microtransactions will be added on most if not all EA games

[guReMcO]

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

 

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

Everyone should read that post it's so true.

 

I still keep my stance though. AAA titles (and games in general) cost a metricf*ckton of money to create and of course business are going to try and maximize the amount of profit they get out of it. Let's be clear that if a game doesn't sell well enough there will not be a part two because why bother spending so much money on something that has a very real chance of not making that money back.

I'm just saying I'm not against the idea of microtransactions if it's done right. You need to find a way where people will be more then willing to give you money and not feel like they are being ripped off.

[Lisnpuppy]

I just read that EA is shutting down some Warhammer server...and NOT reimbursing any players for the unspent gems they have purchased.......everyone feeling the love?

[Vagrant0]

Let's be clear that if a game doesn't sell well enough there will not be a part two because why bother spending so much money on something that has a very real chance of not making that money back.

So instead of nickle and dimeing every player of that game, seeing what you can rip out or hold hostage to sell later, you just make that game good from the start. If a game reviews well, and doesn't have all these feelings of being short changed, it usually continues to sell well even after its premire week since you generate a buzz and have the makings of a community. I mean, let's be clear on another point... If Morrowind, Skyrim, Fallout, (or whatever), had done things similar to what EA continually does (horse armor not withstanding), would any of us even be here? Probably not. We'd play the game for a week, get bored, and go back to whatever other game we had that we could still find fun playing months or even years after starting.

 

And you see this sort of reality rather clear in regards to Diablo 3. Even if you ignore the simplified system, much of the "fun" of the game was sucked out of it by the Auction House since it monetizes drops and gives a similar sentiment of having to pay extra for any of the really good stuff. The droprates, the simplified leveling system, all of it is designed on making people get to those harder difficulties where most cannot really survive on their own drops... Leading to a higher demand for certain types of equipment, which all goes back to money. And then when all is said and done, people have this max level character with reasonably good equipment, but nowhere else to go from there, so they sell it, quit the game, and find something else to play. And you see this actually happening as the numbers of people playing are now dwindling. More over, this is all of Blizzards plan so that you buy their game, play it, get bored, stop using their servers (saving them money), and just go back to WoW. Does it generate money, sure, but only until you do it often enough that people get wise to your methods and just refrain from buying your games.

 

And that's why EA has been given the scumbag meme. Because they have been doing this sort of thing, and keep doing this sort of thing, without even the slightest indication that they care about their customer short of how much money they can suck out. Atleast with Bethsoft, Valve, Rockstar, and similar studios, we can maintain the illusion that they see customers as something other than a thing to turn upside down and shake the money out of. Instead of occasionally throwing players a bone ala "TF2 for free, or Daggerfall/arena for free (moment of truth will be when Morrowind hits 10 years old)" and generating genuine interest in what that company has to offer, they instead do the opposite, and continually screw over their customers.

[mechatech]

 

 

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.

What are those factors?

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

That's an unsettling thought. This and pay for mod content concepts may kill modding as we know it. IMO we may be living in a golden age right now.

 

It didn't occur to me at first but micro transactions are already here in the form of DLC. Fallout NV sold for about $60, it's addons probably added up to another $40 to $50. This new game over time cost the player $100+ to buy. And it wouldn't surprise me if the DLC was already built at the same time as the core game. They could sell all at once for $100 but I think many would choke at that number, so they got their $100 per game in a roundabout manner.

 

I'm reminded of a racing expression "How fast you want to go depends on how much you want to spend." Consumer products are such that if you want more you spend more (think of optioning out that new car you buy) Why should games be any different? We have no idea how sophisticated games will be for the generation after us. What we rant about here now may be business as usual then, our children won't complain because that's the way it is.

[JimboUK]

The problem with nickel and diming players to death is that if the base game has been ruined then people won't buy it in the first place meaning they can't sell the add ons, even if they bought it they're not very likely to buy add ons if they didn't enjoy the base game. Mafia 2 was a perfect example of how not to do it. As for development costs, they either make a product that's worth the money or they don't, costs are their problem, not mine.

[Vagrant0]

I'm reminded of a racing expression "How fast you want to go depends on how much you want to spend." Consumer products are such that if you want more you spend more (think of optioning out that new car you buy) Why should games be any different? We have no idea how sophisticated games will be for the generation after us. What we rant about here now may be business as usual then, our children won't complain because that's the way it is.

That may be all well and good, but there are significant differences between the two, atleast as far as it applies to the majority of people.

 

The better analogy is actually in computer hardware. In that those who go for a very cheap, bare bones system usually end up hitting usage limitations, or a fair amount of the hardware craps out after about 6 months. Those that buy ridiculous top of the line systems may not have to do so again for a few years, but their actual dollar value is fairly low since they're paying about 3-4 times as much for that cutting edge hardware as they would if they waited a year and built the same system. Meaning that those people would also likely be buying a new system every year or so to remain cutting edge. To get the biggest bang for your buck, just like with choosing a vehicle, you're usually getting more from a middle-of-the-line model, and usually able to benefit more from doing research on how that hardware actually holds up under the conditions you plan to keep them at.

 

But, going back to the car analogy, sure, you can spend all this extra money and tune out a poorly designed car (PT cruiser) to where it is somewhat able to drive well... But most people would much rather buy a car that drives well right from the start and not have to deal with all that extra tweaking and additions to try and fix what really can't be fixed. For example, Knights of the Old Republic Online.

 

*addition*

To add a different perspective on things... Just because there are a number of people who can, and are totally willing to spend hundreds of dollars on a pair of running shoes, does not mean that a similar pricing or value can be made standard across the industry, or that a company who makes some different kind of shoe can apply the same model to their line of work shoes.

 

In some ways, that is kinda what EA has been doing ever since they started with their current DLC model after looking at how it was working for some F2P games. They saw that content was being limited in those games for free members, so they started doing the same. They saw that upgrades for things were available for an extra fee, so started doing the same. They saw that cosmetic changes were available for those who paid more, so started doing the same... All the while never realizing (or caring) that the gameplay, interactions, and situations between the games they were making, and the games they were borrowing ideas from were totally different. This is why they can sell you that $60 fps game, and charge you another $15 for the higher end equipment, and simply point to that other F2P fps game which has a similar arrangement (sans the original $60 purchase) when you complain. This is also why they can lock out levels, maps, outfits, decals, and other stuff (that clearly exists within the game data since you can see them being used by other players), and not themselves realize what the problem is with charging you to unlock them.

 

The problem is that all this is, as far as EA is concerned, business, and without going into a slippery slope analogy, they are out to milk you for as much money as they can, and you'll just keep falling for it.

[mousxo]

People should realize it's EA this is all about. EA. See, EA. It says it all. There's a reason no other company is doing this, because they've not been dragged too much into the money as EA.

How many games have EA ruined over the years because they seem to think money, over quality? I should stop saying EA now, cause it's starting to sound really weird.

 

I do not support EA's micotransaction methods. I've seen them before, and it's probably the only microtransactions I've been really frustrated about. It's just about time before the company is turned upside down. It's already started quite a while ago, and they keep f*#@ing up good ideas, good games, just to save money.

 

I understand it from a business perspective that you can't go full out on everything, but we've seen so many examples over the years of EA stripping games of features and overall value to save time and goold, like to the edge of ruining the whole thing. Well, we've seen that too. Anyway, they've lost very many people over the years due to that, and it will not save them to start with microtransactions in every game, the person who thought of that should've been kicked in the face.

 

Really, quality makes money. Not luring people to give them money, like lets see.. Hmm, a recent game that could've been saved with a little more thought and care, maybe added features and endgame instead of using months to figure what to give people for free, and what to claim a reward from, hmm. SWTOR maybe? Yeah. EA there.

 

I really don't like EA. Whenever I see EA on a release, I say "f*#@ IT." If I could give money directly to the devs I would, but giving money to EA feels like giving money to an addict, or a bum who doesn't deserve your money.

Edited March 3, 2013 by mousxo

[audioave10]

Good games sell themselves. I only do single-player on the PC and am not interested in this form of payment.

[lonewolfkai]

Good games sell themselves. I only do single-player on the PC and am not interested in this form of payment.

Then why did you even bother posting in this thread? :huh:

 

To attempt to keep your post relevant, single player games do in a since have microtransactions as well in the form of dlcs

[hector530]

 

Good games sell themselves. I only do single-player on the PC and am not interested in this form of payment.

Then why did you even bother posting in this thread? :huh:

 

To attempt to keep your post relevant, single player games do in a since have microtransactions as well in the form of dlcs

 

no DLC usually have something to add to the game, new content. in microtransactions you pay for items locked in the game or for quick level ups.