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
 

Rachmaninov:

Either, we give EA our money, or those studios and the IPs they have created all die.

In the short run perhaps, but by making the continued acquisition by EA untenable, there is a third option.

An unemployed hack of a game designer soapbox defending EA, the worst goddamn publisher on the planet... This guy is a fucking idiot.

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:

See now you're talking sense.

And yet, you give no ground. You join a thread to rant about people painting EA as the devil and saying Valve can do no wrong, only to tell us how EA in fact can do no wrong?

Okay, I'm going to say one thing. Do NOT fucking call what I'm saying a rant. This bullshit that people pull about labelling someone's argument a rant or some other diminutive term is fucking childish and pathetic. It's the same as people labelling me a troll. It's disrespectful and demeaning, and if you pull that shit again this discussion over. Clear?

Rachmaninov:

As far as you're concerned;

They're not guilty of crushing development companies, despite the evidence to the contrary.
They're not guilty of setting unreasonably short deadlines, leading to companies having to rush games and cut parts out, despite evidence to the contrary.
And they're not guilty of releasing an endless dirge of sequels, despite evidence to the contrary.

Apparently I've started talking sense. When are you going to join me?

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care.
I don't care how a company treats their employees. If they're treated like crap the employees can go somewhere else. The project I'm on right now, which is film-related, half the people have left for other opportunities, it happens all the time. They were unhappy, so thye left. I'm content, so I stay. I'm not going to feel sorry for someone for willingly staying in a shitty job. If they were all being treated like crap, and not properly compensated, then if enough of them left EA would be left holding the bag. It happens in other companies, it can happen there. So either they're not treated as bad as you say, OR, the workers don't have the spine to get out of there. And also you're suggesting that this phemenom is EA-wide but in my personal experience, talking to people who KNOW people that work at EA Canada that's not the case at all.

Rachmaninov:

Akalabeth:
They've been making games for years. They should know how long this stuff is going to take.

And yet, apparently EA, who set the deadlines, do not. But still no blame for them, right?

The depends upon how much creative control EA has over the finished product. In past posts, your or someone else has claimed that I should not give credit for EA publishing a few games because they're just a publisher, not a developer. Now what you're implying is that EA has creative control and is setting unreasonable deadlines?

Let's assume something, EA is setting a publishing deadline, and the company itself has creative leeway. In that case it's up to the company to know what they can do in that allotted amount of time. Now if EA is demanding more than they can do, then the company should just say no. We can't do that. We need more people, and more money to pay those people. You know, it's about having a backbone?

Now if EA has control over the design of the game itself, and the budget, and the deadline and if the demands of the project are unreasonable then sure it's their fault. But in the case they're not really a publisher are they, they're a developer.

Rachmaninov:

I'm not referring to crunch times uniquely. EA made some devs work as many as 100 hours a week even when it wasn't crunch time. And it's really not as simple as just going somewhere else. You must live in a fantasy world where people roll out of one job into another, and don't have the period of unemployment that most people experience which results in them not having enough money to meet their responsibilities. Let alone the idea of leaving meaning losing all of your work.

No I live in the real world where that happens all the time, people moving to different jobs that is.
Hell when Relic Vancouver laid off a bunch of people, apparently Rockstar wrote their contact info in chalk on the sidewalk outside of the building. Mind you Rockstar Vancouver is gone now too, but people bounce from Job to Job. IT's only if the economy of the industry itself is in a downturn and there's no where else to go, but if the closing of comapnies is central to EA alone at the time and not everyone then people can go where they please if they're good enough. Or go do a start up a company, like the Diablo 2 guys leaving to create Torchlight. A lot of industry people eventually branch out on their own, do freelance work, etcetera, at least in mhy industry.

Rachmaninov:

Sometimes, people aren't in a position to just leave if they don't like a job. And sometimes, employers take advantage of that. Your precious EA just might be guilty of that.

My precious EA? I don't give a shit about EA, as I've said in the past. I barely own any of their games. SO don't attribute some fanboyism to me, that's not the reason I'm in this discussion I'm in this discussion to promote level-headed understanding. Why you feel it necessary to attribute some sentimentality to me is beyond me. Perhaps my goal is not to support EA but to support a balanced understanding?

Rachmaninov:

TSW and KoA are new games. So, two and a half? It's more than I was expecting. But we should ask more of one of the world's biggest publishers than two and a half new ideas a year.

How many new IPs EA promotes is irrelevant to me when everyone else is doing a same or worse job. Blizzard is just continuing old IPs, so is Valve, so is Bethesda, so are a lot of people.

Rachmaninov:

Valve is comparatively small. I think you have unrealistic expectations if you think that every single developer is some kind of failure if they are out-doing the latest popular franchise.

I think you're attributing thoughts to me that don't apply.
I don't think Valve is a failure, I simply don't think they're very creative.
I mean Gabe Newell is valued at 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. DO you get that? 1.5 BILLION. What the fuck's he doing with that money? HD Counterstrike. HD Dota2? More hats for TF2? It's pathetic. 1.5 Billion by the way, is more than Zenimax (Bethesda)

So yeah, actually I'll go back on what I just said and say that yes, Valve is a failure. And until they quit doing sequels to third party mod updates, I'll continue to hold that point of view.

Rachmaninov:

I praise Valve because they operate generally customer-friendly practices, not because I think they will be the saviour of all gaming.

But as it happens, they are in fact doing something against stagnation. Steam Greenlight. It's giving indie games more exposure, a chance for them to be on the front page along with all the AAA titles. Because Indie games are less scared of new ideas, thanks to them not needing massive funding, generally.

Steam Greenlight? So you're giving them credit, for other people's games? Riiiiight.
If FTL is a great game, it's because of the people who made FTL, not because FTL is put on steam.

Xbox Live Summer of Arcade has done more to get indies into the spotlight than steam ever did. Steam is just riding on the coattail's of MS's success.

Rachmaninov:

Oh, and they're developing the Steam Box, to bring much-needed freshness to the console arena. So I guess, for a small developer, they're doing quite a lot, actually.

I wouldn't even call Valve a dev anymore. Nothing more than a store really, like EB Games or Gamestop.

Rachmaninov:

Let me use the example of Portal, since I think it makes an effective comparison. Portal had a unique idea. Let's say you were working on Portal, and then you got sacked and didn't get to keep the Portal IP.

You can't just go somewhere else and make another Portal. You'd be breaking the law. So what, you'd make a different game? But what if that was your magnus opus? What if another great idea doesn't just come to you? Wouldn't it be a tradegy that all the recognition and success for your great idea was going to the people who sacked you?

What law? You can't copyright game mechanics.
And if your new game is simply portal under a different name then you shouldn't be making it in the first place.

Like the new game Cube. Cube is portal-like, in that it's a bunch of puzzles and has a similar aesthetic. But it's not portal. Different mechanics. They didn't break any laws.

CriticKitten:

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.

Since there's not very much difference between the two, would you mind telling me when Dead Space 3 plans to go Free-To-Play?

Ask me again in four years. (the amount of time it took TF2 to go F2P)
But you'll probably get a 30-$40 Deadspace trilogy in 2.

I love it how he patronizes valve with only two examples and the second example and i quote,

"People love to beat up on Origin, but they forget that, for a good amount of time, Steam sucked. No one took it seriously for the first while. When Gabe pitched it at GDC to my former co-workers years ago they came back with eye rolls." Steam took years to become the undisputed king of digital distribution, and Bleszinski asks us to remember this before dismissing Origin."

actually proves that valve worked hard to be where they want to be and they did it because of the consumer, and you know what. Valve knows this so they give great prices, deals, sales, and games because they want people to be satisfied. Yet with this stupid argument "If you don't like EA, don't buy their games," is pretty crap especially because EA locks companies in and wont allow them to publish games outside EA so if you like a game but not EA, too bad EA published the game and now that company is in a 10 year hidden contract.

Also these "microtransactions" that cost $3 or $5 isn't the BIG problem, the problem is why do you deserve $60 if your going to charge me $30 in (usually mandatory) microtransactions & DLC, you don't deserve $60 and that's the difference between them, Team Fortress 2 is free to play and how do you become premium? $40? $50? $60? try less than one dollar, yeah the full game less than a dollar, the game is so cheap that no one has problems buying hats because they didn't pay $60 up front valve let the consumer decide the games worth. Funny because valve is starting to make me think of another video game thing, The Humble Indie Bundle.

I'm also sensing that Cliffy B got a big check from this interview *cough* EA *cough* probably paid him to say this *cough*

Lovely Mixture:

Slayer_2:
[quote="Nazulu" post="7.402327.16602230"] but the fact is I really don't think the balance of criticism is quite fair or equal.

For Origin and Steam, yeah it's not fair. But for everything else why should it be equal?

You see Valve releasing content for free.
You see EA Figureheads talk about charging players for in-game bullets...

That's pretty much exactly why people love valve and hate EA. When valve makes something available for free you actually get to experience almost all of the game for free whereas in a microtransaction enabled EA game if it ever goes free you will see severe restrictions on what your character can do (I wouldn't put it past them to make you pay for the ability to jump!) and what they can use (Want more than two weapons? Buy the weapon pack for only $29.55!) and they have already cut out gameplay to sell to you as on-disk day one DLC (Want more than one level of gameplay? Unlock the rest of game one level at a time for the low price per level of $1.99! Or better yet; unlock five levels at a time for the bargain price of $8.99! Want to see the REAL ending for the game? Now you can for the low, low price of only $5.95!)

Zachary Amaranth:

Rachmaninov:

Either, we give EA our money, or those studios and the IPs they have created all die.

In the short run perhaps, but by making the continued acquisition by EA untenable, there is a third option.

That's the benefit of the second option, not a third.

Taking that option still means that all the currently acquired, beloved studios and their properties die.

It is the better of the options, in the long run, I admit. But it is a very, very hard line to follow. To refer back to my hostage situation comparison; while not negotiating for hostages prevents people from taking hostages in the first place, you've still got to willfully doom any hostages taken between now and when the lesson is learned.

Akalabeth:

Okay, I'm going to say one thing. Do NOT fucking call what I'm saying a rant. This bullshit that people pull about labelling someone's argument a rant or some other diminutive term is fucking childish and pathetic. It's the same as people labelling me a troll. It's disrespectful and demeaning, and if you pull that shit again this discussion over. Clear?

You really need to calm down.

I'm not your underling, and I'm not indebted to you for this discussion, so your threat holds absolutely no weight.

That being said, I apologise for any offence caused by using the term "rant", it wasn't intended to cause offence.

Akalabeth:
Now what you're implying is that EA has creative control and is setting unreasonable deadlines?

No. I'm saying EA are setting unreasonable deadlines. You're making the other part up.

Akalabeth:
In past posts, your or someone else has claimed that I should not give credit for EA publishing a few games because they're just a publisher, not a developer

That was me.

Akalabeth:
Let's assume something, EA is setting a publishing deadline, and the company itself has creative leeway. In that case it's up to the company to know what they can do in that allotted amount of time. Now if EA is demanding more than they can do, then the company should just say no. We can't do that. We need more people, and more money to pay those people. You know, it's about having a backbone?

It'd be great if it was that simple, but it's not. Do you think authors predict the number of pages their books will be before they write them, or do you think they write them and find out how many pages it is afterwards? When creating art, you can't just choose a stopping point, because then you'd have to deliberately skip over inspiration when it came to you. When they were writing Mass Effect 3, if they had a really good idea that they'd not had when the deadlines were set, should that idea just be cast to the wind just so the truly arbitrary deadline can remain on one day, instead of moving back a week to an equally good day?

I've worked on a fair bit of art myself. Inspiration comes and goes and no amount of trying will ever bring it to you otherwise. Prioritize deadlines and you grossly limit art. Someone has one idea, and you make it, ignoring all of the inspiration along the way which would have improved upon it and accepting all the flaws you discover, without fixing them. Sounds great, right? Much more important that you release it in March instead of April, but make it totally uninspired, yeah?

As for switching companies, I'm happy for you that your local business seems to be so good that you can fall from one job into another without trying. But please don't try to pretend the whole world is like that. The video game industry is hard to get into, because its a dream job for a lot of people. That means there are a lot of unemployed game designers. That means you join a long line when you lose a job.

Akalabeth:
Perhaps my goal is not to support EA but to support a balanced understanding?

I'd buy that if you weren't trying to deflect absolutely 100% of the blame away from EA. That's not level-headedness, that's fanboyism.

You told me I wasn't showing a balanced perspective, so I showed you some of the things EA does right and some of the things Valve does wrong... I even divided the blame for ME3's ending equally between BioWare and EA.

But as far as you're concerned, EA's spotless and Valve's awful. Exactly the same black-and-white nonsense I thought you were railing against?

Akalabeth:
I mean Gabe Newell is valued at 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. DO you get that? 1.5 BILLION. What the fuck's he doing with that money? HD Counterstrike. HD Dota2? More hats for TF2? It's pathetic. 1.5 Billion by the way, is more than Zenimax (Bethesda)

So yeah, actually I'll go back on what I just said and say that yes, Valve is a failure. And until they quit doing sequels to third party mod updates, I'll continue to hold that point of view.

I've already told you that they're making the Steam Box, but you selectively ignored that, apparently. So I'll tell you again; They're making the Steam Box. Maybe making a console is taking a lot of their attention?

Plus, what Gabe Newell is also doing, is offering more games for much, much cheaper than anyone else. And maybe developing HL3? When that comes out, it's sure to set the bar once again. If I asked you to wake me up when EA made a revolutionary new console, offered massive sales across hundreds of products like Steam, or defined a new generation of games, I'd be sleeping eternally.

Akalabeth:
Steam Greenlight? So you're giving them credit, for other people's games? Riiiiight.
If FTL is a great game, it's because of the people who made FTL, not because FTL is put on steam.

Great strawman. Now onto what I was actually saying;

Steam Greenlight is great because it gives indie games a chance to be advertised on Steam's front page. Exposure can make or break a game.

XBLA is good for Indie games, but Greenlight is better. Firstly, it's much easier and cheaper to make indie games for PC (which is why they out number XBLA games hundreds-to-one) and secondly, because XBLA requires Microsoft to find and approve those games, whereas Greenlight works on votes by users, eliminating Valve's potential blind spots from the equation.

You would not believe how much more difficult it is to make games for a console than it is to make them for PC. If making a game could be equated to cooking; PC games would be an omelette and console games would be a roast dinner with all the trimmings.

Akalabeth:
What law? You can't copyright game mechanics.
And if your new game is simply portal under a different name then you shouldn't be making it in the first place.

I don't even know why you're asking that question, when you already know the answer, evidenced by your own words a sentence later.

You can copyright enough of a game so that it'd be breaking the law, if you were making Portal, got the sack, got a new job and made Portal again.

So, like I already said, if you're working on your magnus opus, you simply could not afford to have it taken from you. Imagine your favourite art form, your favourite artist... say perhaps a musician... suddenly being legally unable to play whatever their main, signature instrument is. It's not as simple as just shrugging and saying "Welp, onto the next instrument." like you seem to think it is. So if that musician, through no fault of their own, became the apparently disposable slave of EA (through whatever witchcraft you might like to imagine, play along) and EA could take their instrument away if the musician didn't do as they say... you damn well better believe that most, even those with this fabled "backbone" you talk about, would do as EA say. At least for a little while.

Aw, Cliffy thinks that people who love Valve are being irrational.

TF2 used to cost money until the microtransactions proved to be much more profitable...im not defending EA or Valve but I got to admit, it makes sense.

I think the best system is how ME3 multiplayer works...all the multiplayer DLC's are free and everything can be unlocked in-game by playing it long enough. However, you can also buy packs for MS points and because the system is a RNG, luck-based system it works well. You can spend $1000 or 1000 hours playing the game and probably achieve the same results. If you don't want to spend the money then just play the game and you will eventually get what you want.

I disagree
EA will be guilty in my eyes of satanic business practices until they start giving out stuff for free, stop buying up, killing smaller studios and stop introducing the worst of the most gimmicky game mechanics into their games.

EA's profits are not my concern. EA's shareholders are also not my concern. I don't want to see micro-transactions in $60 games.

1: Valve can and has done wrong but the good they do versus the wrong they do far outweighs the negative.

2: Microtransactions in a $60 dollar game is ludicrous.

3: EA has a lot of smart people working for them, true but those smart people don't seem to have any decision making power.

4: I have no interest in Origin considering their previous issues with TOS, their attitudes towards opinions on forums and the limited library of games they apparently have.

5: I haven't liked EA for quite a while and I haven't bought a single one of their games for that same amount of time. I own Mass Effect 1 and 2 and I'm a completion-ist. I will never buy Mass Effect 3. I own Dragon Age 1 but I don't own Dragon Age 2 and never will. I don't touch any of their games.

6: Their stance in the past and the rumors of anti-used games is also a huge point of contention with me.

Akalabeth:
Ask me again in four years. (the amount of time it took TF2 to go F2P)
But you'll probably get a 30-$40 Deadspace trilogy in 2.

But that's not free.

Since you made the claim that they are very similar, then surely you can tell me when EA will release DS3 entirely for free.

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

Microtransactions are fine in F2P models, but when you charge full price for the game, it gets a little sketchy...

Indeed.

Also, the "Valve can do no wrong mentality" is there because Valve has done very little wrong in its operation. EA has its "scumbag" status, because they have been scumbags for almost the entirety of their existence. We don't assign labels arbitrarily, they come from plain observations.

I agree with Cliffy here on most points. I will never understand while people act like DLC and micro-transaction are a kin to the developer trying to steal money from you. If you don't want to spend the money don't. It is not like as soon as you load an EA game up a hired thug storms your house and steals your money.

That being said EA hasn't put anything out in almost a year that appeals to me and Origin the last time I checked was garbage. I really don't care if that is how Steam started. I didn't give shitty Steam the time of day either. Maybe when Origin gets its shit together I would reconsider, but they would have to give me a hell of a deal on a game I could get else where or offer me a must have game I can only get off Origin. Neither of those things are likely to happen.

I have two answers for this, one for the OP content, and one for the posters.

For the posters:

I paid for TF2 as a retail game, can I be mad it has microtransactions? I mean you all keep saying "We didnt have to pay for it, so its okay". But I paid for it, so I guess that makes it okay for me to be mad.

For the topic:

EA is the bad guy. But not for microtransactions. EA is the bad guy for years of games that require connections to EA servers whilst EA servers are slow, cheap and poorly maintained. Extra points for the games where you dont keep progress when EA server connections fail and kick you from the match.

Thats just plain poor product quality. The shame being its poor product quality tacked onto whats usually a decent product. If we must have DRM, at least put some effort into making it stable. Its been years EA, years.

Lovely Mixture:
You see Valve releasing content for free.
You see EA Figureheads talk about charging players for in-game bullets.

Valve is not perfect, and I hate microtransactions. But if a publisher is going to do microtransactions, they might as well try to make it seem like I'm not getting ripped off.

You see valve charging for a myriad of items and turning a pay $5 once game into a "buy all these virtual items, yay micro-transactions" game. Yes EA is slightly more greedy, but it's not quite the Gandhi versus Hitler situation everyone makes it out to be.

lacktheknack:
I have no problems with this statement.

Well, except one.

Yes, Steam took a long time to become as good as it is. It had no model to follow, because it was the first service of its kind (I believe), and it had to do some poking around to get to where it is today.

What's EA's excuse? They have a perfectly good template, but they didn't come up with a better product in any shape or form. So why should I have to have any respect for the latecomer that isn't as good as what's already there?

Even worse, EA had a Steal-like service before Origin.

Which makes Origin inexcusable. They had their own prior service AND a host of other DD-services (Steam, Impulse, GoG, etc) to learn from, yet they still released Origin in such an awful state.

Why anyone wants to defend them on that is astoundingly confusing to me

Slayer_2:

Lovely Mixture:
You see Valve releasing content for free.
You see EA Figureheads talk about charging players for in-game bullets.

Valve is not perfect, and I hate microtransactions. But if a publisher is going to do microtransactions, they might as well try to make it seem like I'm not getting ripped off.

You see valve charging for a myriad of items and turning a pay $5 once game into a "buy all these virtual items, yay micro-transactions" game. Yes EA is slightly more greedy, but it's not quite the Gandhi versus Hitler situation everyone makes it out to be.

Microtransactions are EA's most minor evil, though. A well-done system of MTs comes across like a donation system. You donate and in exchange you get some completely unnecessary appearance alteration.

MTs done badly are known in the F2P world as "Pay to win" (or P2W for short). Dead Space 3's MTs make the game much easier, which makes them more like P2W transactions, than donations. "Pay and be more powerful", not "pay and have a hat that does nothing besides looking cool.".

But EA's list of crimes is much, much longer than just badly implemented MTs.

1) Buying studios only to overwork the devs, force them to rush their products, and sacking them all when the product wasn't successful (example; Westwood).

2) Slicing parts of games off, so you've got to pay to unlock stuff that's already on the disk you already paid full price for (Day One DLC, numerous examples. Eleven pieces of it on Dead Space 3, for one).

3) Pressuring studios into releasing their games incomplete (example; ME3, BF3, DA2 and games as early as Magic Carpet 2)

4) Flooding the market with sequels. How many FIFA games is that now? Approximately fifty-eight? In only nineteen years?

And I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface with this list.

Vigormortis:

lacktheknack:
I have no problems with this statement.

Well, except one.

Yes, Steam took a long time to become as good as it is. It had no model to follow, because it was the first service of its kind (I believe), and it had to do some poking around to get to where it is today.

What's EA's excuse? They have a perfectly good template, but they didn't come up with a better product in any shape or form. So why should I have to have any respect for the latecomer that isn't as good as what's already there?

Even worse, EA had a Steal-like service before Origin.

Which makes Origin inexcusable. They had their own prior service AND a host of other DD-services (Steam, Impulse, GoG, etc) to learn from, yet they still released Origin in such an awful state.

Why anyone wants to defend them on that is astoundingly confusing to me

<Googles>

Wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat

Well, this is just plain old embarrassing now. How, EA? How?

For the last few months, every time that The Escapist posts news about Cliffy B it only makes me feel sad because he is married to someone who is not me. This man has it completely right, every time.

Anyone can see that most DLC packs are not worth how much they cost. Map packs are the most notorious for demonstrating this point.

You freaking know they aren't worth it and that's why you keep making them. You get so much more money because there is almost no investment to make DLC worth it and you're pretty much scamming the people that love your product. The microtransactions are an easy way for publishers to generate money without actually providing anything.

What I'm saying is that this isn't gonna continue forever and you can save yourselves by correcting now. You have to make the Microtransactions worth it. It also can't take away from the original product.

Otherwise you are gonna fail and we'll lose the games we love. So stop dicking around.

This is so bloddy stupid Im sick of Valve being seen as the god of companays and EA get treated like theve opened Pandoras box with every little slip but Its the same fucking thing all the Time, A company like bethesda or Netherrealms or 2k games (all good companys btw)Is gonna relse some microtransactions or Dlc then your gonna moan about it then buy and feel ripped off then your gonna call the company evil and threaten to boycott because it's always someone else's fault

The fact that there are people here defending EA makes me very worried

Gameguy20100:
This is so bloddy stupid Im sick of Valve being seen as the god of companays and EA get treated like theve opened Pandoras box with every little slip but Its the same fucking thing all the Time, A company like bethesda or Netherrealms or 2k games (all good companys btw)Is gonna relse some microtransactions or Dlc then your gonna moan about it then buy and feel ripped off then your gonna call the company evil and threaten to boycott because it's always someone else's fault

"It's always someone else's fault"? If video game companies are slicing off parts of the game, so they can sell us a full price game, except with some of the disk seperated as "Day One DLC" that you have to pay extra for, despite already owning the disk its on... who's fault is that? We're blaming the company who did it. Not someone else.

Some people will always complain about games asking for extra money for more parts of the game, it's true, and not all of that behaviour is really "evil". If good extra content is offered, for a reasonable price, which took investment from the developers beyond the original development of the game, then there's nothing wrong with that.

But what EA do, is they take their complete game, and chop it up into pieces, so they can sell it to us multiple times with no extra effort from them. It is no coincidence that they include a grindy resource collection mechanic to Dead Space 3, only to offer us a way out if we pay through microtransactions. And that same game had eleven pieces of Day One DLC, which was all already on the disk I'd already paid full price for.

It'd be like me selling you a DVD, and then making you pay extra on top of the box price to watch the final scene. Underhanded, and it should be illegal.

And that's only the beginning of EA's crimes. EA are evil for many more reasons than just Day One DLC and Microtransactions. I'm not going to explain it again, since I've done so more than few times on this thread already.

Neeckin:
The fact that there are people here defending EA makes me very worried

Me too. I think maybe people just don't know the full story.

I agree with old CliffyB that microtransactions are not a bad word. That's... all about I can say.

The issue is that microtransactions tend to either be elements that improve the game's aesthetic if the gamer feels that he'd like to add some extra polish to his game, or are small boosts in stuff like MMOs or RPGs where the player, say, gets double exp or gold or some crap like that.

The issue is that CliffyB is confusing microtransactions with another term, DLC, which we tend to have a problem with. I wouldn't mind stuff like From Ashes from ME3 if it weren't for the fact that they contained a character whose entire evolution and insight into the Reaper campaign was practically required for anyone interested in ME's lore (see: any gamer that actually bought all three games and imported their Shep throughout the story mode). If EA was just selling me the ability to give Necromorphs party hats, I'd be on a pedestal proclaiming EA as some brilliant wizard that learned how to take the Internet and turn it to their advantage.

Instead, we can see that the CEOs at EA still aren't understanding exactly why we purchase some specific content. If EA dropped the microtransactions in Dead Space 3 and instead added an extra mode where you could play the game in horror-themed Sepia, they'd probably make even more money, because it's a novelty that people that love the game (and as you can see from hard critics like Jim Sterling, it has a lot of fans) will buy to make them love the game more.

I think people are going way too overboard on this, he's basically just saying that games are a business and people are buying into it. If you guys have to get mad at someone, get mad at those who buy Cod map packs for $19.99.

lacktheknack:

Vigormortis:

lacktheknack:
I have no problems with this statement.

Well, except one.

Yes, Steam took a long time to become as good as it is. It had no model to follow, because it was the first service of its kind (I believe), and it had to do some poking around to get to where it is today.

What's EA's excuse? They have a perfectly good template, but they didn't come up with a better product in any shape or form. So why should I have to have any respect for the latecomer that isn't as good as what's already there?

Even worse, EA had a Steal-like service before Origin.

Which makes Origin inexcusable. They had their own prior service AND a host of other DD-services (Steam, Impulse, GoG, etc) to learn from, yet they still released Origin in such an awful state.

Why anyone wants to defend them on that is astoundingly confusing to me

<Googles>

Wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat wat

Well, this is just plain old embarrassing now. How, EA? How?

Know what baffles me even more?

Many gamers, even some in this thread (like Akalabeth, for example) go on and on about how much "irrational hate" EA receives and about how we should "forgive" some of EA's transgressions, no matter how big and blatant. Yet, they seem simultaneously hellbent on chastising Valve for any transgression, no matter how small or imaginary.

Not to mention how often these same people call Valve fans "blind sheeple".

Hypocrisy and double standards are dangerous things, people. They only make you look a fool. Especially when you're preaching from atop your soapbox.

major_chaos:
And of course the Valve defense legion comes out of the wood work to correct this horrible slight against their beloved gabenmessiah. If I can give valve credit, its for two things: one is developing something that is damn near a monopoly on digital distribution and then trying to squeeze the last vestiges of life from brick and mortar sales by having many games "physical copies" be nothing more than steam download codes in a very large box. And second creating the most utterly unquestioning devoted fan base ever, much of it devoted on a level that is less "this is a company that makes games I like" and more some kind of deep personal loyalty, witch is probably how Valve can get away with things that would get any other dev crucified. (i.e: crates, the wedding ring, charging you per round for MvM) Well back to playing Dead Space 3, boy "ruining the industry" by playing the games I like sure is fun.

I say sir, is your head on stright? cause it seems it is, unless most other people in this tread Thank heavens. Honesty ots people who support valve blindly that scare me. Who to says that when Valve take over the world that how many will accept it just because its valve? I say valve should be not be treated just because "they made good games in the past or they aren't EA" Its people like that who prevent anything progessiveness in gamers intereacting with game developers and publishers. Heck I say valve is sorta like a religion in some cases with how blinded they are.

That said if and when valve does fail or make a bad game, it will be so good to watch them valvies try to prove others otherwise. Their tears shall be sweeter than shooting up an entire army with my Orks and Necron allies.

Orks da best:
snip

Thanks for proving Vigormortis point one post below his, and without any hint of irony. You know dude, that there's hell of a lot more of "EA CAN DO NO WRONG! NO WROOOOOONG!" in this thread than there's *coughs*That other bullshit term you tossed out, right?

Orks da best:
Honesty ots people who support valve blindly that scare me.

I actually don't think anyone here has blindly supported Valve. At least, not in this thread. I think you might be imagining it.

Rachmaninov:

Gameguy20100:
This is so bloddy stupid Im sick of Valve being seen as the god of companays and EA get treated like theve opened Pandoras box with every little slip but Its the same fucking thing all the Time, A company like bethesda or Netherrealms or 2k games (all good companys btw)Is gonna relse some microtransactions or Dlc then your gonna moan about it then buy and feel ripped off then your gonna call the company evil and threaten to boycott because it's always someone else's fault

"It's always someone else's fault"? If video game companies are slicing off parts of the game, so they can sell us a full price game, except with some of the disk seperated as "Day One DLC" that you have to pay extra for, despite already owning the disk its on... who's fault is that? We're blaming the company who did it. Not someone else.

Some people will always complain about games asking for extra money for more parts of the game, it's true, and not all of that behaviour is really "evil". If good extra content is offered, for a reasonable price, which took investment from the developers beyond the original development of the game, then there's nothing wrong with that.

But what EA do, is they take their complete game, and chop it up into pieces, so they can sell it to us multiple times with no extra effort from them. It is no coincidence that they include a grindy resource collection mechanic to Dead Space 3, only to offer us a way out if we pay through microtransactions. And that same game had eleven pieces of Day One DLC, which was all already on the disk I'd already paid full price for.

It'd be like me selling you a DVD, and then making you pay extra on top of the box price to watch the final scene. Underhanded, and it should be illegal.

And that's only the beginning of EA's crimes. EA are evil for many more reasons than just Day One DLC and Microtransactions. I'm not going to explain it again, since I've done so more than few times on this thread already.

Neeckin:
The fact that there are people here defending EA makes me very worried

Me too. I think maybe people just don't know the full story.

Dude While I see your point Films dont take over 100 million to make Companys need to make a profit all those people are just like you and me trying to make enough money to keep up with rent bills etc would you really condemm a bunch of people to live on the street just because you didnt pay for a new gun or 2 in Mass effect 3?

I think downloadable content and microtransactions come across the gaming medium as a spectrum of varying substance. Each one released by any publisher, whether it be Valve or EA, has a different context behind it and what makes a "good" microtransaction seems to depend on the individual gamer.

Some people here seem to think a good microtransaction is solely one that might be mostly cosmetic or doesn't affect the gameplay at all, whereas other people percieve that solely as paying for pretty much zero substance and would rather prefer actual additional features affecting gameplay. On a greater sort of world-scale I don't think there's really one right way of what DLC or microtransaction content should be like.

As for actual proper context, I'm sure EA has been guilty of bad creative direction in the past, but to me I think the examples being touted aren't entirely reasonable. Dead Space 3 does the whole passive-aggressive thing with the whole "you could grind this game ooooooor you could just fork over a couple dollars to make your life a little easier". Sure it's irritating and consumer-unfriendly, perhaps, but you're not necessarily being deprived of the endgame or whatever analogy I saw up above.

Honestly, the more I think about it the more I believe that while Cliffy B might be flapping his gums as usual, I also believe that EA are partly just a symptom of gaming trends in big business. We hold EA one of the most accountable simply because they make themselves an incredibly easy target. Like someone mentioned earlier, they seem to have an incredibly incompetent PR department (and/or take much more heat than a PR department would be capable of) - and on top of that their percieved public image has been built by a consumer base perhaps not wholly understanding of the context/motive/reasoning of their business practices.

Gameguy20100:
Dude While I see your point Films dont take over 100 million to make Companys need to make a profit all those people are just like you and me trying to make enough money to keep up with rent bills etc would you really condemm a bunch of people to live on the street just because you didnt pay for a new gun or 2 in Mass effect 3?

I'd not condemn them to the street, I'd suggest they stop bloating their own costs. The only reason games "take over 100 million to make" is because the developers spend that much on them. They could spend less.

I'd list you all the incredible games I've played that didn't "take over 100 million to make" but the list would be so long I'd be typing all day and night.

Expensive games =/= good games.

If cat food companies started putting their cat food in ornate golden boxes, the answer to their heightened costs wouldn't be to try every scheme under the sun to bleed more money out of its customers, it would be to stop using the damn golden boxes.

satsugaikaze:

As for actual proper context, I'm sure EA has been guilty of bad creative direction in the past, but to me I think the examples being touted aren't entirely reasonable. Dead Space 3 does the whole passive-aggressive thing with the whole "you could grind this game ooooooor you could just fork over a couple dollars to make your life a little easier". Sure it's irritating and consumer-unfriendly, perhaps, but you're not necessarily being deprived of the endgame or whatever analogy I saw up above.

The analogy I made was more about Day One DLC, rather than microtransactions.

The problem with Dead Space 3's MTs is that passive-aggressive thing you mention, and I agree that it's not so serious.

Day One DLC is a much greater transgression. Take Mass Effect 3, for example, with a character removed from the game until you paid for the DLC, to unlock information that was already on the disk. That's what I was talking about with the "being deprived of the endgame" analogy you mentioned.

I was under the impression that the release date imposed by EA prevented Bioware from being able to complete From Ashes, and hence they couldn't complete the content on the disc before it had to go through QA testing.

I'm sure the restrictive release date was a conscious decision on EA's part as a publisher (since Bioware apparently had to *beg* for a few more months), but the full story behind these DLC may be more opaque and complex than we think.

 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