166 réponses à ce sujet

[78stonewobble]

immanji wrote...

and it's a one player game requiring constant connectivity?

Well if I read it correctly you can play "singleplayer", but as me3 that also requires eg. origin.

There is supposed to be some kind of multiplayer as well. Different people making different cities which can then trade with eachother. Stuff like that.

[born2beagator]

The other issue is that EA hasn't allocated the appropriate resources to handle the surge of gamers coming into the servers during launch week, which seems silly considering the enormous fan base that waited 10 years for a new SimCity game
------------------------

LOL.

 Our fans are important to us, and we thank you for your continued patience 
------------------------
Double LOL

Modifié par born2beagator, 08 mars 2013 - 03:49 .

[Procloa]

http://www.forbes.co...-america-award/

[redBadger14]

BryceH wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

Lmao, look at you people, hating on EA for no reason.

Go educate yourselves and read an entry on Cliff Bleszinski's blog, the one on micro transactions. Good day.

The guy who brought us the "SEASON PASS" defending microtransactions?!  Holy ****, Cliff, tell us more!

Let's compare two games, one from EA and one from Valve.

Portal 2: $0 spent on SP DLC.
ME3: $10 for Leviathan, $15 for Omega, $15 for Citadel.  That's $100 just to experience all the SP content if you bought the game on day one.

That companies readily divorce SP content from games to charge money for them later is well known.  That EA has become the king of this is undisputed.  Here's a novel idea: they should charge WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS.  If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors, is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker on that sum**** and see how it sells.

It's deliberately deceptive marketing, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is probably still paying for things with mom's credit card.

Nice try.

Cliff has said that what we pay for games nowadays is a lot less than it takes to make them. $50 or $60 price point is balanced enough to make good profit.

Second, what is actually wrong with micro transactions? Gears 3 had weapon skins you could pay for, whoopie! You don't need to buy them, and weapon skins you get in game are arguably better. Not to mention, these companies have people that work that need to provide for themselves, micro transactions provide more money to do that. 

Here's a little hint: if games were selling enough, they wouldn't need to do micro transactions, and if micro transactions were not profitable by now, they'd stop doing them. Plus your favorite company Valve has micro transactions in TF2, except its more player-to-player.

Wow.

[Klokos]

BryceH wrote...

Go back and read my post.  SP MEANS SINGLEPLAYER.  I was not addressing MULTIPLAYER.

And I speak for the whgole game Portal 2 wasn't worth the amount I paid for it, I agree with a part of your point though, either games or DLC should drop in proce especially digitals release, but since Valve doesn't want to drop the prices it will never happen. On the otehr side, DLC isn't necessarily content removed froom the game that you're forced to buy and go through like you said.

Modifié par Klokos, 08 mars 2013 - 03:51 .

[Jovian09]

Dyou think it was rushed out? Another month of QA on the servers could most certainly have solved some of these issues, without multiple release week patches and disabling of central in-game features.
Though I have to say it IS an ambitious project by Maxis/EA. The premise of having a network of semi-codependent cities is an intriguing one and it was bound to be a challenge to set up properly. But the scale of this debacle is staggering and it's sad to see something get so badly ruined yet again by the omnipotent bottom line.

At least Mass Effect 3 wasn't truly plagued by bugs on release. Though I gotta say I've had my own issues with vanishing online passes. I'm not even going to tough the subject of the e****g with a ten foot pole.

[redBadger14]

Let me also reiterate that these DLC's are also appropriately priced. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it expensive or wrong. I also bought the Season Pass for Gears 3 on Day 1, I was NOT disappointed in the DLC I got.

Micro transactions no matter what game are harmless, its pathetic people hate on it as much as they do, and in junction hate EA for trying to make money in what boils down to a business.

Point of playing games is to have fun. If you're paying for content and having fun, there should be no problem.

[Reorte]

78stonewobble wrote...

immanji wrote...

and it's a one player game requiring constant connectivity?

Well if I read it correctly you can play "singleplayer", but as me3 that also requires eg. origin.

There is supposed to be some kind of multiplayer as well. Different people making different cities which can then trade with eachother. Stuff like that.

IIRC you can still get single player ME3 going without a connection, from what I've heard not at all with Sim City. Which is precisely why I've not bought it. Having to load pointless rubbish like Origin (or Steam for that matter) to play a game is bad enough when it still works offline. Online for anything SP is a step much too far.

[RGB]

redBadger14 wrote...

BryceH wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

Lmao, look at you people, hating on EA for no reason.

Go educate yourselves and read an entry on Cliff Bleszinski's blog, the one on micro transactions. Good day.

The guy who brought us the "SEASON PASS" defending microtransactions?!  Holy ****, Cliff, tell us more!

Let's compare two games, one from EA and one from Valve.

Portal 2: $0 spent on SP DLC.
ME3: $10 for Leviathan, $15 for Omega, $15 for Citadel.  That's $100 just to experience all the SP content if you bought the game on day one.

That companies readily divorce SP content from games to charge money for them later is well known.  That EA has become the king of this is undisputed.  Here's a novel idea: they should charge WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS.  If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors, is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker on that sum**** and see how it sells.

It's deliberately deceptive marketing, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is probably still paying for things with mom's credit card.

Nice try.

Cliff has said that what we pay for games nowadays is a lot less than it takes to make them. $50 or $60 price point is balanced enough to make good profit.

Second, what is actually wrong with micro transactions? Gears 3 had weapon skins you could pay for, whoopie! You don't need to buy them, and weapon skins you get in game are arguably better. Not to mention, these companies have people that work that need to provide for themselves, micro transactions provide more money to do that. 

Here's a little hint: if games were selling enough, they wouldn't need to do micro transactions, and if micro transactions were not profitable by now, they'd stop doing them. Plus your favorite company Valve has micro transactions in TF2, except its more player-to-player.

Wow.

If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors,
is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker
on that sum**** and see how it sells.

You and Cliff have my permission to charge what it actually costs to make those games now.  Since Cliff wants to remind us entitled gamers that the game industry is a business, ask him a follow-up for me: why would publishers not charge what it actually costs to make the game?  Why not either spend less money making the game, or charge the actual cost?  Hopefully Cliff has something for us on that one.

I don't have a problem with cosmetic DLC.  In fact, I frequently buy cosmetic DLC.  People defending this kind of practice always want to cling to cosmetic DLC and never address the actual argument that's being made.  Which is, to use Cliffy B Dawg's example, this:

It costs you $40 extra to play all of ME3's SP content if you bought ME3 and Portal 2 at launch.  I'm sure Cliff's a busy guy, what with being unemployed and all... you just let us know when he gets back to you.

[redBadger14]

Jovian09 wrote...

Dyou think it was rushed out? Another month of QA on the servers could most certainly have solved some of these issues, without multiple release week patches and disabling of central in-game features.
Though I have to say it IS an ambitious project by Maxis/EA. The premise of having a network of semi-codependent cities is an intriguing one and it was bound to be a challenge to set up properly. But the scale of this debacle is staggering and it's sad to see something get so badly ruined yet again by the omnipotent bottom line.

At least Mass Effect 3 wasn't truly plagued by bugs on release. Though I gotta say I've had my own issues with vanishing online passes. I'm not even going to tough the subject of the e****g with a ten foot pole.

Always Online games, like MMO's or most recently Diablo 3, will always have server issues on the first week. No way around that yet unfortunately. 

IMHO Always Online should be trashed, except for MMO's (where its needed), and allow people to play unhindered. You shouldn't have to be forced online to play solo games.

[cronshaw]

@bryceh
Just SP portal 2 has maybe 12 hrs of gameplay
With just about zero replayability
ME3 has probably around 35 for a single playthrough
And lots of replayability
And that is out of the box 
i don't need to buy "all" of the ME3 content to already get more than I would get from "all" of portal 2's content 
You picked a bad game to compare
I loved portal 2, but arguing you get more for your money with that game than you do with ME3 is just straight up false

Modifié par modok8, 08 mars 2013 - 04:03 .

[lwb1977]

[/quote]
Nice try.

Cliff has said that what we pay for games nowadays is a lot less than it takes to make them. $50 or $60 price point is balanced enough to make good profit.

Second, what is actually wrong with micro transactions? Gears 3 had weapon skins you could pay for, whoopie! You don't need to buy them, and weapon skins you get in game are arguably better. Not to mention, these companies have people that work that need to provide for themselves, micro transactions provide more money to do that. 

Here's a little hint: if games were selling enough, they wouldn't need to do micro transactions, and if micro transactions were not profitable by now, they'd stop doing them. Plus your favorite company Valve has micro transactions in TF2, except its more player-to-player.

Wow.

[/quote]

Don't kid yourself.  We've reached an age where even top selling games will have some sort of microtransaction component because more money is better than less many, as they say.  Greed always wins.

[Blind2Society]

redBadger14 wrote...

Nice try.

Cliff has said that what we pay for games nowadays is a lot less than it takes to make them. $50 or $60 price point is balanced enough to make good profit.

Second, what is actually wrong with micro transactions? Gears 3 had weapon skins you could pay for, whoopie! You don't need to buy them, and weapon skins you get in game are arguably better. Not to mention, these companies have people that work that need to provide for themselves, micro transactions provide more money to do that. 

Here's a little hint: if games were selling enough, they wouldn't need to do micro transactions, and if micro transactions were not profitable by now, they'd stop doing them. Plus your favorite company Valve has micro transactions in TF2, except its more player-to-player.

Wow.

You continue to show how much of a tool you are. Because someone else does it, it's okay?  And you think they do microtransactions because games aren't selling enough, because they're not making enough money? No it's because they're greedy and want to suck every dollar out of every person they can.

That said, the fact that you are talking about nothing but microtransactions when that wasn't even a topic in this thread shows you just a puppet.

And before you go, perhaps you should do a youtube search "wealth inequality in america".

[RGB]

modok8 wrote...

@bryceh
Just SP portal 2 has maybe 12 hrs of gameplay
With just about zero replayability
ME3 has probably around 35 for a single playthrough
And lots of replayability
And that is out of the box
You picked a bad game to compare
I loved portal 2, but arguing you get more for your money with that game than you do with ME3 is just straight up false

Everyone decides the value of the game for themselves, modok8.  I'm merely pointing out that Valve only asked you to pay for their game once.

[78stonewobble]

BryceH wrote...
The guy who brought us the "SEASON PASS" defending microtransactions?!  Holy ****, Cliff, tell us more!

Let's compare two games, one from EA and one from Valve.

Portal 2: $0 spent on SP DLC.
ME3: $10 for Leviathan, $15 for Omega, $15 for Citadel.  That's $100 just to experience all the SP content if you bought the game on day one.

That companies readily divorce SP content from games to charge money for them later is well known.  That EA has become the king of this is undisputed.  Here's a novel idea: they should charge WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS.  If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors, is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker on that sum**** and see how it sells.

It's deliberately deceptive marketing, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is probably still paying for things with mom's credit card.

In principle I agree, but I'm afraid those days are long gone.

I don't mind DLC, such as those for me3, that much. In yeh olde days I'd assume they would have smacked it all together and sold it as an expansion pack. Those sold for eg. half to full price of the original game.

IMHO DLC is a partial expansion for partial price. No problem for me there... Making extra stuff does cost money and it needs to pay for itself.

However I am disliking stuff like the RNG store in me3 and the silly silly loot stuff in eg. tf2.

[MECavScout01]

EA's practices alone are making it unlikely that I will ever touch another game of theirs again.

Forced MP into EVERY Title?

Internet Connectivity required for SINGLE PLAYER?

Forced difficulty in SP to 'encourage' you to buy Micro-Transactions?

It's a goddamn scheme.

[Klokos]

Jovian09 wrote...

Dyou think it was rushed out? Another month of QA on the servers could most certainly have solved some of these issues, without multiple release week patches and disabling of central in-game features.
Though I have to say it IS an ambitious project by Maxis/EA. The premise of having a network of semi-codependent cities is an intriguing one and it was bound to be a challenge to set up properly. But the scale of this debacle is staggering and it's sad to see something get so badly ruined yet again by the omnipotent bottom line.

While it's pretty obviously a QA issue I doubt that more time would have solved it, or it's just a hardware issue which shouldn't happen in these days.

MECavScout01 wrote...

EA's practices alone are making it unlikely that I will ever touch another game of theirs again.

Forced MP into EVERY Title?

Internet Connectivity required for SINGLE PLAYER?

Forced difficulty in SP to 'encourage' you to buy Micro-Transactions?

It's a goddamn scheme.

 1. I doubt there will be forced MP, some Bioware guys said it was forced online interaction, I bet EA will rather force some Facebook/twitter integration which is way cheaper than multiplayer and better received usually, not to mention that it's pretty much free advertisement.

2. I agree that it need to go, some of the features of simcity that require connection seem fun, but there is no reason to force you to be online when playing alone.

3. Even if they boost difficulty in SP games the difficulty level will still be much lwoer than most of the lesss recent titles, plus it reeks of tinfoil and false rumors.

Modifié par Klokos, 08 mars 2013 - 04:05 .

[born2beagator]

MECavScout01 wrote...

EA's practices alone are making it unlikely that I will ever touch another game of theirs again.

Forced MP into EVERY Title?

Internet Connectivity required for SINGLE PLAYER?

Forced difficulty in SP to 'encourage' you to buy Micro-Transactions?

It's a goddamn scheme.

Well they actually did something right when they forced ME3 MP.  But Bioware took it and made it special

[MichaelFinnegan]

Sir_Alan_ wrote...

Da the f**k? You need to be logged online to play even the offline mode?!

I've heard some stupid gaming news in my time but this ranks very high up.

I think it is a defective solution to what, in some senses, could be considered a non-existent problem, or, to put it better, a problem that may not even exist on a scale that is usually imagined. The solution is defective because it, one on the one hand, inconveniences customers who would actually pay for the game, and, on the other hand, it may not actually address the problem that it is meant to address.

Oh, this looks so much like a losing battle to me...

[Pyth the Bull]

Blind2Society wrote...

You need to calm down kiddo.

[Cyonan]

redBadger14 wrote...

Ha, you actually think I'm trolling. That's cute.

Afraid to get smacked down by the truth from Cliff B is nothing to be defensive about. Cliff is one of the best game designers out there, currently unemployed by any particular game company. If anyone is more in-touch and knowledgeable about the issue, its him.

But keep prancing along like you guys know anything and can use that as ammo against EA, its still very cute.

Cliffy has some good points, but EA does deserve a lot of the hate it gets.

On Origin he brings up a good point. People are quick to beat on it but Steam was even worse at launch, and you know what? Valve forced me to use it if I wanted to play Counter-Strike when they took the WON servers down. I didn't get a choice about not using Steam to play Half-Life 2.

Origin's main issue is that their servers just can't handle it. I don't know what's going on behind the scenes here, but it needs to be sorted out if they want people to be more open to using Origin. It's not asking a lot to want to play the game I paid $60 for without suffering constant disconnections. It deserves the hate, but pointing to Steam isn't exactly a good example for anybody who knows what Steam was like in the beginning.

Micro-transactions are a mine field and not inherently evil. I play quite a bit of free 2 play games and they always have them. I have no problems spending money on them if I enjoy the game and want to see it continue. The point of them is that they fuel future content that is free but has optional payments for a XP boost or a new skin or something. As long as I'm not directly buying something that will give me an unfair advantage over other players it's all good. Mass Effect 3 actually pulls this off in a way I am okay with as we've gotten 5 free DLC and nobody can buy anything that I can't get with credits(though less RNG would have been great).

Where I start to take issue is in a game like Dead Space 3, where it's very likely not going to give me free DLC. Charging $20 for a pet in a game that I already paid $60 for and they're charging me a monthly fee? Yeah, I wasn't all that happy with Blizzard that day =P

Oh, and always-on DRM should not be used unless you are an MMO or a free 2 play game as far as I'm concerned. It's ridiculous that people can't play Sim City because the servers can't handle it.

The two best points he makes are: EA gets hate for things that people seem to be okay with from other companies and that if you don't like it don't buy it. I'll not be buying Sim City as long as it has always-on DRM.

[Sanunes]

MECavScout01 wrote...

EA's practices alone are making it unlikely that I will ever touch another game of theirs again.

Forced MP into EVERY Title?

Internet Connectivity required for SINGLE PLAYER?

Forced difficulty in SP to 'encourage' you to buy Micro-Transactions?

It's a goddamn scheme.

1) I really don't get the "forced multiplayer into every title" they have said they want to make every game a social experience, that doesn't mean multiplayer, for I really doubt what little they added to The Sims is really multiplayer for if I understand what I have read correctly you just visit your friends cities.  Or even Dead Space, they removed the PvP that failed with Dead Space 2 and only have a co-op version of the game which people always seem to be craving, no matter what the game is.

2) Internet connectivity is the norm anymore, I haven't bought Assassin's Creed 3 yet, but all the previous UbiSoft games required you to be online and even Blizzard has done this with Diablo 3.

3) No idea what you mean by forced difficulty, the only games with microtransactions I have played is Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 and both its an optional way to get what you can use time to grind for and from what I have seen with Dead Space you don't even need it at all even on the hardest difficulty.  I haven't bought anything with microtransactions except to use up extra BioWare points.

[K_Os2]

Procloa wrote...

http://www.forbes.co...-america-award/

Most hated? maybe, but worst not by a longshot. I can think of 3 companies worse than EA off the top of my head.

[Blind2Society]

Pyth the Bull wrote...

Blind2Society wrote...

You need to calm down kiddo.

How do you know I'm not calm kiddo?

[redBadger14]

BryceH wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

BryceH wrote...

redBadger14 wrote...

Lmao, look at you people, hating on EA for no reason.

Go educate yourselves and read an entry on Cliff Bleszinski's blog, the one on micro transactions. Good day.

The guy who brought us the "SEASON PASS" defending microtransactions?!  Holy ****, Cliff, tell us more!

Let's compare two games, one from EA and one from Valve.

Portal 2: $0 spent on SP DLC.
ME3: $10 for Leviathan, $15 for Omega, $15 for Citadel.  That's $100 just to experience all the SP content if you bought the game on day one.

That companies readily divorce SP content from games to charge money for them later is well known.  That EA has become the king of this is undisputed.  Here's a novel idea: they should charge WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS.  If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors, is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker on that sum**** and see how it sells.

It's deliberately deceptive marketing, and anyone who doesn't acknowledge that is probably still paying for things with mom's credit card.

Nice try.

Cliff has said that what we pay for games nowadays is a lot less than it takes to make them. $50 or $60 price point is balanced enough to make good profit.

Second, what is actually wrong with micro transactions? Gears 3 had weapon skins you could pay for, whoopie! You don't need to buy them, and weapon skins you get in game are arguably better. Not to mention, these companies have people that work that need to provide for themselves, micro transactions provide more money to do that. 

Here's a little hint: if games were selling enough, they wouldn't need to do micro transactions, and if micro transactions were not profitable by now, they'd stop doing them. Plus your favorite company Valve has micro transactions in TF2, except its more player-to-player.

Wow.

If you think your game, with all of its bugs and glitches and errors,
is worth one hundred of my dollars, then slap a hundred dollar sticker
on that sum**** and see how it sells.

You and Cliff have my permission to charge what it actually costs to make those games now.  Since Cliff wants to remind us entitled gamers that the game industry is a business, ask him a follow-up for me: why would publishers not charge what it actually costs to make the game?  Why not either spend less money making the game, or charge the actual cost?  Hopefully Cliff has something for us on that one.

I don't have a problem with cosmetic DLC.  In fact, I frequently buy cosmetic DLC.  People defending this kind of practice always want to cling to cosmetic DLC and never address the actual argument that's being made.  Which is, to use Cliffy B Dawg's example, this:

It costs you $40 extra to play all of ME3's SP content if you bought ME3 and Portal 2 at launch.  I'm sure Cliff's a busy guy, what with being unemployed and all... you just let us know when he gets back to you.

He doesn't need to get back to me, the answer is simple.

Nothing is ever priced what it costs to make. No profit would be made. If a majority of games as they are now, standard edition (not limited eds), were priced at $100 or more, they wouldn't make better profit than $50-60 because people just aren't willing to pay that much money. Simple business practice. Also, if a game ships with bugs, its the developer and QA's fault, not the publisher i.e. EA. The masters of buggy games, Bethesda, hardly come under fire but when EA and BioWare or Visceral ship a 95% functional game, they come under fire? Ridiculous.

Cosmetic and most micro transactions we seem to agree with, alright.

DLC, like the game, is priced a lot less than it takes to make. Citadel is a prime example of DLC that was relatively expensive for BioWare to pump out: VA's were needed for tons of lines, story needed to be written, areas to be created and mapped, etc. The final content comes out to 4GB, well larger than any DLC I care to think of. Remember how COD map packs cost $15 a pop? Those are less than 500MB in size. The other ME3 DLC's are also pretty hefty in file size. So if you want anything to compare relative price of DLC, I think COD map packs more than justify the worth of ME3's offerings.

Plus, we got 5 MP packs, with maps and tons of new characters and abilities and weapons for NOTHING. Yet there's still a problem?

Also, its inaccurate to suggest that paying for DLC counts as a whole game package, as if it all came with the shipped game. You aren't paying $100 up front, you're paying it over long periods of time for separately released content that took more money to make outside of the retail game. Its not "evil" for them to charge that, and if you ask anyone around here, most tend to agree Leviathan and Citadel are worth the price tag, where Omega was underwhelming.

From Ashes is a sore subject on the forums but I got it for free with the Collectors edition of ME3 so I really can't argue whether or not it was worth people's $15. I mean, if you enjoy the content with Javik, or any content for that matter, I don't see how it can be too expensive. That's of course relative.