• 88 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Edited by Daveyo520 (6674 posts) -
#52 Posted by MeganeAgain (123 posts) -

So, that means people actually buy this stuff? Well, damn.

I'd hate to see how far EA might take this strategy if it keeps proving successful.

#53 Edited by Fearbeard (826 posts) -

@fearbeard said:

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

I can already tell you one EA game where microtransactions intruded on my enjoyment of the game. Mass Effect 3. I very much enjoyed the multiplayer game mode that was added to the series. It was easily my favorite "horde" mode out of any I had played, but one thing drove me away from it. I felt that the credits being earned in matches was poorly balanced with the cost of the item packs. It felt like it took forever to finally be able to purchase a Spectre pack and then you had to hope you actually got a mod or weapon that you found useful. To be fair, they did support the game with numerous free add-ons that would have been most likely charged for if it were not for the microtransactions but it was already too late for me. I felt like the grind for items was too long and I had already checked out before most of those add-on's were released. Also, they did increase the amount of credits earned at some point as well (as well as adding more expensive but better equipment packs) but like I said, I had already been driven out of the system by then.

#54 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Microtransactions are gross as they are essentially paid cheats, what makes it worse is when they are in games that already cost $60.

Anyone remember cheat codes? Me neither.

#55 Posted by Humanity (8999 posts) -

If micro transactions are doing really well in their games then I guess it's this "voting with your wallet" thing that everyone is always so happy to talk about. Looks like a lot of people voted with their wallets to keep micro transactions in games. So what do you do now? How do I unvote with my wallet? I actually don't have a huge problem with this unless it starts to impact gameplay on some fundamental level. It worked totally fine in Dead Space 3 although I'm sure they will start to abuse it eventually.

Also that one guy comparing EA to nazis in the beginning of this thread? Nice, the similarities are unparalleled.

#56 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (1548 posts) -

At some point gamers are going to have realize that if the industry is too stay afloat, developers and publishers need to make money. As was stated in the thread about $70 retail games, relatively speaking games are cheaper than they have ever been, and they cost more to make than they ever have.

If you are all so against $70 retail releases, I would think you would be in favor of microtransactions. For the most part, the way they have been implemented thus far is pretty consumer friendly. If you want to put the time in, you will never even need to pay any money, and only those that want the shortcut are the ones spending anything. This is basically a system where only the people that actually want to spend more will ever really be inclined to do so, which works out for everyone. Games get to stay at $60, and in some cases (like Mass Effect 3) get significant amounts of free content to encourage people to continue to spend on microtransactions.

Now, we can all get up in arms about what might happen in regards to more and more blatant ways to encourage you to pay, but that hasn't been how these things have been implemented thus far, so let's hold our anger until that actually happens. It's kind of depressing how many gamers claim to want the industry to succeed, then get all up in arms about fairly innocuous attempts to increase profits. How many of you people complaining about this pay for Xbox Live? Because that is bullshit on a level that potential microtransactions don't even approach.

#57 Edited by EXTomar (4623 posts) -

Maybe the industry needs to realize that the $500k+/100+ person game is not as desirable or popular at $60 as the producers (in this case EA) wants it to be. Instead of trying to squeeze more and more out of a shrinking group of people, how about reducing the expense instead? As much as EA believes buyers want games that has been carved up into 6 DLC releases spread over 6+ months, is it possible there is as big or a bigger audience that would be happy with just the smaller game that is only purchased once?

What ever I think about a game like Dead Space 3, I do not believe it could support DLC episodes let alone microtransaction purchases. Maybe some games just don't benefit at all from this style of marketing?

Online
#58 Posted by bwheeeler (428 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

I remember seeing a .gif awhile ago of the EA logo morphing into the Nazi Swastika. Now it doesn't seem so silly.

#59 Posted by Ben_H (3335 posts) -

This just in: EA is scum.

In other news, grass is green, cinnamon buns are delicious, and pigs continue to not fly.

#60 Posted by jakob187 (21662 posts) -

So long as they are offering the microtransactions as a supplemental thing of "hey, if you don't want to spend the time, you can buy it...but if you do want to spend the time, then it's fully obtainable," then let them have at it.

The only time that the microtransaction stuff affects me as a player is when you are offering up weapons and such ala Battlefield 3 for money. THAT is when it gets dirty, as that is when what you are selling is heavily affecting the way another person is able to play because he doesn't want to empty his fucking wallet for you, EA.

So in most cases, it's a "doesn't affect me, so don't give a damn" type of scenario, but there are a few times when it's more than that.

#61 Edited by Jeust (10536 posts) -

In my opinion EA ruined the Dead Space franchise when they turned it into an action third person shooter so I don't see myself buying any other game from them. This doesn't concern me much, although I think nickel and dimming will only get more agressive in the next generation.

#62 Posted by Jay_Ray (1075 posts) -

@aiurflux said:

This industry stinks and gamers are a pile or retarded morons for letting it get to this point. I remember seeing a .gif awhile ago of the EA logo morphing into the Nazi Swastika. Now it doesn't seem so silly.

Yeah cause charging a dollar or two to get little stuff in games is totally equal to nearly committing genocide. Sure EA has some shitty business practices but lets not compare them and subsequently marginalize something like the holocaust.

#63 Edited by EXTomar (4623 posts) -

It isn't that I don't want any micro-transactions in games at all but I think a game like Dead Space 3 is an ill fit for that market system. Micro-transactions make a lot of sense for a game like Battlefield Heroes but makes little sense for Dead Space 3. Why is EA trying to fit every game with it when some games simply don't make sense too?

Anyone want to guess what this means for Dragon Age 3? Where does the micro-transaction fit in let alone make sense for an RPG like this? At least there is a modicum of reason to have expansion maps (as long as they don't kill main cast off) but otherwise does the player need Exp Accelerators and resources for a single player RPG??? I don't know but EA appears to not care if it makes sense or damage the brand to do it. The argument that EA needs to do this because DA3 is so expensive to make is also compelling since EA is the one that chose to expend that much to create it.

Online
#65 Posted by Jay_Ray (1075 posts) -

@aiurflux: Yeah, you were comparing EA to Nazi Germany. I hate when people marginalize something that horrific by comparing it to something so marginal just to make a hyperbolic bullshit point. I agree with you that what EA is doing could lead down a dark path but lets not compare what EA is doing to gamers to what the Nazis was doing to the Jews. I simply called you out on your hyperbolic bullshit point.

#66 Edited by Shaka999 (464 posts) -

As long as I don't have to pay for progress (i.e. I can earn everything in-game that people can choose to purchase) then I really don't care. If EA thinks they can get away with restricting content after charging me for purchasing the game, they can go fuck themselves.

However I feel like it's going to be the same as Dead Space 3 & Mass Effect 3, and those were harmless. I wouldn't spend money on stuff like that, but if that's what you're into, go for it.

#67 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

@shaka999 said:

As long as I don't have to pay for progress (i.e. I can earn everything in-game that people can choose to purchase) then I really don't care. If EA thinks they can get away with restricting content after charging me for purchasing the game, they can go fuck themselves.

However I feel like it's going to be the same as Dead Space 3 & Mass Effect 3, and those were harmless. I wouldn't spend money on stuff like that, but if that's what you're into, go for it.

Why would it be so wrong to offer premium items in game you can only get by purchasing? Just because you buy the game doesn't mean you have to have everything. Is it any different than offering a collector's version with exclusive premium items? Or a pre-order bonus? They can add premium items if they want. They do it in World of Warcraft (i.e. exclusive mounts), it wouldn't be a big deal for it to happen in other games. I think it'd be cool, you could personalize your experience by purchasing exclusive items.

It's also done in The Sims 3. You can buy Sim Points which can be used to purchase a variety of new add ons (mainly items) for your game.

#68 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7069 posts) -

@AiurFlux: Yeah, bro. Microtransactions are totes comparable to the extermination of 11 million innocents and the sparking of a global conflict that claimed a total of almost 70 million people. EA clearly has taken notes from the Nazis on how best to eradicate entire populations through Online Passes and DLC. Are you fucking kidding me?

#69 Posted by Blu3V3nom07 (4184 posts) -

I'm level 1600-something in Mass Effect 3. I NEVER once bought a multiplayer-pack. How do I work?

#70 Edited by Gargantuan (1882 posts) -

Games are getting more expensive to make but the price remains the same. I don't mind micro transactions.

#71 Posted by Shaka999 (464 posts) -

@jdh5153: It's not so much about premium items- that kinda stuff I don't mind either as long as it doesn't break the game. Saying "restricting content" wasn't the best way to put it... perhaps more of a "pay to advance" method on top of paying for it at retail. If the game is free to play, that's a whole different story though.

#72 Posted by pepepe (4 posts) -

EA is known for mutilating their games and trying to sell the leftovers as extra content.

They care nothing for the consumer, have terrible work ethics, their employees lack talent and skill, they have murdered many developers with great potential (last of which bioware) and have no shame in continuing to dumbing down their games, further and further, in order to appeal to the common denominator.

They suck the soul out of video games and just sell the broken shell that remains.

Furthermore, they keep hiding between sly attempts to gain on the general opinion by training to be "progressive" and appealing to LGBT etc communities.

They are taking advantage of some controversial social issues to make some quick buck, basically stepping on the aforementioned minorites for their own gain.

I hope the majority of people will realise soon that EA cares nothing of the hardships of anyone.

They hate the mature consumer and are greedy.

Companies like these seriously need to vanish.

#73 Posted by hawkinson76 (359 posts) -

If micro transactions were a failure they would have stopped. Why complain about how other people chose I spend their money? There are so many games, movies, and musicians that I do not pay for yet are successful, should that bother me?

#74 Edited by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

If micro transactions were a failure they would have stopped. Why complain about how other people chose I spend their money? There are so many games, movies, and musicians that I do not pay for yet are successful, should that bother me?

Yep. and any business in a capitalistic country trying to make money is obviously evil. You should all go to work and demand a pay cut because making money is the worst thing anyone can ever do. Die EA for making money you horrible people.

#75 Posted by Hunter5024 (5597 posts) -

I've been defending EA for the past few years, if only because I think Activision is far more evil, and EA has been putting out a lot more interesting games in that time than they ever have in the past. However shitty business practice like this has led me to seriously question the quality of the games they put out. Why would I buy the game if I'm not going to feel like I have the complete experience? I look at their new games that I'm excited for and just wonder how they're going to find a way to screw me.

#76 Edited by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

@hunter5024 said:

I've been defending EA for the past few years, if only because I think Activision is far more evil, and EA has been putting out a lot more interesting games in that time than they ever have in the past. However shitty business practice like this has led me to seriously question the quality of the games they put out. Why would I buy the game if I'm not going to feel like I have the complete experience? I look at their new games that I'm excited for and just wonder how they're going to find a way to screw me.

Cliffy B:

“The video game industry is just that,” his blog post begins. “An industry. Which means that it exists in a capitalistic world. You know, a free market. A place where you’re welcome to spend your money on whatever you please… or to refrain from spending that money. Those companies that put these products out? They’re for profit businesses. They exist to produce, market, and ship great games ultimately for one purpose. First, for money, then, for acclaim.”

At that point, Cliffy B. is just getting started.

Here are a few choice quotes from his article:

Adjusted for inflation, your average video game is actually cheaper than it ever has been. Never mind the ratio of the hours of joy you get from a game per dollar compared to film.

I’ve seen a lot of comments online about microtransactions. They’re a dirty word lately, it seems. Gamers are upset that publishers/developers are “nickel and diming them.” They’re raging at “big and evil corporations who are clueless and trying to steal their money. I’m going to come right out and say it. I’m tired of EA being seen as “the bad guy.” I think it’s bullshit that EA has the “scumbag EA” memes on Reddit and that Good Guy Valve can Do No Wrong.

If you don’t like EA, don’t buy their games. If you don’t like their microtransactions, don’t spend money on them. It’s that simple. EA has many smart people working for them (Hi, Frank, JR, and Patrick!) and they wouldn’t attempt these things if they didn’t work. Turns out, they do. I assure you there are teams of analysts studying the numbers behind consumer behavior over there that are studying how you, the gamer, spends his hard earned cash. If you’re currently raging about this on GAF, or on the IGN forums, or on Gamespot, guess what? You’re the vocal minority. Your average guy that buys just Madden and GTA every year doesn’t know, nor does he care. He has no problem throwing a few bucks more at a game because, hey, why not?

Remember, if everyone bought their games used there would be no more games. I don’t mean to knock you if you’re cash strapped – hell, when I was a kid and I had my paper route I would have bought the hell out of used games. But understand that when faced with this issue those that fund and produce those games you love have to come up with all sorts of creative ways for the business to remain viable and yes, profitable.

People like to act like we should go back to “the good ol’ days” before microtransactions but they forget that arcades were the original change munchers. Those games were designed to make you lose so that you had to keep spending money on them. Ask any of the old Midway vets about their design techniques. The second to last boss in Mortal Kombat 2 was harder than the last boss, because when you see the last boss that’s sometimes enough for a gamer. The Pleasure Dome didn’t really exist in the original Total Carnage. Donkey Kong was hard as hell on purpose. (“Kill screen coming up!”)

--------

So basically you have two choices, not buy games and have video game companies go out of business, or let them do their fucking job which is to make money. Like you wouldn't do the same if you were EA's president. "Hey guys do we want to make money, or not make money?" Yeah we'd all choose to support the gamer and not make money, right?

#77 Edited by Bishna (334 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?

I felt a bit differently about the slot machine thing. I actually liked that people who paid real money got the same slot machine as me. The only thing I didn't like was that you couldn't work toward any specific unlock. I enjoyed my time with the multiplayer, but ultimately I stopped playing because I couldn't unlock anymore new classes.

I still liked the random element, as getting a new suprise was always fun. I just wish it was a hybrid system. Let me set aside something I want to work toward, so I always know that even if I get some bad luck draws, I can still see the meter fill up at the end of a match that says I am going to be able to play as a fucking Krogan soon.

#78 Edited by mellotronrules (1179 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

So basically you have two choices, not buy games and have video game companies go out of business, or let them do their fucking job which is to make money. Like you wouldn't do the same if you were EA's president. "Hey guys do we want to make money, or not make money?" Yeah we'd all choose to support the gamer and not make money, right?

it's slightly more nuanced than that. there are plenty of developers who largely avoid microtransactions. and there are those that do it in an unoffensive way (valve with dota2- it's all superficial and they profitshare with user-generated content). but the larger point is yes- they're doing what they need to in order to make money. if you don't like what they're selling, don't buy it. it's that simple.

#79 Posted by Veektarius (4741 posts) -

@bishna: That model would be fine with me.

#80 Posted by MedalOfMode (294 posts) -

What does game developers? Mining, building? I'm making little games for fun (all models by me) it isn't so hard. And you has a 100 people teams. So easy.

#81 Posted by Hunter5024 (5597 posts) -

@jdh5153: All you've done is prove how out of touch Cliffy B is with the consumer. Regardless of inflation, 60 dollars is really expensive for a piece of entertainment. Sure there are Skyrims out there where you can waste 200 hours, but for every Skyrim there are 4 Revengeances where you will spend 60 dollars for 4 hours of entertainment (which for the same cost at my local theater could get you into 6 movies, and buy you some overpriced popcorn). And to even play those 60 dollar games you have to drop hundreds of dollars on a console or a PC. So to say to your consumer after they've already spent all of that money to play your game, that you are going to try and pump even more money out of them, is some anti-consumer bullshit. Micro-transaction business models evolved as a way for free games to make money, and they're trying to shove them into all of their sixty dollar retail games. I didn't even care that they put it into Dead Space 3, but the idea that they are going to force their designers to shoehorn it into every single game they make (whether it makes sense for the game or not) shows a fundamental disrespect for video games as an art form, and for the audience. Video games may be a business, but they're an art first, and if people continue to let companies like EA set awful precedents like this than we could easily lose a lot of what makes video games so fun.

#82 Posted by jdh5153 (1034 posts) -

@jdh5153: All you've done is prove how out of touch Cliffy B is with the consumer. Regardless of inflation, 60 dollars is really expensive for a piece of entertainment. Sure there are Skyrims out there where you can waste 200 hours, but for every Skyrim there are 4 Revengeances where you will spend 60 dollars for 4 hours of entertainment (which for the same cost at my local theater could get you into 6 movies, and buy you some overpriced popcorn). And to even play those 60 dollar games you have to drop hundreds of dollars on a console or a PC. So to say to your consumer after they've already spent all of that money to play your game, that you are going to try and pump even more money out of them, is some anti-consumer bullshit. Micro-transaction business models evolved as a way for free games to make money, and they're trying to shove them into all of their sixty dollar retail games. I didn't even care that they put it into Dead Space 3, but the idea that they are going to force their designers to shoehorn it into every single game they make (whether it makes sense for the game or not) shows a fundamental disrespect for video games as an art form, and for the audience. Video games may be a business, but they're an art first, and if people continue to let companies like EA set awful precedents like this than we could easily lose a lot of what makes video games so fun.

The majority of people who play video games aren't gamers like the people here, but casual gamers. Therefore Cliffy is in touch with the majority gamer. People here, or at IGN or anywhere else aren't the majority of gamers. The majority gamers don't even read gaming magazines or bother to get on some gaming website they just buy games. And they buy micro transactions. And they like them.

Heck, I like microtransactions. I love being able to get a little more for a buck or two here and there, and if it helps the developers and publishers that's even better.

You can believe you're all important all you want, but no developer or publisher in the world gives a shit about you or what you want. They're just there to make money.

#83 Posted by Hunter5024 (5597 posts) -

@jdh5153 said:

@hunter5024 said:

@jdh5153: All you've done is prove how out of touch Cliffy B is with the consumer. Regardless of inflation, 60 dollars is really expensive for a piece of entertainment. Sure there are Skyrims out there where you can waste 200 hours, but for every Skyrim there are 4 Revengeances where you will spend 60 dollars for 4 hours of entertainment (which for the same cost at my local theater could get you into 6 movies, and buy you some overpriced popcorn). And to even play those 60 dollar games you have to drop hundreds of dollars on a console or a PC. So to say to your consumer after they've already spent all of that money to play your game, that you are going to try and pump even more money out of them, is some anti-consumer bullshit. Micro-transaction business models evolved as a way for free games to make money, and they're trying to shove them into all of their sixty dollar retail games. I didn't even care that they put it into Dead Space 3, but the idea that they are going to force their designers to shoehorn it into every single game they make (whether it makes sense for the game or not) shows a fundamental disrespect for video games as an art form, and for the audience. Video games may be a business, but they're an art first, and if people continue to let companies like EA set awful precedents like this than we could easily lose a lot of what makes video games so fun.

The majority of people who play video games aren't gamers like the people here, but casual gamers. Therefore Cliffy is in touch with the majority gamer. People here, or at IGN or anywhere else aren't the majority of gamers. The majority gamers don't even read gaming magazines or bother to get on some gaming website they just buy games. And they buy micro transactions. And they like them.

Heck, I like microtransactions. I love being able to get a little more for a buck or two here and there, and if it helps the developers and publishers that's even better.

You can believe you're all important all you want, but no developer or publisher in the world gives a shit about you or what you want. They're just there to make money.

Oh I wasn't aware that you represent not only every developer and publisher in existence, but you are also privy to the opinion of the majority of gamers on earth.

#84 Posted by Quarters (1663 posts) -

So far, their implementation in Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 haven't affected me in the slightest. If it's just more stuff like that, I couldn't care less.

#85 Edited by EXTomar (4623 posts) -

Well there is another option: Reward producers who do things the right way. Which is happening today on iOS and PC games where they release at free or cheap and offer DLC that doesn't throw features into chaos.

Online
#86 Posted by RenegadeSaint (1536 posts) -

I have never understood the hatred towards micro-transactions or on-disc locked content. I have NEVER once had them reduce my enjoyment with the main game and I don't even consider them as options. The content that comes available with the game for MSRP is the game. That other stuff is not the game, it is extra content. The game is either good, bad, or average based on what is included out of the box. That's it.

#87 Posted by ShadowMoses900 (190 posts) -

I have mixed feelings on this, in terms of the principle I don't see anything wrong with it. If people want to pay for micro transactions then so be it, if it offers something of value to consumers and it's worth paying for than I'm fine. But I can see this being easily abused to the point where they will make you pay just to unlock the next level.

#88 Posted by spykereightsix (78 posts) -

ME3's microstransactions proved extremely profitable for them, and they're extremely easy to implement in a variety of different gaming genres. Can you blame them?

#89 Posted by zels (206 posts) -

Cool, I'll remember not to buy any EA games or shop on Origin.

#90 Edited by Nekroskop (2786 posts) -

EA is the most disgusting publisher I know of. All the shit I've given Activision over the years pales in comparison to the atrocities EA has done over the years.

#91 Posted by Funkydupe (3311 posts) -

Need to stop buying full-priced games.