Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb News

226 Comments

The Guns of Navarro: Would You Like Another Microtransaction?

Alex wanders through the wild and woolly hinterland of microtransactions, only to come away with an all-too-familiar feeling.

When a publisher like EA says things out loud to its various investors, there is a habit among the gaming audience (the press included) to seize onto whatever sounds even remotely insidious. This is, of course, because EA has become our favorite punching bag of late. Thanks to a series of strange, sometimes blatantly consumer-unfriendly decisions over recent years, we apparently don't like EA very much these days. Actually, I'm really quite fine with them, but I recognize them for what they are: business people. EA has ample creative talent, but it has taken up a similar mantle to Activision, one of profit through whatever nefarious-sounding means their marketing and revenue people can dream up. Activision still holds a similar title, but it has been doing this kind of thing for so long that any ugly decision the publisher makes is now greeted with little more than a casual shrug. EA though, EA is still somewhat freshly offensive, which leads to a lot of people freaking out when they do things like, say, announce that they're embracing microtransactions for all games going forward.

People have expressed irritation with new microtransaction models, like Dead Space 3's weapon crafting system. There are reasons to be concerned, but we shouldn't freak out yet.
People have expressed irritation with new microtransaction models, like Dead Space 3's weapon crafting system. There are reasons to be concerned, but we shouldn't freak out yet.

Microtransactions in every game? How dare they, bastions of big business that they are, attempt to funnel more cash out of gamers' pockets through this method of digital fleecing. At least, this is the attitude I've seen in numerous forum threads and comment sections of stories dedicated to a quote from EA CFO Blake Jorgensen, which started all this nonsense.

What did he say that was so offensive? “The next and much bigger piece is microtransactions within games … we’re building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business.”

This was in response to an investor. You know, investors! They're those funny little people who put their own money into a public business and expect to see money come back in their general direction at some point. Of course he would say something like that to them, because he's trying to demonstrate to them that EA has their financial interests at heart. But he's also being truthful. After all, we've seen this shift toward something similar to the free-to-play microtransaction model in $60 games like Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 recently.

This idea, of building content purchasing into the company's entire gaming infrastructure, set off a lot of angry comments. This is maybe a bit familiar to me, since I feel like I remember a lot of the same vitriol directed at publishers who embraced the downloadable content model however many years back. Yes, the situations are quite similar, perhaps more than we'd like to admit. Those map packs you bought for Call of Duty? All those extra cars you bought for Forza? The uncounted scores of Rock Band songs you bought to fill out your music library? Yep, those are all microtransactions, after a fashion. And if by some miracle you have been holding out on all of these things as some kind of protest to the concept, well then, you've been angry for a very long time, haven't you?

Of course, there is a difference between the kind of free-to-play modeled in-game shopping mechanisms seen in Dead Space 3, and the mundane act of simply buying DLC. The former is a more invasive procedure, wherein players are accosted at some point during their gaming experience with the tantalizing prospect of buying more things (or speeding up various in-game processes) with actual money. The latter is more passive, and supplementary. A DLC store that functions outside of a game, and primarily provides additional content, is obviously less annoying than something that provides potential roadblocks to content within the core game. But with this key difference in mind, let's be realistic. DLC is still a microtransaction-based economy, one that we've been engaging for years. In fact, if this console generation is remembered for anything, I expect it will be as the period in which publishers experimented the most wildly, and broadly, in finding new ways to extract money from the consumer.

Understand, I'm not saying there's no cause for future concern. Just because we ought to be somewhat used to this sort of thing doesn't mean there isn't still room for ample abuse. EA has not exactly proven itself capable of exercising restraint where it might be to their benefit, for instance. As Ben Kuchera of the Penny Arcade Report noted earlier this week, EA's mobile division can be particularly wanton in its attacks on players wallets, especially in the very recent case of Real Racing 3. That game is, theoretically, a pretty brilliant racing simulation (as iPad games go) that is nonetheless kneecapped by a highly invasive microtransaction scheme. As in the "grind for nearly 500 hours to unlock all these cars, or pay up to $500 to unlock them all," kind of invasive.

Real Racing 3 might be the most egregious microtransaction example of recent memory, a nifty racing sim kneecapped by ridiculous car unlock and repair costs.
Real Racing 3 might be the most egregious microtransaction example of recent memory, a nifty racing sim kneecapped by ridiculous car unlock and repair costs.

And of course there are the recent blockbuster examples, like Dead Space 3. As was noted by our lovely and talented Bradley Shoemaker in his review of the game, Dead Space 3's item crafting system is predicated on the idea that people won't want to be bothered with all the resource gathering and wait times and just pay some money to make it all go. And as TIME's Matt Peckham noted in his write-up, many have expressed the concern that this system is why the game's resource reward balance feels out-of-whack.

It was Peckham's piece that inspired me to write about this in the first place. One, I happen to agree with a lot of his points--especially his notion that all these microtransactions are really just a more sophisticated version of the coin-op business models of classic arcades. But there is one aspect in which I think Peckham is mistaken. Earlier in the piece, he notes that Jorgensen's claim that evidence shows audiences are "enjoying" and "embracing" the model are not necessarily true. Later, as he writes of the trickiness of getting this balance between game and monetization of said game correct, Peckham asks us to "Imagine the damage done if this new microtransaction imperative alienated EA’s core sports-franchise audience. Rejection of a single title in one of the big franchises, say Madden, could be crippling."

He's not wrong, but he's also a little bit behind. EA has already been doing this with Madden, and this past year, in its NHL series as well, via the Ultimate Team mode. In it, you build custom teams using (eventually) all-star players you collect as player cards. These cards can be acquired using in-game currency earned by playing all facets of Madden or NHL, or--yup, you guessed it--you can just pay a little money to get all sorts of nifty new cards for your team. This has been around for years. It's not new, nor untested, and one might argue that EA's continued incursion with the microtransaction model has been a direct result of systems like this being tested successfully in the wild. Now, if his point is that further evolution of this model into the structure of the game--say, franchise mode and online gameplay functionality being tied into a microtransaction-based model--might alienate further players, then I'd certainly be inclined to agree. But in terms of what EA's already been up to with these sports titles, there's no evidence to suggest it hasn't been successfully received.

Regardless of what might worry us, the market is dictating to EA that they should keep going with this microtransaction thing. Or at least that's what they think the market is dictating to them. I've bagged on EA for a number of its strange business decisions over the years, but I don't think they'd do something like this unless they really had seen positive results. EA needs positive results. These are hardly the salad days for game publishing, and EA has taken a few very public baths on some major releases in recent years. It's fighting to keep its head above water, and if it has to pull a few franchises into the microtransactive muck to stay afloat, it won't think twice about doing so.

As the venerable Cliff Bleszinski noted via his own blog this week, EA is a business, and right now, the microtransaction business is--at least, according to them--a profitable one for the publisher. I share his pragmatism about the situation, though I think deep down, despite what they're saying out loud, many of those out there who profess to hate this proliferation of digital content sold piecemeal are more annoyed about the lack of regulation in the digital marketplace than the actual existence of such a thing. It's the constant testing, and pushing by publishers of new, bizarre ways to charge that sets off alarm bells, not the mere existence of additional content purchasing options.

That stuff takes time to work itself out. There is perhaps no more perfect example of free market capitalism left to police itself than that of digital content sales. Pricing is nearly always in the hands of the publisher, though most shop owners usually have the ability to set certain limits. And publishers, wont as they are to do, will test those limits. They'll try to bend the tolerance of the players to the point of breaking, but the second they sense said tolerance is about to snap, they'll recoil. That's how these marketplaces have traditionally worked. Those who go too far tend to immediately reverse course. They'll do what the market dictates they do.

EA's been doing the optional microtransaction thing with Madden's Ultimate Team mode for years now, and apparently has been quite successful with it.
EA's been doing the optional microtransaction thing with Madden's Ultimate Team mode for years now, and apparently has been quite successful with it.

And when/if what the market seems to be dictating to them fails, EA will just go back to business as usual. That's all we really have to do, you know. Don't buy the games if they're abusive in their demands for your cash. Not getting money is pretty much the only thing a company like EA will truly respond to. Case in point: remember just a couple of years ago, when Sony was pushing stereoscopic 3D in PlayStation 3 games as the next big thing? When it was pushing 3D televisions at the behest of its consumer electronics division? Now, Sony isn't even addressing that sort of thing. The market dictated that this 3D push wasn't going to be a success, so they dropped it, simple as that.

As of now, there's certainly reason to be concerned about an increased volley of microtransactions in games, but let's not make this a more far-reaching issue than it needs to be. We've been dealing with all sorts of crap, from on-disc DLC, to increasingly greedy free-to-play models, for years now. EA's comment, outside of its explicitness in dictating the company's apparent direction, is not really anything newly worrisome.

It's stuff like this that just distracts us from the truly important issues out there currently plaguing the video game landscape. Like the continued use of the painfully redundant term "digital download," for instance. I mean, how stupid is that, right?

--A

Alex Navarro on Google+

226 Comments

Avatar image for swat200
swat200

311

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By swat200

The best way to satisfy both my need to play the core content AND still screw over EA is as simple as buying the game used. This way EA never see's a cent of my cash and I can still enjoy the product.

Avatar image for bd_mr_bubbles
BD_Mr_Bubbles

1850

Forum Posts

7791

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

EA is a business, and right now, the microtransaction business is--at least, according to them--a profitable one for the publisher.

If it works for them, why stop. Would you NOT want to make money.

This and never forget microtransactions are a choice that you have been given, don't like them then choose not to use them. Another great article Alex.

Avatar image for monkeyking1969
monkeyking1969

9095

Forum Posts

1241

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 18

Edited By monkeyking1969

If it works it works because people buy micro-items, if it fails it will do so because not enough people buy. It is self correcting and the only harm is to the few games they use to prove the point either way. I think unless the games are extremely carefully crafted and integrated with the 'true' micro transactions ($1-$4 purchases that are repeated for coins, etc) this will fail...but as I said above it will succeed to fail based on if p'eople buy. DLC as we now have it will stay, but again it has to work and not be what happened in Mass Effect 3.

Avatar image for clstirens
clstirens

854

Forum Posts

15

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By clstirens

@shivoa said:

While the effect of the internet erupting in hatred for a release may not be able to influence the sales of that title (if it was front-loaded with preorders and first week sales), it may have an effect on the next title in the series. The maximum effect one person can have by not buying a game + DLC/microtransactions is around $1 to $100 with the major block being the $60 base game price. Getting a community up in arms about something by writing pieces attempting to get your viewpoint about why this crosses the line to as many people as possible (educating the enthusiasts) could block far more sales and sales of future games that use similar techniques and influence the word of mouth narrative about a game.

Vote with your wallet, but far more importantly vote with your speech. Exactly the same as in politics, you're playing in a game where a lot of money can pay for a lot of speech so you're already at a disadvantage even if you're right (in so far as you can be in a battle of ideologies) so the only way to make progress is to find a way of expressing your view in a way that will engage a lot of the target demographic.

+1

I hate "season" passes on day one, and I hate how so many games feel gimped on day one. Many will argue that they many games have plenty of content at launch despite the day 1 dlc and day one "there's so much more you SHOULD BE BUYING" packs.

But when I buy something at full price, and they do this, I feel like I'm getting a shell with missing bits, like a model kit without the chassis. It creates a perception that I'm not getting my money's worth, and that lingers throughout the entire experience.

I do actually like DLC, and I support map packs on games that I find enjoyable (I haven't bought CoD maps, however, since CoD4, not out of hatred, though). And I own Premium, but that "service" was announced WAY after launch, and actually helped the game by promoting a larger player base to own all content.

That way, you end up with a higher likelihood that servers run multiple map packs, and that more players stick with later expansions.

Avatar image for silvertorch1
SilverTorch1

73

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I guess I'm just never going to buy an EA game again. Not a big loss.

Avatar image for drdarkstryfe
DrDarkStryfe

2563

Forum Posts

1672

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

A very enjoyable read Alex. You hit every major point without sounding like an ass like Cliff did.

I think that the people that read and comment at places like these and message boards like NeoGAF need to realize the most is that we enthusiast gamers are the vast minority in the overall market.

While the financials and economics behind microtransactions are hidden, there is obviously a large market that partakes in these small additional costs.

Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22970

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

Yet again, you deliver us a fantastic article, Alex. Thank you.

While I know this will get buried in the long reaches of comment clutter, I'll just say this: people need to stop losing their shit over things that don't really warrant it.

Avatar image for wrect
Wrect

327

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Wrect

Over the last five years my favorite trend in the gaming press, by far, has been when the journalists and other public figures take time out to remind us that "it's a business." Thank you, Cliff Blezinski and everyone else. We had all forgotten that the companies that produce and publish video games are businesses. We thought that Activision and EA were run by Santa's elves or something. Thank you for clearing that up.

Avatar image for crushed
crushed

916

Forum Posts

70

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By crushed

I don't think "gamers hate certaintypes of microtransactions" is that controversial a statement or a revelation. That was more or less the reaction to CliffyB's blog post; he attempted to act like people were ganging up on EA (which put out things like Real Racing 3 and Dead Space 3) for no reason and that Valve's more balanced and markedly different approach with Team Fortress 2 was only accepted because Valve had an image.

When journalists and readers tried to rebut that (and his contradictory argument that people who hate such practices are both an insignificant minority but can still somehow sway publishers by voting with their wallets), he stuck his fingers in his ears, cursed at people, and ran off to shout "didn't read lol" and post absolutely awful snarky analogies on Twitter.

Chris Remo put it best: Of course games are a business, but there are plenty of other businesses that don't shove that fact in your face while using their product.

Avatar image for oreospeedwagon
OreoSpeedwagon

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What bothers me about the attitudes like these of EA -- to monetize every drop they can -- is just how anti-consumer it is. Your initial reaction to me saying this is probably a "You don't understand business!" comment, which is quite untrue. For years, I've done side-work in construction. I've hung drywall, painted, brickwork, done roofing, laid hardwood flooring, etc.

Perhaps it's that I am either a terrible businessman or simply not big enough to antagonize my customers, but when I put a bid in, there's a few things that merely go assumed. After doing a drywall job, for example, I'm going to clean up the place. I'm going to run a vacuum, after painting, I am going to move their furniture back in to place, re-hang their photos on the walls, etc. I don't pack up my gear and go "Well, for $59.99, I could clean your living room as an added service!" Doing this would probably _tank_ my reputation more than simply not doing it. If the customer has a problem with something small, I don't go "Well, we'll renegotiate a new bid for me to putty up that nail hole before I paint another coat -- don't worry, it'll only cost about $5!"

The aggressive push that companies like Activision and EA do with day one DLC and "Season Passes" and other premium revenue streams strikes me as this sort of milking. It personally rubs me wrong, and amazes me they get away with it.

Avatar image for r3t
r3t

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Yes gamers are slightly overreacting, but this is a good (if not great) thing in my opinion. We need to let the publishing behemoths know that we're watching them closely and fucking us over won't be as easy.

Also, I don't blame them for exploring different business models but why is 'building consumer goodwill' never one of them? .... huh!?

Disappointing article. I was also disappointed in CliffyB's comments.

EA does not need any defending, if anything they need to be slapped on their fingers!

Avatar image for evercaptor
Evercaptor

436

Forum Posts

3014

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Evercaptor

I bought a bunch of the Dead Space micro-bonuses, all three of the Bot ones, because They make the game much more manageable and the sarcasm from the bots, while eventually grating, was delightful for my entire playthrough. I won't pay for the parts pack, because they don't transition to other save files, but try to tell me about Hardcore without more and better bots from chapter 4.

I also bought character skins for DmC because I love the game and it breathes new life into a game that I was starting to bore with looking at.

As a product to price equation (which so many gamers get hung up on), I feel like I came out satisfied with all of those micro-transactions and that's what matters to me.

I think equating "DLC" with "Microtransaction" is a bit of a stretch. I think it really comes down to what you are getting for your money. "Microtransactions" by their very definition are "micro," both in what you spend on them and what you get out of them; drop a buck here for a temporary powerup, a buck there to unlock a new gun. In general, they either confer transient bonuses or grant the buyer access to something that is already in the game but is simply very hard to unlock. Basically, they are for people whose time is worth more then their money. In contrast, DLC almost always gives you something new that you have no way of getting inside of the base game (on-disc DLC is a whole different issue) and generally costs a significant chunk of change. No matter how many hours I spend grinding in Battlefield 3, there's no way I can unlock the premium maps unless I throw down an extra fifty bucks; no matter how many dragons I kill, the only way I can play Dawnguard is if I give Bethesda $20. Two completely different entities.

I can see your point, but does that make the Bots upgrades in Dead Space 3 a microtransaction or a DLC? Are they Microtransactions because they're bonuses that I value because my time is worth more with them, or are they DLC because I can't buy them with Ration seals and they cost 400MSP each, the price of Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic 2 and Sonic 3?

I think the line is a different one than you said, even though you expressed it well; in my opinion it's about the intent and application of the purchase, rather than price or how unlockable they are otherwise. You can charge $99 for what you call a microtransation on iOS, and there's nothing micro about that charge, but for $2 you can get an extra character in Scott Pilgrim!

Avatar image for hairymike87
HairyMike87

1219

Forum Posts

336

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 4

I'm sure most of the gamers that were brought up before the digital era would be less inclined to accept microtransactions in full retail games. Vote with your dollars and keep the little ones out of your wallets.

Avatar image for av_gamer
AV_Gamer

2864

Forum Posts

17819

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 13

Another quality article, Alex. But I'm sure you're use to reading those type of comments by now.

Overall, I agree with you. Bottomline: If people really hated the pay for extra content model, then consumers would not participate in it and give them money--which in turn gives them an excuse to keep doing it.

Major companies and corporations only understand one thing: money. They don't care if people are complaining when they see huge profits at the end of the day.

If video game fans really want these type of actions to stop, they simply need to stop supporting it. Otherwise, it will only grow and get more hungry.

As the saying goes: "Money talks. Bullshit walks." That saying is very true in the business world.

Avatar image for luck702
Luck702

960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Luck702

This shit is unacceptable on 60$ games. Free2Play, go nuts on microtransactions. Charge me full price and ask for more? Fuck you. Doesn't make a difference to me though, having not bought an EA game in over a year and don't plan on doing it ever again.

Avatar image for pw2566ch
pw2566ch

499

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By pw2566ch

Here's the way I look at it and I'm sure everyone will agree with me. If it's a full-priced game, and as long as I get a full game with a complete story and a way to play it to 100% completion, then there isn't a problem. Now, if I get a pop-up message that states that I can't continue on to the next level without waiting 5 real-time hours or pay $2.99 to unlock it, then there will be issues. This is what iPhone/iPad games do because they're free-to-purchase and free-to-play. It's the games that cost a pretty penny that shouldn't be doing this.

Avatar image for probablytuna
probablytuna

5010

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I've never been a fan of micro-transactions but I'm not really that bothered. I mean, when I was playing the ME3 multiplayer I didn't spend a single dollar on the item packs because I could just farm in-game currency instead. I don't mind spending a little more time to get something "free".

Avatar image for tpoppapuff
TPoppaPuff

522

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 1

@ibedanyo:

That's fine. They may have felt Javik should have been in the game and I respect that. Personally if he had been a third squadmate then great, but as one of two squadmates he sucks because you feel obligated to take him everywhere, partially because they had said so vehemently on the podcasts that he has a ton of exposition on the missions. I shouldn't have listened to them or at least not cared because as a character he has nowhere near to offer as that built relationship with Tali, Garrus, Liara, or Kaidan/Ashley.

And yeah there are residual art assets that were left over. That is no indication whatsoever that the content was removed from the game. I promise you those missions were not finished by the time the game went gold. Art assets are expensive but they are the easy part of game development. The scripting is the part that takes time. If they found complete scripts that were just deactivated (i.e. hot coffee) in the PC version then you have an argument, but the fact that unused assets were left 'on the disc' really doesn't mean anything. I read an article years ago (before 360 launch) about the amount of disc space is really necessary for 360 games and mentioned one mech game on the original Xbox shipped with about 57% of the assets on disc were unused in the game! Of course that is an outlying example but it still makes my point: assets are the easy part of game development. Expensive, sure, but easy. Game artists are a dime a dozen; not so with programmers. You can outsource art. No development studio outsources the game code because that's the crux of game development.

The story DLC that has come does indeed add a ton of exposition to the game that improves the story, and you can argue that maybe they should have delayed the game until the story elements were better conveyed and added to the game. I wouldn't make that argument for the game except for the ending but you can make that argument. But under no circumstances does that mean at all that Bioware held off missions that were near done just to sell it later as DLC. If that were true the DLC would have been released well before the alternate ending DLC.

Avatar image for haethos
haethos

341

Forum Posts

87

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I wish we saw a demographic breakdown of all of these micro transactions. I am willing to bet the majority of people who use it are those who don't play videogames often.

Granted that I spend less time gaming than I did before, but I've put in hundreds (probably over 1000 now) between League of Legends and The Old Republic. I love buying skins, buying characters, and buying weird cosmetic stuff. I've been a huge gamer (mostly on the PC) for close to 15 years now (give me a break, I'm only 23), and I don't mind spending additional money on games that I spend a huge chunk of my life playing. I'm sure that I'm not alone.

Avatar image for boogiewonder
BoogieWonder

8

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I don't like the idea of spending money, so I can spend even more money. Regardless of the content.

Avatar image for tourgen
tourgen

4568

Forum Posts

645

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 11

Edited By tourgen

yeah no worries here. I stopped buying EA games a little over a year ago or so mostly due to dumb Origin logins and their Origin store. haven't missed their stuff even a tiny bit. Hell there is still way more to choose from than I could ever find time to play. So good luck EA. Keep finding new ways to treat customers like shit. See how that works out for you.

Avatar image for luciddreams117
LucidDreams117

912

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I love that point. It goes back all the way to the days of arcades. What a lot of companies are doing lately is in reality nothing new. Annoying and a piss off, but still nothing new. Though I am not a fan of EA right now and don't support them, I can agree with them on a business level. But I also want to pose a question: How long and how often can we use the excuse of "they're a business so that makes everything alright"? That should only work for so long. At the end of the day, fans of companies and games are what will remain. They're the ones who will buy your product. At this rate, you're just pissing them off and slowly drive them away. Then who will make you money?

As always, great article Alex. Good read. This topic seems to be the main theme this past week.

Avatar image for crushed
crushed

916

Forum Posts

70

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@tpoppapuff:

It was more than residual art assets. There were leaks that a Prothean squadmate existed in ME3 for more than a year before the game released. When the demo came out, there were leaked script fragments from throughout development still present, that indicated that "The Prothean" was at one point meant to be part of the main plot of the game and someone that all players were intended to see. IIRC, there were also comments from BioWare developers in one retrospective (it might have been Geoff Keighley's) that flat-out said that they were working on Javik's story for the main game when EA came to them and straight up told them to turn it into a DLC project.

Avatar image for vermy81
Vermy81

75

Forum Posts

1045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 2

I don't really understand how it is that this stuff seems to consistently work. I was so optimistic about DLC, I was like oh we'll be getting all these new side stories and extra stuff. I thought by now we'd be awash in Shadowbroker & Minerva's den type content where we saw a major expansion of the single player.

But no, apparently what people really want is all sorts of dumb crap and they're willing to tolerate spending money on it. I might theorize because the average game customer buys a few games a year and doesn't migrate between games like the average reader of this site might be likely to do.

Anyways, sure vote with your dollars, but what do you do if you're outvoted and they're ruining games they previously would have been happy just to sell to you for $60 bucks and have no microtransactions involved.

Avatar image for crusader8463
crusader8463

14850

Forum Posts

4290

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 5

Nothing takes me out of being immersed and enjoying a game faster than to see a window pop up with dollar signs all over it telling me I can buy this or that for only a few space bucks! It's one of the main reasons I avoid F2P games. It just makes me feel like I'm trying to be fleeced for more money every other screen I open, and that the game was not designed around trying to be fun but how they can best try to make me get annoyed at the game enough to want to go into their store and buy my way past it. Difficulty in these games never feel like a challenge I want to try and over come anymore because it just feels like it's some artificial difficulty hump that they put in there to try and make me buy some booster to speed past it. And no matter what they do every time the game starts to get challenging that feeling is there nagging at the back of my head again and again.

Then there's when a game launches with a built in store/DLC that has mission, story, or character content in the game hidden behind a pay wall. When I see stuff like that it makes me feel like I have been robbed and that I only got a fraction of the game I just paid for. Like I ordered a big mac from McDonald's only to open the box and see that they put one patty on the burger instead of two and told me that I can get the extra patty for just $.50 more as I'm walking out the door. It honestly feels like they are just sticking out their tongue at me, laughing, and giving me the middle finger for buying their game as they chuckle about me being a sucker for buying it in the first place.

The part about this whole mess that makes me the saddest however is that there's nothing anyone can really do about it. There's always going to be enough dumb/uninformed/uncaring people that just throw money at these systems to offset the number of well informed people that are trying to protest against it. The whole speaking with your wallet thing only goes so far when you are talking about the number of people out there buying games these days when most of them are "casual/light" gamers that are rarely well informed enough to know about this stuff let alone know why they should be worried about what it's doing to games. I feel like it would take a group of people going around advertising this as a cause to try and get the word out to inform enough people to try and make any kind of dent in this stuff. That's never going to happen though and companies like EA are just going to keep pushing and pushing and people are just going to stay bent over and smiling the whole time.

Avatar image for likeassur
LikeaSsur

1625

Forum Posts

517

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By LikeaSsur

Regardless of what EA is or is not, image is everything, and if any company thinks a full priced game should have microtransactions (MMORPGs nonwithstanding), they can kiss my money goodbye.

DLC is not as comparable as Alex thinks it is. DLC (at their best) adds to a game, makes it even more complete than it was. Microtransacations (at their best) give what's already there.

Avatar image for sfighter21
sfighter21

870

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

...Holy Crap... you guys sure can write a lot!!! Lol.

Avatar image for mellotronrules
mellotronrules

3602

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By mellotronrules

@Alex

i really enjoyed that- thanks for your input. you're absolutely right- there really isn't anything particularly nefarious or surprising about this turn of events...the writing's been on the wall for a long time now. ea's going to go where the money is- so if they say they're putting microtransactions in all their games, clearly it's working out nicely for them.

that said- there's no accounting for taste, and i think it'll be really interesting to see them attempt to strike a balance between wringing as much blood from the stone as possible, while at the same time maintaining the perception that one can receive the complete game experience without microtransactions. i mean, look at airlines- some people are willing to accept cheaper ticket prices and then be nickel-and-dimed for every amenity after that, while others continue to pay a premium for the full service. key difference there though, is that the airlines that do charge for additional service tend to have cheaper tickets...will ea come down from the $60 price point? unlikely.

Avatar image for sirpenguin
sirpenguin

62

Forum Posts

1138

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 6

Edited By sirpenguin

When speaking about EA and its reputation, it's important not to be short sighted. EA was the target of much hate and gamer angst not even a decade ago due to really shitty business practices (RIP Maxis, Westwood, etc.). Their reputation went from 0 to hero for two main reasons: a) when contrasted against Activision they looked like a literal saint, and b) they actually did turn things around. They began to crank out new IPs, took a lot of risks, seemed to care more.

The reason EA is back to being public enemy #1 is precisely because they are once again backtracking and destroying any emotional capital they fought so hard for. Honestly, as crazy as it sounds, this parody song by Chris Remo (Idle Thumbs) so perfectly encapsulates the rise/fall of EA that it's a must listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtHzLt3C_z0 Keep in mind this is from 2009, long before any of the mock games listed in the song were released (now I think all of them are)

The second point I want to address is that the Madden DLC and Dead Space 3 models couldn't be any different. Indeed, I feel you purposefully missed his point in order to argue against it. Madden's DLC is largely out of the "main path" of the game almost entirely, the definition of side/extra content. DS3 instead opts to rope it into a major game system, one that is unavoidable.

Imagine Madden offering some sort of training system where you can pay real money to increase your players skill without having to wait as long. That's far closer to the DS3 model and, as predicted by Peckham, it would be devastating to the series.

Avatar image for roger778
Roger778

960

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

That was a very well-written article, Alex.

I recently started a new playthrough of Dead Space 1, and I realized that it's been a couple of years since I last played it. I'm about 4 chapters in the game, and it's still as scary as I remember.

However, before I started the game, I decided to see what it would be like if I downloaded a Weapon pack for the game. I chose the Military pack with my microsoft points, and it only took a few minutes to download it. I started playing it with the new weapons downloaded into the game, and tested them out. By the time I had gotten to the third chapter, I realized that the new weapons had made Isaac seriously overpowered, and I was not in a whole lot of danger as I tore my way through the necromorphs. So, I deleted my save game files and the weapons pack from my storage space. The next day, I restarted the game, and this time the game felt properly balanced on Medium difficulty. The whole point of a horror game like Dead Space is that you never know where a murderous alien is lurking around while you're exploring the ship. That's why it's scary to me.

It was a micro-transactions deal that I did, and I felt foolish for doing that. The only type of DLC that I am enjoying so far is the ones that give you extra story-related content, (Lair of the Shadow Broker for Mass Effect 2 for example), and I have no problem with that. However, I learned a lesson that you should only use weapon packs if you want to speed right through a game.

I don't hate Micro-transactions as almost everybody else on Giant Bomb does. I'm just going to have to be careful on how I spend my money, on this stuff. I'm pretty sure that's the advice Alex is trying to give everyone.

Avatar image for moondogg
moondogg

381

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By moondogg

They're there for those that want them, just as long as when I spend my $100-120 (aussie here). I'm getting a game I can complete without spending anymore cash than that, should I not want to. I'm fine with micro transactions. I'm just not sure I trust some of the game companies to keep it to all the optional stuff, like different costumes/other visual only type stuff, and xp increasers. Once they learn people will pay more, will they stop at optional stuff?

Avatar image for tordah
Tordah

2604

Forum Posts

621

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

This microtransaction trend is disgusting, and I will never be a part of it. What worries me most is that the younger generation that is growing up with video games right now will think that this is the norm. That this is okay.

Right now it seems like these microtransactions are either cheat codes or cosmetic stuff. You know, stuff that used to be included in the game for free? Call me old-fashioned, but when I pay full price for a game, I also expect to get the full game. I can only imagine what they will lock away behind a payment wall next...

Avatar image for xpgamer7
xpgamer7

2488

Forum Posts

148

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 5

Here are the things that have been, will be and hopefully will generally not be created by microtransactions that I have a problem with.

Buying your way into significant multiplayer advantages. - Not small boosts, but significant overthrowing

Having it intrude in your game. - I don't want to be playing in my space world and then see "BUY ME TO WIN QUICKER" everytime I open up the menu (Dead space 3...) I'm not saying that the options can't exist, but don't push it.

Designed to make you pay. - While inevitable in some cases, and by far the worst problem, adding in timers, achievements or unreasonable paths that bring tedium that can all be gotten with extra cash.

I don't mind if they add in sections that you can skip if you have in game currency that you can buy or added features for purchase. But buying a game, a 60 dollar game should leave you feeling like you got a game developed for that price point. I can ignore most of the mobile space as much is experimental or cheap generally. There are unsavory practices going on, but generally it's a testbed for low cost software that you can usually ignore.

Then again we already have problems on the CD front. Disregarding the investor statements, what will come will come. It's why buzzwords exist so I can only hope for the best.

Avatar image for crazy_horse
Crazy_Horse

59

Forum Posts

450

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Do any of the defenders actually think they'll look back 10 years from now and say, "Man micro transactions sure were awesome." Maybe then we'll have come full circle back to expansion packs. Then you guys can reminisce about the good ole days of getting nickle and dimed. Or beating a game only to have it ask you for another 20$ to see the "true" ending.

Avatar image for geirr
geirr

4166

Forum Posts

717

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

I don't care either way. If the game is fun, I'll buy it!

Avatar image for least100seraphs
least100seraphs

59

Forum Posts

28

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 17

Edited By least100seraphs

So sick of the entitled, hypocritical attitude on display with so many "real" gamers.

When the non-gamers of the world ridicule, or fear, or blame gamers, gamers get upset that they're not seen as normal. Gamers say "games are great, there's nothing wrong with them, or us! It's an art form! It's worthwhile! Try it!"

When the non-gamers of the world start making their first forays into gaming, with their cellphones and iPads, playing cheap/F2P games for minutes here and there, they're ridiculed for being casual gamers, who aren't playing proper console/PC games. "Those games don't count. They're fake games for fake gamers, and you're only playing to pass the time. You're not really interested in games."

When the casual gamers start wanting to make the jump, when they start spending their hard-earned money on videogames instead of some other industry, they're not playing properly. "Don't pay devs for freemium items and time doublers. They're fake games. Get a real game."

When these casual gamers pick up a console, or get their PC specced up, and they jump online, they're abused. They get made fun of by "real" gamers because they aren't as good. They're new. They lack experience. They haven't unlocked the good stuff. "You suck. Your gear is no good. Go level up, noob."

When these gamers buy an unlock pack so they can have the good items, play the extra classes, or use higher level equipment, so they can play with the real gamers, then they are ruining our games. "Don't buy unlocks. You're supposed to unlock those items by playing the game."

It all comes full circle. "These are our games. We are entitled to play them how we want. Don't play them how you want, because we like them how they are. You are ruining our hobby. Leave us alone."

Yes, gaming isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. Things change, for better and for worse. You don't like the way games are headed? Do something constructive about it. Start making games. Buy games that are done well. Reward devs and pubs.

Wish that games were the way they were 10 years ago? Go play them. There are many thousands of games released in the last 10 years. You can still buy many of them new, at low prices. Steam, PSN, XBL, Virtual Console, amongst others, are choc-full of classics that you can buy, with money going to the makers.

If microtransactions annoy you, simply don't spend money on them. If their inclusion in a game skews the game design to the point where it's not enjoyable to play, don't play it. Play one of the other hundreds of games released each year. And hope that the worst part of the game is its microtransaction structure. Because you could end up with Aliens Colonial Marines instead.

I'm happy to play games that are being partially funded by people with more disposable income than disposable time, because they're funding videogames instead of music or movies. I'm happy to play games where the biggest flaw is that I have to play it a lot to get everything it has to offer. I'm happy to have the choice of spending money instead of time, because I am sick of the attitude that time equates to skill, or that luck equates to skill.

Avatar image for deactivated-59ec818a3faf4
deactivated-59ec818a3faf4

301

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

People keep saying vote with your wallet but here's the thing, we all have been for years and it hasn't change anything. It's actually got worse

There are to many people willing to pay that just standing there saying you wont makes fuck all difference and because of this we'll see more butchering of content like in ME3 and games unbalanced to make micro-transactions the only option.

Avatar image for cassus
cassus

401

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

Between this and Origin, I guess I'm done with EA. Not because I want to boycott them for disgusting business practices or anything, but because I know I would pay for microtrannies. I always do. This is basically preying on impatient people, or people who just want to get through the piece of garbage they just paid $60 for.

I can see one positive effect come from this. Harder games. I'm willing to bet that EA will make games harder just to stimulate more sales of crap. I'm fine with that, actually, cause I'm at a point now where I can't remember any challenging games since Dark Souls came out on the PS3. And I play a LOT of games. I guess I gravitate towards Multiplayer for that very reason. Shooting at stuff that either doesn't shoot back or shoots cheeze doodles and fluff at me gets dull really fast. I remember the olden days when you almost crapped yourself when more than 2 guys started attacking you at once. These days you hit the cover key and just take potshots at targets over yonder.

Yes, harder games please. No, I don't want to buy stuff that I can get for free by playing a bit longer. Make CONTENT, not excuses to sell what's already in there. MMO's get this, they sell cool looking gear with no game impact, and they give you a crap ton of new content to keep you playing. Give us a reason not to pirate your stuff, not a reason to pirate and find a trainer..

Avatar image for andrewdelong
AndrewDeLong

21

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By AndrewDeLong
No Caption Provided

Avatar image for dedbeet
DedBeet

756

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By DedBeet

I'm not surprised or upset by their announcement, I just shake my head in wonder everytime EA makes these sweeping announcements. Remember how all of their games would feature a multiplayer component? EA is constantly looking for that magic element that guarantees every game will be profitable. Sorry EA, it just doesn't work that way.

Avatar image for blazehedgehog
BlazeHedgehog

1286

Forum Posts

16034

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 30

User Lists: 3

Edited By BlazeHedgehog

@tpoppapuff said:

@kwang2000 said:

Cliff Bleszinski is right. EA and Valve are literally the same company.

THANK YOU. I've been saying this ever since Valve forced EA to pull a number of games off Steam because EA was hosting their own DLC at their own expense and Valve didn't get a cut (which also didn't cost Valve anything either. It was EA's bandwidth being used, not Valve's.).

It's all perception.

That's giving EA a bigger benefit of the doubt than they deserve, given their history. Keep in mind that throughout the entire affair, Valve's response was simply "No comment." EA was the one beating their chest and making accusations, and they're notoriously aggressive when it comes to how they allow others to handle their products.

Did you know that EA is the only company allowed to circumvent Xbox Live policies, all because they threatened to not support the 360? That's why EA can "shut down" servers for older games, because even though it looks like Xbox Live and sounds like Xbox Live, you're actually connecting to EA, not Microsoft, and they're the only publishers with that deal. They are incredibly shrewd.

Meanwhile, Valve opens up Steam Greenlight to put the process of content approval in the consumer's hands. That seems pretty transparent, to me.

Perception indeed. It sounds to me like you're just drinking EA's kool-aid.

Avatar image for corvak
Corvak

2047

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

From what I have heard, it's more just small DLC items as opposed to some sort of grand scheme to ruin gaming. We haven't had a mainstream product that has severely limited someone who simply purchased the initial game but ignored microtransactions - EA and Activision have rightly realized this would be economic suicide and most people wouldn't buy into it.

Microtransactions have long been available in the MMO world. But the fact of the matter is, the games that do it badly, and get too greedy, quickly drop players and fail, while the better games survive. Many MMOs offer a free-to-play microtransaction model as an alternative to the usual subscription fee, such as Lord of the Rings Online.

As another example, Guild Wars 2, which has no fee, but has an initial price and has a cash shop - but you can exchange game money for currency used on the store with other players - without even giving them your credit card information. Nothing you can buy on the cash shop is "pay to win", it consists mostly of cosmetic items, changing your appearance, or adding more inventory space. You've still got to put in the time to play the game, level up, and learn your class to succeed.

TF2, Guild Wars 2, and a few other microtransaction products have shown that good game design is still very important, and not every game with the microtransaction feature is automatically a terrible zynga scheme or a terrible grindy pay-to-win MMO.

Avatar image for immortalsaiyan
ImmortalSaiyan

4788

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Sorry Alex, but that statement is cause for concern. The DLC example

@blimble said:

People keep saying vote with your wallet but here's the thing, we all have been for years and it hasn't change anything. It's actually got worse

There are to many people willing to pay that just standing there saying you wont makes fuck all difference and because of this we'll see more butchering of content like in ME3 and games unbalanced to make micro-transactions the only option.

Exactly. I barely bought any DLC and think season passes are gross. Look how that turned out.

Avatar image for sandweed
sandweed

161

Forum Posts

23

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By sandweed

@cassus: Have you tried the new MGS or the new DMC on the harder difficulties? Shit is not easy.

Avatar image for sixpin
sixpin

1345

Forum Posts

758

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 7

Edited By sixpin

@branthog: I've thoroughly enjoyed every point you've made in this thread. Followed.

My two cents on this mirotransactions business isn't that they are always bad - just usually. Map Packs and what we used to call expansion packs are pretty great. However, things tend to go downhill once publishers start charging to paint a gun with a stupid rainbow pattern or double XP with a season pass. Once developers start to break their games down into these minuscule crumbs of add-ons, I start to look at the game as something best left to a bargin bin purchase. Once a DLC-rich title has dropped to $40 or $20 dollars then I'll take another look. And let's be honest here, it doesn't take long for games to get heavily discounted these days.

I wish I could say that for every EA or Epic that there is a Rockstar Games, but that just isn't the case. Most companies don't handle DLC in a manner that is respectful of consumers. I've never paid for CoD maps, Forza cars, or Rockband tracks and I have no question that I'm in the minority here, but I'm not angry (as Alex suggested). If anything I'm disappointed in consumers with their willingness to lay down cash and take whatever line these companies feed them. I wish the masses would fire up their brains and make purchases wisely. Hopefully this ordeal works itself out before crippling the hobby that I've loved for around thirty years.