• 89 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Dauthi693 (130 posts) -

Surprized theres not a thread already

"Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

here

Anyone else not find this funny?

#2 Edited by Azteck (7449 posts) -

You know, I don't like EA at all and haven't for a while. They've made some cool games but I absolutely hate the way they do business. This seems incredibly shitty and will just make me avoid them even further.

#3 Posted by DigTheDoug (180 posts) -

They'll keep doing it until it stops making them money unfortunately. It probably won't stop making them money any time soon, so...

#4 Edited by Morningstar (2249 posts) -

Their micro-transactions sales must be good then. Companies like this will always try everything to get as much money for their shareholders as possible. Don't know why people always

gets so surprised. A crash in the industry might not be such a bad thing.

#5 Posted by DaMisterChief (628 posts) -

Sim City - "Want to keep building" pay us more

#7 Posted by Extreme_Popcorn (842 posts) -

If it's more of the same stuff they put in Dead Space 3, what's the big fucking deal? It had no impact at all on the game, you could play the game completely and not touch them.

#8 Posted by Sackmanjones (4766 posts) -

Dead Dpace 3 was almost a perfect balance other than the 3 bot modifications. If its like that than no big deal

#9 Posted by Demoskinos (15282 posts) -

People are overreacting to this. Who cares? If its like it was in dead space 3 then it shouldn't affect people who dont want to participate.

#10 Edited by LornHg (44 posts) -

I think it's a shame to put microtransactions in a paid game. They can only do that because people will buy those big titles no matter the price.

#11 Edited by MAGZine (438 posts) -

if you don't like it, then don't buy it. EA (or any other company) isn't forcing you to buy anything.

#12 Edited by Zirilius (757 posts) -

@magzine said:

if you don't like it, then don't buy it. EA (or any other company) isn't forcing you to buy anything.

#13 Edited by OfficeGamer (1086 posts) -

God bless the iPhone generation

#14 Edited by Veektarius (5065 posts) -

I don't really have a problem with the business model, but the slot machine approach they've taken with Mass Effect and Dead Space really makes it hard to get the game to play exactly like you want it to, even *if* you put in real money. I would prefer a system where in-game currency got you the slot machine and real money got you guaranteed items - then I might shoot them some money. That'd actually be like micro-DLC with a possible in-game way of acquiring it, though, which I suppose would actually be a losing proposition for them financially.

Edit: Though, I wonder, why doesn't this count as gambling? Why shouldn't federal laws apply?

#15 Posted by Thandurin (18 posts) -

I'd be concerned but I hardly play their games as it is.

#16 Edited by cmblasko (1385 posts) -

If it's generating money for them, then why not? Clearly the majority of consumers don't mind micro transactions.

Personally, I'll be staying away from most of these games.

#17 Edited by Fearbeard (835 posts) -

Well this guarantees I'll never pre-order an EA game again. I'll definitely be reading reviews to see how intrusive the micro-transactions are to game balance. I suppose if they lowered the initial retail price of the games I might consider micro-transactions but since that will never happen the only thing I foresee happening between EA and myself is that they get less of my money.

I won't avoid EA games altogether as I'm still anticipating SimCity and interested to see how Dragon Age 3 turns out, but yeah, I'll never blindly throw money at an EA game again like I have many times in the past.

#18 Posted by LikeaSsur (1608 posts) -

The only way they could offset how dumb a move this is would be to lower the initial cost of their games to $40, or maybe even $50.

This is basically a slippery slope. First it starts as just "Pay us to get more resources you could totally get in game," then it'll be "pay to get rare materials you can't get anywhere else," and finally "pay to get this weapon/armor/ability that can only be unlocked with a pre-order or $10."

Mark my words.

#19 Posted by guiseppe (2844 posts) -

Ahh, the corporate world <3.

#20 Posted by crusader8463 (14433 posts) -

It's disgusting but nothing will ever stop it. There will always be dumb people and people who just like throwing money away with this kind of crap for them to stop. All I know is I won't be buying games that do this micro transaction crap really badly. It ruins games and makes me not able to enjoy them because constantly seeing little money signs on every menu and every aspect of the game being just some advertisement to cheat my way through it by paying money instead of playing the game is terrible.

#21 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (3804 posts) -

I'm good with it. I still finish the game.

#22 Edited by Cold_Wolven (2327 posts) -

Only when micro transactions behave like a pay wall that prevents me from enjoying the game will I have issue with it.

#23 Posted by KrypticKiller (191 posts) -

Why are people okay with this? If you think it's going to continue on like it was in dead space 3, I have some magic beans to sell you.

#24 Edited by Vinny_Says (5729 posts) -

They have shitty business practices but they make games I like, especially this generation.

So far the Dead Space 3/Mass Effect 3 experiment was fine, because you could buy the packs simply by playing the game. However one never knows where they can take it from here....that interview makes it sound like they're planning to fuck over the players at any moment :(

#25 Posted by StrainedEyes (1338 posts) -

I can't blame them if it is making them money. The blame lands squarely on the people paying for this kind of stuff.

#26 Edited by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

I guess I'll continue to not install Origin, then.

#27 Edited by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

I don't mind micro-transactions. I've spent about $15 on The Sims Freeplay on the iPad so far. Also if they're selling stuff that can make the game easier and give you stuff that otherwise would take a long time to get I think it's great. Not all of us can sit around and play video games all day. Let me spend a few bucks to gear up and I'm a happy camper.

#28 Posted by MMann (64 posts) -

Why is the word microtransaction so toxic when we already have:

  • Pre-order only content that makes you buy blindly based only on their marketing and hype
  • Paid DLC weapon and armour packs (functional, not just skins or appearance items)
  • Paid DLC cheats
  • Mid range special editions (Digital Deluxe) with only digital bonus content

Just to name a few things. Those are already in full price, retail, games - for years they have slowly been finding new and exciting ways to get more money for perks of diminishing quality while finding ways to make them seem prestigious or the least, palatable. DLC was the logical step after full price expansions, and micro-transactions are just the logical next step in the incrementally exploitative progression of DLC. They want to make as much money as possible, per game, while keeping costs (and therefor effort) as low as possible.

Sleeping Dogs had DLC to add envelopes of money at each garage, and to give you insanely high face/triad/cop xp out the gate.

Saints Row the Third had DLC to unlock content from the choices that you didn't pick on your playthrough, and to unlock the cheats.

What is the difference between paying 79.99$ for a 59.99$ game and getting 10 pieces of bonus content in that special edition, and having the option to go to an in-game marketplace and buy each of those pieces for 1.99$ each? What about 20 pieces for 0.99$ each?

It's already happened and it's not just EA that's doing it. They're just calling it what it is instead of DLC and warning you, in advance, that what you've been seeing in AAA games for the past year or two will continue to happen. The outrage shouldn't become suddenly more palpable just because of the name they apply to it, and it shouldn't be pointed entirely at EA when the practice is one that is widespread. EA is just using a blind bag reward scheme on a level that most don't. Is it the randomness that somehow makes them worse than all the other publishers?

No matter what though, all that you, or me, or we - depending on your views of it and if you care - can do is not buy the games, or buy the games and not pay for the DLC/microtransactions. If the practice would stop being profitable the practice would stop. Being super mad about it won't change things, being hyperbolic won't change things. Being smart consumers can and will, if done on a large enough scale, change things.

#29 Edited by cclemon36 (181 posts) -

Assume the position!

#30 Posted by Abendlaender (2905 posts) -

I'm going to enjoy and embrace not buying EA games anymore

#31 Posted by MildMolasses (3230 posts) -

Well this guarantees I'll never pre-order an EA game again. I'll definitely be reading reviews to see how intrusive the micro-transactions are to game balance. I suppose if they lowered the initial retail price of the games I might consider micro-transactions but since that will never happen the only thing I foresee happening between EA and myself is that they get less of my money.

And what if you found out that the only thing keeping games at $60 was the extra cash brought in through these microtransactions?

I'm continually baffled by the outrage at this like it's something brand new. It's been going on for years and had zero effect on people's ability to get the full experience out of a game. Show me a person who felt that they didn't get the full experience from DS3 because of microtransactions, and I'll show you someone that didn't play DS3. They are always option and directed towards people who don't have the time, or don't want to put in the time, to get things out of a game. Until that changes, I don't really see why people are bothered by other people who want to pay for their progress

#32 Posted by AiurFlux (903 posts) -

I'm baffled by the complacency and the whole shrug your shoulders and say "Oh well" attitude that the majority of people in this thread are exhibiting. You give an inch and they will take a mile. How far are you willing to go? Having to pay to unlock weapons in a single player game that are already on the disc but you can't access unless you do it through a "micro-transaction"? Like say you get a pistol, but you can unlock an M4 for 2.99 and that's the only way to get it. Or even story based missions or levels that you have to pay for, and not like DLC, they're there but just locked away behind a wall and you have to pay to get the "Full experience".

If their games were free to play there wouldn't be an issue because they need some source of revenue. But when you're charging 60, 70, or whatever dollars for a game, then adding in DLC, then adding in micro-transactions enough is fucking enough. The whole "Well whatever. They're a business and they're trying to make money," point is stupid. That should not be an acceptable excuse, it isn't one for Goldman Sachs. And the whole "Don't buy it if you don't like it," argument is stupid too, because the vast majority of people are complete morons and they WILL buy it and perpetuate business like this.

Make no mistake, if they are allowed to do this they will push and push and push. They always fucking do. ALWAYS. It has happened time and time again in the past.

The hell...

#33 Posted by JeanLuc (3614 posts) -

You know its our fault for letting this happen, or at least the faults of those who bought the micro-transactions. If we want this to stop thenIts up to us the players to deal with this. Ether we don't by their games or at least we don't buy their microtransactions. If it doesn't make them money they will stop doing it.

#34 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

well that sounds horrible idea. sadly, there are going to be people who are going to buy whatever they're going to sell in their games. i barely buy any DLC as i don't think it's worth it.

#35 Edited by Draxyle (1903 posts) -

I don't know which angers me more, the fact that they're doing this at all or the fact that they're insinuating that we want this.

That blind arrogance is exactly why they're tanking financially; no one wants to give their credit card numbers to a scam artist.

#36 Posted by DeanoXD (635 posts) -

I could careless about this stuff but i also don't think $60 is a lot of money either, and by no means am i rich but i have been gainfully employed for 20 years now so i can afford my dumb video game hobby.

And like it has been pointed out you don't have to buy any of this stuff so why does it matter.

#37 Posted by pw2566ch (480 posts) -

What people fail to realize that most of the people that are buying micro-transactions are probably kids between 12-18 that have access to their parents credit card. Kids are really impatient and do whatever it takes to reach the top as soon as possible. So, of course EA is going to try to profit from this.

What I do predict is going to happen is that once this dies down, EA will find something else to profit from and it's something that will be forced on us. For example, Ubisoft's Prince of Persia Epilogue or Capcom's Azura's Wrath final chapter.

#38 Posted by Caustic_Fox (112 posts) -

Like I posted in another thread:

Is EA DELIBERATELY trying to sabotage itself?! They can't be that stupid can th- ooh... It's EA. No surprises here.

To me, this isn't the only thing EA wants to push. We saw this in Blizzard's Diablo III game and Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed games. Let's say that to get the 'full game experience' you must first buy a few things... etc, optional side quests (already included on disc but locked). What a load of bullshit that would be, huh? This just screams of online-always DRM bullshit... only EA style. A cleverly disguised package.

#39 Edited by EXTomar (4987 posts) -

This is a great plan if they were selling their games very cheaply or giving away games for free. Oh wait...

#40 Posted by casper_ (908 posts) -

well i just hope this blows up in their face but it probably wont and will result in 1000 years of darkness.

#41 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1962 posts) -

Meh.

I saw this coming the second I heard about the IAPs in Dead Space 3. So I'm not surprised. Also, I'm not going to buy these games, so what do I care? I'd rather not have other companies follow suit, but what can I do? Much like Ubisoft having to learn the hard way that always-on DRM significantly hurt their PC sales, I'm sure they'll eventually figure out that sales are declining because of this, not that they should be doing more stuff like this because of declining sales.

Or maybe not. EA is almost comical in how predictably awful they are about things like. See my first line about me already seeing this coming.

#42 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

The only way they could offset how dumb a move this is would be to lower the initial cost of their games to $40, or maybe even $50.

This is basically a slippery slope. First it starts as just "Pay us to get more resources you could totally get in game," then it'll be "pay to get rare materials you can't get anywhere else," and finally "pay to get this weapon/armor/ability that can only be unlocked with a pre-order or $10."

Mark my words.

God bless the iPhone generation

#43 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

@jeanluc said:

You know its our fault for letting this happen, or at least the faults of those who bought the micro-transactions. If we want this to stop thenIts up to us the players to deal with this. Ether we don't by their games or at least we don't buy their microtransactions. If it doesn't make them money they will stop doing it.

I will continue buying microtransactions. It's like a tip jar and you get something that people who don't pay won't get, what's wrong with that? Just because you buy something doesn't give you the right to instantly have everything. I mean you go out and buy a car, you can buy the base model and then build it up via microtransaction into something better (satellite radio, leather seats, etc.).

#44 Posted by ConfusedOwl (983 posts) -

I haven't bought an EA game in at least a year. This just makes it easier for me to continue that trend.

#45 Posted by mellotronrules (1299 posts) -

here's my take:

i don't have a problem with microtransactions as a thing- i think it works for games like team fortress 2, league of legends, etc. most of which are games that don't ask for a $60 buy-in, and then offer to nickel and dime you the whole way. it isn't something i participate in, but that doesn't mean i'm ideologically opposed to it.

BUT

EA declaring that going forward all their games will incorporate microtransactions in some form is extremely ill-advised. it's putting the model first, and then designing the game around that. that's asinine. design a good game, and then monetize it. otherwise it's just going to feel like they're shaking you down for money at every turn, and your game will most likely suffer as a result.

Online
#46 Posted by HeyImPhoenix (169 posts) -

This stinks!

#47 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

here's my take:

i don't have a problem with microtransactions as a thing- i think it works for games like team fortress 2, league of legends, etc. most of which are games that don't ask for a $60 buy-in, and then offer to nickel and dime you the whole way. it isn't something i participate in, but that doesn't mean i'm ideologically opposed to it.

BUT

EA declaring that going forward all their games will incorporate microtransactions in some form is extremely ill-advised. it's putting the model first, and then designing the game around that. that's asinine. design a good game, and then monetize it. otherwise it's just going to feel like they're shaking you down for money at every turn, and your game will most likely suffer as a result.

I don't think it'll make the game suffer. For example in the Tiger Woods games you can pay money to unlock equipment that greatly increases your skills which means you don't have to play for hours to try to get all of your skills up to compete with other people and such.

Or in Battlefield 3 you can pay to unlock all of the abilities and weapons for the jets / vehicles (or pay to unlock EVERYTHING) which makes the game more accessible for people who just want to pick up and play online without dedicating hours trying to unlock everything. In the end everyone can have their fun.

I WANT them to keep designing games like this with shortcuts built in for a price. I want to have fun with my friends, but I do not have the time to dedicate to unlock crap. I'd rather pay a few bucks and jump in the game.

#48 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@jdh5153: I don't think that most people are opposed to micro-transactions ideologically, I think most are worried about the continuous slippery slope and precedent these kinds of business models set. You have to understand that a lot of people on this board have probably been gaming since the 80's or the 90's and have different perspectives on this whole deal too. There are plenty of games that have proven that micro-transaction can be perfectly reasonable, but these games justify that by having no alternate sources of revenue.

#49 Edited by mellotronrules (1299 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

@mellotronrules said:

here's my take:

i don't have a problem with microtransactions as a thing- i think it works for games like team fortress 2, league of legends, etc. most of which are games that don't ask for a $60 buy-in, and then offer to nickel and dime you the whole way. it isn't something i participate in, but that doesn't mean i'm ideologically opposed to it.

BUT

EA declaring that going forward all their games will incorporate microtransactions in some form is extremely ill-advised. it's putting the model first, and then designing the game around that. that's asinine. design a good game, and then monetize it. otherwise it's just going to feel like they're shaking you down for money at every turn, and your game will most likely suffer as a result.

I don't think it'll make the game suffer. For example in the Tiger Woods games you can pay money to unlock equipment that greatly increases your skills which means you don't have to play for hours to try to get all of your skills up to compete with other people and such.

Or in Battlefield 3 you can pay to unlock all of the abilities and weapons for the jets / vehicles (or pay to unlock EVERYTHING) which makes the game more accessible for people who just want to pick up and play online without dedicating hours trying to unlock everything. In the end everyone can have their fun.

I WANT them to keep designing games like this with shortcuts built in for a price. I want to have fun with my friends, but I do not have the time to dedicate to unlock crap. I'd rather pay a few bucks and jump in the game.

i hear what you're saying, and for inconsequential 'shortcuts' or superficial items- whatever, that's fine. i just don't care for the blanket decree "all of our games will now use microtransactions." it isn't going to suit every game EA puts out, and additionally, it puts pressure on developers to graft that model into games where it might not belong. some do it right, and some do it wrong- issuing a directive that REQUIRES that model will not make it tasteful nor successful.

Online
#50 Edited by ultimathule (65 posts) -

And they probably also want 70 dollar games in the next generation.

Cant wait to buy my 70 dollar game and have most items and the game final chapters behind a paywall.