CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Vigormortis:

Akalabeth:

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

You mean much like how you do the exact same thing? How, in just about every argument I've seen you make about Valve, it's services, and it's games, your criticisms have been based solely on your personal experiences with them, or lack there of?

Am I supposed to know you?
"Personal experience, or lack there of"? So you mean like, the whole of life experiences?

Here's again, simple facts in order of chronology:

Team Fortress 2 is sold in Orange box at 60 USD (or 50 on PC)
Mann Co store is introduced
Team Fortress 2, a year later (ish) goes Free to play.

This indisputable fact.

They introduced MT into a retail-priced game.
So fundamentally, how is this different from EA?

The only difference is Valve did it first.

verdant monkai:
When was the last time EA ever did a sale? like valve do all the time.

Right now, Cryis 3 and Dead space 3 are 30% off, BF3 and all the DLC were massively on sale just last week, half the Sims selection half price now as well..... Sigh some people are just intent on speaking stupidity.

Devoneaux:

Yes I can, the industry and market were different beasts back when Team Fortress 2 was released, the idea that you could make money off a free to play game had just started to enter people's minds. Now that it's common practice, the things people are willing to put up with have changed, the concept of selling a game and also having micro transactions is now considered tacky and Valve ditched the practice as a result, meanwhile EA continues to do it.

Eh, Valve ditched the practice because it made business sense, not because it was considered "tacky"

"We've been toying with the idea ever since the Mann-conomy update, where we added the in-game Team Fortress 2 store," Walker said. "Over the years we've done a bunch of price experimentations with the game, going all the way down to $2.49 in our random one-hour Halloween sales. The more we've experimented, the more we've learned there are fundamentally different kinds of customers, each with their own way of valuing the product. Now that we're shipping it, it feels like a fairly straightforward next step along the 'Games as Services' path we've been walking down for a while now."
http://www.1up.com/news/team-fortress-2-permanently-free

Note something in that quote "the more we've experimented". Has anyone considered that releasing DS3 with MT at launch is likewise an experimentation? Which from reports does not hinder the main experience?

It's just experimenting with different revenue models. If you don't want the MT in new games to work, don't buy into it.

Akalabeth:
...The only difference is Valve did it first.

WRONG!

Let's compare the two companies and their approach to MT:

Valve made the game which they introduced MT with free to play and kept their MT to items that you could get with enough play through the drop system anyway (There is one and ONLY one exception).

EA makes their games more expensive, cuts out content from the game to put behind MT and makes items available via MT that significantly alter the game experience and basically turn their paid for game into a P2W game.

doggie015:
Valve said from the start that the microtransactions were an experement. That experement succeeded and TF2 went to a fully F2P model. Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game that has been sustaining a thriving online community for almost six years and counting and then your point may have some validity

You do realize how self-contradicting your own post is right?

Valve didn't make TF2 free to play. They sold it.
It's only been free to play since since mid-2011.

So yeah, come back when Valve has made a free to play multiplayer game. DOTA2 presumably will fit the bill, assuming they're not charging for it, but it's not out yet.

Akalabeth:

doggie015:
Valve said from the start that the microtransactions were an experement. That experement succeeded and TF2 went to a fully F2P model. Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game that has been sustaining a thriving online community for almost six years and counting and then your point may have some validity

You do realize how self-contradicting your own post is right?

Valve didn't make TF2 free to play. They sold it.
It's only been free to play since since mid-2011.

So yeah, come back when Valve has made a free to play multiplayer game. DOTA2 presumably will fit the bill, assuming they're not charging for it, but it's not out yet.

TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is strong in you

doggie015:

Valve made the game free to play and kept their MT to items that you could get with enough play through the drop system anyway (There is one and ONLY one exception). EA makes their games more expensive, cuts out content from the game to put behind MT and makes items available via MT that significantly alter the game experience and basically turn their paid for game into a P2W game.

More expensive?
EA charges the market value.
Orange box remember was 60 USD with more games but less content per game.

Cuts out content?
Uh, source? You have none. It's speculation. DS3 just gives bonus materials to craft with.

Pay to Win?
It's a single player game. Who cares. Pay to win is a term applied to F2P games with competitive multiplayer. Not SP/Coop 3rd person shooters

Well...at least now we can lay off the bash David Cage for no reason party and jump on a real tool who repeatedly says stupid things every other week. $60 games should not have micro-transactions or integral bits of gameplay pay walled off Clifford. Now, go make another another overrated bro fest over at your obvious new employer, EA.

Also, don't give me that starving dev bullshit again and follow it by telling me to vote with my wallet. That makes no sense...

doggie015:

Akalabeth:

doggie015:
Valve said from the start that the microtransactions were an experement. That experement succeeded and TF2 went to a fully F2P model. Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game that has been sustaining a thriving online community for almost six years and counting and then your point may have some validity

You do realize how self-contradicting your own post is right?

Valve didn't make TF2 free to play. They sold it.
It's only been free to play since since mid-2011.

So yeah, come back when Valve has made a free to play multiplayer game. DOTA2 presumably will fit the bill, assuming they're not charging for it, but it's not out yet.

TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is strong in you

Dude READ YOUR OWN POST
"Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game"

Valve MADE a store-bought multiplayer game. It was store-bought for 4.5 years. It's only been free to player for 1.5 years. When they release a game at launch, FREE, then you can claim they made a F2P game but until such a time, Valve hasn't released ANY games for free at launch from what I know.

Akalabeth:

No, you've obviously not done any research. I'm glad we can agree.
(Nor provided any direct evidence for that matter, just unsupported opinion)

Oh yes, that one link you provided was so much evidence for all your "supported" opinions. I'm glad that we can end this in a mature way and not a childish "I'm closing my ears and can't hear you" way.

I just want to point out that Valve used the free to play games like TF2 and Dota 2 to get people using Steam. Once you have steam, you will see all of the daily deals and holiday sales and probably buy more games.
Gamer get some free games and steam gets to advertise to them through the steam client. Its quite a symbiotic relationhip.

EA makes you buy a full priced game, then pay more for 100% of the game. If I already paid 60 dollars, I should have the whole game already. I think a lot of gamers are OCD and like to 100% complete their games, so they must buy all of the DLC and costumes, etc to accomplish that goal. EA end up looking like a parasite on your wallet.

I just replayed Portal 2 and noticed they still have that micro-transaction store to buy hats,skins and gestures. That stuff is pretty expensive, but really has no impact on your game at all. You almost never see the robot character you play as during co-op. That money you can spend on those items is for the benefit of your co-op partner.

With the EA, lets use Dragonage series as an example. The DLC content there all had meaningful impact on your story. It was new items, newquests, new locations and characters. Some of it was created after the game shipped, but some of it was included as day 1 DLC. Anyone who wants to 100% dragonage NEEDs all of the DLC to complete that game.

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:

No, you've obviously not done any research. I'm glad we can agree.
(Nor provided any direct evidence for that matter, just unsupported opinion)

Oh yes, that one link you provided was so much evidence for all your "supported" opinions. I'm glad that we can end this in a mature way and not a childish "I'm closing my ears and can't hear you" way.

Oh it's too late for that, you already did as such 3-4 posts ago. By I like how you keep trying to turn it around. It's amusing.

Akalabeth:
...Dude READ YOUR OWN POST
"Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game"...

Read the ENTIRETY of my post! "Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game that has been sustaining a thriving online community for almost six years and counting"

Akalabeth:
...
Valve MADE a store-bought multiplayer game...

Which they converted to free to play. How many store bought games made by EA have been converted to free to play? How many have been alive after two years never mind 6?

Akalabeth:
When they release a game at launch, FREE, then you can claim they made a F2P game but until such a time, Valve hasn't released ANY games for free at launch from what I know.

Considering that you think that a game being pay for at launch discounts it as a free to play when it goes free to play later then I suspect that you are simply finding a nit to pick and basing your whole argument around that

doggie015:
TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is trong in you

Oh by the way, speaking of free multiplayer games:

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-1942

Nine Years strong.

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

If your only comment was on your personal experience is one thing, but when you imply that TF2 fits into the "F2P" model and always has you're misrepresenting the facts deliberately or through an inability to communicate

It's akin to me saying "Well EA didn't charge me 60 bucks for Mass Effect 1, so you know, EA is awesome." and then I neglect to mention that I bought it 2 years after release and it was originally 60 bucks.

I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

Team Fortress 2 was 60 bucks at launch in orange box
Mann Co store opened a year before TF2 became free to play

So to imply that TF2 falls under what is commonly understood as the "Free to play" model is not accurate.

Valve was charging for the game and then later began offering optional people micro-transactions within said game. Just like Dead Space 3 was released at full price, and offers players optional micro-transactions within the game.

This constant grasping at straws by gamers to justify what are obviously skewed perspectives is laughable at best.

Are you Cliffy B?

Why? Why do you defend a company that does not care about you?

Why do you insist upon sneering at the one company and product that has not actively fucked us? Yes TF2 cost money at first, and the micro-transactions were in game and were mostly cosmetic. Then it became free to play because Valve made enough money off of it and the hats that they no longer needed to charge full price, and you're calling that "grasping at straws"? Because they decided to be less of a bunch of dicks than they could have been, which is something that EA has NEVER done?

Why do you insist upon starting an immature beef with a man who has done nothing wrong over the internet? Why do you insist upon insulting someone, calling them immature and unreasonable?

Why do you accept the stupidity of EA that has caused gamers nothing but discomfort? Why do you get so defensive of a massive, multimedia corporation that has done nothing to earn your respect as others have? Valve has done good, so we love it. EA has done only hideous things, and it is reviled for that reason.

Please, answer me. I need to understand how someone could honestly think that this isn't as clear-cut as a fight between The Allies (Gamers, Valve, Bioware, etc.) and the Nazis (EA and the rest of their ilk)

Akalabeth:

doggie015:
TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is trong in you

Oh by the way, speaking of free multiplayer games:

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-1942

Nine Years strong.

Alive =/= thriving
http://www.gametracker.com/search/bf1942/ (21 server pages at 10 per page) =/= http://www.gametracker.com/search/tf2/ (658 server pages at 10 per page)

doggie015:

Akalabeth:
When they release a game at launch, FREE, then you can claim they made a F2P game but until such a time, Valve hasn't released ANY games for free at launch from what I know.

Considering that you think that a game being pay for at launch discounts it as a free to play when it goes free to play later then I suspect that you are simply finding a nit to pick and basing your whole argument around that

You do know, that there is a difference between a company making a game that they'll distribute for free, and a company selling a game and after a point, four years down the road, thinking "Well, no one's buying this anymore, might as well give it away"

That's not a nitpick. It's a DISTINCTION. Valve made their cash selling the game, after a point it became clear they would make more money giving it away so they started doing that.

If you want to talk about companies making free to play games, talk about Mechwarrior Online, World of Tanks, Tribes Ascend, League of Legends, Planetside. Those are games MADE to be free to play.

Akalabeth:

Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.

Incorrect. It was available in a pack of five games, for 60 bucks. If we divide that equally, that's 12 bucks a piece. Maybe, if EA were selling Dead Space 3 for 12 bucks, you'd be right, but you're not.

Akalabeth:

You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

Yes, because spending money on "stupid cosmetic crap" is more like a voluntary donation, with a cosmetic reward. Faster progress is evidently more tempting (as your own words prove) and is therefore an attempt to apply pressure to the user. To make the player feel as though they're completing the game "too slowly" and therefore "need" to take part in the microtransactions. No one is going to feel they genuinely "need" what you call "stupid cosmetic crap" to enhance their gameplay.

Akalabeth:

Seriously people think Valve does things for your benefit, it's the other way around.

No, the difference is, Valve do their business without - to borrow from Jim Sterling - dragging their slimy balls across our face.

Valve can make money for themselves without chewing up, and spitting out, beloved publishers like Westwood. They offer some of their DLC free, and they frequently offer the best damn sales in the entire video game industry.

Free DLC from EA? Or a box of new five new EA games for $60? Don't make me laugh. They're too busy swallowing developers to bother with any of that.

Akalabeth:

Uh, Valve is barely a developer anymore. What have they done recently? A HD update for CS? They release what 1 or 2 games a year, tops, almost all now multiplayer-focused having abandoned their single player fans.

EA on the other hand distributed 39 games on various platforms in 2012 as an example, and people what have a problem with one game this year? Dead Space 3? And one game out of dozens means they're a bad man.

Valve doesn't have 13 bought-out subsidiaries to churn out games for them. And since when did flooding the market with rushed sequels become a good thing?

Microtransactions are only EA's latest of a long, long list of offences. RIP Bullfrog Productions, Westwood Studios, Kesmai, Pandemic Studios, Bright Light and DICE Canada, for a start.

Akalabeth:

The world: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/06/15/half-life-2-orange-box-release-date-set

60 bucks on consoles. 50 on PC. Full priced game.

Orange box had three new things.
short 2-3 hour Portal
short 4-6 hour Half Life 2 Episode
Team Fortress Multiplayer

Deadspace 3 has what, 14-20 hour campaign? And multiplayer?

So what's the difference between two short SP games and multiplayer, and one long SP game and multiplayer? Not very much.

The Orange Box had five games. Doesn't matter if you don't consider two of them "new". It was still five games, for 60 bucks. Total up the length of Half Life 2 + Episode One + Episode Two and you easily have Dead Space beat, on quality as well as quantity. That's not even including Portal. Not to mention Dead Space 3's Multiplayer is just the single player except with three extra side-quests and a couple of lines of dialogue. Which can hardly compare to one of the most critically acclaimed multiplayer games of our generation.

Akalabeth:

As for EA stagnating the industry?

Mirror's Edge.
Spore.
Dead Space.
Mass Effect.
Dragon Age.
Battlefield Series.

Now you've got to know you're deliberately misrepresenting the truth here. Are you so keen to defend EA that you're going to resort to bare-faced lying?

Yes, EA currently owns the companies that make these games. How many of them are EA actually responsible for creating?

Dead Space.

Everything else on your list was either part of a company EA took over (which totally makes EA retroactively responsible for all the good things that developer ever did, right?) or with EA only acting as publisher (which means EA fronted the money, not the idea.). And the worst part about that list I know that you know you're telling half-truths... so why are you doing it?

EDIT:

Akalabeth:

doggie015:
TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is trong in you

Oh by the way, speaking of free multiplayer games:

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-1942

Nine Years strong.

Speaking of free multiplayer games that EA didn't make, you mean?

And is there any level of hypocrisy you won't sink to, to glorify EA? You're ragging on TF2 for only going free after a couple of years, when BF1942 wasn't free for the first ten years, and until they'd released two expansion packs.

Maybe you're trying to make the point that a game being free now doesn't mean it was free always, but even then, you're still doing it wrong. TF2 never had paid expansion packs, and was made free forever (when BF1942 was only available free for six months) after only four years, instead of ten.

doggie015:

Akalabeth:

doggie015:
TF2 IS a free to play multiplayer game. Just because it wasn't at launch doesn't mean that it does not count now! The ignorance is trong in you

Oh by the way, speaking of free multiplayer games:

http://www.battlefield.com/battlefield-1942

Nine Years strong.

Alive =/= thriving
http://www.gametracker.com/search/bf1942/ (21 server pages at 10 per page) =/= http://www.gametracker.com/search/tf2/ (658 server pages at 10 per page)

Keep grasping at those straws guy. Keep expanding the definition of your points to change your flawed understanding. But personally I wont keep responding to you, it's getting tiring.

That was the reason I didn't buy any of his shit games.

Thing is if you want the game, and its a ea game, you don't have a chance with their bullshit.
I want watch dogs, but I don't want uplay. that means I have to decide between the two.

AsurasEyes:

Please, answer me. I need to understand how someone could honestly think that this isn't as clear-cut as a fight between The Allies (Gamers, Valve, Bioware, etc.) and the Nazis (EA and the rest of their ilk)

I'm sorry, you criticize me for calling someone immature? And then you compare EA to nazis?
Talk to me again in 10 years.

Akalabeth:
...Keep grasping at those straws guy. Keep expanding the definition of your points to change your flawed understanding...

Thank you for describing yourself so perfectly thus saving me the job of typing the same stuff about you

Valve isn't perfect as a developer or a publisher.
EA is extremely faaaar from perfect as merely a publisher.

Guess which one I'm going to give more shit? Also Microtransactions are stupid, period.

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:

Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.

Incorrect. It was available in a pack of five games, for 60 bucks. If we divide that equally, that's 12 bucks a piece. Maybe, if EA were selling Dead Space 3 for 12 bucks, you'd be right, but you're not.

How you splice it is irrelevant to the point that Valve charged for a game, and then introduced MT.

Yes, because spending money on "stupid cosmetic crap" is more like a voluntary donation, with a cosmetic reward. Faster progress is evidently more tempting (as your own words prove) and is therefore an attempt to apply pressure to the user. To make the player feel as though they're completing the game "too slowly" and therefore "need" to take part in the microtransactions. No one is going to feel they genuinely "need" what you call "stupid cosmetic crap" to enhance their gameplay.

Thank you for that subjective understanding with no scientific basis. It proves nothing.

Rachmaninov:

No, the difference is, Valve do their business without - to borrow from Jim Sterling - dragging their slimy balls across our face.

Valve can make money for themselves without chewing up, and spitting out, beloved publishers like Westwood. They offer some of their DLC free, and they frequently offer the best damn sales in the entire video game industry.

Westwood's owner shouldn't have sold his company.

Free DLC from EA? Or a box of new five new EA games for $60? Don't make me laugh. They're too busy swallowing developers to bother with any of that.

Five New Games? Here I thought it was 1 new multiplayer game, 1 episodic game, 1 semi-tech demo that proved to be popular and 2 old ones. Changing the facts already to try and boost your argument?

Rachmaninov:

Valve doesn't have 13 bought-out subsidiaries to churn out games for them. And since when did flooding the market with rushed sequels become a good thing?

Mass Effect 2+3 topping the charts isn't a good thing?
The only thing EA has been alleged to rush out is Dragon Age 2. But now it's apparently everything they do? right.

Rachmaninov:

Microtransactions are only EA's latest of a long, long list of offences. RIP Bullfrog Productions, Westwood Studios, Kesmai, Pandemic Studios, Bright Light and DICE Canada, for a start.

Who cares. Companies go out of business. Companies get sold. It's the way of the world.
Whoever owned the place shouldn't have sold it in the first place.

Rachmaninov:
Now you've got to know you're deliberately misrepresenting the truth here. Are you so keen to defend EA that you're going to resort to bare-faced lying?

Yes, EA currently owns the companies that make these games. How many of them are EA actually responsible for creating?

The accusation was that EA was stagnating the market. I provided examples to the contrary. The fact that they developed them or not is irrelevant as EA is and always has been a publisher first and foremost.

Rachmaninov:

Everything else on your list was either part of a company EA took over (which totally makes EA retroactively responsible for all the good things that developer ever did, right?) or with EA only acting as publisher (which means EA fronted the money, not the idea.). And the worst part about that list I know that you know you're telling half-truths... so why are you doing it?

What like Valve hiring the portal guys?
Like Valve hiring the Counter Strikes guys? Dota?

Hmmn. Valve buys mods, EA buys companies. Does anyone see the similarities?

Akalabeth:

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

I would like to point out you can still find the hats in drops/trading and still do not have to pay for them.

AzrealMaximillion:
To be fair, you do have to buy keys to open crates in TF2, and crates are the most frequent random drop. Most people who have a lot of items in TF2 got them from crates. Very rarely do hats and guns actually appears as drops. This seems to be the point that everyone in this thread is ignoring with TF2. If you have an ass load of TF2 items, chances are you've spent about the same amount as buying an EA games and then some on just keys. And that's before just buying items straight up.

And also, most of the items you get in TF2 have some kind of effect that makes them better than the base weapons, so saying that TF2 items don't effect the game is a lie. TF2's advantage is that its F2P, but let's be real here, it tries to grab your money in a more aggressive fashion than most EA microtransactions. TF2 items sets come out and are hunted down like Magic Card sets. Its quite ravenous and quite lucrative for Valve. So much so that Valve has added a Steam Market that only sells TF2 and Dota 2 items and gets a cut off of each sale. I can't really get mad at EA for trying to sell me microtransactions of weapons in the Dead Space series when TF2 was a)doing it before it was F2P and b) released before the majority of these bullshit microtransactions on story driven games happened.

I don't know where you got the first part of your argument, seeing as crates drop frequently, and so do weapons. Crates more often then weapons yeah, but weapons still drop at a relatively quick rate. I play session of TF2 can yeild me three new weapons or more. To also respond to your other point that TF2 base items are worse then dropped weapons is only half true really. Most(if not all) have a downside that can be countered by a base weapon. So far I have seen none that are just flat out better, with no downsides then base weapons.

But that's me being a valve fan girl, who plans on trying to get a job there. So take what value you want from that.

Rachmaninov:

Yes, because spending money on "stupid cosmetic crap" is more like a voluntary donation, with a cosmetic reward. Faster progress is evidently more tempting (as your own words prove) and is therefore an attempt to apply pressure to the user. To make the player feel as though they're completing the game "too slowly" and therefore "need" to take part in the microtransactions. No one is going to feel they genuinely "need" what you call "stupid cosmetic crap" to enhance their gameplay.

By the way, on the point of completing the game too slowly that's only the case if the game is deliberately designed to be that way. From what I understand, Dead space 3 is not.

Something like Diablo 3 on the other hand is, you apparently need to grind for who knows how long to get the right drops to complete the later difficulties.

Planetside2 is another, guns take so long to unlock on the free to play model, like 100 hours according to TB to unlock a single gun.

Similiarily IOS where microtransactions get in the way of you actually playing the game. Like mandatory breaks for example (farmville) where your area has to collect energy, but you can buy it, or just unreasonable level grinding requirements.

In both TF2's case, and DS3's case the MTs are optional. And as long as they are optional, and provide a benefit to those who want them (ie people who don't have much time to play the game) then they're not in my opinion a bad thing. But the moment that someone releases a game, that essentially requires me to pay into it then to hell with the game.

SadisticFire:

Akalabeth:

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

I would like to point out you can still find the hats in drops/trading and still do not have to pay for them..

That's cool, though from an objective perspectives the drops probably happen in part to encourage people to spend money. Similarly a game like Split/Second had a few free DLC that provided new cars, and then in addition there were car packs you could buy. Get a taste, and order more.

Valve's micro transactions are for a F2P game, so that doesn't bother me (though we should remember it also used to be full retail, still with micro-transactions).

That being said...

He is right that we're beating up on micro-transactions too much. As long as you can easily ignore the micros and they're not being shoved down your throat, I don't see what the problem is, even if they are in a $60 game. The Dead Space 3 transactions, while ridiculously stupid, are at least easy to ignore.

I watched a video on Rev3Games that finally has gelled my thoughts.

Cliff. Hey Buddy. Here's my issue with it.

EA is choosing to be the Face of a trend that most gamers are having a problem with in gaming; They are proudly leading the Microtransactions charge which makes a lot of gamers feel ripped off. I grew up with gaming. A lot of people did. I had a colecovision growing up. I've been in it and supporting it all of my life, as a lot of people have. We feel like we've paid our dues making this into a viable entertainment choice and a career for people like yourself. We put in time. This is just as much of our thing as it is the developers' thing, because we could have easy found something out to do and it could have just been a fad.

But if the gaming designers choose these microtransactions to 'squeeze a little more revenue' like you say you find nothing wrong with (and please tell me you say that when your taxes go up, gas prices go up, or food prices do), that's fine. Then choose a price reflecting such a decision. Do not choose to charge me limited edition Hard Cover Book prices for the Cliff Notes version.

I just looked it up; The paperback of Atlas Shrugged is now currently 15.99 on amazon. The cliff notes version is 5.99. Most gamers are noticing alarming trends such like the From Ashes DLC that adds a Very Important Character and Back story that fleshes out some understanding. The comment is you don't need to actually buy the DLC, so it doesn't really matter. I can probably get a B on a test of Atlas Shrugged using the cliff notes, but I don't get the real impact of the book. And I shouldn't, because I paid for the barebones version.

I just don't want to pay the full experience price and get a little bit better than the bare bones version. And that's where a lot of us are afraid we're going to get to. And with a lot of the on disk DLC and withholding important characters and chapters... yeah, that's where it looks like we're going.

while i agree that the valve fanboyism / EA hate that is very widespread is completely retarded, i still think this guy is full of shit. microtransactions are still a ripoff, ea is still the bad guy. they just aren't as good in brainwashing fanboys as valve is.

Akalabeth:
How you splice it is irrelevant to the point that Valve charged for a game, and then introduced MT.

Charged one-fifth of the price EA would charge, and then introduced MTs, yep. Or are you saying that paying $12 (or paying $60 and getting four free games) is somehow equal to paying $60? I'd like do see you justify that.

Akalabeth:
Thank you for that subjective understanding with no scientific basis. It proves nothing.

Actually, this does have scientific basis. I'm just not going to go to enough effort to dig up studies for someone I strongly suspect would just ignore them anyway.

Akalabeth:
Westwood's owner shouldn't have sold his company.

True. Just like if someone is walking alone in the dark, and gets murdered, shouldn't have been walking alone in the dark.

Doesn't mean the murderer is suddenly innocent, though. No matter how hard you might wish it.

EA did nothing wrong buying Westwood. They did something wrong when they killed it.

Akalabeth:
Five New Games? Here I thought it was 1 new multiplayer game, 1 episodic game, 1 semi-tech demo that proved to be popular and 2 old ones. Changing the facts already to try and boost your argument?

Please, reveal to me the difference between "episodic game" and "game series" because I don't think one exists. And while you're at it, think you could prove how exactly Portal was a "semi-tech demo".

In fact, even your version of the facts still paints Valve the hero. Dead Space 3 wasn't packaged with three episodes of an episodic game, nor a semi-tech demo that proved to be popular, nor two old games.

Got any more semantics to try and make it look like you have an argument at all?

Akalabeth:
Mass Effect 2+3 topping the charts isn't a good thing?
The only thing EA has been alleged to rush out is Dragon Age 2. But now it's apparently everything they do? right.

Two games - which were part of a series that EA only has anything to do with because they bought out the owners - achieving success, justifies the rest... eh?

That next sentence is also a lie. EA have been alleged to rush out BF3, SWTOR, ME2/3, DA2, amongst the titles by Pandemic, Westwood and Bullfrog, immediately preceding EA firing the entire studio.

Akalabeth:
Who cares. Companies go out of business. Companies get sold. It's the way of the world.
Whoever owned the place shouldn't have sold it in the first place.

Buying a place, running it into the ground and then firing everyone who works there does not equal "Companies go out of business. Companies get sold." nor does it lay guilt at the foot of the previous owner.

You're talking like EA is a shark, and it just can't help but to eat people. Like the people are guilty for being in a position to be eaten in the first place. Pretty twisted logic for someone who's trying to make EA sound good.

Akalabeth:
The accusation was that EA was stagnating the market. I provided examples to the contrary. The fact that they developed them or not is irrelevant as EA is and always has been a publisher first and foremost.

And that tiny list, even if you take it at it's fullest (and ironically, least truthful) is still utterly dwarfed by the list of sequels they've churned out.

Fifty-eight FIFA games. Fifty-eight. Nineteen years, and they've made fifty-eight games about football. And that's only one of their EA Sports range, and the other titles have long lists of uninspired sequels, too.

That's not stagnation, no? Making the same game over, and over, and over again?

Akalabeth:
What like Valve hiring the portal guys?
Like Valve hiring the Counter Strikes guys? Dota?

Hmmn. Valve buys mods, EA buys companies. Does anyone see the similarities?

I see a tenuous link, sure. But no one here is attempting to use a short list of borrowed titles, to justify a massive dirge of uninspired sequels, except you. At least the games that Valve are directly responsible for are good, are not rushed, and are minimal on the "lets make this game over fifty times" mentality EA embody.

Now, those Portal guys, those Counter Strike guys, and those DOTA guys... well, they're all still employed. I can't say the same for the companies EA bought out. Does anyone see the differences?

What CliffyB doesn't realize is that the Micro transaction model is and -should- be used only for Free to Play games for cosmetic/vanity items (Pay2Win can go screw itself) in order to be successful.

When a system like this is implemented in a single player game it can cause a big problem due to the content of the campaign being purposefully changed just to receive less resources or to require more "grind" or whatnot and being forcing customers that do not have the time for such trivialities to pay.

I find it utterly disgusting to use such a system in a single player game and I really think EA will shoot themselves in the foot if they will go through with the idea to use this system in every game they release from here on out.

Akalabeth:

AsurasEyes:

Please, answer me. I need to understand how someone could honestly think that this isn't as clear-cut as a fight between The Allies (Gamers, Valve, Bioware, etc.) and the Nazis (EA and the rest of their ilk)

I'm sorry, you criticize me for calling someone immature? And then you compare EA to nazis?
Talk to me again in 10 years.

I'm sorry, it appears my metaphor wasn't clear enough. See, I didn't know that saying that a large group of people who only give a shit about themselves and treat everyone else (even their followers) as less than human, and that I couldn't understand why people would defend them when these people are compared side-by-side to another large group that has so far done very few hideous things, was immature.

EA hasn't yet committed acts of genocide (I think), but they are a large group of power and money-hungry pricks who exploit their own followers and have fanatical little zealots who leap to their aid at every opportunity. Much like another large group of power and money hungry pricks who exploited their own followers and had fanatical little zealots who would leap to their defense at the slightest provocation, but one that HAS enacted genocide.

But, you're right. It was immature of me, so none of my points are valid despite my making it a point of pride to buy (and frequently get screwed over by) a game with my own hard-earned money from my own job. It was perfectly reasonable of you to not answer a single one of my questions because of one immature statement I made, and I shouldn't bring up that the maturity of one statement doesn't fucking matter when someone is presented with a number of real questions that should have real answers.

In the interest of my maturity, what group of unambiguously evil people from history or fiction can be used as a metaphor for a group of impossibly sleazy businessmen in a way that is acceptably mature?

The Robber Barons?
The Jesse James Gang?
The Roman Empire?
Judas Iscariot, who got Jesus crucified for thirty pieces of silver?
Steve Jobs?
The Party from 1984?
The Pigs from Animal Farm?
Mammon, Patron of the Sin of Avarice?
Smith from the Matrix?
Lucifer, the angel who led a rebellion against God?'
Ridley Scott, who betrayed fans by making Prometheus?

Lee Quitt:

verdant monkai:
When was the last time EA ever did a sale? like valve do all the time.

Right now, Cryis 3 and Dead space 3 are 30% off, BF3 and all the DLC were massively on sale just last week, half the Sims selection half price now as well..... Sigh some people are just intent on speaking stupidity.

Really? Holy crap, on what?

I've been trying to get Crysis 3 for a while but I'm too poor right now to get it full price.

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:
How you splice it is irrelevant to the point that Valve charged for a game, and then introduced MT.

Charged one-fifth of the price EA would charge, and then introduced MTs, yep. Or are you saying that paying $12 (or paying $60 and getting four free games) is somehow equal to paying $60? I'd like do see you justify that.

Why bother? Nothing I say would convince you in any case. I mean you're lumping Portal and the two Half Life Episodes into the same category as Half Life 2. You're not presenting it in an objective way in the first place.

An Episodic Game is not equal to a full Game. The Half Life Episodes for example, are 2/3rds of a game, not even one full game. The fact that it's stand alone doesn't make it a full game.

A multiplayer only game, is not equal to a full game.

And when I say full game I'm talking about Half Life 2 btw, not Dead Space 3.

I could buy the Humble Indie Bundle and say "I got 5 games for 5 dollars! Valve sucks!" but comparing quick, old indie games to a AAA game dev doesn't really make sense either? It's intellectually dishonest. So please stop trying to tell me that Orange Box has "5 games"

You know what game DOES have 5 games? In fact has 6 games? Plus 6 expansion packs?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_%26_Conquer:_The_First_Decade

Published by EA by the way. And only 20 dollars. Wow 6 games at 20 dollars, plus 6 expansions that's like 2 dollars a game! EA is amazing! Screw Orange box eh?

Rachmaninov:
Actually, this does have scientific basis. I'm just not going to go to enough effort to dig up studies for someone I strongly suspect would just ignore them anyway.

Hey that's a good excuse for not providing evidence. The other people in your camp should use it too.

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:
Westwood's owner shouldn't have sold his company.

True. Just like if someone is walking alone in the dark, and gets murdered, shouldn't have been walking alone in the dark.

Doesn't mean the murderer is suddenly innocent, though. No matter how hard you might wish it.

EA did nothing wrong buying Westwood. They did something wrong when they killed it.

Yeah, and they admitted to "blowing it" with Westwood and Bullfrog.
You think this is deliberate or something. EA buys companies to make money. They don't buy them to screw them over. You're painting them as being bad for doing it instead of being incompetent. They seem to be doing better with say Bioware so maybe they've learned their lessons.

Akalabeth:
Five New Games? Here I thought it was 1 new multiplayer game, 1 episodic game, 1 semi-tech demo that proved to be popular and 2 old ones. Changing the facts already to try and boost your argument?

Please, reveal to me the difference between "episodic game" and "game series" because I don't think one exists. And while you're at it, think you could prove how exactly Portal was a "semi-tech demo".

Um, I'm not going to explain to you the difference between Episodic Gaming and a Full Game. Compare Half Life 2 to Half Life 2 Episode 1. See the difference? Good. Now you understand.

Also I note that you gloss over the fact that you misrepresented it here as "5 NEW games"

Portal was 2.5 hour game. That's not exactly long. It's intellectually dishonest to put Portal in the same class as say Half Life 2 (or Dead Space 3). Portal 2 is more akin to something like Bastion or Limbo, it's a game but not a AAA game. Something you would see on XBL for 10 or 15 bucks.

In fact, even your version of the facts still paints Valve the hero. Dead Space 3 wasn't packaged with three episodes of an episodic game, nor a semi-tech demo that proved to be popular, nor two old games.

Three episodes of an episodic game? What so now in your reality Episode 3 has been released as well?

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:
Mass Effect 2+3 topping the charts isn't a good thing?
The only thing EA has been alleged to rush out is Dragon Age 2. But now it's apparently everything they do? right.

Two games - which were part of a series that EA only has anything to do with because they bought out the owners - achieving success, justifies the rest... eh?

That next sentence is also a lie. EA have been alleged to rush out BF3, SWTOR, ME2/3, DA2, amongst the titles by Pandemic, Westwood and Bullfrog, immediately preceding EA firing the entire studio.

You do know the difference between a studio having a deadline, and a game being rushed out right? Having a deadline means getting things done.

SWTOR's only failing was the lack of end game content from what I've heard. It was praised otherwise, just many people prefer it was SP not MMO. And the only allegations of being rushed out are in relation to DA2. Let me guess, you're one of those people who praises bioware for the good things about Mass Effect and blames EA for the bad right? You blame EA for the ME3 ending? etcetera. Even though EA of course are publishers more than devs.

Akalabeth:
Who cares. Companies go out of business. Companies get sold. It's the way of the world.
Whoever owned the place shouldn't have sold it in the first place.

Buying a place, running it into the ground and then firing everyone who works there does not equal "Companies go out of business. Companies get sold." nor does it lay guilt at the foot of the previous owner.

You're talking like EA is a shark, and it just can't help but to eat people. Like the people are guilty for being in a position to be eaten in the first place. Pretty twisted logic for someone who's trying to make EA sound good.

If EA buys a place, it's THEIR company, then can do what they want with it. None of these takeovers have been hostile from my understanding, the companies consented to it.

Rachmaninov:

And that tiny list, even if you take it at it's fullest (and ironically, least truthful) is still utterly dwarfed by the list of sequels they've churned out.

Fifty-eight FIFA games. Fifty-eight. Nineteen years, and they've made fifty-eight games about football. And that's only one of their EA Sports range, and the other titles have long lists of uninspired sequels, too.

That's not stagnation, no? Making the same game over, and over, and over again?

How does an ios title affect AAA console gaming? It doesn't. So why are you alleging that it does?

No one who complains about the stagnation of AAA gaming talks about sports games. At worst they complain that it should be every two years with roster DLC updates in the intervening years. Is it EA's fault that everyone's copying Call of Duty? That other people are copying God of War? Or diablo?

I see a tenuous link, sure. But no one here is attempting to use a short list of borrowed titles, to justify a massive dirge of uninspired sequels, except you. At least the games that Valve are directly responsible for are good, are not rushed, and are minimal on the "lets make this game over fifty times" mentality EA embody.

Now, those Portal guys, those Counter Strike guys, and those DOTA guys... well, they're all still employed. I can't say the same for the companies EA bought out. Does anyone see the differences?

So are you alleging that you know the current employment status of hundreds of former employees of EA-acquired companies? And you're stating for fact that some or many of them aren't employed with EA? Because, you're talking out your ass if that's the case.

AsurasEyes:

But, you're right. It was immature of me, so none of my points are valid despite my making it a point of pride to buy (and frequently get screwed over by) a game with my own hard-earned money from my own job. It was perfectly reasonable of you to not answer a single one of my questions because of one immature statement I made, and I shouldn't bring up that the maturity of one statement doesn't fucking matter when someone is presented with a number of real questions that should have real answers.

I didn't answer your questions because your questions are self-defeating. Your post was doing the very things you were accusing me of, I simply hi-lighted the most pertinent offences.

I'm not defending EA, I'm promoting objective understanding. A balanced perspective. Promoting the realization that a company like Valve, has done the same things as a company like EA. I don't give a fuck about EA, I barely own any of their games, but this incessant irrational hatred of every and anything EA does is absurd. Admittedly I get on Valve's case a bit too much on occasion, but I still concede they've done some stuff I've liked. But as for EA as I pointed out in the other article, EA was supporting a pro-gay rights initiative (reported the other day) and rather than actually concede some props to the company, people were trying their damdest to rationalize away any reason for congratulating them such as "oh, it was just a marketing move, it's not sincere, yadda yadda" give me a break. Similarily Cliffy B calls out gamers on their bullshit and people say "oh he just wants a job at EA, that's not reality". Cliff B from previous articles seems like a jerk, I disliked every article that came up on the escapist about him, but I'll concede him some props this time. Yet Valve supporters (like some other ardent supporters) seem mentally unable to do that. Black and white understandings of companies (or people) is flawed and unhealthy, that's not the way the world is.

Here for example is my criticisms of a few companies:

Valve
-Broke my trust when they sold games in stores that required Steam/Internet
-Abandoned episodic gaming before the project was finished
-Has seemingly abandoned SP gaming altogether
BUT at the time they put out some really good games like HL1 and the HL2Episodes (since abandoned)

EA
-Requiring a separate EA log-in is bullshit
-EA servers are sometimes finnicky it seems, I could never connect to Battlefield 1943's server. (15 bucks wasted)
-Online passes are a pain entering all the numbers. But then again, all those codes for all those games is a fricken pain no matter the publisher/game.
BUT I can see that BF3 (while I had it) is good quality, and I love a few of the other games they've published.

Blizzard
-Creating a game that requires huge amounts of grinding to promote auction house use is rubbish
-Not to mention needing to play the game 4 times over to get the full experience
BUT they do at least provide regular content, and update games to help alleviate player concerns. Biggest failing is they rely too much on WOW. Make some new IPs man.

And in terms of games themselves, I value people and companies who make REGULAR releases. Who REGULARLY provide content. (Andyes Valve regularly updates TF2 (but not on xbox), but I dont' care about multiplayer. It's repetitive and monotonous. ) But The whole philosophy of defending the likes of Valve and Blizzard on the idea that they don't "rush games" doesn't hold up when you compare them to the likes of Bethesda and other companies that put out awesome games more frequently. EA similarly provides regular releases and content, it doesn't appeal to everyone but if you don't want it, don't buy it. Judging by the number of fricken NHL/NFL/MLB games in the bargain bins someone must be buying that shit.

And on Valve specifically, I really have to wonder whether their current "organizational" scheme seriously inhibits their ability to do larger projects. They haven't released a "full AAA game" since Half Life 2. Everything since has been shorter, multiplayer-focused games (with the exception of Portal2). So is it choice, or can they only organize people to make hats? If they don't release more SP games they'll be less and less relevant to me, personally.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here