microtransactions will be added on most if not all EA games

[hector530]

http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-consumers-enjoying-and-embracing-microtransactions-6404525

 

EA is looking to add mircotransactions on all games from this point on.

 

EA says they are doing this because people are "enjoying and embracing" mircotransactions but i think people "enjoy" mircotransaction like they enjoy a gambling addiction.

[Thor.]

Yup Crysis 3 is the last game i buy from EA, after hearing this news :devil:

I'm not alone in the comment thread >:( at gamespot, looks like everyone is as mad as i am.

Edited February 28, 2013 by Thor.

[LordWushin]

I can see it happening for multiplayer parts of games but not just in general. As long as it stays with the online part I guess it is cool. If I have to actually pay to make a rank then I think they are crossing the line with this.

[brokenergy]

I don't mind, I have played ME3 and DS3 with a friend and it was not intrusive. As long as it doesn't decrease from the acutal game then it's okay.

[ginnyfizz]

They know where they can put that idea....

 

Since I'm out of work, it's out of the question. Simples.

[guReMcO]

Micro transactions themselves aren't a bad thing. The problem starts when they make progressing through a game really slow or almost impossible without buying some item or perk. That's not cool. From what I've heard about microtransactions in games like Deadspace 3 it's not very intrusive and more of an extra. If that's the case then it's fine by me. But no game, especially multiplayer, should become pay-to-win. Quite a few free-to-play games already fell into that trap and we don't need big budget titles to follow them down.

[brokenergy]

Micro transactions themselves aren't a bad thing. The problem starts when they make progressing through a game really slow or almost impossible without buying some item or perk. That's not cool. From what I've heard about microtransactions in games like Deadspace 3 it's not very intrusive and more of an extra. If that's the case then it's fine by me. But no game, especially multiplayer, should become pay-to-win. Quite a few free-to-play games already fell into that trap and we don't need big budget titles to follow them down.

 

With what I have seen, the problem seems to stem from gamers who live a fantasy world, where all developers make games are happy. The price of games have fallen and haven't kept up with developer costs and microtransactions and DLC are just some of the ways where developers earn back the money to create new content and increase the shelf life of a game. It's either that or increase the prices and that isn't something that gamers like. Like it or not, game development is a business and the current climate is not sustainable. With what have seen with EA's microtransactions policy, it's much better than some in the market, where it is opitional . I really doubt that EA will go Zynga's route and microtransaction everything in game like some would like to believe.

[guReMcO]

With what I have seen, the problem seems to stem from gamers who live a fantasy world, where all developers make games are happy. The price of games have fallen and haven't kept up with developer costs and microtransactions and DLC are just some of the ways where developers earn back the money to create new content and increase the shelf life of a game. It's either that or increase the prices and that isn't something that gamers like. Like it or not, game development is a business and the current climate is not sustainable. With what have seen with EA's microtransactions policy, it's much better than some in the market, where it is opitional . I really doubt that EA will go Zynga's route and microtransaction everything in game like some would like to believe.

 

Very true. This morning I read an interesting article that shows what it actually costs to make part of a game.

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-little-fighting-game-that-could/1100-4587/

 

Trying to raise at least $150,000 was picked for a very specific reason: it was the money Lab Zero Games needed. Often, crowdfunding projects will ask for roughly half of what it actually needs to complete what it’s really promising. There is a psychological effect to crowdfunding, and people want to back a winner. A winner is likely to exceed its funding goal, and get closer to its real goal. The Skullgirls developers actually broke down development costs, hoping to persuade people this was reality:

 

 

$48,000: Staff Salaries - 8 people for 10 weeks

$30,000: Animation and Clean-up Contracting

$4,000: Voice recording

$2,000: Hit-box Contracting

$5,000: Audio Implementation Contracting

$20,000: QA Testing

$10,000: 1st Party Certification

$10,500: IndieGoGo and Payment Processing Fees

$20,500: Manufacturing and Shipping Physical Rewards

 

 

I get that game making is a business and that money needs to be made (the reason I haven't pirated in years) but the quality of the game shouldn't suffer because of it. The goal should be a good quality game and not how to incorporate the most money making schemes in one title. Good games usually sell themselves. Also more could be done to lengthen the lifespan of a game by allowing modding.

[hoofhearted4]

idc about this. if they keep it to online parts of games (which i hardly do) then whatever. even more, if they keep it from being, spend money to win, and keep it more along the lines of cosmetic stuff, then thats fine too. just keep it out of Single Player, cosmetic or no...if they put it in SP, in any form, esp "pay to unlock this section of game, or these cool weapons, etc" then ill be mad. unless they have an in game way to unlock said things, but even still ill be mad. keep it outta SP

[Vagrant0]

 

 

With what I have seen, the problem seems to stem from gamers who live a fantasy world, where all developers make games are happy. The price of games have fallen and haven't kept up with developer costs and microtransactions and DLC are just some of the ways where developers earn back the money to create new content and increase the shelf life of a game. It's either that or increase the prices and that isn't something that gamers like. Like it or not, game development is a business and the current climate is not sustainable. With what have seen with EA's microtransactions policy, it's much better than some in the market, where it is opitional . I really doubt that EA will go Zynga's route and microtransaction everything in game like some would like to believe.

Very true. This morning I read an interesting article that shows what it actually costs to make part of a game.

http://www.giantbomb.com/articles/the-little-fighting-game-that-could/1100-4587/

>

 

Trying to raise at least $150,000 was picked for a very specific reason: it was the money Lab Zero Games needed. Often, crowdfunding projects will ask for roughly half of what it actually needs to complete what it’s really promising. There is a psychological effect to crowdfunding, and people want to back a winner. A winner is likely to exceed its funding goal, and get closer to its real goal. The Skullgirls developers actually broke down development costs, hoping to persuade people this was reality:

 

 

$48,000: Staff Salaries - 8 people for 10 weeks

$30,000: Animation and Clean-up Contracting

$4,000: Voice recording

$2,000: Hit-box Contracting

$5,000: Audio Implementation Contracting

$20,000: QA Testing

$10,000: 1st Party Certification

$10,500: IndieGoGo and Payment Processing Fees

$20,500: Manufacturing and Shipping Physical Rewards

 

I get that game making is a business and that money needs to be made (the reason I haven't pirated in years) but the quality of the game shouldn't suffer because of it. The goal should be a good quality game and not how to incorporate the most money making schemes in one title. Good games usually sell themselves. Also more could be done to lengthen the lifespan of a game by allowing modding.

You cannot compare cost breakdowns for an indie studio who is likely to only sell a few thousand copies of a game against a AAA company that sells a few million copies of even their worst games.

 

That retextured set of battle armor or whatever that EA will be selling as a DLC for $5.00 certainly didn't cost thousands to make, didn't need to go through months of playtesting, and was likely just sitting on some artist's flash drive because they got bored one day. EA will still sell 80,000+ of them though.

 

The thing with microtransactions is that they started as an alternative method of funding an online game, which had regular costs due to server usage, game additions, and hiring full staff to remain with the project. When you're playing a ftp mmo, spending $10 a month on bought extras is about comparable to what you'd be spending for a subscription based mmo, so is a reasonably fair cost for the amount of benefit you get from that $10. In the case of singleplayer games, or even online games where you aren't playing on official servers, there is no constant cost related to maintaining the game, there is no continuous additions, there are relatively few permanent staff who stay with the project, so that $5.00 you spend on your retextured rifle, or car with "Fanta" decaled on it, is pretty much all profit for that company. And unfortunately, most of what EA has done with DLC has been this sort of stuff that took at most 1 hour to throw together, which doesn't actually add meaningful content to your game (but you have to buy it because it has slightly better stats than the default version).

 

Make no mistake, this is really all about a company's ongoing effort to suck as much money as they can from their customers without actually offering any real benefit or improvement in service.