Today in "ridiculous justifications" news: Dead Space 3

  • 135 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#101 Posted by Demoskinos (17103 posts) -

@Kerned: In the game. They are going to have to clearly label what you are buying. This is absolutely no different then the stuff they did for all their sports games or Godfather or Need of Speed or a whole fuck ton of games and all of those games clearly labeled when you were able to get those things via regular game play. This is nothing but gamers wanting to find something to complain about because its easy to shake your pitchfork at the giant "evil" company over the drop of a hat.

#102 Posted by Kerned (1183 posts) -

@Demoskinos: But don't you think this sets a bad precedent? What about next time when it's a little less "optional?" Or the time after that when it isn't optional at all?

This situation aside, would you be okay with spending $60 for a game and then being more or less required to spend another $10, $20 or whatever beyond that to access things in the game? I ask this because I think that is very clearly where EA and other companies want to go with this, and if there isn't any pushback on it now, it's only going to get worse.

If you don't have a problem with that, that's your prerogative, I'm just genuinely curious about where the line is for you.

#103 Edited by MentalDisruption (2008 posts) -

Can't really say that this bugs me any more than a lot of the other changes happening to dead space. You can get them in game and you're not being forced to purchase whatever these items are right? If so I don't see much of a problem compared to what other games have done already. Their reasoning sucks, sure, but don't make the purchases if you don't like it.

#104 Posted by Rowr (5862 posts) -

I can't help but feel EA is going down a path that will hurt them in the long run.

#105 Posted by Viking_Funeral (2249 posts) -

@Demoskinos said:

@Viking_Funeral: Awareness? All you have to do is read what your buying. Simple.

That's why I was asking whether Mass Effect 3 advertised the multiplayer micro-transaction on the box. I'm fairly certain that they did not, but I'm not 100%.

Even if it's only in-game, that would lead to a lot of people paying $60 for the game and then finding out about micro-transactions. This might cause a backlash, and a deserved one at that.

#106 Posted by Demoskinos (17103 posts) -

@Kerned: If its not worth my time I don't buy it. Simple. Bitching about it doesn't change anything voting with your wallet does. That is the only thing these companies will listen to.

#107 Edited by CornBREDX (7009 posts) -

How shocking. EA justifying something in a stupid way. I am so shocked. 
I can't blame visceral, they are the developer so they dont make this call... a suit does. 
In more real news, I really hope this game is worth playing (fun, engaging, if even at all like the original or the sequel which was great too for different reasons- I'd be pretty happy) because I have yet to see anything that seems like it is.  
I hope it still has the amazingly awesome and therapeutic boot stomp cursing. I still say that's the best cathartic thing to have ever been put into a horror based game... ever.   
I could just watch this for hours.


#108 Posted by coakroach (2495 posts) -

Still trying to make back that Old Republic money eh?

#109 Posted by Humanity (12910 posts) -
@Oldirtybearon I am getting older, I'm 28 and agree that games have stopped inciting the same glee in me as before but i also blame the end of the console cycle and general lack of innovation in big name titles. A large part of it is that number 3 added to the title. At some point no matter how good the game is the charm is gone. As someone said in this tread, necromorphs which once were fresh and scary and a real threat, have now become this tame, familiar idea that doesn't evoke much in terms of emotions.

I'm trying to think of any game that I'm actually excited for and realize that this was actually it. I'm curious about The Last of Us but I can see myself never playing it just like Uncharted 3 and being completely ok with that.
#110 Edited by MEATBALL (4121 posts) -

Yup, that's some pretty ridiculous justification, looks like PR are grasping at straws. On the bright side it looks like the game is going to be great, but the presence of unneeded microtransactions does cast a slightly dark cloud over it. Really wish EA wouldn't sully the games they make (that I enjoy) with their gross business practices.

#111 Posted by Korolev (1800 posts) -

I would have more (but not much more) respect for them if they just came out and said: "We're a business. We want money." Because that's the truth. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make money. That's what ALL businesses want. But they could at least be honest about it.

#112 Posted by Wampa1 (826 posts) -
Loading Video...


#113 Posted by Snail (8797 posts) -

That's pretty fucking stupid.

Aren't all the microtransactions just for additional stuff that makes the game easier though?

#114 Posted by Yadilie (390 posts) -


Is it bad that I get more gaming news on a Trophy site?

#115 Posted by pweidman (2494 posts) -

EA being EA. The first two DS games were really really good so it's a day one play regardless. Kinda doubt I'll buy anything though through micros, and just wish they'd spend their energy on good co-op/sp DLC that I'd gladly buy.

#116 Edited by StarvingGamer (9814 posts) -

This thread is about one-and-a-half weeks premature, and possibly completely irrelevant.

There is nothing intrisically wrong with microtransactions as a time-saver. It's true that for most of us as gamers, the gradual accrual of currency/rewards is a big part of what makes video games so addictive. As long as the rate of resource acquisition isn't stymied in DS3, which we can't know until the game is out, then we can just ignore the microtransactions and enjoy the game as we normally would.

But if other people want to bypass the whole crafting system and just get all the best stuff right away, there's now a system to facilitate that. Condemning these microtransactions sight-unseen is us telling these people we don't want them playing our games. If you ask me, the more the merrier.

#117 Posted by McShank (1656 posts) -

So far the only thing I see wrong with this is the micro-transactions. I wont be doing it except for the ingame version of it as Unless its Major DLC like say skyrims "dawnguard and soon dragonborn for pc" I dont buy small things. The co-op is the reason im doing day 1 buy since me and a buddy want to play this since we are out of co-op games to beat atm. I dont see the problem in just ignoring the micro-transactions and just enjoying the game then to wait and buy it USED <--- wtf is wrong with this statement? When you buy used, the company who made the game loses money which means shit like what happened to THQ will happen to them and it will be a sad day when more companies and Series die because of this statement over such petty crap.

#118 Posted by Paulus (182 posts) -

I think it's dumb and insulting and EA are dicks and I won't be playing the game (then again I haven't played the first two yet, even though I have them on steam).

But I can't help but wonder what this does for the game, micro-transactions tend to influence game design especially in a high profile company that needs to answer to shareholders. So what about design? People are arguing that if you don't want to spend money you don't have to, but having to be conservative, being pushed in a corner, having to make the choice between shit and worse shit have always been what has made horror so good. The tension that comes with being in a weak position without the knowledge if you're gonna be able to make it. What happens to the horror if you can pay a dollar to subvert that...

Depending on the decisions they make design wise it seems to me that either they end up making the game worse for everyone or worse for those who spend more money, unless they've finally given up the notion that it's a horror game and have gone straight up action.

#119 Posted by yinstarrunner (1271 posts) -

I'm tired of spending a lot of money on a game, only to have it constantly pester me to put in even more. I've made it a point to almost NEVER buy DLC, and now it looks like I'm going to have to extend that to "never buying games who want to microtransact me after I pay full price."

Those people who say it's "optional" are kind of missing the point. The game has microtransactions. It wants to make money from you through its upgrade system. Obviously they're going to change the upgrade system to make it more of a slog to progress through without paying money. How bad will it be? I don't know. But pretending something like this doesn't affect the game design is crazy.

And even if it is fine this time, what about next time? And the time after that? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, I promise you. Please don't buy Dead Space 3.

#120 Posted by bitcloud (681 posts) -

@yinstarrunner said:

I'm tired of spending a lot of money on a game, only to have it constantly pester me to put in even more. I've made it a point to almost NEVER buy DLC, and now it looks like I'm going to have to extend that to "never buying games who want to microtransact me after I pay full price."

Those people who say it's "optional" are kind of missing the point. The game has microtransactions. It wants to make money from you through its upgrade system. Obviously they're going to change the upgrade system to make it more of a slog to progress through without paying money. How bad will it be? I don't know. But pretending something like this doesn't affect the game design is crazy.

And even if it is fine this time, what about next time? And the time after that? Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, I promise you. Please don't buy Dead Space 3.

Well for reference, I'm going to post this which is what the micro transactions in-game look like.

You really never buy dlc for anything? What about expansions or map packs?

Your argument is angry at something that isn't justified. What we understand this dlc is going to be doesn't sound game breaking, what I see in the demo is a lot more customization than in the previous games and it doesn't feel like the pacing is ruined because of that. Something that keeps coming up a lot is that the game developers must have made concessions to the gameplay in order to accommodate dlc, but it doesn't have to. The upgrade does not turn a "weak" gun into something overpowered and make the game "easy". Even calling it a pay for cheats system is really stretching it. The resources that the game lets you buy are tied only to the equipment that is unlocked, you don't purchase overpowered guns, it doesn't break the game and an easy comparison was Mass Effect 3, which no one really cared about. Extra dollars here and there are not big revenue streams. I think it's a general consensus that if it's not offensive and nagging, it doesn't bother anyone.

The best parallel I can draw for this situation is Battlefield 3's shortcut weapon packs, which are essentially the micro transactions in that game. They don't launch with the game(Bad Company 2 started the shortcut packs), but months after launch the kits become available in the respective stores. At first glance, it looks like cheating, everyone can just buy all the weapons and pick the best ones to use. Except in practice, I have never seen a new player that bought a shortcut kit gain some kind of advantage. The guns are unlock, but no attachments so you still have to grind that out, only the guns from the base game unlocked so none of the dlc guns are are available and it's only the guns for the classes, so any gadgets that go with Assault or Engineer still need to be obtained through ranking up.

How does this compare to previous Battlefield games? Battlefield 3 and Bad Company 2 have a very similar upgrade path, but much more expanded for 3, It also takes longer to rank up in general, but pacing is in line with Bad Company 2 as there are much more weapons and gadgets to unlock. Bad Company 1 didn't have any attachments, just weapons and gadgets and also was very easy to rank up. Battlefield 2142 didn't have any new equipment that I can remember from the single dlc map pack, but had a much smoother ranking up system because Battlefield 2 took a lot longer to rank up. Finally Battlefield 2, which had a ridiculous time needed to rank up and weapons you could only get from buy the expansions. They have been able to utilize extra dlc purchases(the kits are no "micro" as they cost $7 to start), while keeping the game balanced and pacing from being ruined. The shortcut kits are implemented in a way that is not intrusive and the game is not designed around them in any way.

Yes, there is a way to incorporate this kind of dlc and micro-transactions without breaking the game. Quite a few games have already done it without ruining the experience or making it offensive and contrary to what some of you think, is a direct response to the mobile market. Don't preach this endgame where companies are designing games around this because you're just hoping for failure at that point.

#121 Edited by Trilogy (2786 posts) -

I'm usually the last person to demonize EA since I feel it's a dead horse at this point, but this is just silly. Sometimes I wonder if they're honestly that oblivious to how unhappy people are with the way they've been marketing the image of what Dead space 3 is going to be. You would think with how poorly it was received at E3 last year, they would be treading water a little more carefully.

For reference, I also thought the micro transactions in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer were fucking gross.

#122 Posted by Nictel (2675 posts) -

So you want to load your 30 hour savegame? That will be 5$ please. Because mobile gamers expect "short games" so playing for longer costs money.

#123 Posted by Kazona (3311 posts) -

I don't get why people are making such a big deal about this. Let's first wait and see how this game is on its own merit and then decide whether these micro-transactions are really that disgusting of a move.

Me, I think the game will be just fine and perfectly playable without buying anything extra. And for those who want to make their game even easier there is the option of paying for these cheats, if you can even really call them that.

In short: if you don't like it, don't buy it. And if you buy it, don't bitch about it.

#124 Posted by usgrovers (177 posts) -

@Kerned: Don't you understand? $60 is the mere down payment for a game these days. You can expect to receive the full game only after another $20 - $50 investment. They're not even hiding it any more with the immediate "season pass" offerings that double the initial cost of the game in many cases.

#125 Posted by CptBedlam (4493 posts) -

Remember when we complained about a piece of horse armor for 1$? Ah, those were the days...

#126 Edited by HerbieBug (4228 posts) -

The market will dictate, as always. They will attempt to change their pricing models to something more exploitative as is their prerogative. If that turns out to be profitable for them so be it. If you disapprove of this pricing structure, take a stand and don't buy. Consumer holds the power here.

#127 Posted by fallen_rock2 (50 posts) -

If they want $70-$75 for the game I wish they'd just charge that and give me the full game. I don't like the micro transaction format, it feels like a dirty trick to sneak the price up.

#128 Edited by AiurFlux (936 posts) -

People can say that you can just not do it and avoid it and that's all fine and good, but we should seriously be worried that shit like this is in games. This is basically a cheat code. Cheat codes used to be free. They found a way to monetize those. What next, you have to pay to unlock individual levels in the game on the disc? Characters? Oh wait, Capcom has already done that.

This shit is going to kill gaming. At any time in history this would be unacceptable, but in the middle of a recession this is criminal. And I fear that there will be just enough lazy dumbasses out there to make this a legitimate thing. There are always enough dumbasses out there to make any stupid rip off a thing. I just don't get it anymore. They keep pushing and pushing and we keep taking it up the fucking ass like champs.

EDIT: I'm going to add in the leaked prices for the items since apparently nobody has yet. Total is over 50 bucks if you buy everything. How is this okay?

  • Bot Capacity Upgrade $4.99
  • Bot Personality Pack $4.99
  • First Contact Pack Free
  • Marauder Pack $4.99
  • Sharpshooter Pack $4.99
  • Tundra Recon Pack $4.99
  • Witness the Truth Pack $4.99
  • Bot Accelerator $4.99
  • Epic Weapon & Resource Pack $2.99
  • Online Pass $9.99
  • Ultra Weapon & Resource Pack $1.99
  • Resource Pack $0.99
#129 Posted by HerbieBug (4228 posts) -

What is that "online pass"? What does that mean?

#130 Posted by AiurFlux (936 posts) -


To play the co-op online it'll use the same Online Pass as in previous EA games. So for new game purchasers that item can be eliminated entirely, but for second hand buyers if they want to play co-op they need to pony up 10 bucks to EA to get a key to play online. Even though it's pretty much a single player game and should be played as such they're still shoehorning that thing into everything. The Resource Pack is supposed to give you scrap to make and upgrade weapons, so you can buy that multiple times. There's no word on how much you get per purchase or how much you need to upgrade, so theoretically you could spend 5 bucks on a single gun. We won't really know until launch.

At least that's my understanding of it all. Ultimately it boils down to EA seeing free to play as a legitimate and popular business model and then thinking they can double dip and make it fee to play instead.

#131 Posted by Chaoskiller2000 (330 posts) -

WOW this is not even a mobile game... and just because they expect microtransactions does not mean they have to put them in a CONSOLE game. However correct me if I am wrong but I thought Dead Space 1 and 2 both had some form of microtransactions.

#132 Posted by HerbieBug (4228 posts) -

@AiurFlux: Ah, I see. Thanks. Free to pay. Fee to play. I like that. :D

#133 Posted by gamefreak9 (2877 posts) -

In theory I don't mind... though I can't imagine a micro-transaction that won't make me feel ripped off. If its guns, character, enemies, or levels I would feel ripped off. I guess cheats? I don't mind not being given cheats. Though I can hardly imagine cheats being the thing.

#134 Posted by KittyVonDoom (447 posts) -

I like how people are saying they'll vote with their wallet... but then are still pre-ordering/buying the game. Guys. You're paying full price for part of a game. Look at what EA did to their Skate franchise and micro-transactions - they ripped out actual features from the previous game/s and made them DLC. "On-disc DLC" is one thing, but taking things out and selling them back to you separately is 100% deplorable.

#135 Posted by Nilazz (749 posts) -

Yeah because what I like about games is spending money on them..

#136 Posted by Linkster7 (1140 posts) -

As long as the economy is balanced towards people buying nothing, or not that much, I don't really care. But single player micro transactions do make me a bit nervous.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.