Emzamination wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.
LinksOcarina wrote...
See, I find that to be a false problem. Capcom and EA are no different from CDPR. Are the practices different? Yeah I give you that, but in execution only. Their core goals are essentially the same, as is their intent.
Would it be better if everyone had the same standards for conducting microtransactions? Possibly. I don't know. There are so many different models and real abuses out there (Zynga again is emblematic) its hard to really discern which would be best until we get financial data and a general consensous from the community by and large.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Emzamination wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.
I've never bought anything off Steam, nor purchased a DLC.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
hhh89 wrote...
Actually, I wasn't comparing CDPR to EA or Capcom. I merely said that CDPR is the only one who'll not make gamers pay for dlc, and that there are plently of other companied who take advantages of the dlcs and MT, so blaming only EA isn't fair.
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 06:48 .
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Emzamination wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.
I've never bought anything off Steam, nor purchased a DLC.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Emzamination wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.
I've never bought anything off Steam, nor purchased a DLC.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 06:56 .
Emzamination wrote...
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Emzamination wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.
I've never bought anything off Steam, nor purchased a DLC.
Now I may be an idiot, but there is one thing I am not, sir, and that, sir, is an idiot.
This made me smile
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 27 février 2013 - 07:11 .
Yeah, and once video games are completely destroyed, all that will be left is Facebook games and Internet Checkers. Heh, I just won.Biotic Sage wrote...
I will continue to avoid microtransactions like the plague. Hopefully others will catch on too when they learn that this business model will eventually lead to the complete deterioration of quality video games.
LinksOcarina wrote...
In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine.
That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. I'm patient enough to see EA make changes to their services and find a method that is non-intrusive and beneficial to both sides. So far, BioWare has gotten it right with Mass Effect 3, and Dead Space 3 worked as well. Thats 2/2 at this time.
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.
this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)
But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board.
Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible.
The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours.
In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine.
That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center.
True enough, but it's not just the fact that they are doing it, it's that they're doing in as a facade as a "way to move forward" when it fact it's just simply a money grab!
There are normally two types of games when it comes down to pricing: Full, 60$ (American) games, and free to play, with micro transactions to support it. what EA is doing is making two into an abomination of the two, making you pay 60 dollars (Once again, American) so that you can pay more to get what's already on the Disc. (The same can be said for Disc Locked Content). it's sickening business tatics, and the fact that it's working is even sadder.
Except, its not.
A money grab is what square did. It was blatant and obvious enough because they directly tried to disbar you from playing the game without buying something. Zynga made a fortune off of that but its short term gains at best, as we see Zynga slowly fall apart as a company.
What EA is doing is implementing microtransactions into existing content. Dead Space 3 had it as an optional way to get crafting materials to make weapons, the same materials you can find in-game with ease to build weapons. Is it impeding your play of the game? Is it forcing you to buy upgrades or is it optional?
That is a fundamental difference. Recently Uncharted 3 now has a free to play multiplayer mode, but has it capped at level 15. You can buy unlimited levels for $20 if you want, or the co-op modes for about $10. Considering how the multiplayer is built, you need to be higher levels to compete fundamentally, so capping at level 15 is designed to make you buy the next portion of the game. Or the GOTY edition for $30, which includes everything anyway.
You are paying $60 for a game, and you as a consumer can pay more to make the game easier. Not to beat it.
EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Yeah, and once video games are completely destroyed, all that will be left is Facebook games and Internet Checkers. Heh, I just won.Biotic Sage wrote...
I will continue to avoid microtransactions like the plague. Hopefully others will catch on too when they learn that this business model will eventually lead to the complete deterioration of quality video games.
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
Maytrows wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine.
That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. I'm patient enough to see EA make changes to their services and find a method that is non-intrusive and beneficial to both sides. So far, BioWare has gotten it right with Mass Effect 3, and Dead Space 3 worked as well. Thats 2/2 at this time.
"In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet."
You talk as if evolution here is something organic and something consumers can not influence. The progression of gaming is very much in the hands of the consumer and we can choose to speak up if we disagree with EA or Valve's vision of the future.
"So far, BioWare has gotten it right with Mass Effect 3, and Dead Space 3 worked as well. Thats 2/2 at this time."
Are you talking about EA or Bioware? Visceral Games made Dead space 3 and if microtransactions was so successful why is the first thing people do is to find ways to avoid it. As for ME3, the microtransactions in multiplayer seems fine with people but the "From Ashes" day 1 DLC was not because you had to pay extra to get content that was ready at launch so you paid more to get 100% of the game. So it would be 0.5/2 but this is data you cannot conclude anything from.
AbnormalJoe wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.
this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)
But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board.
Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible.
The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours.
In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine.
That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center.
True enough, but it's not just the fact that they are doing it, it's that they're doing in as a facade as a "way to move forward" when it fact it's just simply a money grab!
There are normally two types of games when it comes down to pricing: Full, 60$ (American) games, and free to play, with micro transactions to support it. what EA is doing is making two into an abomination of the two, making you pay 60 dollars (Once again, American) so that you can pay more to get what's already on the Disc. (The same can be said for Disc Locked Content). it's sickening business tatics, and the fact that it's working is even sadder.
Except, its not.
A money grab is what square did. It was blatant and obvious enough because they directly tried to disbar you from playing the game without buying something. Zynga made a fortune off of that but its short term gains at best, as we see Zynga slowly fall apart as a company.
What EA is doing is implementing microtransactions into existing content. Dead Space 3 had it as an optional way to get crafting materials to make weapons, the same materials you can find in-game with ease to build weapons. Is it impeding your play of the game? Is it forcing you to buy upgrades or is it optional?
That is a fundamental difference. Recently Uncharted 3 now has a free to play multiplayer mode, but has it capped at level 15. You can buy unlimited levels for $20 if you want, or the co-op modes for about $10. Considering how the multiplayer is built, you need to be higher levels to compete fundamentally, so capping at level 15 is designed to make you buy the next portion of the game. Or the GOTY edition for $30, which includes everything anyway.
You are paying $60 for a game, and you as a consumer can pay more to make the game easier. Not to beat it.
I understand that. but what I bolded in your quote is what I actually fear: the fact that it won't be optional, but rather mandatory, eventually you'll be paying a lot for little return, for an example, the Tetris subscription drama:
"Electronic Arts has released a new version of Tetris for iOS that comes with an optional "T-Club" membership. The membership costs $29.99 per year and will include additional in-game content and faster leveling up for your profile... ...subscribers will also earn discounts on future downloadable content."
Granted, it's optional, but look at what you would be getting back in return: additional in game content (basically Disc Locked Content), faster leveling up (for Tetris... really? how do you even level up in a game about putting peices into a row?) and discounts for future DLC.... for tetris. I didn't know that Tetris needed DLC.
All that for 30 bucks? it's not worth it!
Listen, I understand your arguement, I really do, but don't undermind EA. they are distrusted and hated for a reason (and there are plenty to choose from), and when they say that micro transactions are the way forward, a lot of people are skeptics for a reason.
chuckles471 wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.
No, I don't take advice from a white knight. Promotes the same practises, doesn't go about it in ****y ways.
Valve never destroyed Syndicate, broke up bullfrog or wanted me to pay for stuff that should've been on the disc. Yes, they get **** over hats but they gave me Dota 2 and team fortress 2 for free(technically portal 2 as well because I have it for ps3).
Also the uncharted 3 thing, is to get people into playing the game again (and maybe make some money) and they do recommnend that you buy the whole game. You can be on a low lv and win at multiplayer because the AK is one of the best guns in the game, the team skills don't make a big difference.
LinksOcarina wrote...
I don't know exact numbers, but they honestly are irrelevent. If EA is seeing an increase in activity or money spent on optional content, why should they stop making it when the majority has already made their choice. Most of the negativity is unfounded because of fear, not knowledge.
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 27 février 2013 - 07:35 .
Biotic Sage wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I don't know exact numbers, but they honestly are irrelevent. If EA is seeing an increase in activity or money spent on optional content, why should they stop making it when the majority has already made their choice. Most of the negativity is unfounded because of fear, not knowledge.
I'd say the negativity is quite founded, and yes on fear, but legitimate fear from observation. The very fact that Day 1 DLC and other types of special incentives for ordering with Amazon or Best Buy or Target or Blockbuster are the very reason people are afraid. Yes DLC is mainstream now, but that doesn't mean it's any better. A straightforward DLC model, just like a straightforward, optional microtransaction model like the one you speak of, are absolutely fine. The negativity is out there because unfortunately, as we've seen with DLC, this is a slippery slope to absurd extortions, convoluted paradigms of obtaining content, and incomplete games out of the box.
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 07:38 .
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
AbnormalJoe wrote...
what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.
this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)
But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board.
Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible.
The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours.
In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine.
That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center.
True enough, but it's not just the fact that they are doing it, it's that they're doing in as a facade as a "way to move forward" when it fact it's just simply a money grab!
There are normally two types of games when it comes down to pricing: Full, 60$ (American) games, and free to play, with micro transactions to support it. what EA is doing is making two into an abomination of the two, making you pay 60 dollars (Once again, American) so that you can pay more to get what's already on the Disc. (The same can be said for Disc Locked Content). it's sickening business tatics, and the fact that it's working is even sadder.
Except, its not.
A money grab is what square did. It was blatant and obvious enough because they directly tried to disbar you from playing the game without buying something. Zynga made a fortune off of that but its short term gains at best, as we see Zynga slowly fall apart as a company.
What EA is doing is implementing microtransactions into existing content. Dead Space 3 had it as an optional way to get crafting materials to make weapons, the same materials you can find in-game with ease to build weapons. Is it impeding your play of the game? Is it forcing you to buy upgrades or is it optional?
That is a fundamental difference. Recently Uncharted 3 now has a free to play multiplayer mode, but has it capped at level 15. You can buy unlimited levels for $20 if you want, or the co-op modes for about $10. Considering how the multiplayer is built, you need to be higher levels to compete fundamentally, so capping at level 15 is designed to make you buy the next portion of the game. Or the GOTY edition for $30, which includes everything anyway.
You are paying $60 for a game, and you as a consumer can pay more to make the game easier. Not to beat it.
I understand that. but what I bolded in your quote is what I actually fear: the fact that it won't be optional, but rather mandatory, eventually you'll be paying a lot for little return, for an example, the Tetris subscription drama:
"Electronic Arts has released a new version of Tetris for iOS that comes with an optional "T-Club" membership. The membership costs $29.99 per year and will include additional in-game content and faster leveling up for your profile... ...subscribers will also earn discounts on future downloadable content."
Granted, it's optional, but look at what you would be getting back in return: additional in game content (basically Disc Locked Content), faster leveling up (for Tetris... really? how do you even level up in a game about putting peices into a row?) and discounts for future DLC.... for tetris. I didn't know that Tetris needed DLC.
All that for 30 bucks? it's not worth it!
Listen, I understand your arguement, I really do, but don't undermind EA. they are distrusted and hated for a reason (and there are plenty to choose from), and when they say that micro transactions are the way forward, a lot of people are skeptics for a reason.
Thats the other problem. Most of this hatred is unfounded at this point. Sort of blind hatred for past trangressions ten years ago. EA is a lot different from then. Hell, I wrote an editorial about this months ago and got the standard internet death threats for touching the sacred cow.
Addtional in game content does not mean its disc locked, thats just a presumption. Faster level ups I presume mean the levelling seen in the original tetris, where things go faster. Faster level ups is nothing major really. As for the future DLC, I don't know what that would entail.
I agree the price might not be right though, although this is the first time I ever heard of Tetris for the iOS.
Biotic Sage wrote...
I'd say the negativity is quite founded, and yes on fear, but legitimate fear from observation. The very fact that Day 1 DLC and other types of special incentives for ordering with Amazon or Best Buy or Target or Blockbuster are the very reason people are afraid. Yes DLC is mainstream now, but that doesn't mean it's any better. A straightforward DLC model, just like a straightforward, optional microtransaction model like the one you speak of, are absolutely fine. The negativity is out there because unfortunately, as we've seen with DLC, this is a slippery slope to absurd extortions, convoluted paradigms for obtaining content, and incomplete games out of the box.
I think general concern is founded. But outright negativity? I don't think so, especially when the pre-order bonuses are so insignificant anyways.Biotic Sage wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I don't know exact numbers, but they honestly are irrelevent. If EA is seeing an increase in activity or money spent on optional content, why should they stop making it when the majority has already made their choice. Most of the negativity is unfounded because of fear, not knowledge.
I'd say the negativity is quite founded, and yes on fear, but legitimate fear from observation. The very fact that Day 1 DLC and other types of special incentives for ordering with Amazon or Best Buy or Target or Blockbuster are the very reason people are afraid. Yes DLC is mainstream now, but that doesn't mean it's any better. A straightforward DLC model, just like a straightforward, optional microtransaction model like the one you speak of, are absolutely fine. The negativity is out there because unfortunately, as we've seen with DLC, this is a slippery slope to absurd extortions, convoluted paradigms for obtaining content, and incomplete games out of the box.
AbnormalJoe wrote...
Execpt the Hatred isn't unfounded.
here are those exact reasons why people really do hate them.
Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 07:42 .
EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
I think general concern is founded. But outright negativity? I don't think so, especially when the pre-order bonuses are so insignificant anyways.Biotic Sage wrote...
LinksOcarina wrote...
I don't know exact numbers, but they honestly are irrelevent. If EA is seeing an increase in activity or money spent on optional content, why should they stop making it when the majority has already made their choice. Most of the negativity is unfounded because of fear, not knowledge.
I'd say the negativity is quite founded, and yes on fear, but legitimate fear from observation. The very fact that Day 1 DLC and other types of special incentives for ordering with Amazon or Best Buy or Target or Blockbuster are the very reason people are afraid. Yes DLC is mainstream now, but that doesn't mean it's any better. A straightforward DLC model, just like a straightforward, optional microtransaction model like the one you speak of, are absolutely fine. The negativity is out there because unfortunately, as we've seen with DLC, this is a slippery slope to absurd extortions, convoluted paradigms for obtaining content, and incomplete games out of the box.
Modifié par Biotic Sage, 27 février 2013 - 07:46 .
EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
I think general concern is founded. But outright negativity? I don't think so, especially when the pre-order bonuses are so insignificant anyways.
Retour en haut