EA/Biowares Exploitative Business Practices Made it to Forbes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

SajuukKhar:

Mad World:
I my opinion, it's pretty pathetic. EA knows that people really enjoy Mass Effect, so they decide to take advantage of people. Yes - people could simply choose not to buy it, but I still consider it to be a selfish money grab. Companies (like EA) want money - and that makes sense. But it still seems immoral; they're simply going too far.

How is completely optional, totally unnecessary, non-plot critical bonus content going too far?

You act like they cut out the ending of the game and are selling it to you.

Name ONE Bioware DLC that was NEEDED to get a FULL game? I will tell you now you wont be able too, because It hasn't been made.

contrary to the Illuminati level conspiracy people try to make EA out to be..... they aren't.

I could be wrong but isn't a Prothean pretty plot-critical? As long as he's in the game I won't mind...but if I HAVE to pay to get this character in the game than there's a problem. if he's just a npc in the SE then I have no problems with the DLC whatsoever.

The character is a Porthean SOLDIER, he isn't a Prothean scientist, he doesn't know the secrets of all Prothean technology, he doesn't know how to build the deus ex machina superweapon.

In fact Here is his dialog

Prothean: ...you found one of our beacons. You saw it happen... our destruction... our warnings... Why weren't they heeded? Why didn't you prepare for the Reapers, human?
Shepard: It's 'Commander'. And nobody could understand your warnings. The beacon nearly killed me!
Prothean: Then communication is still primitive in this cycle. You can't absorb knowledge as we did.
Liara: Shepard can.
Prothean: Then the extinction was delayed?
Shepard: We pieced together what we could - and used it to stop a Reaper invasion three years ago. Now we have your plans for the Crucible. We've started building it.
Prothean: 'Crucible'?
Liara: The weapon your people were working on. I'd hoped you could tell us how to finish it.
Prothean: So much has been lost. So much I don't know. I was a soldier, not a scientist. Skilled in one art: killing. When it was clear our war was lost, I was chosen to go forward to the next cycle.
Shepard: What was your mission?
Prothean: Among my people, there were...avatars of many traits: bravery, strength, cunning. A single exemplar for each.
Shepard: Which are you?
Prothean: The embodiment of vengeance. I am the anger of a dead people, demanding blood be spilled for the blood we lost. Only when the last Reaper has been destroyed will my purpose be fulfilled. I have no other reason to exist. Those who share my purpose become allies. Those who do not become casualties. Do you agree, Commander?
Shepard: I'd say you found an ally. The only goal we have on this ship is wiping the Reapers from existence.

He knows NOTHING.

NOTHING. He exists PURELY for show.

That's all fine and dandy but at the end of the day it's still a Prothean! Something a lot of people who've played ME 1 and 2 should have access to in the game w/o having to dish out more $. It's just my opinion though, even if he has no real impact on the game's story he should still be in the normal edition of the game. But like I said, just my opinion.

gof22:

Double A:
His entire article was discredited after he said he was only supporting TB in theory or whatever.

Dude's way too wishwashy for me to consider his opinion in having merit.

Anyway, I will be buying the ME3 Collector's Edition used. I won't have to pay EA a dime and I'll still get everything but the multiplayer. And they say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

From what I have heard the digital items like the dog will have to be redeemed through a single use code that is included in the CE. I could be wrong though and it could be like the PC version of Arkham City with Catwoman being included on the disc.

Fappy:

Double A:
His entire article was discredited after he said he was only supporting TB in theory or whatever.

Dude's way too wishwashy for me to consider his opinion in having merit.

Anyway, I will be buying the ME3 Collector's Edition used. I won't have to pay EA a dime and I'll still get everything but the multiplayer. And they say you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am pretty damn sure the digital stuff that comes with CE are just pieces of paper with codes on them. Buying a CE used would be the same as buying SE used... just with a different case.

Oh, of course, it's EA.

Then I'll just buy the regular version used and wait for Spoiler Warning to do the DLC.

image

Double A:
Shale.

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that Shale was only released for free because she was originally supposed to be in the game, recruitable in Redcliff, but then they had to cut her due to time restraints, and thus when they got more time, aka after the main game was done being developed, they were able to finish her and put her in the game as originally intended or are you just commenting on something you have no knowledge about?

AD-Stu:
You're talking about single-day drops though. The trend on a stock like Google or Apple will still be upwards. But the basic point is sound: companies aren't just under pressure to make a profit each year, they're under pressure to make bigger profits every year.

They did both make increasingly bigger profits as both articles said, the problem wasn't that people expected them to make bigger profits, but apparently that they expected them to make even bigger profits than some analysts predicted and when that didn't happen they were angry or saw "risks" and bailed out, which is fucking insane if you think about it.

The whole "Wall Street" stock exchange thing is and there's going to be some changes very soon, for instance there will be transaction taxes introduced in the entirety of the European Union very soon so they can't just buy something and then sell it back hours later at a profit and they want to stem things like hedge fonds and similar and make transactions more transparent.

Oh great, a reason for EA to pretend any lost sales are because of DLC handling and not because origin is a piece of garbage.

I had this same discussion in another thread so I'll just paste it here...

Soveru:
image

image

You do realize that your picture (although not being quite correct or accurate) is saying the exact same thing that my picture does and also what I've been saying all along just coming to a different conclusion? It says that the DLCs are being planned and produced from early on in the development cycle of the game like any other feature (and not in the last 3 months) and are basically done by release? Hell it even shows "Testing" ending at the same time. And the 2nd row is spot on, that's how acceptable DLC should be done, start with it after the game is Content Complete or Gold like with any Expansion/Add-On years ago, unfortunately that's not what happens. You could basically cut out any various number of people working on different areas of a game not needed to complete the base storyline and deign them that they are doing "DLC" now and sell a game in bits at a time, at which point do you say no?

Who decides which content is optional and which content is the "base game"?

What if they deemed that in Mass Effect 2 Grunt, Jack, Legion, Samara and Thane are content to be sold optionally, all for 10$ each and you only get Miranda, Garrus, Jacob, Tali and Mordin as your "base crew"? Why was Zaeed not "paid-content" but "buy new" content and suddenly your supposed to pay extra for your additional companion? At which point is it enough for you people?

SajuukKhar:
Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that Shale was only released for free because she was originally supposed to be in the game, recruitable in Redcliff, but then they had to cut her due to time restraints, and thus when they got more time, aka after the main game was done being developed, they were able to finish her and put her in the game as originally intended or are you just commenting on something you have no knowledge about?

Yep, that sounds like something I would say if I had any stake in the project and there were potentially hundreds of people pissed because of what I did, especially after I put a Questgiver into the game that basically says "You know, I have that quest here and I'll tell you all about it, but you'll have to get your credit card out to be able to do it!" and I cut out content for "used" buyers.
For every other game, (for instance by CDProjekt or Valve) there's a thing called a "Patch".

Dexter111:
I had this same discussion in another thread so I'll just paste it here...

Soveru:
SNIP

image

You do realize that your picture (although not being quite correct or accurate) is saying the exact same thing that my picture does and also what I've been saying all along just coming to a different conclusion? It says that the DLCs are being planned and produced from early on in the development cycle of the game like any other feature (and not in the last 3 months) and are basically done by release? Hell it even shows "Testing" ending at the same time. And the 2nd row is spot on, that's how acceptable DLC should be done, start with it after the game is Content Complete or Gold like with any Expansion/Add-On years ago, unfortunately that's not what happens. You could basically cut out any various number of people working on different areas of a game not needed to complete the base storyline and deign them that they are doing "DLC" now and sell a game in bits at a time, at which point do you say no?

Who decides which content is optional and which content is the "base game"?

What if they deemed that in Mass Effect 2 Grunt, Jack, Legion, Samara and Thane are content to be sold optionally, all for 10$ each and you only get Miranda, Garrus, Jacob, Tali and Mordin as your "base crew"? Why was Zaeed not "paid-content" but "buy new" content and suddenly your supposed to pay extra for your additional companion? At which point is it enough for you people?

Bioware has hundreds of employees. I'm betting it has at least a dozen writers working on Mass Effect 3. Furthermore, they don't just work on one thing at a time. They have to manage several parts simultaneously (Quests, characters, story etc). Once they're ease up some of the load, they have to start planning for DLC or did you think DLC took only a lunch break? Many things are planned beforehand and not made up along the way like a high school essay.

Years ago many teams were still extremely small compared to today. Volition made Freespace 2 with only 20 people for example. Expansions were made after only after release because they lacked the resources to start before that. Now when large studios have hundreds of people, that means they can start working on DLC when they finish their bit on the core game.

Yes it finishes by release. Why? There is something called a deadline. There is something these people are doing called a job which they need to keep. There is something called working your ass into the ground to meet the deadline or lose your job. Did you think game development was sunshine and rainbows?

@Dexter111

As I pointed out before, in another thread, your picture claims that content is being deliberately stripped out of the game to be sold later, while the chart picture claims that EXTRA content is being developed ALONGSIDE the base game.

Being developed alongside a game =/= being striped out, no matter how badly you wish it does.

Also what determines optional content is its relevance to the story, if you don't need it its probably gonna be a DLC. the problem with your example is that all those Companions WERE needed because that was the WHOLE DESIGN POINT of the game, to collect this LARGE team to kick ass with.

Also row 2 is a completely unrealistic form of game development only a person with limited to no knowledge on how game development works would suggest.

Soveru:
Bioware has hundreds of employees. I'm betting it has at least a dozen writers working on Mass Effect 3. Furthermore, they don't just work on one thing at a time. They have to manage several parts simultaneously (Quests, characters, story etc). Once they're ease up some of the load, they have to start planning for DLC or did you think DLC took only a lunch break? Many things are planned beforehand and not made up along the way like a high school essay.

Years ago many teams were still extremely small compared to today. Volition made Freespace 2 with only 20 people for example. Expansions were made after only after release because they lacked the resources to start before that. Now when large studios have hundreds of people, that means they can start working on DLC when they finish their bit on the core game.

Yes it finishes by release. Why? There is something called a deadline. There is something these people are doing called a job which they need to keep. There is something called working your ass into the ground to meet the deadline or lose your job. Did you think game development was sunshine and rainbows?

Yes thank you, I'm familiar with software development.

Nothing of what you say justifies charging extra money, on the contrary, anything that you say in the first paragraph also applies to every other part of the game and you even reinforce the idea that they're working on it during the development of the main game (as you put it quest-design, writing, modeling-work, lighting, art-department, programming, scripting etc.), they're all split into different "teams" doing their work, now you're basically saying that EA arbitrarily decides that a certain parts of those teams work on "DLC" now, and that somehow makes it fine to charge extra?

I ask again, at which point do you draw a line in the sand? 2, 3 or 4 launch-day DLCs, or even more "optional content" that makes a 4-hour barebones main game and everything else being DLC to make it a 40 hour+ experience? This could very well be a reality in 5-10 years if people like you buy their crap.

You draw the line in the sand when said DLC is NEEDED to get the full story.

None of Biowares previous DLC's were and there is NO indication that they are gonna start doing that anytime soon.

SajuukKhar:
@Dexter111

As I pointed out before, in another thread, your picture claims that content is being deliberately stripped out of the game to be sold later, while the chart picture claims that EXTRA content is being developed ALONGSIDE the base game.

Being developed alongside a game =/= being striped out, no matter how badly you wish it does.

Also row 2 is a completely unrealistic form of game development only a person with limited to no knowalage on how game development works would suggest.

And as I pointed out in that very same thread:

So who decides which content is ALONGSIDE and which content is the base game?

What if they deemed that in Mass Effect 2 Grunt, Jack, Legion, Samara and Thane are content to be sold ALONGSIDE, all for 10$ each and you only get Miranda, Garrus, Jacob, Tali and Mordin as your "base crew"? Why was Zaeed not "paid-content" but "buy new" content and suddenly your supposed to pay extra for your extra companion? At which point is it enough?

Also row 2 is how almost every single Expansion Pack was developed prior to ~2003, so you're wrong.
Not to say that todays software development is a lot more free-form/agile and based on iteratively working on certain things and involving both people from the pre-production stages, as well as some testers earlier or later and it doesn't resemble the stringent waterfall model as such and the 3rd row implies that there are no other projects for anyone to start work on (or move to) instead.

SajuukKhar:
You draw the line in the sand when said DLC is NEEDED to get the full story.

None of Biowares previous DLC's were and there is NO indication that they are gonna start doing that anytime soon.

So what the hell is the "full story" then? In Mass Effect 2 for example, does that just include Shepard waking up at the Cerberus facility, visiting the Citadel and going to the Collector base to destroy the Reaper?
That's about 4 hours worth of content. Do you assume every single secondary quest or secondary character or their plots isn't vital to the "full story" and can be sold as DLC and that would be fine with you?

Whoever gets to decide is whoever is writing the damn story. It is their game, their story, and as long as the story they write makes sense without the need to buy additional DLC then you cant fault them for it.

Your "WHAT ABOUT TALI, GRUNT, LEGION, etc. etc." argument ignores the fact that the entire point of Mass Effect 2 was to build a large team. They added as many was necessary, and any more then necessary what kept as possible DLC, which we got later as Zaheed and Kasumi.

Again, it is "enough" when the story of the game doesn't make sense without the DLC. If you don't need the DLC to understand the plot of the game then it isn't necessary and you have no real room to complain.

Also row 2 is not how most expansions were done prior to 2003, that is a laughable statement and show a clear lack of knowledge of how story design in ANY series works. If you seriously believe that game companies were not planning out future content and doing rough drafts of places/character/item ideas and making mock-up models of said possible content before the base game came out you are simply delusional.

iLikeHippos:
But he is quite correct on regards to the majority of gamers, who in fact are children with little to no care about the industry as a whole and will not hesitate to purchase the game with their parent's money.

Actually, the kids whose parents pay for everything are probably going to be the first ones to say "enough is enough" when it comes to forking over extra for DLC, because the ones that are paying the money aren't the ones who are in love with the game and that makes them much harder to hold to ransom:

"Mum, I need another $10 to get the Prothean squadmate!"
"Didn't I already pay full price for that game?!?"
"Yeah, but the Prothean squadmate costs extra..."
"I don't care, just play the game I bought you."

SajuukKhar:
Again, it is "enough" when the story of the game doesn't make sense without the DLC. If you don't need the DLC to understand the plot of the game then it isn't necessary and you have no real room to complain.

So you're saying yet again that you would be fine with them cutting out every single secondary quest or objective that doesn't pertain to something you call the "plot of the game" and sell them all as DLC, well good that we've established that at least, but I can't really argue with anyone coming into the debate with that position of basically defending everything a developer or publisher does in spite of their own interests as that isn't logical.

Also row 2 is not how most expansions were done prior to 2003, that is a laughable statement and show a clear lack of knowledge of how story design in ANY series works. If you seriously believe that game companies were not planning out future content and doing rough drafts of places/character/item ideas and making mock-up in game models of said possible content before the base game came you are simply delusional.

Yes it is, of course things that weren't fully realized in the main game often found themselves in an Expansion and ideas that didn't make it into the game were utilized but games in general didn't sell in the high millions or even billions and it often couldn't even be established if a game gets an Expansion or not till the sales numbers were in as that required a larger investment, but thanks for calling me delusional.

I cant tell if you are purposefully taking everything I say out of context or you just respond to things without reading them.

No, I never said that, I never implied it, I never even hinted at it. RPGs are expected to have side-quests that don't relate directly to the main-quest.

You really think that devs sit around on their asses for
1. The 2 months after the base game is done and before it comes out
2. The additional two months or so before the sales start winding down and they are told if they are getting an expansion or not
before they start making up ideas for possible new content in case they do get approved for an expansion?

that is ludicrous, and again you show a clear, and startling, lack of understanding of how game development works.

Dexter111:

AD-Stu:
You're talking about single-day drops though. The trend on a stock like Google or Apple will still be upwards. But the basic point is sound: companies aren't just under pressure to make a profit each year, they're under pressure to make bigger profits every year.

They did both make increasingly bigger profits as both articles said, the problem wasn't that people expected them to make bigger profits, but apparently that they expected them to make even bigger profits than some analysts predicted and when that didn't happen they were angry or saw "risks" and bailed out, which is fucking insane if you think about it.

The whole "Wall Street" stock exchange thing is and there's going to be some changes very soon, for instance there will be transaction taxes introduced in the entirety of the European Union very soon so they can't just buy something and then sell it back hours later at a profit and they want to stem things like hedge fonds and similar and make transactions more transparent.

This is probably getting way off topic but what, exactly, is wrong with buying something and then selling it again hours later at a profit? How much time has to pass before it's acceptable for you to do that? Three days, two weeks, a month?

And there's nothing insane per se about the people who sold their shares in reaction to the news that Google or Apple or whoever's profits were huge but not quite as huge as some people expected - that's the way the system works. Some people figured the market would react in a certain way to the news and some of them made the decision to sell their stocks for whatever reason based on that expectation.

Remember too that none of those people could sell their shares unless there was someone willing to buy them. Someone cashed in while someone else made a longer-term investment in a company that they thought had sound fundamentals.

Which brings me back to my original point: you really can't read too much into single-day stock price movements. Now I've completely forgotten what on earth that had to do with Mass Effect and DLC...

As for me? I love it. I have loved Mass Effect ever since the first time I swapped war stories with a Krogan and seduced an Asari. The series has been one of my ultimate favorite media properties of all time, going past being a good video game to becoming just a flat out fantastic storytelling experience in general. I love Mass Effect $70 worth. I will buy this DLC.

See, here's the thing. EA has the perfect miniature monopoly here. Gamers want to finish the Mass Effect story really badly, and EA are the only one who can provide closure. If it was simply a question of a good game then you could weigh up the value of it for you versus what they're charging for it and the separate DLC. But it's not just that, it's a question of completing the story yourself and they're quite happy to dangle the 'full' version over your head since they know how badly gamers crave reaching the end for themselves.

Geo Da Sponge:
See, here's the thing. EA has the perfect miniature monopoly here. Gamers want to finish the Mass Effect story really badly, and EA are the only one who can provide closure. If it was simply a question of a good game then you could weigh up the value of it for you versus what they're charging for it and the separate DLC. But it's not just that, it's a question of completing the story yourself and they're quite happy to dangle the 'full' version over your head since they know how badly gamers crave reaching the end for themselves.

Very true. They have a product that people want, and they're charging a price for it that the majority of the market seems willing to pay.

What I don't really understand is the people complaining about how this is "exploitation of the worst kind" or words to that effect.

To my mind, exploitation in the particularly nasty sense is something like paying workers in developing countries a miniscule wage, even when your company is making record profits, because you know their choice is either take the wage or starve.

Gamers getting all up in arms about how EA is "exploiting" them with this DLC is a classic case of first world problem syndrome. Vote with your wallets people.

People could just wait a few months for a sale or even a year or two for the complete edition.

Buying a game at release is becoming more and more like being an early adopter of new technology and game companies are learning from Apple. People are paying extra just to get the product first. Those who are willing to wait pay half the price for a more refined product with most of the problems worked out.

This is all mostly old news. If you buy it, it keeps getting worse, not much else you can do. I typically don't buy it. I skipped BF3 and will skip ME3 but I understand it is pointless to do so to affect some kind of change since it'll still sell millions anyway.
Sucky but whatcha gonna do.

SajuukKhar:

Double A:
Shale.

Are you purposefully ignoring the fact that Shale was only released for free because she was originally supposed to be in the game, recruitable in Redcliff, but then they had to cut her due to time restraints, and thus when they got more time, aka after the main game was done being developed, they were able to finish her and put her in the game as originally intended or are you just commenting on something you have no knowledge about?

Both, actually.

I pretty much agree 100% with what this guy is saying (not his decision to buy the game, though). I've been saying it for months.

If you don't like what a company is doing, DON'T BUY FROM THEM!

Additionally, launch day DLC, DRM, etc., aren't 'evil'. Hell, they aren't even unethical, they're just shitty money-making ploys. Most companies don't include DRM because they think they'll go broke if they don't, they do it because they think it will increase revenues. These are legitimate business strategies, they're just really crappy ways to treat your customers.

The reason companies are still doing this is because they know they can get away with it. They know people will still buy their games.

A good other-industry example I like to use is the whole Bank of America saying they were going to start charging fees for using debit cards. Remember how that went?

That sort of thing just doesn't happen in the games industry. People need to stop bitching about these sorts of things on forums and actually do something if it bothers you that bad. And in this case, doing something means not buying games from that company.

AD-Stu:
This is probably getting way off topic but what, exactly, is wrong with buying something and then selling it again hours later at a profit? How much time has to pass before it's acceptable for you to do that? Three days, two weeks, a month?

The stock market wasn't meant for the kind of intransparency and "tricks" that are being pulled nowadays, but for considered long-term investment, by introducing a tax on every transaction and banning certain practices they are hoping to prevent those, as well as bring in more transparency over the single transactions taking place.

AD-Stu:
What I don't really understand is the people complaining about how this is "exploitation of the worst kind" or words to that effect.

This might explain it somewhat :P

image

Dexter111:

image

/thread.

People clearly don't like this move. Regardless of whether it makes sense to EA and Bioware, it is clearly a bad idea from a PR perspective. They are better off releasing the same content as free DLC, because $10 from some customers is probably *not* worth the big PR hit in the long run.

Krantos:
I pretty much agree 100% with what this guy is saying (not his decision to buy the game, though). I've been saying it for months.

If you don't like what a company is doing, DON'T BUY FROM THEM!

Additionally, launch day DLC, DRM, etc., aren't 'evil'. Hell, they aren't even unethical, they're just shitty money-making ploys. Most companies don't include DRM because they think they'll go broke if they don't, they do it because they think it will increase revenues. These are legitimate business strategies, they're just really crappy ways to treat your customers.

The reason companies are still doing this is because they know they can get away with it. They know people will still buy their games.

A good other-industry example I like to use is the whole Bank of America saying they were going to start charging fees for using debit cards. Remember how that went?

That sort of thing just doesn't happen in the games industry. People need to stop bitching about these sorts of things on forums and actually do something if it bothers you that bad. And in this case, doing something means not buying games from that company.

I guess, judging by the numbers, it doesn't bother the majority enough yet.

That's really all that matters. And to be honest, where we are right now is NOT as bad as some people make it out to be. As long as I can justify the money I spend on a game based on the enjoyment I get out of it, I see nothing wrong with paying.

I will likely get at least 50-100 hours of enjoyment out of Mass Effect 3. I will be paying 80 Bucks for it. That amounts to less than a Dollar per hour of gaming fun.

As such, I personally don't feel like I am being gorged just yet. That point may come. And clearly, for some it has been reached.

However I wish people would stop claiming that their view on others. I don't blame people for not buying ME3. Why would they blame me for doing so? We both have perfectly valid reasons for our actions.

Kahunaburger:

Dexter111:

image

/thread.

People clearly don't like this move. Regardless of whether it makes sense to EA and Bioware, it is clearly a bad idea from a PR perspective. They are better off releasing the same content as free DLC, because $10 from some customers is probably *not* worth the big PR hit in the long run.

This is the most commonly made mistake. Just because there is backlash in some internet-forums (and even here it is not one sided), doesn't mean that the "majority" feel the same way you do.

When the majority actually DOES feel the same way, EA will feel it. And that's when they will react, because THEN they will actually lose income.

People say EA is greedy. So don't you think they would stop doing something when they make less money from it? Like I said in my first post. This will self-regulate when the plateau is reached.

We haven't reached it yet.

NKRevan:

Kahunaburger:

Dexter111:

image

/thread.

People clearly don't like this move. Regardless of whether it makes sense to EA and Bioware, it is clearly a bad idea from a PR perspective. They are better off releasing the same content as free DLC, because $10 from some customers is probably *not* worth the big PR hit in the long run.

This is the most commonly made mistake. Just because there is backlash in some internet-forums (and even here it is not one sided), doesn't mean that the "majority" feel the same way you do.

When the majority actually DOES feel the same way, EA will feel it. And that's when they will react, because THEN they will actually lose income.

People say EA is greedy. So don't you think they would stop doing something when they make less money from it? Like I said in my first post. This will self-regulate when the plateau is reached.

We haven't reached it yet.

Did I ever say "majority?" My point was that things like this generate bad publicity. As someone who is ideally making things people want to buy, EA doesn't want that.

As above, my worry isn't that EA is "greedy" - like every company out there, their primary interest is making money. The issue is more that in light of their failure with Dragon Age 2 (they rushed it out the door, leading to substantial backlash from the community and bad buzz for Bioware,) it's unclear to me that they have an awareness that brand loyalty does matter. So it's less that EA is "evil," more that they don't appear to have a very good business model.

Dexter111:

AD-Stu:
This is probably getting way off topic but what, exactly, is wrong with buying something and then selling it again hours later at a profit? How much time has to pass before it's acceptable for you to do that? Three days, two weeks, a month?

The stock market wasn't meant for the kind of intransparency and "tricks" that are being pulled nowadays, but for considered long-term investment, by introducing a tax on every transaction and banning certain practices they are hoping to prevent those, as well as bring in more transparency over the single transactions taking place.

Sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense. How do you mean it wasn't meant for the "tricks" that are being pulled nowadays? What tricks? What practices do you think need banning (please tell me you don't mean short selling)?

The stock market is just a market like any other, a place where people can buy and sell things. If rapid turnover of stocks was less common in the past, I promise you it was only because of technical limitations. I remind you again, if people are selling stocks on a short turnaround, it's only because others are willing to buy them.

And I ask you again, how much time has to pass before you think it's acceptable to sell a stock that you've bought? Days, weeks, months? Have you thought about the horrible downsides of that system?

Dexter111:
This might explain it somewhat :P

image

*shrugs*

This is what companies do. Subway chains here used to offer unlimited free refills on drinks - now it's only one refill, and only on large drinks. Things change.

NKRevan:
This is the most commonly made mistake. Just because there is backlash in some internet-forums (and even here it is not one sided), doesn't mean that the "majority" feel the same way you do.

^ gotta agree with this.

Kahunaburger:
Did I ever say "majority?" My point was that things like this generate bad publicity. As someone who is ideally making things people want to buy, EA doesn't want that.

Yes and no. The reality is you can't please all people all the time and while this might generate a little bit of bad publicity on forums like this one... well, you've seen the vehment reactions people have had to all sorts of things about this game on here. The reality is that hardcore gamers were always going to find stuff to bitch about. If people are going to bitch anyway, why not charge for it?

Only time will tell whether this "bad publicity" actually hurts sales of the game. But it's racked up gold sales on preorders alone, so I don't think they're sweating just yet.

NKRevan:
I guess, judging by the numbers, it doesn't bother the majority enough yet.

That's really all that matters. And to be honest, where we are right now is NOT as bad as some people make it out to be. As long as I can justify the money I spend on a game based on the enjoyment I get out of it, I see nothing wrong with paying.

Eh, you're forgetting that EA did a lot to piss off people lately, for instance the whole Origin and Origin required thing, they are one of the loudest supporters of Online Passes, they removed games from Steam (Crysis 2, Dragon Age 2 I think, and almost everyone loves Steam), then Dragon Age 2 (the sequel to the best-selling Bioware game so far) kind of turned out to suck, and they are also generally trying to nickel-and-dime people more and get them with increasingly aggressive marketing and then there's the minor things like trying to screw PS3 Battlefield 3 players out of their copy of BF 1943 or lately trying to screw Mass Effect 3 buyers out of their copy of Battlefield 3 etc., things are kind of piling up for them lately...

Also I did a Poll like a month ago, and while it isn't representative as in I don't know who told the truth or if they got the question or whatnot and it is only of this "community", about 21% voted that they wouldn't get Mass Effect 3 out of one reason or another (and that was before this whole controversy): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.339834-Poll-Are-you-still-getting-Mass-Effect-3

Fact is, neither you nor EA know how many copies they WOULD sell if they treated their customers and business partners right and they can only compare number of sales of "previous" and "next" game, but as we might know from Valve who had 100% sales growth their 7th consecutive year it might not be the worst imaginable way of conducting business.

Well I kinda agree with this article, particularly these two statements:

"For every Total Biscuit who has the moral fortitude to take a stand and say no, there are a hundred thousand other gamers who don't care enough to keep the $10 in their pocket."

"Why else do you think there are people out there who rack up $10,000 bills in Farmville? It may seem downright cruel to sell someone that much virtual farm equipment, but if they're willing to buy, many would argue you'd be a fool not to."

Man clearly understands the core of the problem.
I just don't know why people are too ready to single out either gamers or EA/Bioware (Actually I do understand - It's always easier to shift the blame than to accept you're the part of the problem). It makes much more sense to either blame both sides or no one. People have every right to spend their money any way they want to, and it would be foolish of companies to turn down profit just to maintain a morally just image for a small number of consumers who in the end won't even come through with their threats.
Hell, I'm one of those freaks who has sheer audacity to stick to their principles and boycott ME3 and I can't really blame either side. Given the opportunity, I'd probably do the same thing as EA/Bioware, and while I can argue their methods I understand why people are opposed to their (exploitative) practices.

AD-Stu:
Sorry, but this still doesn't make any sense. How do you mean it wasn't meant for the "tricks" that are being pulled nowadays? What tricks? What practices do you think need banning (please tell me you don't mean short selling)?

The stock market is just a market like any other, a place where people can buy and sell things. If rapid turnover of stocks was less common in the past, I promise you it was only because of technical limitations. I remind you again, if people are selling stocks on a short turnaround, it's only because others are willing to buy them.

And I ask you again, how much time has to pass before you think it's acceptable to sell a stock that you've bought? Days, weeks, months? Have you thought about the horrible downsides of that system?

Well it's going to happen, regardless of your or my opinion, though personally the taxation rate seems rather on the very low side to start with: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-28/eu-proposes-78-billion-a-year-financial-transaction-tax-to-start-in-2014.html

They're trying to regulate the market more closely in light of recent economic events as well as prevent pure short-term "gambling" away of money on certain deals (if you can't just exit an investment at a moments notice you are going to think twice about it in the first place) or destabilizing of markets by hedge funds and investment banks using high-frequency trading as well as shorting companies stock.

There have been some increasingly worrying practices in the financial market, especially since the dawn of technology in general and personally I'm rather critical of them at all (as well as the blind lookout for short term profit and abandonment of corporate ethics instead of long term viability), that's why I highly respect companies that refrain from going public and hold different values like Valve Software or Zenixmax/Bethesda etc.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked