344 réponses à ce sujet

[AtreiyaN7]

I'm starting to find these "let's complain about EA and microtransactions because I hate EA and all microtransactions" threads to be rather tiresome and annoying.

I played DS3 recently, and the microtransactions that existed were not in my face. They weren't a problem, they didn't gut the existing story, and they could pretty much be ignored all the way through the entire game.

The microstransactions were only really visible if you chose to select them. They were located in the DLC tab on the main menu, or could be accessed via the BENCH system with a key command, etc. There was the usual announcement ticker/banner on the main menu, but most games seem to have them.

Basically, none of this stuff was obtrusive, and it certainly didn't impact my game negatively.

[ObserverStatus]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AbnormalJoe wrote...
Execpt the Hatred isn't unfounded.
here are those exact reasons why people really do hate them.

Jim Sterling is a bad example to give me. For one he is a hypocritical journalist who sensationalizes everything for noteriety. 
Truth be told I don't event want to give him more hits by watching one of his videos, but I will so I can see his argument. I'll be back later though, I need to finish my own work for the day. 

To each his own I suppose, but I like him. I know his harsh reviews have saved ME a lot of money, if he has to ****** off a few fanboys to tell us what he really thinks, so be it.

[Demx]

Xerxes52 wrote...

As long as I can get all the items with in-game currency, then I don't really worry about microtransactions. I wouldn't want another RNG store however, I'd like to pick what I'm spending my in-game money on.

One thing I did like about microtransactions in ME3 though: Free DLC.

I assume that if EA is trying to push something like this, they will make the idea more appealing by making the other way a lot more tedious and mundane. The JRPG way would be to collect  20 items that have a very low drop rate, and the PC must have a high enough crafting ranking to actually create the object.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Biotic Sage wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

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.

I think general concern is founded. But outright negativity? I don't think so, especially when the pre-order bonuses are so insignificant anyways.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope to nowhere good.  If a company sees that people will pay for something once their invested in it, then they will take advantage of that.  If people are invested in a single player game like Dragon Age, what's to stop EA from leaving out the ending of the story, or at least certain elements that only paying customers can get?  What if The Old God Baby option in DA:O was only available as DLC?

I'm not worried personally about the preorder bonuses, but it is eyerollingly convoluted and unnecessary for consumers to have to dig through all that info.

I don't think they would be stupid enough to try something like that. Word of mouth travels very far, especially since most gamers are connected to the internet in some fashion. "Hey, EA's trying to rip us off again! They left out the ending to DA3 and are trying to push it through as DLC!" <------ Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well with gamers.

[LinksOcarina]

bobobo878 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AbnormalJoe wrote...
Execpt the Hatred isn't unfounded.
here are those exact reasons why people really do hate them.

Jim Sterling is a bad example to give me. For one he is a hypocritical journalist who sensationalizes everything for noteriety. 
Truth be told I don't event want to give him more hits by watching one of his videos, but I will so I can see his argument. I'll be back later though, I need to finish my own work for the day. 

To each his own I suppose, but I like him. I know his harsh reviews have saved ME a lot of money, if he has to ****** off a few fanboys to tell us what he really thinks, so be it.

Actually...that has little to do with it. Anyone can do a harsh review. Hell I do them all the time. The problem though is that he prevents topics with a specific opinions, passes them off as facts, and when called out on it does nothing to rectify the situation. He gives guys like a me, a nobody who writes about games on the side for fun, a bad name because he is just as dishonest in his own ramblings.

[DaosX]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

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.

I think general concern is founded. But outright negativity? I don't think so, especially when the pre-order bonuses are so insignificant anyways.

Like I said, it's a slippery slope to nowhere good.  If a company sees that people will pay for something once their invested in it, then they will take advantage of that.  If people are invested in a single player game like Dragon Age, what's to stop EA from leaving out the ending of the story, or at least certain elements that only paying customers can get?  What if The Old God Baby option in DA:O was only available as DLC?

I'm not worried personally about the preorder bonuses, but it is eyerollingly convoluted and unnecessary for consumers to have to dig through all that info.

I don't think they would be stupid enough to try something like that. Word of mouth travels very far, especially since most gamers are connected to the internet in some fashion. "Hey, EA's trying to rip us off again! They left out the ending to DA3 and are trying to push it through as DLC!" <------ Yeah, I'm sure that would go over well with gamers.

Ironically enough, that's EXACTLY what Capcom did with Asura's Wrath...

[ObserverStatus]

When I hear this guy say "consumers enjoy paying micro transactions" I'm assuming that he isn't referring to the average EA customer, but rather the types of people who the food industry refer to as "heavy users". Someone worked out a formula stating that approximately 80% of all the junk food and soft drinks they produce will be consumed by about 20% of their customers. Therefore, gearing advertisement campaigns to encourage their regular customers to consume even more of their product is often far more profitable than trying to get new customers to try their product.
I don't think that it would be much of a stretch to assume that DLC is consumed in a similar fashion, even if less than a third of the people who buy a game get the horse armor to go with it, the most devoted fans are going to buy enough horse armor to make up for the customers who don't. Therefore, EA has little reason to care what their average customer thinks of chunks of the game being torn out to make micro transactions, because they make enough money off the heavy users to pick up the slack.

[FedericoV]

I believe EA's business model is wrong and it's the main cause of the downfall in term of quality that Bioware's games have suffered since DA:O. In the past I hoped that the old Bioware I loved and respect could co-exist with EA. After DA2, ME3 and Tor-tanic I changed my mind.

I can live with crappy MP, DLCs, forced Origin and pre-order bonus... and even with locked content for used games. I do not plan to buy a single EA's dlc and the like, after what they have done with ME3's From Ashes. But they won't stop me from buying a good SP game.

But there is a point where I'll stop to rationalise EA's right to greed. And for me the point is microtransaction. If DA3 has microtransaction in the SP game, I won't buy a new copy of the game even if it's the new Portal. I will wait some months and if the general consensus is very good, I could buy it used. But that's all.

So, that's my stance about microtransactions. They are the last and most annoying step of a business system that is killing our hobby and we ain't gonna take it... anymore .

Modifié par FedericoV, 27 février 2013 - 08:55 .

[InHumanTurtle]

The reason stuff like this worries me is that the game itself can be affected intentionally in order to entice customers to use microtransactions, to the point where you cannot simply ignore them.

e.g. They let you buy coin for items in the game, and so they make coin harder to get by normal means to encourage you to buy it. That should not happen, but unfortunately I expect it to since it is EA...

Modifié par InHumanTurtle, 27 février 2013 - 10:16 .

[chuckles471]

LinksOcarina wrote...

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.

You are still being hypocritical though. Thats sort of the mind-boggling thing. 

I don't give a flying fig about what happened ten years ago because that was not under the current regime. I don't see Syndicate as being destroyed, and I never seen people pay for stuff they didn't want. I don't get why people like Dota 2 so much, or give the microtransactions of TF2 a pass. 

And I know the point of Uncharted 3's new multiplayer is to get people to buy the game. They could have done a better model though. 

Hypocrite, maybe?  But I did have to pay fullprice for ME3 that only gives random loot drops in MP, designed into frustrating the player into buying something...  Which is also random because that would be giving people a choice to get what they want and EA would make less money.  
TF2 and DOTA2 which are free have random loot drops but when you spend money, you can pick whatever you want(even a random loot chest if you are crazy).

See same business, less ****y.
Edit:I forgot mention the item crafting and trading also helps TF2 get a better rep for microtransactions.

Modifié par chuckles471, 27 février 2013 - 11:07 .

[LinksOcarina]

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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.

You are still being hypocritical though. Thats sort of the mind-boggling thing. 

I don't give a flying fig about what happened ten years ago because that was not under the current regime. I don't see Syndicate as being destroyed, and I never seen people pay for stuff they didn't want. I don't get why people like Dota 2 so much, or give the microtransactions of TF2 a pass. 

And I know the point of Uncharted 3's new multiplayer is to get people to buy the game. They could have done a better model though. 

Hypocrite, maybe?  But I did have to pay fullprice for ME3 that only gives random loot drops in MP, designed into frustrating the player into buying something...  Which is also random because that would be giving people a choice to get what they want and EA would make less money.  
TF2 and DOTA2 which are free have random loot drops but when you spend money, you can pick whatever you want(even a random loot chest if you are crazy).

See same business, less ****y.
Edit:I forgot mention the item crafting and trading also helps TF2 get a better rep for microtransactions.

So basically you are saying then you are ok with Microtransactions then, if it gives you, the player, full reign of choices, yes?

[chuckles471]

LinksOcarina wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

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.

You are still being hypocritical though. Thats sort of the mind-boggling thing. 

I don't give a flying fig about what happened ten years ago because that was not under the current regime. I don't see Syndicate as being destroyed, and I never seen people pay for stuff they didn't want. I don't get why people like Dota 2 so much, or give the microtransactions of TF2 a pass. 

And I know the point of Uncharted 3's new multiplayer is to get people to buy the game. They could have done a better model though. 

Hypocrite, maybe?  But I did have to pay fullprice for ME3 that only gives random loot drops in MP, designed into frustrating the player into buying something...  Which is also random because that would be giving people a choice to get what they want and EA would make less money.  
TF2 and DOTA2 which are free have random loot drops but when you spend money, you can pick whatever you want(even a random loot chest if you are crazy).

See same business, less ****y.
Edit:I forgot mention the item crafting and trading also helps TF2 get a better rep for microtransactions.

So basically you are saying then you are ok with Microtransactions then, if it gives you, the player, full reign of choices, yes?

In a free to play game, yes.  You catch a break.  I haven't forked out cash.  
When I pay full price for a game, I don't expect to have gameplay features put there just to frustrate me into giving money.  It's not right.

Modifié par chuckles471, 27 février 2013 - 11:21 .

[LinksOcarina]

So what about those who bought TF 2 at full price, like me?

[Fallstar]

Feels like everything is heading towards a pay2win model at the moment. Kinda ruins the integrity of gaming.

I have no problem with high quality dlc like that for the new FO games, but I intensely dislike things like item packs.

It's even worse with MMOs :/

[ManiacG]

to be honest, never liked dlc, probably never will, id rather see expansion packs...you know a hunk of flesh instead of a morsel.

[chuckles471]

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what about those who bought TF 2 at full price, like me?

God, you are really trying hard to white knight EA, you can still play the game, it's free.  Yes, it was a retail game part of the orange box published by EA when it came out, I got it for playstation when it came out.  But Valve saw they wouldn't be able to still charge for the game and microtransactions for whatever reason(maybe common sense and fairness) and made it free to play. 

Can you just admit that EA has(and has been getting worse) bad business practices when it comes to microtransactions and stop trying to defelct the blame at everyone else.  You are making Jim Sterling look like Walter Cronkite of video game journalism.

[LinksOcarina]

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what about those who bought TF 2 at full price, like me?

God, you are really trying hard to white knight EA, you can still play the game, it's free.  Yes, it was a retail game part of the orange box published by EA when it came out, I got it for playstation when it came out.  But Valve saw they wouldn't be able to still charge for the game and microtransactions for whatever reason(maybe common sense and fairness) and made it free to play. 

Can you just admit that EA has(and has been getting worse) bad business practices when it comes to microtransactions and stop trying to defelct the blame at everyone else.  You are making Jim Sterling look like Walter Cronkite of video game journalism.

I'm not white knighting anyone. I am simply pointing out a double standard. EA has made bad business practices. They just haven't made bad practices with microtransactions, at least in the major, AAA market, i'm not sure about iOS markets to be honest. And I rightfully can blame others for doing so when they have, and call out the common charge of "I won't buy a game from a company promoting microtransactions" as bull****.  

By the way, you are basically telling me that if EA decided to make a game released at full price, go fully free to play, and changed their microtransaction plan to something that mimics Team Fortress 2, it would be ok. So if say Mass Effect 3's multiplayer goes free to play and mixes things up to that model, it would ok to you then, am I correct? 

How is that different from including it in package, the microtransactions? Why does that not give it a pass exactly? 

And no, Sterling is not Walter Cronkite, he is Perez Hilton. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 février 2013 - 12:53 .

[imbs]

LinksOcarina wrote...



So basically you are saying then you are ok with Microtransactions then, if it gives you, the player, full reign of choices, yes?

Idk about the poster you quoted but there are several things that distinguish TF2 Microtransactions from ME3 ones. Most obvious 2 are 1.) Items are fully tradable with other players and 2.) the game itself is free.

Gamers recognise that developers are running a business, and they need to make money. The problem comes in when a developer is percieved to be trying to milk their customers for as much money as possible, usually hitting the loyalist fans hardest. For obvious reasons EA is a company who are percieved to do this kind of thing, and Valve are not. See Sims + all those worthless expansion packs, Swtor selling you action bars, ME3 etc.

Fans also want to see pro-active corrective actions rather than reactive corrective actions. For example the extra endings Bioware released for ME3 was a result of the overwhelming and scathing criticism of the ending. It would have been so much better if Bioware had pro-actively included those endings. It gives the impression Bioware cares about their game's quality and fans innately rather than just because of bad publicity affecting sales.

[LinksOcarina]

imbs wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...



So basically you are saying then you are ok with Microtransactions then, if it gives you, the player, full reign of choices, yes?

Idk about the poster you quoted but there are several things that distinguish TF2 Microtransactions from ME3 ones. Most obvious 2 are 1.) Items are fully tradable with other players and 2.) the game itself is free.

Gamers recognise that developers are running a business, and they need to make money. The problem comes in when a developer is percieved to be trying to milk their customers for as much money as possible, usually hitting the loyalist fans hardest. For obvious reasons EA is a company who are percieved to do this kind of thing, and Valve are not. See Sims + all those worthless expansion packs, Swtor selling you action bars, ME3 etc.

Fans also want to see pro-active corrective actions rather than reactive corrective actions. For example the extra endings Bioware released for ME3 was a result of the overwhelming and scathing criticism of the ending. It would have been so much better if Bioware had pro-actively included those endings. It gives the impression Bioware cares about their game's quality and fans innately rather than just because of bad publicity affecting sales.

The game being free has no bearing as a merit of Team Fortress 2. In fact, considering it wasn't free until two years ago is a mark against it if you ask me. Imagine Battlefield 3 did something like that, people would flip their wigs because of the change. I do agree with with the fully tradable aspect, that in fact I suspect is the reason why it gets a pass in the end. 

This all boils to perception then, which I also agree with you. That is also my biggest pet peeve, because perceptions are deceptive in many ways.  Not to derail, but a few days ago Valves new economist talked about their business plan regarding the recent firings that occured in the company. Their methodology for hiring is good, but for firing, well this is what he said:

"It does happen. I've seen it happen. And it's never pretty. It involves various communications at first when somebody's underperforming, or somebody doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the company. 

"In many occasions people simply don't fit in not because they're not productive or good people, but because they just can't function very well in a boss-less environment. And then there are series of discussions between co-workers and the person whose firing is being canvased or discussed, and at some point if it seems there is no way that a consensus can emerge that this person can stay, some attractive offer is made to the particular person, and usually there's an amicable parting of ways."

This sounds ideal, but at the same time, how does one determine they can't function in a boss-less enviorment? To that measure, if the voting process becomes very poltical (which you can't determine at all, just supposition right now.) as this suggests, doesn't that make such a process a bit difficult not only form consensus, but to abuse such powers in its own slipperly slope.

I am, of course, speculating, but that is what we do on BSN. From my perspective though, this has benefits and drawbacks like everything else, and is not all glamorous or utopian as many make it out to be as a business model. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 février 2013 - 01:12 .

[chuckles471]

LinksOcarina wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what about those who bought TF 2 at full price, like me?

God, you are really trying hard to white knight EA, you can still play the game, it's free.  Yes, it was a retail game part of the orange box published by EA when it came out, I got it for playstation when it came out.  But Valve saw they wouldn't be able to still charge for the game and microtransactions for whatever reason(maybe common sense and fairness) and made it free to play. 

Can you just admit that EA has(and has been getting worse) bad business practices when it comes to microtransactions and stop trying to defelct the blame at everyone else.  You are making Jim Sterling look like Walter Cronkite of video game journalism.

I'm not white knighting anyone. I am simply pointing out a double standard. EA has made bad business practices. They just haven't made bad practices with microtransactions, at least in the major, AAA market, i'm not sure about iOS markets to be honest. And I rightfully can blame others for doing so when they have, and call out the common charge of "I won't buy a game from a company promoting microtransactions" as bull****.  

By the way, you are basically telling me that if EA decided to make a game go fully free to play, and changed their microtransaction plan to something that mimics Team Fortress 2, it would be ok. So if say Mass Effect 3's multiplayer goes free to play and mixes things up to that model, it would ok to you then, am I correct? 

And no, Sterling is not Walter Cronkite, he is Perez Hilton. 

Yes, as long as there isn't a price wall and it becomes a seperate game.  You can do what you want, but ME3 MP isn't, so is a rip off IMO.  And it's connection to SP before EC made it a disgrace.
Also, yes they have had bad business practices when it comes to AAA-games, alot of people disagree with you.  It also not a double standard, most gamers know who the bad guys are.  That is why EA, Activision, Capcom, Square-Enix etc get **** but EA seems to be pushing the bad practices harder than anyone else.
And some of us don't want DA3 to follow EAs new business plan.

[imbs]

The game being free has no bearing as a merit of Team Fortress 2. Infact, considering it wasn't free until two years ago is a mark against it if you ask me. Imagine Battlefield 3 did something like that, people
would flip their wigs because of the change. I do agree with with the fully tradable aspect, that in fact I suspect is the reason why it gets apass in the end. 

This all boils to perception then, which I also agree with you. That is also my biggest pet peeve, because perceptions are deceptive in many ways.  Not to derail, but a few days ago Valves new economist talked about their business plan regarding the recent firings that occured in the company. Their methodology for hiring is good, but for firing, well this is what he said:

"It does happen. I've seen it happen. And it's never pretty. It involves various communications at first when somebody's underperforming, or somebody doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the company. 

"In many occasions people simply don't fit in not because they're not productive or good people, but because they just can't function very well in a boss-less environment. And then there are series of discussions between co-workers and the person whose firing is being canvased or discussed, and at some point if it seems there is no way that a consensus can emerge that this person can stay, some attractive offer is made to the particular person, and usually there's an amicable parting of ways."

This sounds ideal, but at the sametime, how does one determine they can't function in a boss-less enviorment? To that measure, if the voting process becomes very poltical(which you can't determine at all, just supposition right now.) as this suggests, doesn't that make such a process a bit difficult not only form consensus, but to abuse such powers in its own slipperly slope.

I am, of course, speculating, but that is what we do on BSN. From my perspective though, this has benefits and drawbacks like everything else, and is not all glamorous or utopian as many make it out to be as a business model.

Agree with pmuch everything, and I'm well aware Valve isn't perfect. They are easy to forgive though what with their steam-summer sales n all.

That firing process does indeed sound interesting, it could easily turn into a popularity contest as far as i can tell. I guess they just have to trust that their employees have enough integrity to not let it turn into that.

edit: i hate this forum sometimes so awkward to use

Modifié par imbs, 28 février 2013 - 01:22 .

[LinksOcarina]

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

So what about those who bought TF 2 at full price, like me?

God, you are really trying hard to white knight EA, you can still play the game, it's free.  Yes, it was a retail game part of the orange box published by EA when it came out, I got it for playstation when it came out.  But Valve saw they wouldn't be able to still charge for the game and microtransactions for whatever reason(maybe common sense and fairness) and made it free to play. 

Can you just admit that EA has(and has been getting worse) bad business practices when it comes to microtransactions and stop trying to defelct the blame at everyone else.  You are making Jim Sterling look like Walter Cronkite of video game journalism.

I'm not white knighting anyone. I am simply pointing out a double standard. EA has made bad business practices. They just haven't made bad practices with microtransactions, at least in the major, AAA market, i'm not sure about iOS markets to be honest. And I rightfully can blame others for doing so when they have, and call out the common charge of "I won't buy a game from a company promoting microtransactions" as bull****.  

By the way, you are basically telling me that if EA decided to make a game go fully free to play, and changed their microtransaction plan to something that mimics Team Fortress 2, it would be ok. So if say Mass Effect 3's multiplayer goes free to play and mixes things up to that model, it would ok to you then, am I correct? 

And no, Sterling is not Walter Cronkite, he is Perez Hilton. 

Yes, as long as there isn't a price wall and it becomes a seperate game.  You can do what you want, but ME3 MP isn't, so is a rip off IMO.  And it's connection to SP before EC made it a disgrace.
Also, yes they have had bad business practices when it comes to AAA-games, alot of people disagree with you.  It also not a double standard, most gamers know who the bad guys are.  That is why EA, Activision, Capcom, Square-Enix etc get **** but EA seems to be pushing the bad practices harder than anyone else.
And some of us don't want DA3 to follow EAs new business plan.

This assumes someone is being a bad guy. 

Also, how is the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 ripoff, because of that connection? Did you play it to discern how fair it was? Also, how can it be unfair when its co-op multiplayer, not versus deathmatch, where weapon output is just as important? 

And how is this not a double standard if companies are all following the same practices? You can say some do it better than others, but blanket statements like I quoted before make such accusations a double standard.

I also want to point out, you are basically telling me that microtransactions are ok within your own personal standards. Should all games follow those standards as well to be acceptable? 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 février 2013 - 01:27 .

[Plaintiff]

Siradix wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

As long as I can get all the items with in-game currency, then I don't really worry about microtransactions. I wouldn't want another RNG store however, I'd like to pick what I'm spending my in-game money on.

One thing I did like about microtransactions in ME3 though: Free DLC.

I assume that if EA is trying to push something like this, they will make the idea more appealing by making the other way a lot more tedious and mundane. The JRPG way would be to collect  20 items that have a very low drop rate, and the PC must have a high enough crafting ranking to actually create the object.

So what you're saying is the base game won't change at all.

Zing!

[Lenimph]

TBH As long as they remain cosmetic then I have no issue with micro-transactions. As someone who used to play a Korean mmo I can understand business wise why they want to do this.

I do not however expect EA to respect the boundary of what is something cosmetic or something viable to the game. There treatment of the weapon unlocks in ME3 MP was barely tolerable and seeing how successful that was I doubt they are going to make things easier for the player to get things they want. I hope Bioware stands their ground and keeps it to a mininum.  

Modifié par Lenimph, 28 février 2013 - 01:42 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Given their track record with ME3 MP or the iOS game being initially required for the breath scene I'm not too trilled with this concept.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 28 février 2013 - 02:09 .