EA lives in a different reality

[NOK222]

"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," Jorgensen declared, "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

Every EA game will have micro transactions...

Edited February 27, 2013 by NKKKK

[Malcador]

Hm, didn't they say their vision was gaming as a service at an E3 a while back ? Not that surprising.

[TSBasilisk]

The fact of the matter is that they don't need many people willing to use the service for it to be worth the investment of development time. Most F2P games have a large player base, but only a small core of users who actually make purchases... but their purchases are in large volume. If the same holds true in EA's other games, they can still make money off it.

 

This is also a major factor in why a lot of games are pushed to have multiplayer. It's a bigger P2W cash-cow than single-player and a good multi-player will keep players engaged and paying longer.

Edited February 27, 2013 by TSBasilisk

[Hurlshort]

It doesn't have to be pay to win either, people drop money on cosmetic stuff all the time.  I guess if the market supports it, then that's what will happen.

 

It bothers me less than it did a few years ago.  Now that I've seen a few MMO's adopt the f2p model and it not be too terrible, I figure I can live with it.

[Undecaf]

It's a good thing EA doesn't produce any worthwhile games anymore, so there's no need to buy that **** and get smothered by microtransaction ads and prompts.

[Rostere]

You know what? Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that. Just do the right thing.

[Hurlshort]

That's they real key, EA is doing this because people are paying.  If consumers so no, then we go back to the old ways.  But that probably aint gonna happen. 

[Zoraptor]

In practical terms it's hardly a new thing either. If you look through the dlc lists for EA games there's almost always a "Look leet and kick butt!!!" pack or two in there. It might even be better if you just wanted one of the things and could get in cheaper by itself.

It's all in the implementation though. As an alternative for the sorts of people for whom easy is too hard (or makes them feel like wimps) or to whom RPGs are riding around on horseback with a fine roostercade, matching doublet and hose, outrageous ruff and a codpiece to make the clergy quail it's fine, if they try too much to funnel everyone towards it it will suck. But then dlc which they try too hard to funnel you towards already sucks.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Keyrock]

You know what? Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that. Just do the right thing.

Done and done.

[entrerix]

EA is barely on my radar anymore

 

what great games do they have coming up?  dragon age 3 in a few years and.... thats it? other than madden and fifa im not sure how EA is considered such a "giant" of gaming anymore

[Tale]

If it results in more games having an unlock/progression system like Mass Effect 3 multiplayer's, then I won't even be tempted to buy EA games again. I seriously hate that system as much as I possibly can hate a game system. It's like one step removed from F2P "energy." Not back or forwards, just to the side.

[alanschu]

In practical terms it's hardly a new thing either. If you look through the dlc lists for EA games there's almost always a "Look leet and kick butt!!!" pack or two in there. It might even be better if you just wanted one of the things and could get in cheaper by itself.

 

It's all in the implementation though. As an alternative for the sorts of people for whom easy is too hard (or makes them feel like wimps) or to whom RPGs are riding around on horseback with a fine roostercade, matching doublet and hose, outrageous ruff and a codpiece to make the clergy quail it's fine, if they try too much to funnel everyone towards it it will suck. But then dlc which they try too hard to funnel you towards already sucks.

 

This is the way I see it.

 

If games truly become "incomplete" unless MTX and DLCs are required, I would expect all gamers to resist a game like that, and as such it won't be as good (and won't be as successful).  The problem, however, is defining what "incomplete" means.

 

I see a lot of people say "If it's just vanity items, it's perfectly okay.  But if it's some interesting story and lore components that I am really interested in, putting it behind DLC just makes me feel nickel and dimed."  Which I think is somewhat ironic.  It's like a request for us to make DLC that is less interesting and that people would be less likely to want to do something with.  It seems a bit paradoxical, and it becomes difficult for me to disassociate it from a more general idea of "I'm a consumer, and prefer to get as much content as possible for as little cost as possible."  Which is a fair viewpoint, and one I expect of all customers (for all products) really.

 

So to some, ME3 is "incomplete" without From Ashes or Leviathan DLC, because it contains story and lore content that people are really interested in.  To others, they like the DLC because it gives them the type of stuff that they are interested in (instead of pointless vanity items).

Edited February 27, 2013 by alanschu

[NOK222]

 

In practical terms it's hardly a new thing either. If you look through the dlc lists for EA games there's almost always a "Look leet and kick butt!!!" pack or two in there. It might even be better if you just wanted one of the things and could get in cheaper by itself.

 

It's all in the implementation though. As an alternative for the sorts of people for whom easy is too hard (or makes them feel like wimps) or to whom RPGs are riding around on horseback with a fine roostercade, matching doublet and hose, outrageous ruff and a codpiece to make the clergy quail it's fine, if they try too much to funnel everyone towards it it will suck. But then dlc which they try too hard to funnel you towards already sucks.

 

This is the way I see it.

 

If games truly become "incomplete" unless MTX and DLCs are required, I would expect all gamers to resist a game like that, and as such it won't be as good (and won't be as successful).  The problem, however, is defining what "incomplete" means.

 

I see a lot of people say "If it's just vanity items, it's perfectly okay.  But if it's some interesting story and lore components that I am really interested in, putting it behind DLC just makes me feel nickel and dimed."  Which I think is somewhat ironic.  It's like a request for us to make DLC that is less interesting and that people would be less likely to want to do something with.  It seems a bit paradoxical, and it becomes difficult for me to disassociate it from a more general idea of "I'm a consumer, and prefer to get as much content as possible for as little cost as possible."  Which is a fair viewpoint, and one I expect of all customers (for all products) really.

 

So to some, ME3 is "incomplete" without From Ashes or Leviathan DLC, because it contains story and lore content that people are really interested in.

ME3 IS incomplete without From Ashes. 

[Keyrock]

In practical terms it's hardly a new thing either. If you look through the dlc lists for EA games there's almost always a "Look leet and kick butt!!!" pack or two in there. It might even be better if you just wanted one of the things and could get in cheaper by itself.

 

It's all in the implementation though. As an alternative for the sorts of people for whom easy is too hard (or makes them feel like wimps) or to whom RPGs are riding around on horseback with a fine roostercade, matching doublet and hose, outrageous ruff and a codpiece to make the clergy quail it's fine, if they try too much to funnel everyone towards it it will suck. But then dlc which they try too hard to funnel you towards already sucks.

This is the way I see it.

 

If games truly become "incomplete" unless MTX and DLCs are required, I would expect all gamers to resist a game like that, and as such it won't be as good (and won't be as successful).  The problem, however, is defining what "incomplete" means.

 

I see a lot of people say "If it's just vanity items, it's perfectly okay.  But if it's some interesting story and lore components that I am really interested in, putting it behind DLC just makes me feel nickel and dimed."  Which I think is somewhat ironic.  It's like a request for us to make DLC that is less interesting and that people would be less likely to want to do something with.  It seems a bit paradoxical, and it becomes difficult for me to disassociate it from a more general idea of "I'm a consumer, and prefer to get as much content as possible for as little cost as possible."  Which is a fair viewpoint, and one I expect of all customers (for all products) really.

 

So to some, ME3 is "incomplete" without From Ashes or Leviathan DLC, because it contains story and lore content that people are really interested in.

I really have little to no problem with DLCs, other than non-free day 1 DLCs.  As long as the DLC is appropriately priced and I perceive I'm receiving value for my money, then it's fine.  That goes for both purely cosmetic DLCs and story DLCs.  It's like an expansion pack, but a smaller bite sized one.

 

As far as microtransactions, I understand it in the context of F2P MMOs.  I'm still not a fan, but I understand it.  If that **** seeps into my single player experience, though, well, that's when I say sayonara.

Edited February 27, 2013 by Keyrock

[alanschu]

Yeah not sure how it will go.  I believe Dead Space 3 has them, but I've never been one to ever purchase them so I'm not sure if I would really care if I played Dead Space.  On the one hand, since it's single player, I find myself not really caring in the slightest if someone bothers to buy MTX for whatever reason to alter their own single player experience.  But if a game simply is not fun without any MTX at all, I doubt it'd be a successful game.

 

There's a level of intrusiveness.  If I know they exist based on Origin or Steam telling me about them, it's certainly less of an issue.  But if I were playing a game like Borderlands (just an example) and Claptrap followed me around telling me of all the awesome MTX I could get, it'd get pretty damned grating pretty quickly.

[GhostofAnakin]

On a slightly related note, I don't understand why anyone would use real money to buy those MP packs for Mass Effect 3.  Even on the lowest challenge (Bronze), you usually get around 15000 to 17000 credits per match.  All it takes is playing a half dozen or so matches to earn enough credits to "buy" the best packs.  So why would anyone actually spend actual money on those packs?

[Bearwithme]

First post! I've been reading the Eternity updates for a while, and finally decided I needed to join the forum.

 

Anyway, to me a large part of the problem is big companies like EA being run by non-gamers who don't understand the product they're trying to sell. To them, all games are the same, so if microtransactions work in a casual, f2p game, they'll work even better in a big game. I expect the Shepard's apartment on the Citadel to wedge microtransactions into the DLC.  The sad thing is, there are people who will probably lay down cash so Shep has a better bed or throw pillow for his CitadelIKEA sofa. It's an extension of the "appearance packs" they're already selling.

[Tale]

On a slightly related note, I don't understand why anyone would use real money to buy those MP packs for Mass Effect 3.  Even on the lowest challenge (Bronze), you usually get around 15000 to 17000 credits per match.  All it takes is playing a half dozen or so matches to earn enough credits to "buy" the best packs.  So why would anyone actually spend actual money on those packs?

Yeah, you buy the best packs, but so what, that doesn't ensure you unlock what you want to. So you need to grind more. And more. And more. Another half a dozen here, another half a dozen there.

 

Supplement, not replace. One pack is not going to do squat for you. You could need tons of packs, perhaps even hundreds, to really get what you want. It's an obnoxious grind. And using real money can help the grind speed up a bit.

[alanschu]

@GoA

 

I suppose it's just a trading time for money thing.  I don't buy them either and likely never will.  But I do know the ME guys have been very surprised at how popular/successful it has been, so go figure.

 

Then again, there are people that literally spend thousands of dollars on something like Farmville....  So I don't know for sure.

Edited February 27, 2013 by alanschu

[Syraxis]

Doesn't affect me in any way, haven't played a game by EA since..... DAII demo or ME2. Whichever came out first I forget.

[maggotheart]

The problem with microtransactions in single player games is that they must then logically design the SP game around this feature. They don't design and make the game, and then add in the ability to pay for advancement as an afterthought: it's planned from the beginning and influences the design of the entire game. Add some grind to find components, and players might pay to remove the grind - which would never have existed in the game in the first place if not for the design considerations forced by adding microtransactions. I would personally never touch any game that had them.

[JFSOCC]

I thought Arcades died out ages ago. No more quarters for an extra life. Sure there maybe an audience for this, but I think that with the amount of competition in the gaming community their market share will steadily decline until they are as bankrupt as their artistic integrity.

[JFSOCC]

What happened to EA, and Ubisoft (which I recall used to be the noble underdog) is the takeover from upstairs. With the Marketing team, the legal team, and the shareholders all wanting to weigh in on the projects, because they're seeing it as a product and nothing else.

While they should be focussing on their artistic merit, giving project leads, the artists, total creative control over what is produced.

Because that's the only way to create anything truly special, and the public will respond accordingly.

Quality always sells.

[maggotheart]

What happened to EA, and Ubisoft (which I recall used to be the noble underdog) is the takeover from upstairs. With the Marketing team, the legal team, and the shareholders all wanting to weigh in on the projects, because they're seeing it as a product and nothing else.

While they should be focussing on their artistic merit, giving project leads, the artists, total creative control over what is produced.

Because that's the only way to create anything truly special, and the public will respond accordingly.

Quality always sells.

 

EA shifted their target audience. They are not trying to sell games to JFSOCC or maggotheart anymore. They want customers who will pay for hats or pay to get out of having to deal with all that boring 'gameplay' stuff. And they are/will be very successful in making money doing that so we can't expect them to stop. Just like if my favorite beer brand turned into a diet soda and marketed it to kids, I will simply stop paying attention to that brand and go find another one that still makes good beer.

[Hurlshort]

What happened to EA, and Ubisoft (which I recall used to be the noble underdog) is the takeover from upstairs. With the Marketing team, the legal team, and the shareholders all wanting to weigh in on the projects, because they're seeing it as a product and nothing else.

While they should be focussing on their artistic merit, giving project leads, the artists, total creative control over what is produced.

Because that's the only way to create anything truly special, and the public will respond accordingly.

Quality always sells.

 

I'm not sure about that.  These are massive businesses, I don't think they can stay profitable just focusing on artistic merit.  That's more the realm of the indie developers.