microtransactions will be added on most if not all EA games

[lonewolfkai]

I dunno Vagrant0. I see your point and agree with it to a degree. HOwever, a lot of gamers have come to expect games to stay at the cost of $60, even though the costs of development has really gone up since that established pricing became the base. It used to be fairly cheap to make a game. I can even remember games for the same $60 for Super Nintendo when they came out! And yet, games are still expected to remain at the same cost when in reality they should cost a lot more compared to today's luxury economy and the costly technology for them.

 

If gamers want costs to stay stagnant, then they should expect the technology for them to equally stay stagnant.

Edited February 28, 2013 by lonewolf_kai

[mechatech]

 

even though the costs of development has really gone up since that established pricing became the base. It used to be fairly cheap to make a game.

I don't know if developer costs have gone up or down, but I would like to see facts to support the statement that developer costs have gone up.

 

 

 

when in reality they should cost a lot more compared to today's luxury economy and the costly technology for them

How do you figure? Technology seems to be going down in price. A large flatscreen tv that cost $3k+ ten years ago (I remember someone telling me about his purchase then) is less than $500 today for a larger screen. What does exist for pc hardware is a price floor. I got my first pc in 2000, cost about $1800, got another about 4 years later, cost $1500 (reused the peripherals), my latest as of 09 cost $2k (new peripherals). If I want a new pc I can expect to pay about $2k. In each case I bought an almost high range machine.

 

 

Microtransactions are a good strategy for the seller. People will pay $1 a hundred times rather than pay $100 once.Personally I want you to sell me your product then go away from me. I'm reminded of a quote from 1983's Scarface "Never underestimate the other guys greed."

[hector530]

Actually having 100% in ds3 the best weapon parts are locked out of the game.the best you could get normally is mk3 parts with mircotransactions you can get mk5 parts.

[lonewolfkai]

 

 

even though the costs of development has really gone up since that established pricing became the base. It used to be fairly cheap to make a game.

I don't know if developer costs have gone up or down, but I would like to see facts to support the statement that developer costs have gone up.

 

 

>

when in reality they should cost a lot more compared to today's luxury economy and the costly technology for them

How do you figure? Technology seems to be going down in price. A large flatscreen tv that cost $3k+ ten years ago (I remember someone telling me about his purchase then) is less than $500 today for a larger screen. What does exist for pc hardware is a price floor. I got my first pc in 2000, cost about $1800, got another about 4 years later, cost $1500 (reused the peripherals), my latest as of 09 cost $2k (new peripherals). If I want a new pc I can expect to pay about $2k. In each case I bought an almost high range machine.

 

That maybe be, but how old were those particular items you bought? Did you buy them when the company that sold them first put that out? I bet your costs would have been different. But that's beside the point.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about hardware here. What I mean is, take the games of yesteryear. The graphics are less realistic, the ai is simplier, the controls aren't as intuitive, etc, etc. But the gaming industry demands realistic graphics, smart ai, controls that should be extensions of the hands and mind, etc, etc. And this takes time, and depending on the demand, lots of time. In the world of business time = what? That's right, money. That's what I'm getting at. Why do you think indie games are so cost effective, because they are a throw back to games of yesteryear.

[Vagrant0]

That maybe be, but how old were those particular items you bought? Did you buy them when the company that sold them first put that out? I bet your costs would have been different. But that's beside the point.

 

 

I'm not necessarily talking about hardware here. What I mean is, take the games of yesteryear. The graphics are less realistic, the ai is simplier, the controls aren't as intuitive, etc, etc. But the gaming industry demands realistic graphics, smart ai, controls that should be extensions of the hands and mind, etc, etc. And this takes time, and depending on the demand, lots of time. In the world of business time = what? That's right, money. That's what I'm getting at. Why do you think indie games are so cost effective, because they are a throw back to games of yesteryear.

 

Except alot of that cost for that $60 Super Nintendo, Nintendo, Genesis, or even Atari game was actually related to the hardware. All of those cartridge games had to be manually assembled, soldered, packaged, and shipped to retailers. The average production price of a cartridge at the height of manufacturing (before PS1), was about $14 U.S. while the average price of a single layer CD was about $6 (when PS1 started). The current average manufacturing price for a dual layer encrypted DVD is about $0.40 while the average price for a bluray is about $1.60. For shipping costs, larger packages and more weight mean more expensive. Compare the weight and packaging of a Nintendo cartridge against a slim case dvd. The difference is about 3x as many units per crate. This is why you can walk into just about any Walmart, pick up a bunch of "new" (if however crappy) DVD movies for about $5.00 each, but even when video cassettes were being phased out would still be spending about four times that for a similar product. Alot of the actual cost of things is related directly to the costs of making that thing and then shipping it out to you. This is also why companies can sell games for half price or less through digital distributors without going bankrupt... The majority of their actual cost per unit is negated since there is no physical game being printed, packaged, and shipped; if the game is bought through Steam or another large digital distributor there isn't even any bandwidth costs (just the costs of listing a product through that distributor).

 

Given that relatively few games have a budget in excess of $50,000,000 you could be looking at 3 million units total sales at about $20 and be making a profit. Given that most of those big budget games have well over 10 million sales cross-platform (GTA IV, the most expensive game to date at $100 million had 10m sales just on Xbox360), you're looking at a substantial profit unless the game is a total flop. So the majority of that $60 spent is really just going to manufacturing, shipping, and funding for the next project with about 60% of the price being pure profit once the game sells a certain amount.

 

This is also why you can have Minecraft making ludicrous amounts of money despite a low sales price. It has sold several million copies and has had a very small production cost despite there being continuous updates. This wouldn't have worked back in the age of physical distribution models.

[brokenergy]

Cliffy B sums up my point well. It's well worth the read

 

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters

[hector530]

 

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.

 

 

 

LOL you really think EA's microtransactions are about recouping loses?!?!

 

 

 

EA's microtransactions are all about profit, its all profit. little to no work is involved in making these microtransactions. the game is already 60 bucks not lock out the best gear and put a price on it = profit.

 

this is also why DA3 will not support modding. why buy microtransactions when some modder could just make you badass weapons and armor for free.

[brokenergy]

 

 

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

<

/p>

 

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.

 

 

LOL you really think EA's microtransactions are about recouping loses?!?!

 

 

 

EA's microtransactions are all about profit, its all profit. little to no work is involved in making these microtransactions. the game is already 60 bucks not lock out the best gear and put a price on it = profit.

 

this is also why DA3 will not support modding. why buy microtransactions when some modder could just make you badass weapons and armor for free.

 

 

DA 3 doesn't support modding due to a number of factors and has nothing to do microtransaction or DLC or whatever crap people spew up next. You also need to remember that EA is a public trading company, as in it needs to put profits first for it's shareholders. But whatever, it's not like anyone that hates EA are going to be convinced.

[hector530]

DA 3 doesn't support modding due to a number of factors and has nothing to do microtransaction or DLC or whatever crap people spew up next.

 

and im sure D3 always-online DRM was to improve gameplay and not the protection of the RMAH

[james234]

the problem starts when the game companies only sided with the people that have money, like giving moar powerful item to those people who paid more. this is usually happen. more money then better item, and for people who have no money they usually lose when playing multiplayer with people who have money just because they have better item. basically micro-transactions is useful if you have money.