios have limited resources, and emphasizing gameplay over graphics is what has made many of their games so appealing and successful.
Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:04 · Score: 1

Yes, I do. And do you know the origins of GTA?
Franchises can change, yes. How often did they do it successfully? More important, how often did it happen with large corporations, and how often when they were acquired by large corporations? Because after the acquisition, they don't change anymore. Ever.
And yes, Electronic Arts did actually create a few memorable, great games.
EA hasn't.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Type44Q · 2017-11-14 05:07 · Score: 1

Hard to turn around once they have a course set.
Especially when there's a sociopath with an IQ of ~110 at the helm.
Re:Come on, come on by Type44Q · 2017-11-14 05:14 · Score: 1

And all these things, graphics, sound, physics, textures and AI, they are prohibitively expensive.
There's a world of difference between paying artists to create textures, meshes and sounds and paying programmers to work on physics/AI. While the former certainly means lots of man hours (oops, sorry, I don't want to offend the mediocrity police; perhaps "androgynous freak hours" would be more palatable), physics/AI are largely programming challenges that have been greatly reduced by the availability and ease-of-use of ubiquitous game-development environments such as UDK.
Re:Come on, come on by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:15 · Score: 1

I don't find it appealing.
That doesn't mean I would throw it away on this (lack of) merit alone, if the gameplay is good, I don't care about graphics. I just still do not like the style.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Come on, come on by Moheeheeko · 2017-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

Preorders and Early Access orders are still widely used.
Im actually ok with early access in some regard, some of my current favorite games were in early access phase a few years ago, and I got to pick them up for a fraction of the cost of what they are now that they are "released"
If early access means it costs less, its vastly superior to preordering, because when you preorder you pay the full price of the "release" version, while most if not all early access games only make you pay a little, and then dont force you to pay more later.
Re:Come on, come on by amicusNYCL · 2017-11-14 05:25 · Score: 1

I have this feeling that we're about to see this business model come to an end.
No it's not. This isn't going anywhere, it's just going to look different. If you think people are voting with your wallets, like that Mashable article points out, those people are a small minority. Based on the first game, the potential audience for this is somewhere around 12 million people. So, 600k people don't like some Reddit comment? OK, that's 5% of their potential market. And those aren't the people who matter, either. Again, like the article points out, there will always be the "whales" who spend the vast majority of post-release money, and those people aren't going anywhere. The rest of the game community is the product that the whales can compete with, the whales are the customers that EA is going after. And, again, like the article points out, the failure here is that the system is so complex that it makes it too obvious what's going on. The writer seems to imply that all they need to do is get better at convincing people that they can level up or whatever in a reasonable amount of time, even though the whales will still just go in and buy everything immediately.
Not enough people vote with their wallets. I'm sure you don't buy EA games, and I've had them on my boycott list for so long that I don't even remember what the final straw was. But there are still people who are probably posting negative comments about EA in this very thread, who are still going to buy the game. Why? I don't know. It's not like anyone *needs* to play this game to the point that they're going to pay a company to do something they don't like. No one needs this game, there are plenty of good games out there, but for some reason there are a lot of people who will overlook the negative things that EA consistently does and give them their money anyway.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Come on, come on by amicusNYCL · 2017-11-14 05:31 · Score: 1

Unfortunately and ironically, by providing exactly the thing the players demand, the players revolted.
No one demanded locked content. When you pay $60 for a game, why shouldn't you be able to just jump in immediately and fly around in the Millennium Falcon as Darth Vader? What if I'm not looking for some sort of "sense of accomplishment" in my entertainment, what if I just want an escape?
You're wrong, no one asked for this.

--
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Re:Come on, come on by Khyber · 2017-11-14 05:37 · Score: 1

"Remember how Command & Conquer: Renegade was received when Westwood tried the opposite?"
It's still going as Renegade X and even just recently had an update. Granted, it's totally out of Westwood's hands, now, but it's still well and alive.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:Come on, come on by goose-incarnated · 2017-11-14 06:32 · Score: 1

"At the same time this could well be the death spell for corporations like EA. "
They aren't worried. They'll pay a bunch of sycophantic game journos to write another "Gamers are Dead" series that will turn the heat off them a little and bring in a few more gamers in the form of ideological sheep who want to support their cause by buying a few games here and there.

--
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Re:Come on, come on by ceoyoyo · 2017-11-14 06:36 · Score: 1

"Note how those Indie-Games you like so much all come with mediocre graphics (if they're not even one of those "pixel graphics" rubbish that for some odd reason is so en vogue right now) and generally tech specs from the 2000s?"
Nah. A couple of examples: Kerbal Space Program, particularly with the community visual mods, is beautiful. Eve Online is also essentially an indie game, although admittedly from a more established company, and it's not only beautiful but has kept pace with graphics development over the last 15 years.
The problem is that anybody who's successful eventually has to bring in more people to help maintain things. Or they get offers they can't refuse from the majors. Eventually they sell out to the kind of corporation you describe. The solution is fairly simple: indie developers need to start specifying in the contracts they make with purchasers, limits on what the game will do in the future. No lootboxes. No sales to EA. That not only provides a commitment to their early adopters, but also makes them unattractive to the big corps.
Re:Come on, come on by Barefoot+Monkey · 2017-11-14 07:00 · Score: 1

Oh come on, you should know that Star Wars cosplayers don't burn people at the stake. They throw them down a replica Sarlacc Pit.
Re:Come on, come on by phorm · 2017-11-14 07:03 · Score: 1

Remember how Command & Conquer: Renegade was received when Westwood tried the opposite? Don't even think about it. There is no way to "improve" the gameplay.
I don't recall renegade, but "Starcraft: Ghost" was well-received in concept, even though the project ultimately failed.I think it could still be doable today with a rainbow-6 cross Assassin's Creed type game mechanic.
We already have a lot of book series which are spinoffs of or tied to game series, so I really see no reason one couldn't make an FPS-type game based on an RTS, or vice-versa. Blizzard's Overwatch could have had the same characters in something similar to LoL/DOTA.
Similarly, something like a new "Mass Effect" game could be great, so long as they have a good plot-line but to some extend honor their predecessors. ME2 changed how various game mechanics worked and did just fine. ME3 was good up to the end at which at lot of people feel it failed on plot
Nintendo has actually mixed up their core offerings a fair bit in some cases, be the the 2d->3d change with Metroid, or Zelda going from a 2d top-down to pseudo-3d, to full 3d, to 3d open-world. Being that BOTW is arguably one of the best games out in the last year or so, it's hard to say that you can stay within the say formula but still be "different" enough to be appealing.
Re:Come on, come on by Darinbob · 2017-11-14 07:43 · Score: 1

Most large gaming corporations aren't innovative either. They're like Hollywood in that sense, they have such huge budget that they keep recycling proven formulas.
My favorite games that I keep play or returning to do not have the best graphics, physics, whatever. They may even be buggy. What they don't have is 10 hours of gameplay, they come with hundreds of hours, replayability (not just because you unlocked Princess Leia), and so forth. New games rarely measure up.
Re:Come on, come on by Gr8Apes · 2017-11-14 07:54 · Score: 1

EA sets up a multiplayer scenario where they can micro-transact you to death for faster progression or "wins" against opponents. (I've not played an EA game in a while, so some of this comes only from commentary and EAs advertising) They do release sequels, and some of those garner quite a bit in sales. You don't get sales without improving some aspect of the game, and merely improving graphics resolution or sound isn't going to cut it for most. Now physics and AI both improve gameplay, or can, depending on the game, but you're statement equates those 2 as no more impactful than sound/graphics. In fact, AI, or rather the computer controlled player algorithm, may be the single most determining piece of whether a game can be fun or not. I present Civilization as a prime example of where the AI alone made each release better for the first 4 iterations. Graphics also made significant improvements in gameplay in each release even if distracting elements accompanied those improvements, especially looking back today.

--
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Re:Come on, come on by Darinbob · 2017-11-14 07:56 · Score: 1

A good game should survive by itself, and any DLC is 100% optional and is not just a way to compete an unfinished game. Ideally the developer should not even be thinking about DLC until the game is done. Today though it seems like DLCs are planned up-front.
Re:Come on, come on by dadelbunts · 2017-11-14 08:38 · Score: 1

This is false tho. Those "indie" games i love playing often times come with pretty damn good graphics. Elite Dangerous looks stunning every time i play it. Spintires Mudrunner has some of the best water i have ever seen.
Re:Come on, come on by Type44Q · 2017-11-14 08:48 · Score: 1

That's kind of silly logic, isn't it?
Only if it was actually logic; it sounds more like metal poisoning.
Re:Come on, come on by Wulf2k · 2017-11-14 10:16 · Score: 1

In my limited experience with "Early Access", it means the dev gets his payday early and then screws off onto another project with no incentive to ever really finish.
Re: Come on, come on by sonamchauhan · 2017-11-14 21:53 · Score: 1

40 hours of gameplay to unlock... 15-20 hours per week ... 10 hours per week ... 80+ hours per week. ... unlock one hero before the end of November ... one or two before Thanksgiving. ... two or three before Christmas
Wow. Just wow. And me, belonging to the idspispopd generation.
Re: Come on, come on by sonamchauhan · 2017-11-14 22:03 · Score: 1

40 hours of gameplay to unlock... 15-20 hours per week ... 10 hours per week ... 80+ hours per week. ... unlock one hero before the end of November ... one or two before Thanksgiving. ... two or three before Christmas
Wow. Just wow. And me, belonging to the idspispopd generation.
Re:Come on, come on by Cederic · 2017-11-15 00:19 · Score: 1

just because you unlocked Princess Leia
From one perspective she was rather more fun to play with locked up...
Re: Come on, come on by Cederic · 2017-11-15 00:58 · Score: 1

Yummy, I love faggots.
http://groceries.iceland.co.uk...
People play games for fun and entertainment. Not as a substitute for work, where they have to put unfun effort into accessing the content for which they've paid.
Re:Come on, come on by thewolfkin · 2017-11-28 04:26 · Score: 1

Board games in turn are suffering from pretty much the same problem computer games are, with most of the more interesting games that push the envelope being developed by independent developers that either kickstart their idea themselves or sell it to MB or Hasbro
um.. do you even board game? MB and Hasbro are not the kings of board game industry. Most of the board games they make are little more than toys compared to the modern board game industry. The big players in modern board games are companies like Asmodee.

--
Just another second banana

-665k points now by Quakeulf · 2017-11-14 03:28 · Score: 2

EA seems oblivious to their own conduct outwards, but inwards they know exactly what they are doing. All attention is good attention, and this has also been great business for Reddit: https://twitter.com/Colonthree...

Re:-665k points now by ayesnymous · 2017-11-14 20:07 · Score: 1

That -679K comment has 83 golds on it. Why are people gilding it if they're downvoting it so much?

They've hidden the refund button by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

I don't play free-to-play games, or games with those mechanics in them - but according to the very latest from Jim Sterling, they've hidden the refund button on EA's page for this game after the mentioned user outrage.

Its an industry wide behavior by tatman · 2017-11-14 03:35 · Score: 2

EA is convinced, like all the other game publishers, you are willing to shell out $70+ for the game, plus shell out even more cash for in game upgrades through the purchase of some kind of "in game currency" (credits, whatever). I don't know of any games I play these days that do not work off this model. It's enough to turn me away.

--
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.

Re:Its an industry wide behavior by Myrdos · 2017-11-14 05:10 · Score: 1

I played Star Wars Battlefront II like, 10 years ago. What happened? Did they run out of numbers? Or is it just twos all the way down?
Re:Its an industry wide behavior by apoc.famine · 2017-11-14 05:13 · Score: 1

It's gotten to the point where I no longer buy AAA games when they are 5+ years old and on GOG or steam, because they are inevitably broken in some way. There is no thought towards "how can we make sure people are still playing this in 5-10 years" - it's all short-term profit now. The servers go away, the DLC or in-game currency is designed to essentially be required, and we're never going to port this to another platform, because why bother?
The last couple I bought were also utterly crippled and broken by cutscenes, which didn't help any. When I'm all ready to drop my devastating first strike on the big boss from behind, you can't fucking teleport me to the door in front of him so I can walk in and get a lecture before he gets to attack first. I just don't get why "stop playing and watch this movie" has infected most of modern gaming. When I want to game, I want to game. I don't want to be interrupted by a movie every time I get to some exciting part. And I definitely don't want to have my strategy obliterated by your need to dictate how and when I interact with NPCs.
Now excuse me, I think some kid is on my lawn....

--
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Re:Its an industry wide behavior by Myrdos · 2017-11-14 05:17 · Score: 1

I was going to get this game, but now I think I'll wait for Star Wars Battlefront II.
Re:Its an industry wide behavior by Gilgaron · 2017-11-14 05:37 · Score: 1

I certainly buy fewer AAA games, but not all of them are too bad about this. The latest Doom was trying to convince me I wanted to buy some packs of some kind for multiplayer but it was too fun in single player for me to even bother.
Re:Its an industry wide behavior by AlanBDee · 2017-11-14 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

I can think of a good example of DLC done right: Rocksmith 2014. If you haven't heard of Rocksmith it's basically Rock Band or Guitar Hero with a real guitar and you're actually playing the song. Every week they release a song pack, 3-5 songs. They're up to about 1100 songs total. I've shelled out several grand over the years on this and am happy to do so, it's worth every penny to me. I get to cherry pick the songs I like and they all fit in a single game. I can start a random list and play till my fingers bleed (feels so good)
Re:Its an industry wide behavior by fafalone · 2017-11-14 09:39 · Score: 1

Maybe you're leaving some functionality out, but in such a game I would have expected it to come with a base load of songs, some songs offered by the developer as extras, but also documented or at least not hidden/encrypted modding ability accessible so players can add their own songs. Having to pay for each and every little expansion to prevent the game from becoming old and stale is the definition DLC done wrong, destroying the mod community so you can keep all the addon profit instead of it being free.

They're lucky by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-11-14 03:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

I actually consider EA lucky to be getting away with just consumer backlash on public forums and emails. I'm just waiting for the inevitable lawsuits of "whale" users to expose microtransactions like these for what they are - unregulated gambling. I have no respect for a company who builds a business model around exploiting addictions.

Re:They're lucky by Quakeulf · 2017-11-14 03:54 · Score: 1

Of course it is unregulated gambling. The whole "gacha"-system needs to be heavily regulated.
Re:They're lucky by the_skywise · 2017-11-14 03:57 · Score: 1

Really need to come up with better terms for this.
For instance I don't consider Overwatch's version of loot boxes to be anywhere near gambling. Nothing you can get affects gameplay or winnability (unless you wanna count being stunned momentarily in game by a "whoa - awesome skin" moment *BLAM*) just bragging rights stuff. Sure there's randomness to the collectibles but nothing more than you'd get out of a toy vending machine at the grocery store - and those aren't unregulated gambling.
That said, yeah, there are plenty of instances out there of trying to get better items for gameplay, which I loathe, but even though these are also "loot crates" they're an entirely different beast.
Even THEN, though, how different is that then having ultra-rare in game items that can be purchased with in-game currency that has to be earned through dozens of hours of grinding or constantly finding and fighting certain classes of monsters hoping to get the right drop? Sure you don't pay with money - but you do pay with TIME which is inarguably more valuable to you.
Re:They're lucky by Quakeulf · 2017-11-14 03:59 · Score: 1

It's called "gacha". I already posted it in the comment above yours.
Re:They're lucky by Mashiki · 2017-11-14 04:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

I'm just waiting for them to try pulling the "death threats and sexual harassment" bullshit to try and deflect from their shit-tier garbage. I doubt though, that lawsuit will happen in the meantime. On top of that, getting people to realize and agree that it *is* gambling seems to be an upward climb. The number of people who will argue that it isn't gambling is staggering.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:They're lucky by Mashiki · 2017-11-14 04:28 · Score: 3, Informative

And speak of the devil. EA is now trying to shift the narritive to "omg, woe is me, we've gotten death threats." bullshit to try and derail this. Of course no proof is offered at all.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:They're lucky by ljw1004 · 2017-11-14 05:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

And speak of the devil. EA is now trying to shift the narritive to "omg, woe is me, we've gotten death threats." bullshit to try and derail this. Of course no proof is offered at all.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Game creators / studios receiving death threats? -- that's not extraordinary. That's become so sadly common, almost par for the course, that at this point it would be extraordinary if they hadn't received death threats.
Re: They're lucky by MikeDataLink · 2017-11-14 06:09 · Score: 1

This is no more gambling than putting money into coin operating vending machine not knowing whether a gumball or a candy ring is going to come out is gambling.

--
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Re:They're lucky by Type44Q · 2017-11-14 08:44 · Score: 1

I have no respect for a company who builds a business model around exploiting addictions.
I guess that puts Krispy Kreme and Jergens Lotion out of the running...
Re:They're lucky by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:15 · Score: 1

The response should be pretty standard too: Don't go public with "Woe is me!", go to the police and let them investigate.
If the threat is insufficiently credible to justify law enforcement involvement then oddly enough, no fucking woe either.

It only matters if.... by svendsen · 2017-11-14 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful

EA doesn't make their numbers. Else all PR is good PR. Look at GTA V and its micro transactions. Has made rockstar more money than they ever dreamed. Think they will change this approach in the future? Not likely.

Also I believe things will get worse for gaming and not better in the short term. Just wait till major AAA games are only subscription based only which EA has indicated on their sports franchises.

Re:It only matters if.... by Luthair · 2017-11-14 03:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

My general observation with this stuff has been that someone stumbles across a new model that seems to work, all the companies jump on it like a fat kid on a Smartie, then some company pushes the idea to some egregious point where it blows up and permanently taints the model.
Loot boxes are particularly egregious imo since they aren't posting odds and definitely are targeting people who are vulnerable to gambling.
Re:It only matters if.... by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-14 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think where they're f**king up is in making the game pay-to-win. People will buy this as per usual, they'll feel the deep unfairness of it and not buy the next pay-to-win game I expect. For EA it doesn't matter if 90% of the user base abandons them as long as the remaining 'whales' make them over 10x more.
Hopefully Indie companies will spot gaps in the market and keep making good games that don't stink of micro-transactions.
I put my money where my mouth is, I don't even buy games with season passes.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:It only matters if.... by phorm · 2017-11-14 07:10 · Score: 1

Indeed, I see little wrong with Micro or Loot so long as it's not tied to functionality (pay-to-win, pay-to-play). It's been proven over and over that people are willing to do the loot/micro thing for hats, skins, and unique visuals that in no way affect your ability to progress or win the game (and weren't advertised as part of the game). IMHO that seems a good balance to me.
If EA allowed you some freaking tie-fighter decals or the ability to buy certain custom character appearances, it's cool. If you have to P2W to get the abilities/weapons or stuff that was advertised as part of the core game, not core.
Even having people collect items to build a Darth "skin" would be not too bad assuming one could still have the same jedi/sith abilities without, and as long as it wasn't advertised as being part of the game...
Re:It only matters if.... by eth1 · 2017-11-14 07:17 · Score: 1

Also I believe things will get worse for gaming and not better in the short term. Just wait till major AAA games are only subscription based only which EA has indicated on their sports franchises.
No... Things are just fine for gaming. My rule of thumb is "never pay more than ~$20," which has lead to me finding SO MANY good indie games, that it takes me longer to get through them than it does for new interesting ones to come out. And even if it ends up not being great, well... it was only $20.
A price tag higher than about $20 is a really good indication that the developer (or their corporate overlords) has spent on "shiny" instead of "fun".

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:40 · Score: 1

I'm confused why you're bringing up IP protections in this context.

Name an old game you can't play, for free?

As for your random hatred of Steam, again, off topic, but...

I used to buy games before steam. A lot of them. I don't know where *any* of the four dozen or so discs I purchased are, and I doubt they would install on a modern gaming box.

I hated Steam when it came out. I was seriously fuming that I had to give them an email address to play Half Life 2. I think my security questions were just a string of expletives.

That said, Steam just works. I haven't lost any games bought there in a decade. It is DRM that is incredibly convenient. And Steam sales offer some of the best deals available on older games.

Game devs suck by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:42 · Score: 1

Such a general dismissal of the game industry as I am making a point of here can't come as a surprise to anyone that has half a brain.

Shallow games. Simplistic games. Gimmicky games. Cash grabs (games as hyped garbage).

I've even given up following Star Citizen.

Re:Game devs suck by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:24 · Score: 1

Interesting, engaging and witty games that don't follow the cookie-cutter scheme of "crunch out one per month" are still being made. Of course not by the likes of EA. Large corporations don't dare to risk something like this. We have arrived at the point where you cannot even expect a "new" kind of RTS, FPS or 4X game from a major studio. All they produce these days is the next installation of their established franchise.
If you want new and exiting, you have to turn to those that you dismiss: The game developers. Not the studios, but the single developer or the tiny studios that consist of 4 developers and that one guy doing the "business stuff" for them. They can (and do) take risks, dare to create something clever and new, dare to leave the trenches and carve out a new path. Yes, 9 out of 10 of the things they produce will be "meh" at best, but the tenth is this year's Minecraft or KSP.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

The EA greed machine by GeekWithAKnife · 2017-11-14 03:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

EA first started milking customers with DLCs which were really portions of the game they purposefully removed, not added. Is it not enough to pay $50 for a bloody game? -Are they not profitable enough??

It's painfully obvious that they are using basic psychology techniques to frustrate gamers into buying more.

Shamelessly trying to squeeze every penny out of gamers that are ALREADY PAYING A PREMIUM is really bad for anyone involved in this project & the Star Wars gaming universe in general.

This is not to "create a sense of achievement." You do that with complexity, length and difficulty. This is a cheap money grab plain and simple.

EA just stop being a bunch of dicks. It's fucking Star Wars, IT'S ALREADY A CASH COW.

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.

Re:The EA greed machine by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 04:03 · Score: 1

Assholes make more money than nice guys. It's a universal truth.
EA will not stop being a bunch of dicks just because you ask them to. So long as it pays, they will continue. When and where it does not pay, they will stop. But they will constantly probe that boundary, finding the magic point at which they can be just enough of a dick to maximize profit without driving too many customers away.
I hate EA.
Re:The EA greed machine by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:26 · Score: 2

Why do you think EA gives a shit about Star Wars? To them, it's just another franchise with a fanbase that will pay them money. They will milk it dry and throw it on the garbage heap as soon as the brand is tarnished beyond repair.
Like every single time before.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:The EA greed machine by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:27 · Score: 2

You want to know why they are "EA" now and no longer "Electronic Arts"?
They wanted to get rid of the quickly catching on moniker of "Electronic Rats" before it got into widespread use.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:The EA greed machine by MtHuurne · 2017-11-14 06:54 · Score: 1

SNES games were ROM cartridges, which are more expensive to produce than pressing DVDs or offering digital downloads. Also the gaming market as a whole has grown since then and multi-platform releases are now easier to do, which allows the development costs to be spread over more players. So inflation isn't the only factor to consider when comparing prices.
And while I doubt that a game with such a mass-market appeal like this one cannot be sold cost-effective at $60, for the sake of the argument let's assume that is the case. It's still EA's choice to get the extra money from players in the form of loot boxes containing items that give objective stats bonuses, instead of increasing the base price, selling DLC or selling cosmetics. Even selling stat upgrades would be less shady than putting them behind gambling mechanics that both obfuscate their actual price and prey on people with low self-control.
Re:The EA greed machine by n329619 · 2017-11-14 14:50 · Score: 1

Assholes make more money than nice guys. It's a universal truth.
Damn truth.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 03:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

and the worst part is the population just eats it up.

^^ This.

There are SO many good games out there to buy which are not DRMed at all leave alone constant-online-DRM, let you play locally without entanglements, and the company can't deny you the ability to play the game you bought later on just because they feel like it that day. They have no "microtransactions" or "pay to win". They're just good games.

Stop buying shit from companies like EA, you sheep. You keep giving them money, you are teaching them you will bend over for anything.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 03:47 · Score: 1

Care to explain how this story has anything to do with copyright in general or Steam in particular? Or were you just looking for some story that has remotely anything to do with games so you can rant?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-11-14 03:48 · Score: 1

Huh. I get the MMO part - the monthly fee was a logical precursor to microtransactions. Once game studios realized people were willing to pay for ongoing game access, they realized they could monetize the speed of unlocking content.

But what does Steam have to do with this? Steam doesn't even make games these days - they're a distribution platform. They don't even require DRM (other than their own account authentication) for games to be on their platform. That's up to the developer/publisher. There are games I own on Steam that I can play even if I were to uninstall Steam. Once I've downloaded the files, there is no DRM around them, and if I move the folder everything still works.

I agree with the IP/copyright laws needing overhaul, but I don't understand how you arrived there from this story at all.

Didn't change a thing by haibane · 2017-11-14 03:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

The funny thing is they basically reduced the amount of credits to get a hero by 75%, but they also reduced the amount earned by 75% on each mission. So its basically the same thing...

Re:Didn't change a thing by Kierthos · 2017-11-14 04:28 · Score: 2

"But the hill looks smaller."

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:Didn't change a thing by H3lldr0p · 2017-11-14 05:12 · Score: 1

It is smaller. But so are your steps. Now get to walking. Unless you want to pay for bigger shoes. We can give them to you. For a price.
Re:Didn't change a thing by torkus · 2017-11-14 07:53 · Score: 1

But assuming the cost (in actual $) per credit towards buying these characters hasn't changed, then they've become 75% less expensive to buy outright.

--
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
Re:Didn't change a thing by Taelron · 2017-11-14 10:54 · Score: 1

Came to say the same thing, damn wish I had karma points to +1 you right now... They also indicated that the highend characters couldn't be purchased with real money... So this does means its still the same grind, its a smoke screen to make people THINK they listened...

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by blahplusplus · 2017-11-14 03:53 · Score: 1

"Steam doesn't even make games these days - they're a distribution platform"

Steam was DRM when it launched it BECAME a distribution platform much later, steam was forced into half-lfie via a patch that nobody wanted and would never have flown if gamers were close enough to valves offices to kick gabe newell in the nuts.

You don't seem to understand "steamworks" got rid of dedicated servers, many dedicated servers are now not controlled by gamers and are hosted in "the cloud" and not by gamers - aka they can now disappear at any time thanks to gabes pioneering of steamworks drm - aka software exe's they control and you don't.

It's still fraud because the games functionality is held hostage on THEIR computers. It normalized "matchmakking" (aka drm). Overwatch too is a drm infested game, aka no one is allowed to control the game server software it is done through their back end. AKA overwatch can be shut down at the whim of blizzard entertainment you have no control over whether it will function at some time in the future because the server back end is controlled by the company.

This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Solandri · 2017-11-14 03:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Everyone's fantasy is to play the hero. But if everyone is running around in a shared game playing a hero, then suddenly heroes are normal, meaning they aren't really heroes anymore. To maintain the illusion of a heroic player character, you have to populate the world with lower-ability bots. That works in a RPG-type MMO, but not in a PVP-type MMO. SW Battlefront tried to get around it by time-limiting how long until and how often you could play the heroes. But that resulted in having to play grunts lots of times before you were allowed to play the hero (for one life after you've unlocked it). The PVP-equivalent of grinding in a RPG.

I think this is why the CRPG genre has gradually shifted away from MMOs back to single-player instanced games in recent years. It's hard to make players feel special in a shared-world game with thousands of other heroes running around. Though a good compromise might be a shared-instance CRPG which you can play together with a few friends.

Egalitarian PVP MMOs or deathmatch-type games, where everyone plays "characters" with the same abilities or picks from a subset of fixed choices with quasi-balanced abilities, don't have this problem.

Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:39 · Score: 1

There is a very simple way to make people feel "special" in a multiplayer environment like MMOs: Special loot that you have to "earn". Whatever "earning" it may mean. Throwing insane amounts of time into grinding the same mob until it drops it with its 0.0000000000001% chance, besting some tough dungeon that you need a very well equipped and cooperating group for, winning many PvP battles (and more than 90% of the playerbase), whatever. What's important is that everyone thinks they can get it but only a handful really can.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Luthair · 2017-11-14 04:50 · Score: 1

I think this is why the CRPG genre has gradually shifted away from MMOs back to single-player instanced games in recent years. It's hard to make players feel special in a shared-world game with thousands of other heroes running around. Though a good compromise might be a shared-instance CRPG which you can play together with a few friends.

The death of MMOs had nothing to do with that - every genre has a finite lifespan.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Baron_Yam · 2017-11-14 05:03 · Score: 1

> What's important is that everyone thinks they can get it but only a handful really can.
I've played a few games in pre-release status with bonuses for being near the top. It doesn't take many players before that mountain top is too high to climb.
It's so easy to get to the average, because there's always people who sign up and give up. But there are also people out there who obsess over the new game and put ungodly hours into it... and they're the ones who will be in the top 0.01%.
Essentially, if there's any player base at all and you have any kind of life outside of gaming... you aren't getting any 'unique' rewards. Ever.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:27 · Score: 2

You needn't be unique. People are quite able to accept that they're not "on top" if they invest less time than those that are. But they still need some kind of reward for their time. MMOs make this perfectly.
Most contemporary MMOs offer rewards in tiers, depending on how much time and effort you're willing to throw at the game. If you're just wandering around, you get zip. Which is fine, people who do that don't care about wearing the gilded mantle of the lesser little demon slayer. But they are someone to look down upon for the ones that can be assed to find a bunch of other people to hack through a dungeon anyone can do. That it doesn't mean much to them is of no significance, what matters is how the person wearing the gilded mantle of ... you know ... is feeling.
Likewise, he might not really be interested in doing dungeons thrice a week so he can eventually ride the palladium steed of mightiest mightiness which only drops from the end boss in the ultimate dungeon of ultimate destiny in hard mode after you did the penultimate dungeon of penultimate destiny right before it and got the orb of regrowth which has to be used on the tree of life, protected by the Elders of Ygmir, so it would drop the golden apple of taming that you have to feed to the steed but it withers within 2 hours so you better hurry... you get the idea. But there are people who would do this, and who will feel great, riding this steed into battle, even if it offers no actual benefits other than having a sparkling mane.
The gag here is that nobody "below" cares about those rewards or they would try to get them themselves, but everyone who has them considers it a worthy investment of their time.
And this is what keeps MMOs going.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by MrL0G1C · 2017-11-14 05:29 · Score: 1

Nethack is still going. WoW is far from dead.

--
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Sumus+Semper+Una · 2017-11-14 06:06 · Score: 1

There is a very simple way to make people feel "special" in a multiplayer environment like MMOs: Special loot that you have to "earn". Whatever "earning" it may mean. Throwing insane amounts of time into grinding the same mob until it drops it with its 0.0000000000001% chance, besting some tough dungeon that you need a very well equipped and cooperating group for, winning many PvP battles (and more than 90% of the playerbase), whatever. What's important is that everyone thinks they can get it but only a handful really can.
Oh wow, I had a flashback to another story when I was reading your comment. Does anyone else remember when Star Wars Galaxies tried this very idea? As I remember it, people hated it because of how big of a time sink it was to achieve and how practically nobody would ever do it (and if they did, they'd be so burned out by the game they would just sell the account once they got a Jedi). So SOE later made a change that made it way easier to be a Jedi (I don't remember the details as I never actually played SWG, but followed MMO news closely). As a result, pretty much everyone had a Jedi character and Jedi were a completely un-special and uninteresting class compared to what they were before.
The real irony is that, if this Google search is correct, EA was one of the developers/publishers for SWG involved in that original debacle almost 15 years ago.
It seems that people don't like the ability to feel special in a multiplayer game if they realize they have practically a 0% chance to be special. This shouldn't be at all surprising to anyone, yet it apparently came as a great surprise to EA twice in 15 years.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Luthair · 2017-11-14 07:03 · Score: 1

Look I played EverQuest for years but how many new MMOs are people making at this point? After EverQuest there was a swarm of companies trying to cash in on MMOs but even before Warcraft was released that frenzy was already subsiding.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by thegarbz · 2017-11-14 07:33 · Score: 1

It's even more difficult if playing the hero is something that the financially privileged rather than the dedicated fan is capable of.
Re:This is the problem with hero-type MMOs by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:25 · Score: 1

Battlefield 1942 and Battlefield:Vietnam both took that approach.
Then Battlefield 2 introduced weapon unlocks, favouring people that played more and unbalancing the basic gameplay. I stopped buying Dice games then, and I've avoided EA games since Origin.
From a safe distance this merely looks like a continuation of the decline. Fucking games for small boys instead of good online games for adults.

This is why I stopped gaming altogether by nwaack · 2017-11-14 03:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

It used to be that you spend your $50'ish on the game and then you got to play it. Now you get a purposely crippled version of the game unless you want to shell out more and more money each-and-every-time you play it. No thanks.

Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by Mashiki · 2017-11-14 04:26 · Score: 1, Troll

So you stopped gaming because you had shit buying decisions? You've missed some pretty good games then like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, The Witcher series then. None of those games were purposely crippled, and in The Witcher series the developers gave content away free.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by AlanBDee · 2017-11-14 06:48 · Score: 1

So you stopped gaming because you had shit buying decisions? You've missed some pretty good games then like Pillars of Eternity, Wasteland 2, The Witcher series then. None of those games were purposely crippled, and in The Witcher series the developers gave content away free.
You forgot Factorio. If you rank all games in Steam by ratings Factorio is like #5. Seriously think about that? I think The Witcher was like #12.
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by Mahldcat · 2017-11-14 07:21 · Score: 1

....I haven't stopped gaming, but I can honestly say the last time I purchased any major AAA titles soon after release was several years ago, and I think the only times I actually shelled out the money for a title as a prerelease was Diablo 2? Beyond that the majority of my attention has been with games that either have a really healthy modding community (Minecraft & Skyrim being my current "go tos")...or are relatively cheap (typically either indie games, or older titles that have been bargain binned). The other thing that gets me super irritated with the gaming industry in general is also the steps you have to take to make sure that your kids are prevented from buying things in game....
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by Mahldcat · 2017-11-14 07:24 · Score: 1

....the other element that I get super angry at is also squarely with the games that have a phone home feature (android Minecraft )....I bought the bloody game, but when I specifically setup a second restricted profile on my kid's tablet (to ensure that access is blocked to the play store among other things), now the blasted thing won't run....
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by jonwil · 2017-11-14 09:15 · Score: 1

I will never spend a cent of my money on games that feature microtransactions, loot crates or any other kind of endless-spending mechanic like this.
I will buy games where its possible to spend x amount of money and own everything there is to own at that point.
The last game I purchased (other than a few classics from gog.com and things) would have been Fallout 4 which doesn't have microtransactions, loot crates, pay-to-win or any other nasties.
Yes it has the Creators Club but A.That didn't exist when I bought the game, B.You do not need to spend a cent on Creators Club items to enjoy the game to its fullest and C.Its still possible (if you want to) to buy every single piece of creators club content and own it all (until more comes out) unlike microtransactions, loot crates or pay-to-win where you have to keep spending and spending and spending. Oh and with Fallout 4 there is nothing stopping you from getting most of what Creation Club offers via free mods (i.e. there is nothing Creators Club content can get you that mods cant except for not disabling achievements)
I will continue to support companies (including Bethesda) who haven't introduced this kind of crap but I have already blacklisted both Ubisoft and Activision Blizzard over this crap (and many other things) and will quite possibly also blacklist EA in the future (their one chance to make me like them again is if they release a new Command & Conquer game that is actually playable unlike the garbage that was C&C4)
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by nwaack · 2017-11-14 10:55 · Score: 1

So you stopped gaming because you had shit buying decisions?
Um, no. My decision had nothing to do with me being able to afford the cost of the game. Free time is finite and the microtransactions, loot bins, etc. were just the final straw that pushed me away from gaming and into other hobbies. Hobbies without tons of hidden costs associated with them.
Did I miss some good games? Certainly. Do I miss wasting time trying to figure out which games aren't attempting to rob me blind every time I play them? Not at all.
Re:This is why I stopped gaming altogether by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:28 · Score: 1

I spend more than $600/year on my other hobbies. Shit, I spend 5-6 times that amount just on going dancing.

Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by Whorhay · 2017-11-14 03:56 · Score: 1

Is 40 hours really that unreasonable for this sort of game? I'm not interested in this genre of game and so I'm not aware of what the expected play time is. And the games I play don't usually have earned currency that you can spend on new characters and loot crates. That said I can, and have, put in 40 hours of gaming over the course of a long weekend. So is that kind of time investment to unlock what I presume to be one of the best characters in the game really unreasonable? It sounds like at least 600,000 people on reddit think so.

Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by Mashiki · 2017-11-14 04:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not really, though I don't play these types of games anymore. I did way back in the Quake/RoTT/etc era though. People who are into the pvp-mmo style stuff can sink hundreds or thousands of hours into it. The top 5 games in my steam list are Skyrim, Fallout:NV, Stellaris, Civ4 and Star Trek Online those each top out between 400-1k hours each. A few of my friends have 600-700 hours in various CoD games.
What's happening though is people are having enough with the microtransactions, and then developers blaming gamers when there's a backlash, along with the gaming press screeching that "they're entitled brats" or some other type of garbage. There was a similar backlash against the ME3 ending for good reason, especially when game sites called gamers entitled. Same with the stuff over Kane & Lynch and then there's the Dorito Pope. People got a taste of that whole incestuous backlash with gamergate and sites screaming "gamers are dead, they don't have to be your audience" and so on. This is likely going to be just as big at the rate EA is doubling down on it.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by Junta · 2017-11-14 04:26 · Score: 1

It's not really my genre, but the problem is that it's 40 hours before you can even play as even *one* of the characters they are likely to have bought the game to do at all (unless of course you pay out some cash to accelerate things).
Basically, it's trying to avoid the backlash of incremental const of DLC, but making the 'free' path so painful as to not be viable.
DLC started as a way to extend a nice game with even more stuff, but has devolved to being a paid-for demo which manages to avoid having any of the actual content people came for in the first place.

--
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by Talderas · 2017-11-14 04:46 · Score: 1

I think there's a couple of factors at play.
One is that if this is anything like the first Battlefront EA did then heroes are for one life in a match and they try to distribute them among players because honestly, it would be freaking stupid if there's 20 Lukes vs 20 Vaders. Not only are you grinding 40hrs to unlock a hero you are spending 40 hrs grinding to unlock a hero that you will get to use only some of the time.
The other thing to consider is the opportunity cost of the grind. If you jump in and grind 40hrs for Vader then that's 40hrs of saving credits where you're stuck with the most basic of equipment since all your upgrades come from loot chests which you can only acquire with credits or crystal and the latter requires paying real cash.
The next thing to consider is that the time would seem more reasonable if the launch heroes are the only heroes introduced. They will most likely introduce new heroes down the line and some may honestly be overpowered and overly desirable. This would be offset at least somewhat if you were stockpiling credits but that is greatly offset by how much they permit you to play heroes which goes back to the loot chests for equipment.
Equipment upgrades from Common->Uncommon->Rare->Epic and to upgrade your equipment and to get more equipment you need to acquire loot chests which means you're making the choice between playing as a hero or increasing the quality of your gameplay in the time spent between playing as the hero you grinded to unlock. This is the big opportunity cost because that 40hrs is probably miserable unless you're paying real cash.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by thegarbz · 2017-11-14 07:37 · Score: 2

So is that kind of time investment to unlock what I presume to be one of the best characters in the game really unreasonable?
Best characters? I think you're misunderstanding. It's just a character. Not only do you need to grind to get him, but if you do so in the 40 hours chances are you going to have a cool character and absolutely nothing to keep that character alive.
I don't think the backlash is as much that it takes 40 hours to get an awesome character, it's that it takes much more AND you can bypass that all for a small fee.
Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by EndlessNameless · 2017-11-14 09:08 · Score: 1

Why is this a bad thing? Shouldn't earning a hero character take time and effort?
It's a bad thing if the player doesn't want to wait. Maybe no one wants to play for days just to get access to the characters they really wanted to play.
Or maybe the player doesn't want to wait because the "unlock" process is blatant money-grubbing bullshit.

That's what makes it valuable and worthwhile
For some people, playing the iconic characters is what makes the game worth buying in the first place. If they have to play for at least 40 hours before that's even possible... it won't be fun.
I have bought games with DLCs or microtransactions, as long as they were subtle and essentially optional. I almost always buy DLCs when the base game is good. E.g., I paid for everything for Fallout: New Vegas. If the game isn't great without DLCs/micros, then they don't deserve that money. I won't be buying this game.
Most people like unlockable secrets and Easter eggs. No one likes having essential content locked away behind a paywall or a pointless grind.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Re:Is 40 hours really that unreasonable? by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:48 · Score: 1

Well, can Darth Vader kill you from across the map while being impervious to blaster fire? If so you're fucked if other people unlock that character before you can, as you're immediately at a sizeable gameplay disadvantage.
In an online competitive game.
Fuck that.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Yohahn · 2017-11-14 04:00 · Score: 1

Um... the entire state of software, games and all, is due to how copyright law is structured.. you do know that, right?

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:13 · Score: 2

So... this DLC-at-release day nonsense, pay-to-stay-competitive multiplayer, microtransactions for content that is required to play the game, that's all due to copyright law?

I think I need more information, for some odd reason I can't make that connection.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:16 · Score: 1, Informative

This is a little like getting into a discussion with a religious nut, they spout SO much bullshit that you waste 90% of your time talking for debunking it...

This is why I refuse to debate religious zealots. Or people on a crusade against something in general.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

They illegally removed the refund button by slashmydots · 2017-11-14 04:20 · Score: 5, Informative

They just removed the refund button in Origin so nobody can submit a refund request. That's illegal in Germany and a couple other places.

Re:They illegally removed the refund button by Sparowl · 2017-11-14 08:16 · Score: 1

Ah, you can still get a refund. Please call their helpful support center. Your wait time is (blank) hours.

So... by Kierthos · 2017-11-14 04:24 · Score: 1

They dropped the credit prices of the unlocks by 75%. But I've heard that they also reduced the credit gains from completing the story, and for matches. So.... mostly a public relations reaction from EA with much less benefit to the gamers affected by it than would seem at first blush?

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.

Wow by Daetrin · 2017-11-14 04:27 · Score: 1

"EA's Reddit account is plastered with a barrage of downvotes, with one particular response receiving over 600,000 downvotes -- a record."

Okay, i have very mixed feelings about EA and in general i'm fine with people expressing displeasure over them trying to pull off crappy behavior like this. But it's kind of sad that the most unpopular thing on Reddit is because a bunch of people got upset that a company was trying to charge too much for a video game. I'm proud to be a geek, but our tendency to get triggered by relatively trivial issues like this while being collectively blind to bigger issues has got to be one of our greater weaknesses.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank

Re:Wow by Calydor · 2017-11-14 04:46 · Score: 1

It might simply be a case of enough people being involved in that one topic, rather than being blind to twenty other issues. If those twenty issues are spread out over the 600k all angry at EA, at maybe a couple of issues of interest per person, that still leaves 60k interested people per issue. We can't ALL argue against pollution, abuse, racism, hate, bigotry etc.

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Re:Wow by Daetrin · 2017-11-14 04:57 · Score: 1

True, i guess this is something we can all agree on, regardless of our politics or personal hobby horses. But it would still be great if we could manage to focus this same kind of energy on solving bigger issues.

And to be fair i guess Child's Play is the one case where we do manage to collectively do something big, because you'd have to have some pretty extreme views to think that helping sick children wasn't a good thing.

.

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:Wow by iampiti · 2017-11-14 07:56 · Score: 1

When I was a kid one of my teachers complained that most people just bought and read the sports papers and ignored the "serious" ones.
Most people just want to be entertained, they also care much more about, as you say, "trivial issues" than serious stuff than politics, ecology, etc.
It may be sad but it's just not a geek thing, everyone is the same

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 04:29 · Score: 1

You don't seem to understand "steamworks" got rid of dedicated servers, many dedicated servers are now not controlled by gamers and are hosted in "the cloud" and not by gamers - aka they can now disappear at any time thanks to gabes pioneering of steamworks drm - aka software exe's they control and you don't.

So is the rest of your post this wrong, or only this section? Obviously not every game supports the ability for a random person to spin up a dedicated server, but to say that they "got rid of dedicated servers" (aka, there are none) is incorrect at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

Re:MGTOW, women are worse than EA by zifn4b · 2017-11-14 04:35 · Score: 1, Offtopic

MGTOW, women are worse than EA

I'd rather masturbate until I die.

This says a lot more about you than it does about women.

Yes it does. He has a lot more disposable income compared to the person who made the original post who probably has buyer's remorse from being shackled to a debt creation tsunami.

--
We'll make great pets

Re:Wait... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 04:45 · Score: 1

I was about to ask this. Why the fuck would anyone buy stuff from them? Or any other large game studio.

I have gone indie years ago and never even looked back. They are cheaper (way cheaper actually), provide at least as much entertainment, don't have any ridiculous DRM schemes (i.e. you can actually play them from the moment you buy them, not only after the initial rush makes the "always online" server actually available) and the good ones actually have an active modding community.

Yes, you can mod those games. Legally. Because the maker doesn't want to gouge you blind for DLC.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:C&C Renegade's shortcomings... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:00 · Score: 1

Yes, Westwood lacked the experience with FPS and it showed. But I dare say that even if they knew the "magic formulas" for making good FPS games it would not have changed anything. C&C fans expect a RTS game, selling someone something that pushes him out of his comfort zone is always a hard sell.

Personally, I'm a big fan of the Civilization series. At least until V, didn't look at VI yet because I'm not done with V yet. So I honestly don't know what VI will be like yet, but I can only say if they went from turn-based to real time, I would definitely be unhappy. It's not my game anymore. I, like most gamers, have a certain expectation when I hear about a game. Offering something else, even if announced as such, will ruffle gamers the wrong way.

This is why it's so terribly hard to break out of franchises. You can't just make the next installment something different, you'll piss off your fans BIG time. Creating a spinoff is always a gamble. So what's left if you don't want your players to complain about having to buy the same game again (which they will very likely refuse to do when the next incarnation is due)? Well, better graphics, better sound, better AI, ...

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by blahplusplus · 2017-11-14 05:08 · Score: 1

Here's a clue - in the 90's they had to give you the entire game physically to run on your computer. Post mass internet penetration they started coding games were they hold one of the game discs hostage inside a computer at their headquarters - they give you part of the game and keep another part of the game at their HQ. That means it's multiplayer functionality can be destroyed at the push of a button on their end - they control whether your game functions or not because the game is not self contained program running on yours. It's cut into two pieces, one piece they never release to you - take hostage on their companies computers, the other piece they give you.

Without the piece they didn't give you, you don't own nor control the game you paid for. You didn't buy the game, the game is the companies. Before mass high speed internet penetration they couldn't take games hostage like that on their corporate computers - the entire game and it's multiplayer we controlled. That's the problem you are not seeing, they purpose coded the game in a defective way to control the software so it's functionality lives and dies by a computer inside their HQ.

Civilization still has modding take that out and by Joe_Dragon · 2017-11-14 05:11 · Score: 1

Civilization still has modding take that out and they will kill them self's.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:13 · Score: 1

I will type this very slowly, hoping that this will improve the chance of you understanding the question: What does this have to do with copyright law?

They can (and most likely would) do this no matter what copyright has to say about it.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

It used to be $50ish was a lot of money by rsilvergun · 2017-11-14 05:18 · Score: 1

closer to $100ish in today's dollars. Inflation's a bitch.

--
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/

Re:It used to be $50ish was a lot of money by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:46 · Score: 1

Then again, Ghosts 'n' Goblins was a major release in 1986, for Â£14.95 on disk for the Commodore 64. Or Â£42 in today's money.
Except I didn't have a disk drive, so Â£9.95 for me.
So games haven't substantially changed in price, and although game development team sizes have grown substantially since then, so has the market.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Kjella · 2017-11-14 05:20 · Score: 1

Yeah, nobody wanted online matchmaking, MMORPGs or any other functionality tied to global servers. It's all a conspiracy. Okay, so I can't play Overwatch without the central servers but I also wouldn't play Overwatch without the central servers. If there was a standalone/LAN version for tournaments, road warriors, hermits, service disruptions and software archaeologists it wouldn't bother me, but it also wouldn't give me anything. Don't get me wrong, I was angry too at the tying of obviously single player games to online servers on the flimsiest of excuses but as a general principle I think it's nonsense to say that there should be an offline version of every game. Unless using google.com is also DRM, because I don't have the source code to set up my own version. If every service that won't tell you how to deliver the service they do is DRM, then that's a whole lot of DRM...

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

I have a GREAT idea by Khyber · 2017-11-14 05:47 · Score: 1

This is technically online gambling.

Let's get the fucking gaming commissions in on this along with the Feds, since this lies within the jurisdiction of both. You want to see how fast these nickel-and-dime pay-to-win loot boxes go away? CA and NV gaming commissions are the state-based people you want to complain to.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:I have a GREAT idea by Khyber · 2017-11-14 05:53 · Score: 1

To boot, EA is HQ'd in Redwood City, California. They're doubly-fucked in this instance. The e-mail to contact is complaints@cgcc.ca.gov

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.

Re:MGTOW, women are worse than EA by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 05:52 · Score: 1

To be fair, it's not hard to beat one's meat better than any woman who hates your guts. The willingness of thousands of men to jerk off into a cold fish lying on her back for sexual release once a month, and then call it nice because they paid so dearly for it, is simply astonishing.

For reals, most guys on Slashdot at least know how to use a keyboard. Jackin' it well ain't a huge reach from that. Heck, finding a good woman and having good sex with her isn't a huge reach either, from knowing oneself.

Leave it to the beta kobold to fear having an opinion for himself, I guess.

We'll see on Saturday... by Cid+Highwind · 2017-11-14 05:54 · Score: 1

They're right, of course, microtransactions are ruining gaming.

But they're all going to play anyway and the launch week numbers will turn out fine, just like every other time gamers have looked like they were about to rebel against EA's anti-consumer bullshit.

--
0 1 - just my two bits

Incorrect by aepervius · 2017-11-14 05:55 · Score: 1

"This is why the 60ish bucks you can ask for a game isn't enough."

You my friend brought the EA propaganda hook and sinker. Game with way better graphics than Battlefront 2 , say, witcher 3, cost only 60$ and are way richer in graphics. Battlefront 2 and other EA game are not THAT special, not even the servers and bandwidth. No the real reason 60$ is not enough have nothing to do with cost of production. The main reason are 1) the incredibly increased cost in marketing (sometimes can be as high as 1/3 of the total cost) 2) the pressure the increase shareholder return on investment.

--
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org

Re:Incorrect by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 05:58 · Score: 1

I didn't say that 60 bucks wasn't enough to make such a game. But it isn't enough to cover the expenses.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:Incorrect by Cederic · 2017-11-15 01:11 · Score: 1

Bollocks. Five million sales at $60 each, allow only 40% reaching the development studio, you're looking at $120m.
If you can't develop a game at a profit for $120m - even with pretty graphics, sound and voiceovers - then you're probably Chris Roberts.
Then take into account that Battlefield 1, a less lucrative franchise, had sales of well over 10 million.. I'm thinking there's a profit to be made here with no microtransactions or paid unlocks required.

EA is propped up by sports by netsavior · 2017-11-14 06:02 · Score: 2

Football is the only thing keeping cable alive, and it is the safety net for EA as well.
EA has a core base of suckers who will buy the same madden/fifa game every year, even better most are "non-gamers" who don't give a shit about what happens in some star wars game.
fifa was the best selling game of 2016, they can afford to take loot box risks on "niche" titles which are full of whales.

Grinding in videogames is pretty common by scourfish · 2017-11-14 06:07 · Score: 1

I've played plenty of video games where extra things were unlocked after grinding.

Re:Grinding in videogames is pretty common by Dutch+Gun · 2017-11-14 08:34 · Score: 1

True. Unlocking rewards over time is a game mechanic many people like, as it gives the player a sense of purpose and progression beyond the game itself. Not everyone enjoys that, but I think many do, so long as the requirements for unlocking those rewards is reasonable.
The problem comes when you introduce micro-transactions, because then the design incentive is strongly skewed toward make unlocks take so long that most many players are encouraged to pay a few bucks for those quick unlocks. At that point, it transforms from "fun" into "grind." This is an especially bad idea in multiplayer games, as it encourages botting. You've already paid for the game, and the game creator is now using that paid game to siphon additional money from players due to their original design decisions. It reeks of dishonesty and slimy behavior, no matter how you look at it.
Charging for the game and then *also* charging for micro-transactions just feels like double-dipping to many of us, especially when it could be rightly argued that those elements should already be part of the core game.

--
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.

Re:Wait... by RandomFactor · 2017-11-14 06:18 · Score: 1

I was wondering the same, but they make good games, they just treat players like gaming's version of Comcast constantly pushing the boundaries of how to abuse customers for more money.

--
--- Mercutio was right.

Teach EA a lesson by PPH · 2017-11-14 06:19 · Score: 1

Drop their games and play something else. Go outside and kick a soccer ball around.

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Teach EA a lesson by jonwil · 2017-11-14 09:56 · Score: 1

And I bet playing actual soccer (even with the price of a nice pair of Nike Soccer Boots and all the other kit you need) will STILL be cheaper than playing the latest FIFA with all its microtransations...

EA is evil by WCMI92 · 2017-11-14 06:28 · Score: 1

EA is about milking every cent they possibly can out of your pocket.

--
Corporatism != Free Market

Comedy Gold by TiggertheMad · 2017-11-14 07:16 · Score: 1

ur ghey fuckin idiot

Four words in the post calling someone stupid, and one is actually spelled properly. Every time I feel bad about myself, I come read the Internet and I am right back on top of the world...

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:Comedy Gold by omnichad · 2017-11-14 07:30 · Score: 1

If you want to get technical, one is a common contraction and is merely punctuated incorrectly. I'm sure it has no relevance whatsoever.

Re:In other news, sales of peanut M&Ms reached by omnichad · 2017-11-14 07:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

People want long play and replayability. EA and many others have completely misunderstood and just added a bunch of pointless grinding exercises along with a monetary bypass.

LOL "open revolt" by DrXym · 2017-11-14 07:41 · Score: 1

We'll judge the "open revolt" when EA outright drops the idea, or doesn't. The only way they'll do that is if they lose more money in sales thanks to loot boxes than they gain in sales thanks to loot boxes.

Personally I'm quite okay about ignoring games that pull this shit. Grind stinks, skinner box gambling stinks. But clearly this common sense hasn't permeated the mainstream consciousness or 99% of mobile games wouldn't be this way. I expect EA knows it too.

EA should start making movies by TiggertheMad · 2017-11-14 08:20 · Score: 1

think we are currently witnessing it.

What we deal with here is something that is, essentially, an impossibility. A gaming corporation. The combination of "gaming", an activity that requires something that is fun, exciting, interesting, and engaging, and "corporation", which is the exact opposite thereof.

It is an interesting parallel to the lack of creativity that we are seeing in Hollywood now. In both cases, large corporations have moved in to an industry built on creativity and art and tried to turn the development processes into assembly lines. And both industries seem to think that fancy graphics can cover for poorly developed products.

--

HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!

Re:EA should start making movies by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 10:01 · Score: 1

They don't just think so, that's how it is. Ever seen a Michael Bay movie? A script that can be summed up on a napkin, including dialogues and more explosions per minute than downtown Kabul. That's basically a Bay movie. Any of them. And they are successful.
Same for games. Most of what is called a AAA title today is basically the same we've played time and time again, with graphics and effects replacing gameplay. Take any of those titles from 5 years ago and tell me with a straight face that it's something special.
Aside of that, I can only sadly agree.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:EA should start making movies by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:03 · Score: 1

Ever seen a Michael Bay movie? A script that can be summed up on a napkin, including dialogues and more explosions per minute than downtown Kabul. That's basically a Bay movie. Any of them.

Hmm, no. Bad Boys was entertaining, The Rock was a bit 'by the numbers' but professionally done and certainly not a bad film, and Armageddon had some nice touches and relatively few explosions.
It's since then he's gone horribly wrong.
Re:EA should start making movies by Opportunist · 2017-11-15 05:31 · Score: 1

If you go back a bit further and watch his music videos, they're actually great. Ever seen "I'd do anything for love" by Meat Loaf? Yes, believe it or not. Director: Michael Bay. Yes, he can actually tell a compelling story in just 5-7 minutes even without any dialogue and with some of that time actually wasted seeing someone singing.
At some point, though, he just noticed that it's easier to make money by blowing shit up.
It's sad. He has shown that he CAN do it. But I can well understand him, why bother trying to cook up a great meal if all your patrons want is just a burger with some fries?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

"reducing the number of credits needed..." by schitso · 2017-11-14 08:27 · Score: 1

"...to unlock top characters"

Wonderful, except that they also reduced rewards from campaign mode proportionately.

Boycott by backwardsposter · 2017-11-14 08:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

Looks like my 5 year long boycott of EA is going well for me. It started with Origin, and realized that they've gone off the deep end for me.

As a side note it's not JUST EA I don't play, but I'm pretty picky with my games now. They have to have feeling. I've played Breath of the Wild, Odyssey, and quite a few indie games lately, and that's fine with me.

Congratulations! by Anonymous Coward · 2017-11-14 08:58 · Score: 1

Congratulations, y'all have received another lesson in Sturgeon's Law!

Good thing they closed Visceral by HalAtWork · 2017-11-14 09:09 · Score: 1

...and "refocused"* the only story-based star wars game on console that people were going to care about, the one Amy Hennig of Uncharted 1-3 was working on

http://www.ign.com/articles/20...

* read: more grinding, loot boxes, with the goal of having the player spend more time and money on the game rather than resell it even with less people doing that as more buy digital

--
Twinstiq, game news

Re:The 40 hour thing is weird to me by EndlessNameless · 2017-11-14 09:21 · Score: 1

You people burn money not even for fun, and then these people are also complaining about it?!

That's why they're complaining about it now.

This is early in the game's life. They can pressure EA to fix it, demand refunds, or warn other players to avoid it.

On their end, EA has the ability to fix things very easily. They could make player progress less dependent on grinding and microtransactions.

Why would anyone buy a game they're not going to play?

That's the problem with pre-orders; some of them have already paid, and they've been delivered a steaming pile of crap.

And besides the pre-orders, there are people who love this type of game and the Star Wars universe. This release should be a great source of enjoyment for them. But it's not, because the fun has been ruined by a P2W progression.

I am borderline about this kind of game myself, and the P2W aspect pushed me firmly into the "No" camp. Head-to-head competitive games do not work with P2W mechanics, at least not for me.

--

---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.

Re: In other news, sales of peanut M&Ms reache by omnichad · 2017-11-14 11:37 · Score: 1

Right - strike above and correct to:

completely (but intentionally) misunderstood

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by dissy · 2017-11-14 12:52 · Score: 1

Care to explain how this story has anything to do with copyright in general or Steam in particular?

Dunno what he is referring to about Steam, but as far as copyright goes this story (and millions more) are quite relative to copyright protection and theft from us the public.

In order to get copyright protection, that protection comes with a cost.

Problem #1 is that now our Government forces copyright, and paying that cost, on everyone by default. This shouldn't be.

But the cost that is required to pay in exchange for that copyright protection, is that after a limited time that copyright ends and the public gets the right to do anything with the work they want.

Problem #2 is that "limited time" is now a hundred years after the author dies, which arguably isn't all that limited. But:

Problem #3 is that even after the insanely huge time given as "limited", that cost is still expected to be paid in exchange for giving you that copyright protection.
Again that cost is that the public gains the right to do anything they want with that work.

Companies locking up their work behind encryption, and/or keeping a portion of that work on their own servers, completely negates the possibility for that cost to be paid.
They are intentionally trying to prevent the payment to the public they owe for the copyright protection they are stealing for free.

This is no different from me intentionally writing you a bad check to pay you for that car you are selling.
And not just intentionally writing a bad check that you are unaware of the fact it is bad, but hand drawing a check picture on a napkin signed with a drawing of a middle finger made out for $0, so you KNOW beyond any shadow of a doubt I have no intent on paying you the asking price of that car.
Except the government will force you to still give me that car, basically for free.

Holding parts of the software back intentionally so it won't function, so it can not be given to the public as the payment for copyright protection requires, is no less fraud than the check example above.

Now, what would you do in the above example if I handed you such an obviously fake check you realized wouldn't be good, and literally all of my actions state I refuse to pay you?
You wouldn't give me that car for free, would you?

This is what is meant by we should no longer be even entertaining the idea of granting copyright protection to such companies.

Except if I don't respect the copyright protection they are stealing from us for free and without payment, WE get punished.
IE if you didn't give me that car for free in exchange for my silly money check made out to "fuck you", the government would forcibly take that car from you to give to me.

How fair is that?
It isn't.
And that is the root of the complaint about copyright law as it currently stands.

EA forgot the Rule of Holes. by edgedmurasame · 2017-11-14 13:05 · Score: 1

Not only did they keep on digging, they're well below Challenger Deep.

--
"Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.

Re:This is what gamers deserve... by Opportunist · 2017-11-14 13:05 · Score: 1

Yes, copyright in its current form is by no means what it was originally intended to be. And while we're at things that are going wrong, it's terrible that most of the world's wealth is held by only a handful of people. But neither of these things have anything to do with the practice of DLC-at-release and mandatory microtransactions to keep playing sensibly, or at all.

I know it's /., and I know everyone has his pet topic they want to discuss more than anything, but could we still stay with the topic? At least once in a while?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Random() by n329619 · 2017-11-14 14:46 · Score: 1

You might call it "unregulated gambling", but the underline code is just the function random().

Now regulating that becomes extremely hard if not impossible.

Should WoW monster drops now be considered gambling? Should PUBG random air drop and items found now be considered gambling? Should item box from Mario Kart now be considered gambling? Should Don't Stave random map generating now be considered gambling? Should the simplest game of snake with spawning food dot now be considered gambling?

All of those examples are events/ items that do give the players an advantage in game, each and every one of them. You might not think of them as gambling, but it's the same since you "did" pay for the game, right? Even most nostalgic arcade games have random enemies spawning and you have to pay to revive. They are all gambling in this respect.

This is why the basic definition of gambling is you pay money and can gain money, because drawing a bigger line further opens the worst can of worm ever. Even the japanese made it ok to play games that trades for pinballs, because that is how complex this can go.

Re:Random() by Quakeulf · 2017-11-14 22:51 · Score: 1

Tell that to the lawyer teams and government officials.
Re:Random() by Cederic · 2017-11-15 02:13 · Score: 1

the underline code is just the function random().
Now regulating that becomes extremely hard if not impossible.

Well, just as with fixed odds betting machines and modern electronic slot machines, the underlying code is far from random(). It's very explicitly designed to draw in a player, keep them playing and encourage further expenditure.
Since those are very evidently very easily regulated, there's no reason that the gambling elements of other computer games can't be too.
The more interesting question is whether existing regulation could be positioned as relevant to the EA products in some jurisdictions.
Re:Random() by n329619 · 2017-11-16 14:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for the comment, I was hoping someone would attempt to object my conclusion with a better solution. Unfortunately, it seems that perhaps my simplified explanation isn't clear enough.

Well, just as with fixed odds betting machines and modern electronic slot machines, the underlying code is far from random(). It's very explicitly designed to draw in a player, keep them playing and encourage further expenditure.
While that is the actual truth behind slot machines, didn't you see the examples from WoW, PUBG, Mario Kart, Don't Stave and game of snake implying exactly that? A single function that is more than enough to keep the player further expenditure with a 0.01% ult-rare drop. It could be random_plus_function(), random()*random(), GetDropAfter99() or just the simple random(), but the basic is the same. You are proving the fundamental of random() and the underline math / statistics causing player interaction to be true even in those games.

Since those are very evidently very easily regulated, there's no reason that the gambling elements of other computer games can't be too.
Um, it's not easy to regulate. The example from "Even the japanese made it ok" proved that it is hard. Japan overall bans gambling. But when you actually went Japan (or wiki it), you still see slot-like machine. Those slot-like machines let the player win pinballs to trade with items, which in terms trade back to cash.
See the problem? Did they really regulate gambling? maybe. Did they really ban gambling? also a maybe. Did they completely ban gambling? No. This is the evidence that it's a can of worm.
Of course you could regulate all games that uses random() to have a big label "WARNING GAMBLING ALERT!", but then it will be very funny to see the world wide Broadcasted Pokemon Go now labeled with the same "WARNING GAMBLING ALERT!" (in case you didn't know the catching of the pokemons can be considered gambling where you bet using pokeballs to catch the pokemons. it runs with their whole series since their first game). If we use "existing regulation" and "strict zoning regulations to keep such establishments away from schools and residential areas", then it will be even funnier as kids now can't play Pokemon Go.
The other extent would be to regulate only loot boxes, but what should be considered a loot box? Should Pokemon Go's eggs be considered loot (you have to run around before opening them)? Should a loot box with 100% chance still a loot box? Then there are games that you buy random monster dungeons (where each drop is a dungeon boss you have to fight), should those be considered loot or random DLC? What if all loot boxes now drop you in an arena where you kill easy slimes that drops items (there's no random() in the loot boxes but it's on the slimes)?
Those previous examples are the beginning of the can of worm with loopholes problem. As you put more and more exemptions like maybe let Pokemon Go pass, you ended up with more loopholes in the regulation and ultimately back to the example of the "japanese". Did they really regulate gambling? maybe. Did they really ban gambling? also a maybe. Did they completely ban gambling? No.
Re:Random() by Cederic · 2017-11-16 23:10 · Score: 1

A single function that is more than enough to keep the player further expenditure with a 0.01% ult-rare drop. It could be random_plus_function(), random()*random(), GetDropAfter99() or just the simple random(), but the basic is the same.
Except that frequently it isn't. It does take into account player interactions, it does take into account past success, it does take into account player expenditure.

You are proving the fundamental of random() and the underline math / statistics causing player interaction to be true even in those games.
No, I'm stating the opposite. It's often far from random. There may be random elements to it, but no matter how many times you roll a six sided die, you're never going to get the winning roll of 7. That's random and still very much controlled.

Re:the real issue is the full price by n329619 · 2017-11-14 14:49 · Score: 1

if I have mod point, I would +1 this.

Re:Wait... by NoZart · 2017-11-14 18:30 · Score: 1

The uninformed jock gamers outnumber the informed gamers probably 100:1. "Voting with your wallet" is not an effective instrument anymore once you belong to a minority....

Re: This is what gamers deserve... by blahplusplus · 2017-11-15 06:15 · Score: 1

I don't have shit, you're just a fucking retard that protects criminals because you have some irrational hard on to get robbed and have the product you are paying for destroyed. You're a fucking criminal degenerate and the kind of moron that enables corruption that leads to societal breakdown.

forget EA by sad_ · 2017-11-16 00:22 · Score: 1

Why are people stil playing EA games? The company has been worthless for gamers for years now.
There are more then enough games, not from EA, worth your time.

--
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

And now they've disabled micro transactions. by Gibgezr · 2017-11-17 02:13 · Score: 1

EA just announced they are temporarily disabling micro transactions...until after xmas.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/11...

Good Enough by n329619 · 2017-11-26 17:41 · Score: 1

I didn't reply anymore because you seem to be repeating my conclusion (except by disagreeing my conclusion with a statement that agrees to my conclusion). If you re-read my "GetDropAfter99()" is your "account player expenditure" and " proving the fundamental of random()" is your "There may be random elements". Unless you are trying to prove there's no "math / statistics causing player interaction " which you used an example "how many times you roll a six sided die" to prove there is.

We don't have disagreement here. Our point is the same, so I'll call it good enough.

Slashdot Mirror

EA's 'Star Wars' PR Disaster Finally Pushed Gamers Into Open Revolt Against Loot Boxes (rollingstone.com)

185 of 307 comments (clear)