EA lives in a different reality

[Zoraptor]

It doesn't really have much to do with EA, they're just a touchstone because OMG EA IS TEH EVIL!!!

 

Here's a dlc list for Sleeping Dogs from notEA as an example. Note the number of "boost experience" and "awsum weapon" and "look leet" packs. Only difference is that Squeenix is not as unpopular and the stuff being sold is labelled dlc. You can do the same thing with Saints Row or pretty much anything else as well to find plenty of cheat code equivalent or pretty aesthetics dlcs. It's already in existence for EA games and has been for ages- the success of The Sims is largely built on cheap(ish) trivial additions, alternative appearance packs for ME2, armour and weapon packs for DAO

 

On multiplayer, while I do not play as my internet is rubbish (and I don't really have the time) I don't really understand the attitude towards grinding. If you enjoy the game it isn't really any great imposition to play it, if you don't enjoy it then... why play it? It's rather like the odd attitude some have to achievements where they feel compelled to get all of them for a game they dislike or even hate (like the guy on RPS who hated Aliens:CM and was glad he only had to play it a few more hours to get the final few achievements)

[GhostofAnakin]

@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.

 

I don't doubt it's popular.  And really, I don't blame EA/Bio for implementing it.  If people want to give them free money for stuff they could unlock with just a bit of time and patience, more power to them.

 

It's just not something I would ever do.  Only stuff I'd pay money for are things that I can't access without paying for, like the SP DLC.

 

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.

 

I understand that, but it's not like you can't eventually unlock those characters/weapons eventually.  And it's not like it takes forever.  I've only played sparingly since release, but I've unlocked every character except the new ones just released the other day by playing matches and earning credits to get those packs.  It's cost me absolutely zero actual money, and I've got access to everything that those who spend money have.  So if someone like me, who hasn't played it continuously since launch, can unlock these extras rather easily, surely those who've been playing it non-stop will have unlocked them within a month or two of playing?

 

Maybe I'm just frugal.  But I never understood paying for stuff like that if you could get the same content for free with just a bit of patience.  It's not like the single player DLC, where the only way you can access it is by paying for it.

[alanschu]

Well, as I've gotten older I definitely find myself having a lot less time for gaming (especially compared to my teens).  I actually dislike the notion that games are "dumbed down for the console kiddies."

 

When I was a teenager 12 hour marathon game sessions were a weekly occurrence (often both weekend days), and never mind summer holidays from school.  I'm still single and I don't have as much time for gaming, just because I have a lot of other stuff going on in my life as well.

 

I can understand the idea of someone trading time for money (that's why Facebook games are successful).  It's just not something that I do.  That might be different if I was a lot more affluent.

[Tsuga C]

 

"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."[/size]

Every EA game will have micro transactions...

And this is precisely why I'm here rather than on the EAWare boards. I loved the old BioWare (late '90s through Hordes of the Underdark), but when they devolved into EAWare I began withholding my money. It's a pity what they've become.

[Tale]

And it's not like it takes forever.  I've only played sparingly since release, but I've unlocked every character

I'm going to be skeptical that you've played that sparingly. I played pretty hardcore through the expansion that introduced Geth and I barely unlocked the Geth Engineer. And none of his extra customizations.

 

It's absolutely sickening that my progression for the character and his weapons is dependent on a random number generator that I have to grind through. The game wasn't even fun enough to grind out the rest. But, like with lots of people, I felt like I needed to get it. You're frugal so you don't buy it. I'm frugal, so I stopped playing entirely. It's not a good game design to sucker in the people who can afford to toss around money without consideration by making progression obnoxious for everyone.

 

I'm not even strictly against microtransactions. But that's not just microtransactions. If they'd had a way to buy what I wanted (and not used those stupid Bioware points), I would have even considered giving them money to support extra content. But it's a lottery. Which is a step too far in my opinion.

[JFSOCC]

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.

I'm sure they won't be able to survive long-term without artistic merit.

[GhostofAnakin]

Slight correction on my part -- I still haven't unlocked the N7 Demolisher? (whichever one is the infiltrator class) and one of the Batarian ones, aside from the new characters.  Also, when I say I've played sparingly, I mean there's months between playing, but when I do play I play pretty hardcore.  For instance, since I finished off Far Cry 3 in early January, I've played ME3 quite a bit over that time, and have unlocked the bulk of my characters during that time.

 

Maybe I've just been lucky?  I remember I went through one string where I had enough credits to buy two packs of the one where you have a greater chance to get characters (forget what it's called), and both times it unlocked 2 characters, giving me 4 characters in total I didn't have before.

 

I guess that's the problem with this system.  It does seem to be about luck.  I know a friend who plays the MP a lot more than I do, yet he's complained to me about the fact that I've got more characters unlocked than him because he keeps getting characters he already has (thus only gets the XP bonus plus the appearances unlocked for them).

[maggotheart]

I'm not even strictly against microtransactions. But that's not just microtransactions. If they'd had a way to buy what I wanted (and not used those stupid Bioware points), I would have even considered giving them money to support extra content. But it's a lottery. Which is a step too far in my opinion.

 

It's a lottery because of the presence of microtransactions. It's obnoxious intentionally because of the presence of microtransactions. The game was designed to maximize profits from microtransactions. As I said in my earlier post, this is not a game they made and then added microtransactions afterward for people who might like that, the entire game was designed around having them there. You cannot divorce the game from that mechanic.

[Hurlshort]

 

 

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.

I'm sure they won't be able to survive long-term without artistic merit.

Obviously they arent going to intentionally stifle creativity, but they have made a ton of money churning out sequels and catering to the largest audience possible. Artistic merit is simply one aspect of development, and not necessarily the top one.

[Calax]

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.

I think the best example I've seen of DLC is actually Lair of the Shadow Broker.

 

The segment was well made, had good writing, was self contained, and generally held up to the standard that had been set by it's "primary". But the story it told was fairly tangential and you wouldn't miss out on to much in the (itty bitty) main plot by not having it. Compare it to From Ashes; where you're given a character who's so well dovetailed into the game that he feels totally integral. Also his story is almost totally tied up directly into the primary plot, and provides a few glimpses into previous versions of the plot, and the game without him feels somewhat incomplete (especially after you've played the game with him).

 

Ultimately I think DLC needs to work well within the game and setting, but not be so... tied into it that it feels like everything else. Kasumi and Zaheed in ME2 were DLC's that had their awesome moments, but were to obvious about being DLC characters. The reason Liara worked and they didn't was because she had her plot tied into her moments already within the game, and she was not entered into the party.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

 

 

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.

I'm sure they won't be able to survive long-term without artistic merit.

 

 

Obviously they arent going to intentionally stifle creativity, but they have made a ton of money churning out sequels and catering to the largest audience possible. Artistic merit is simply one aspect of development, and not necessarily the top one.

 

 

But that's the thing, in order to make good games, you need to focus on it as an art, not as a product. You simply can't make good games when you start giving in to censorship of any kind. Because the quality drops. And while mildly amusing may get you some purchases, in the long run, people will dismiss it as lame when it doesn't compare to the competition and still gets sold for the same prices.

 

EA makes pulp. penny books and booklets. Ubisoft are slowly pulping their work as well.

And people tend to leave pulp in the communal libraries in hostels and hotels.

Right now their products are still palpable, but they're getting ever more flavourless and tame.

 

Until their empires crumble like all empires do.

[Tale]

But that's the thing, in order to make good games, you need to focus on it as an art, not as a product.

Personally, I agree with you.

 

I don't think the entire audience would. The mindset of "hours vs. cost" is one aspect that is completely product driven. Or the requests for sequels and franchises.

 

Probably the biggest segment of the market views it as a product to be consumed, then tossed aside for the next one to come along.

[Hurlshort]

Also, someone must be buying all those pulp fiction novels, they are in every airport and corner market in the world.  Plenty of authors would be thrilled to sell like those pulp fiction books.

 

I'm not saying there isn't room for art in games, in fact I think we are in better shape for the future than ever before.  All these new avenues for release allow small development houses to thrive and get major exposure.  But the big studios have gigantic expenses, and AAA titles are very pricey to make.  They are going to take as few risks as necessary, and they are going to seek revenue streams every way imaginable.  

[Cultist]

Valve managed to get tremendous profits from TF2 and DOTA2 microtransactions. World of Tanks made millions on F2P game and Lineage 2 after their experience with F2P+microtransactions figured out this servers were much more profitable than traditional monthly subscribtion ones.

EA saw that they are being left behind and want to catch up. But, being EA, they acted like a crappy King Midas, turning eveything they touch into ****.

the thing about Valve is that their microtransactions NEVER give players advantage in online gaming. Well, maybe only is case of "I'm fabulous, bitches!". DS3 resourse issue is the best example of "EA approach". Another one - their decloration of shutting down Wrath of heroes - F2P MOBA game under EA wing - they just pumped things players can buy, but left game in a crippled and undeveloped state, resulting in quickly diminishing playerbase. Same goes for SWTOR.

Somehow every initiative they start turns out as a horrible abomination and the initial idea is twisted beyond belief.

[cyberarmy]

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?

Becuse of "The RNG Curse" of course, i played ME3 MP for nearly 2 months and played silver/gold mainly.

And i couldnt get the weapons/characters i wanted... things like this don't upset me and i just contiune to play, but i know a lot of weak willed gamers who just buy out credits to get better chance. After 1 day of play that is.

 

This microtranstations are "supply&demand", if nobody really not wanted them there wouldn't be any, but nowadays gamers like to pour money on this thing instead of "wasting time." Funny part is even as an old gamer, i still play better than most of them even they got better weapons and characters, some youngsters just don't know what they are doing

[Humanoid]

I remember the brouhaha in the late 90s when the Wal-mart version of Heavy Gear came with a shiny decked-out mech for multiplayer purposes while non-Wal-mart purchasing plebians had to level their way up to that equipment level. I suppose if you squint hard, the current method is a 'lil bit more egalitarian than that, not that we'd blink at it for any more than a fraction of a second nowadays.

[Tagaziel]

The DS3 model is pretty good. You don't have to pay for resource packs with monies, you can use ration seals instead. They're also entirely optional, as farming is easy.

 

My only problem is with the pricing of the other addons. The various cosmetic packs are way overpriced for the value they provide (they dwarf Horse Armor in that aspect, for M'Atra's sake). Five Euro for a single suit and gun? Fifteen for a set? Five for each upgrade to the scavenger bots? It's ludicrous. Compare that to Gun Runner's Arsenal, which provides a lot more bang for your buck, in all aspects. 

 

I mean, come on EA. Two retextures without custom models cost five Euros to make?

Edited February 28, 2013 by Tagaziel

[Hassat Hunter]

All DLC's do is make me get the Gold Pack later (waiting for Skyrim and Sleeping Dragon and Borderlands 2 now). Or skip the DLC altogether if none is made (ME2, ME3). If impatient people want to pay, more power to them.

 

I'll be laughing and playing their game a year later with all the content for like 1/10th the price they paid for it

[GhostofAnakin]

Speaking of my "luck" when it comes to the Reserve Packs, been playing quite a bit over the last few days and saved up quite a bit of credits.  I got the new Krogan dude for free as a "gift" that they're giving to everyone, then in the first reserve pack I got the new Collector dude, and in the second reserve pack I finally got the N7 Demolisher.

 

Three new characters in one shopping spree, and I didn't have to pay anything for them. :D

[Darkpriest]

All DLC's do is make me get the Gold Pack later (waiting for Skyrim and Sleeping Dragon and Borderlands 2 now). Or skip the DLC altogether if none is made (ME2, ME3). If impatient people want to pay, more power to them.

 

I'll be laughing and playing their game a year later with all the content for like 1/10th the price they paid for it

 

If everyone would have this kind of the approach to every title then the gaming industry would vanish in flames of insolvency...

 

I tend to have a bit different approach:

 

1) I buy on day one or pre-order each title and every DLC that is interesting for me from a developer I want to support. They  make money and rate the success on the first 1-2 weeks of sales.

 

2) I use wait and see approach to titles from developers which do not have my trust with their quality of the content. Usually 1-2 weeks is enough of time to decide. If it looks good from some gameplay vids or the forums are generally positive, I tend to buy it at full price to show my support and make sure that I contribute to the success of the title. If it looks kind of "meh", then I usually do not touch it, until I see it on some big sale and bundled with all DLCs/expansions a couple of years later.

 

The worst thing that a gamer can do to a company is to:

a) pirate a game - i.e. steal, and if enjoys it, do not support with a purchase of the original.

b) wait for a big sale of a title, which he clearly enjoys and values highly.

 

Gaming industry is business, and business is driven by the monetary return. If the game is great, buy it at full price, otherwise you are sending a wrong message to devs and publishers, who rate a game's success based on the monetary value it brings to the company.

[Lord of Lost Socks]

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.

 

Doesn't really bother me in theory either. But, this is EA. In 5 years their single-player 60 dollar games will be pay2win.

[Darkpriest]

 

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.

 

Doesn't really bother me in theory either. But, this is EA. In 5 years their single-player 60 dollar games will be pay2win.

 

To be honest, I'd prefer them to leave the micro-transactions out of SP games. The multiplayer games can have that and do it quite well - check Valve's games for example. Even ME3 multiplayer, although boring for me, still does its job well... If you have this kind of experience in a SP game, then its design its ought to be at least mildly annoying and useless grind in many areas of the game, so it will give a player a second thought about purchasing something, to skip the annoying part. Incentive is the key to the success of this model and placing the said incentive is a design decision.

[Mamoulian War]

 

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.

 

Doesn't really bother me in theory either. But, this is EA. In 5 years their single-player 60 dollar games will be pay2win.

 

I think you are to optimistic, that it will last 5 years... My bet would be 18 months...

Edited March 1, 2013 by Mamoulian War

[TSBasilisk]

EA lives in a reality where the economy is down, the industry is struggling, and the traditional retail system is under siege by digital distribution. Big publishers collapse or report large losses, indie games are front-page news rather than back-shelf tripe, and games can be funded not by publishers, but by the will and support of thousands of people who will never meet the developers face-to-face.

 

EA lives in a reality where big-name publishers need to adapt or die, but nobody knows what sort of change is needed to survive. So, like a noob in Minecraft, they stumble around blindly, changing patterns in blocks and slots in hopes something will click and show them the way before the next Creeper appears. They're changing their payment models to find what makes them money and what doesn't, offering new incentives, creating their own digital distribution system and even allowing sales on it despite initially claiming they never would. They lean heavily on established franchises because new ones are risky, and risk when you're struggling to survive can be deadly.

 

EA lives in a reality where the entire industry is speculated to be on the edge of collapse and the vocal fans seem to scream for its collapse. Truly, theirs is a grim reality...

 

Oh, wait...

[Hurlshort]

This a completely consumer driven concept, so I don't get all the EA flaming.  It makes sense to flame them when they grind up a developer, or they use draconian DRM.  But this is very basic business, they are offering a service and people are buying it.  

 

Also EA is a much healthier company than people are making it out to be.  Financially it brings in a ton of revenue.  It has had some bad quarters where expenses were too high, but it really isn't close to ruin.