EA/Biowares Exploitative Business Practices Made it to Forbes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Raiyan 1.0:
Look guys, here's the best idea.

Rail about DLCs and call for massive boycotts. But quietly buy it yourself.

Maybe even have a private cackle about it later.

That's sadly what a lot of people will do. They'll yell and holler about why EA/Bioware are evil then when the game comes out, they'll buy it without a second thought.

No folks, if you are protesting the game, you are protesting the game. Buying it is like saying "I disagree with your company and everything it stands for, but I'm going to contribute to the games sales because I really, really want to play the game."

That's where they pat you on the head, give you a cookie, and call you a 'Good boy' knowing full well you don't have a spine.

Dexter111:

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.

It is DLC. It is OPTIONAL. You do not have to acknowledge it's existence. For all we know it could be (badly) integrated as Zaeed or Kasumi. Unless he holds any significance to the overall plot(in which I will join you), he can be considered as an add-on and not part of the core game. Stop acting like EA is only selling you the first hour of the game at launch and forcing you to pay as you go. It is 2 different issues. You are NOT entitled to free day 1 DLC simply because it was completed as the same time as the full game.

In regards to teams working on different parts, let me focus on writing here. I'm pretty sure Bioware has a hefty number of writers that it can easily ask to write out the questline for the Prothean. Once these people ease up some of their load, they are given new tasks say planning the DLC. Without it, they would finish whatever work they have left before being moved onto other projects. No DLC, no bonus character. Don't want it? Don't buy it

GigaHz:

That's sadly what a lot of people will do. They'll yell and holler about why EA/Bioware are evil then when the game comes out, they'll buy it without a second thought.

No folks, if you are protesting the game, you are protesting the game. Buying it is like saying "I disagree with your company and everything it stands for, but I'm going to contribute to the games sales because I really, really want to play the game."

That's where they pat you on the head, give you a cookie, and call you a 'Good boy' knowing full well you don't have a spine.

Yup. They know that most of the people who rail against this are still buying the game. All the fanfare is, as they say, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And the people complaining have themselves to blame, because they are buying the product and thus making it permissible to follow through with such practices.

I find this more outrageous than the practice itself.

It has been said for a long time that day 1 DLC is just a part cut out of the game.
I have to say that from my personal experience, I disagree.
These DLC usually contain stuff that just sticks out and doesn't seem well integrated into the game.

!!!POSSIBLE ME2 SPOILERS AHEAD POSSIBLE ME2 SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Let's look at ME2's Cerberus Network (aka Project $10) DLC:

Normandy Crash Site - You collect tags, choose where to place the monument, and get a congratulatory email. You will never be reminded of this again at any point and it wasn't even much fun.

Zaeed - The Price of Revenge - This one is best of the Cerberus Network DLC in my opinion. One nice mission (nothing breathtaking) and a few possible remarks during certain dialogs. Unlike the other characters, he doesn't actually converse with you (just barks paragraphs of dialog at you in the ship) and has no storyline except for that one mission.

Cerberus Weapon and Armor - One UGLY armor and a shotgun that's going to be obsolete in mid-game.

Arc Projector - Nice weapon that will become obsolete when you get the Cain.

Firewalker pack - vehicle sections that might as well have been on an entirely different game. These missions are short, have completely different gameplay and no impact on the plot.

I wouldn't feel ripped off if I didn't have these with my game, if I didn't have them and and could buy them separately, the only one I would've bought would be Zaheed. And I don't feel like he made the game all that different.

Soveru:
It is DLC. It is OPTIONAL. You do not have to acknowledge it's existence. For all we know it could be (badly) integrated as Zaeed or Kasumi. Unless he holds any significance to the overall plot(in which I will join you), he can be considered as an add-on and not part of the core game. Stop acting like EA is only selling you the first hour of the game at launch and forcing you to pay as you go. It is 2 different issues. You are NOT entitled to free day 1 DLC simply because it was completed as the same time as the full game.

It's not "OPTIONAL" just because Bioware says it is, it is content that was produced alongside the main game and ready at launch, it is also content that they apparently managed to put a code of in every "Complete Edition", but forgot to add to the Standard Edition. According to reports it is even on the game disk and the unlock code only downloads like 140KB and activates it. For all I know I don't care what it is as long as it isn't purely cosmetic and they want people to pay for it at Launch.

And stop with the bullshit "entitlement" argument, since when is being a smart consumer and raising concerns about business practices "entitlement"? Next you'll be calling people "entitled" because they look for the best price for something on the web, don't buy the shittiest product but inform themselves or complain about broken product.
You're acting as if they as a company are somehow "entitled" to peoples money and they're not the ones trying to sell a product but somehow in their infinite benevolence they are letting us buy it off them.

What the hell do you gain from defending a company so vehemently, despite obvious signs that it's just trying to screw you over? What do you get out of it?

Zachary Amaranth:

GigaHz:

That's sadly what a lot of people will do. They'll yell and holler about why EA/Bioware are evil then when the game comes out, they'll buy it without a second thought.

No folks, if you are protesting the game, you are protesting the game. Buying it is like saying "I disagree with your company and everything it stands for, but I'm going to contribute to the games sales because I really, really want to play the game."

That's where they pat you on the head, give you a cookie, and call you a 'Good boy' knowing full well you don't have a spine.

Yup. They know that most of the people who rail against this are still buying the game. All the fanfare is, as they say, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

And the people complaining have themselves to blame, because they are buying the product and thus making it permissible to follow through with such practices.

I find this more outrageous than the practice itself.

That's the thing. It seems that a lot of people are assuming that the people complaining will still buy the game and yes, that is outrageously stupid.
But I don't think this is the case. I personally find this practice as well as online pass to be insulting to me as a legitimate consumer so I don't buy games that use these schemes.
The thing is that there are a lot of gamers and most of them are suckers so EA isn't going to care about the few savvy consumers who wont stand for crap because they can just squeeze more out of the suckers to make up for it.
So I am well aware that my boycotting will not stem the tide of the industry becoming a crappier and crappier cash grab but hey, at least I'm not wasting my own money.
So while they're making plenty of money off those who don't realize/care that they're getting ripped off, the question is will EA, Sony, and those other publishers know when to stop or will they scheme the industry into another crash.
I know that most of my friends didn't get a current gen console (partially because of crap like this) and the way things are going, I'm not going to get a next gen console. It might not happen with the next gen but something like the ET crash is going to happen where all the platform developers and software developers will buy into the next big generation of gaming only to find that there aren't enough gamers willing to carry over to it.
Part of all the cash grabbing is because something similar happened this generation where most of the ps2 owners didn't bother getting a 360 or ps3. They want the remaining gamers to pay up for the money lost from gamers who have left the hobby. They aren't really losing any more money than they ever did to used games; in fact they've lost less money to used games this generation as gamestop has closed in on monopoly territory. Used games have become more expensive and don't sell as well anymore.
Now if they want to keep complaining about used games and how much of a problem it is, then maybe they should harass gamestop which curbs the amount of new sales in favor of used sales (which are much more profitable for them) rather than the legitimate consumers who now may be limited to the places where they can shop.

Dexter111:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/02/24/why-the-exploitation-of-gamers-is-our-own-damn-fault-2/

Congratulations are in order I guess xD

It also hammers in the point why people (like me) won't be getting this game and hope that will be enough of an offset to contain such practices, at least for a little while longer.

Thank you for sharing the article, it started out as a biased opinion piece and ended up as an economical analysis, which is something I trust Forbes to do.

Zeel:

Dexter111:

Zeel:
This is shifting of the blame at its finest.

You have a serious anger management issue xD

Also I don't think you got the gist of the article, he doesn't blame the people "trying to fight against it", but the ones giving in to it, e.g. every single one of the people that know they are getting screwed over and exploited (even if it's just deep down) but still buy it either because "it's Mass Effect 111!!1!!" or because they are good enough at rationalizing away that there is an actual problem (or take the help offered by Bioware e.g. "but, it's for the fans" or whatever their latest PR is to rationalize it away).
Then he counts himself amongst one of those people, saying that it isn't a big enough issue for him to not get the game, but respects the people that do just that.

There was nothing particularly angry about that phrase.

Trust me I get what he is saying, it's just not helping anyone by focusing the attention on the consumers and not EA games/Bioware.

Basically the article was a big "We pardon you EA because we know not what we do" type of thing.

How is explaining simple economics muddying the issue?

Its a supply and demand situation at its finest.

Sober Thal:
I can understand why these policies can upset people. I can understand that people don't like them. But still...

Link your STEAM, 360, and PSN accounts in your Escapist profile before you say you won't be buying a game. It makes it more believable. Can Origin accounts be linked like the others yet? Probably not... Don't worry, your secret is safe, for now ; )

Now this will be an interesting thing to see after the game launches.

I remember an image of the so called STEAM BF BOYCOTT group filled with people playing BF, if only I could find it.

Dexter111:

Zeel:
Basically the article was a big "We pardon you EA because we know not what we do" type of thing.

No, it really wasn't xD

Hal10k:
God, I love these threads. It's gotten to the point where I've started to recognize distinct character arcs. Dexter111, I'm pretty sure you fall under the Messianic archetype, though I'm not sure for what intent it's being used.

I'd rather like to see myself as a regular person argueing my opinion with others, for instance I was perfectly fine (and saw the need) for major publishers to combat "Used games" and argued towards that point quite often in the different threads. Right now I don't know anymore, I still see the need for GameStop to go away but I don't know which is the bigger of two evils if they'll start charging you extra money to get the full game at Release...

Well the thing is, the developer and their publisher will always come to a consensus of what is EXTRA content, based around their previous experiences.

People bought DLC for ME2, the Producers see this as a way to make money, therefore they make more DLC, even program it early into the cycle so they can maximize their resources to FINISH developing it after the Full game is done wither own cycle.

Its not a bad thing, if anything its an Image problem where people will have very vociferous reactions to it.

In my personal opinion I am glad that they are releasing it as soon as they are done with it, it would displease me more to know that they finished DLC in time with the game release, and then just sit on it for 2-4 months because they didnt want to cause on uproar of angry gamers to shit their pants screaming OMG X COMPANY SUCKS THEY ARE RIPPING US OFF!!!!!!11

SonOfVoorhees:

razer17:
People like me, who will still buy ME3, despite all the annoying DLC controversies surrounding it.It does annoy me that they are putting out "From Ashes", and only giving it to collectors edition buyers

I think people are annoyed because with ME2, you were rewarded for buying new with a code to download lots of free stuff. I guess we all thought they would have something similar with this game.

I issued this question in another ME3, is there any idea about what is being included as a freebie for buying ME3 new?

Dexter111:
companies like Valve that had 100% growth for their seventh consecutive year would probably know and could tell you a story about that. ("You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar." often applies, especially for Long-term profits)

Dont you mean "you can catch more suckers with hats than with HL3?", I can understand why you would distrust EA/bioware on some level because of some practices, but I cannot phantom why you would demonize them for the same practices that Steam incorporates without calling yourself biased or bitting into some sweet hypocrisy pie.

SpartanBlackman:
Just because companies are designed to make money doesn't mean they should exploit customers. And it's funny really. All this will do is make more people want to pirate. I've got an idea.
You can get either:
90% of a game
Pay extra for the rest
Some content locked out
Spyware required to run it
Or
100% of the game
All extras
No spyware required
Gets content not available with the first option

I want you to honestly say that you'd pick the first one.

#1.- You arent being exploited unless you are willing to pay for it, or have self control issues with your money

#2.- the game has a beginning a middle and an End, it will be 100% if you buy it as is without the bells and whistles, if you seriously want to take the route of "this extra stuff came out for later, the original isnt complete" you will soon find yourself not enjoying any media ever, since nothing is ever complete in the eyes of fans.

Honestly, even the mere existence of DLC is a scam, and any publisher which sells it is a scammer.

You don't see novelists trying to sell you additional chapters for a fee. You know why? Because that would be fucking stupid. You paid for the original book, and you expect to get a complete story. Any additional story that you deem important enough to write up can be put in the sequel.

Mr.Squishy:

Thoric485:
Thanks, console gamers.

Excuse me? You got a problem with people who DARE game on a different platform?

I think he is making a reference to before DLC was called DLC. They were called "expansion packs" and were quite worth our money.

Now 1/100 of a game is worth 1/6 of it's price. I'm not pointing fingers, but hey... someone had to buy DLC to make it a common business practice in the first place.

Obviously this Forbes author is shilling for EA. He defends their practice at every turn, and ignores games like Skyrim that outsold all the Mass Effect games combined, and has been releasing free patches and modding tools while not having even gotten into the specifics of what the DLC will be because the base game delivers so much more value.

dobahci:
Honestly, even the mere existence of DLC is a scam, and any publisher which sells it is a scammer.

You don't see novelists trying to sell you additional chapters for a fee.

Expansion packs used to be like smaller "spin off" books.

isometry:
Obviously this Forbes author is shilling for EA. He defends their practice at every turn, and ignores games like Skyrim that outsold all the Mass Effect games combined, and has been releasing free patches and modding tools while not having even gotten into the specifics of what the DLC will be because the base game delivers so much more value.

What about the part about "gamers aren't showing they don't want to pay that much"?

He forgot about piracy and used games sales.

Is being an economist such a chill experience I can just ignore how at least one or two million will pirate it in the first 6 months? I might have to shift my career.

dobahci:
Honestly, even the mere existence of DLC is a scam, and any publisher which sells it is a scammer.

You don't see novelists trying to sell you additional chapters for a fee. You know why? Because that would be fucking stupid. You paid for the original book, and you expect to get a complete story. Any additional story that you deem important enough to write up can be put in the sequel.

No but they might sell you a novelette or short story. Also lets face it novel are much much much much much cheaper to produce than a video game.

ElPatron:

Expansion packs used to be like smaller "spin off" books.

Yes, but I don't have a problem with expansion packs, because at least they're developed as a whole and so as a result you're getting a complete, consistent bit of content. With DLCs that's not the case. If a game company produces several different DLCs, they can't necessarily rely upon you having purchased one before playing another, so they have to create them to be somewhat independent. What you're getting are random, insular clumps of content which aren't necessarily consistent with each other or with what has been laid down in the story thus far. It's just poor, lazy game development. DLCs are a way for companies to be able to do far less work than developing a sequel or even an expansion pack, but get you to pay just as much.

A lot of expansion packs on older games would add as much playtime as if they were complete games themselves.

spectrenihlus:
No but they might sell you a novelette or short story. Also lets face it novel are much much much much much cheaper to produce than a video game.

Well, sort of. The cost of development of video games isn't "materials" like it would be with engineering something in real life, so the cost of production has mostly to do with labor. A lot more man-hours go into games than into books, simply because books are written by one person whereas mainstream games are developed by huge teams. If you were to look at an indie game developed by a single guy over the course of a year versus a book written by an author in the same amount of time, you'd be dealing with roughly equivalent man-hours, so pretty much the same cost of production.

Anyway, I seem to have forgotten where I was going with this. I'm not sure how cost of production really is relevant to DLCs, though, unless you mean to say that DLCs have become popular because the high cost of producing video games has made it hard for them to make a profit off of full games and expansion packs, which is something I'd find hard to believe.

People really need to stop making such a fuss about this. It's getting really retarded now.

I agree it's probably not Bioware's best move, but I don't think that it has deserved all the hate it's getting lately. It's not like the character in question is very important to the story anyway. All you're really getting with the DLC is some cosmetic stuff (some other looks for your squad mates) and you're able to get this character as a squad mate, that's about it. You're still going to meet the person with or without the DLC. He's just going to hang around in your ship like Kasumi or Zaeed did in ME2.

I want to say I'll join this boycott but I'm getting the DLC with my C.E. apparently sooooo, I don't exactly feel like I'm being totally ripped off. Besides that ME2-C.E. was 60 on PC and now ME3 is 80 for some reason.

Thalios:
All you're really getting with the DLC is some cosmetic stuff (some other looks for your squad mates) and you're able to get this character as a squad mate, that's about it.

That explains exactly my view on this controversial DLC.

It's 1/6 of the price of a game just for what you mentioned (plus mission).

dobahci:
snip

Part of my post vanished, no idea why. But basically I was not talking about how expansion packs are today's DLC, I wrote the exact opposite.

A handful of missions, cosmetic items and a weapon or two are not enough content. We used to get entire new campaigns, factions, maps, whole new sets of weapons, etc for only 2.5 times the price.

Awww, Zeel got suspected? I'm going to miss his rage-fueled manic name-calling rants.

Anyway, I brought this up before, but this guy summed it up far better. It all comes down to consumer choice. Vote with your wallet. Mass Effect 3 will probably be a financial success, which indicates that there is still a demand for it despite the practices involved. These practices will continue as long as there is enough demand to warrant their continued use.

ElPatron:

Thalios:
All you're really getting with the DLC is some cosmetic stuff (some other looks for your squad mates) and you're able to get this character as a squad mate, that's about it.

That explains exactly my view on this controversial DLC.

It's 1/6 of the price of a game just for what you mentioned (plus mission).

Thing is though, you don't have to buy it. If you don't feel like spending 10 bucks on some cosmetic changes, you don't have to. You're still going to get the exact same story experience as those that bought it, so why are we making such a big deal out of it?

Thalios:
Thing is though, you don't have to buy it. If you don't feel like spending 10 bucks on some cosmetic changes, you don't have to. You're still going to get the exact same story experience as those that bought it, so why are we making such a big deal out of it?

I'm not getting anything because I don't even like Mass Effect.

What matters to me is that I know that this business practice will affect me in the future.

dobahci:

You don't see novelists trying to sell you additional chapters for a fee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_Books

ElPatron:

Mr.Squishy:

Thoric485:
Thanks, console gamers.

Excuse me? You got a problem with people who DARE game on a different platform?

I think he is making a reference to before DLC was called DLC. They were called "expansion packs" and were quite worth our money.

Now 1/100 of a game is worth 1/6 of it's price. I'm not pointing fingers, but hey... someone had to buy DLC to make it a common business practice in the first place.

Generalizations are bad.

you know that this line of thinking is a useless two way street that ends up in a circular logic argument right?

Console gamers are responsible for DLC

PC Gamers are responsible for DRM

Console Gamers are Responsible for Shitty ports

PC Gamers are responsible for Shitty FPS flood

and so on.

isometry:
Obviously this Forbes author is shilling for EA. He defends their practice at every turn, and ignores games like Skyrim that outsold all the Mass Effect games combined, and has been releasing free patches and modding tools while not having even gotten into the specifics of what the DLC will be because the base game delivers so much more value.

are you implying that EA/Bioware are going to charge for patches and modding that the community does?

Are you implying that the DLC that Bethesda is already finished developing and will launch soon, will somehow be exent from the "They should have released it for free" crowd?

Are you implying that the Author of the Book is being payed by Bioware to state the blatantly obvious?

If you are, you might have a future in the wonderful world of journalism, please send your resume here careers.foxnews.com

ElPatron:

dobahci:
Honestly, even the mere existence of DLC is a scam, and any publisher which sells it is a scammer.

You don't see novelists trying to sell you additional chapters for a fee.

Expansion packs used to be like smaller "spin off" books.

isometry:
Obviously this Forbes author is shilling for EA. He defends their practice at every turn, and ignores games like Skyrim that outsold all the Mass Effect games combined, and has been releasing free patches and modding tools while not having even gotten into the specifics of what the DLC will be because the base game delivers so much more value.

What about the part about "gamers aren't showing they don't want to pay that much"?

He forgot about piracy and used games sales.

Is being an economist such a chill experience I can just ignore how at least one or two million will pirate it in the first 6 months? I might have to shift my career.

Did you just imply that a pirated game is a lost sale?

boag:
Did you just imply that a pirated game is a lost sale?

Probably a third of my of posts were about how piracy was not a lost sale.

But it's a way people are saying "it's not worth it". They would not buy it anyway.

boag:
PC Gamers are responsible for Shitty FPS flood

That depends. Which flood?

Because the last one I saw made Battlefield look like Modern Warfare like two good little console shooter twins.

Also, DRM is not a business practice. DLC isn't made to punish consumers, come on...

dobahci:

ElPatron:

Expansion packs used to be like smaller "spin off" books.

Yes, but I don't have a problem with expansion packs, because at least they're developed as a whole and so as a result you're getting a complete, consistent bit of content. With DLCs that's not the case. If a game company produces several different DLCs, they can't necessarily rely upon you having purchased one before playing another, so they have to create them to be somewhat independent. What you're getting are random, insular clumps of content which aren't necessarily consistent with each other or with what has been laid down in the story thus far. It's just poor, lazy game development. DLCs are a way for companies to be able to do far less work than developing a sequel or even an expansion pack, but get you to pay just as much.

let me get this straight, you think that because expansion packs need to be aggregated in an order that requires you to have other expansion packs before getting the one you want (which they arent) is a more honorable method than letting you pick and choose what you want?

A lot of expansion packs on older games would add as much playtime as if they were complete games themselves.

yeah, guess how much those cost?
http://www.amazon.com/WarCraft-II-Beyond-Portal-Expansion-Pc/dp/B000J5V5BE

spectrenihlus:
No but they might sell you a novelette or short story. Also lets face it novel are much much much much much cheaper to produce than a video game.

Well, sort of. The cost of development of video games isn't "materials" like it would be with engineering something in real life, so the cost of production has mostly to do with labor. A lot more man-hours go into games than into books, simply because books are written by one person whereas mainstream games are developed by huge teams. If you were to look at an indie game developed by a single guy over the course of a year versus a book written by an author in the same amount of time, you'd be dealing with roughly equivalent man-hours, so pretty much the same cost of production.

[color=green]no, you wouldnt not by a fucking long shot of a couple of years, when was the last time a book required Read Testing in its development cycle?[color]

Anyway, I seem to have forgotten where I was going with this. I'm not sure how cost of production really is relevant to DLCs, though, unless you mean to say that DLCs have become popular because the high cost of producing video games has made it hard for them to make a profit off of full games and expansion packs, which is something I'd find hard to believe.

It isnt relevant to the production of DLCs, it is relevant however to the maximizing of profits. If you invest heavily into a game say 200M, and the game makes it back, awesome, if on top of that you were able to use the resources gathered to initialize development for DLC content, leaving the programing side as the last part to finish it up, thats Bloody brilliant resource management.

ElPatron:

Thalios:
All you're really getting with the DLC is some cosmetic stuff (some other looks for your squad mates) and you're able to get this character as a squad mate, that's about it.

That explains exactly my view on this controversial DLC.

It's 1/6 of the price of a game just for what you mentioned (plus mission).
and you arent required to buy it, how awful of those Bioware people to make fanwank material for a game and then not force you to buy it.

dobahci:
snip

Part of my post vanished, no idea why. But basically I was not talking about how expansion packs are today's DLC, I wrote the exact opposite.

A handful of missions, cosmetic items and a weapon or two are not enough content. We used to get entire new campaigns, factions, maps, whole new sets of weapons, etc for only 2.5 times the price.

Last I remember Expansion packs were usually 15 - 5 dollars cheaper than the original game, show me an instance where it wasnt and ill concede the argument to you.

Dexter111:

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.

You are aware it was VALVE who removed those games from Steam and not EA?

Or did you just ignore the entire situation that led up to it to spread more hate on EA?

snip

I'm not going to respond directly to any of your points because you basically come across as a professional forum poster. Not professional in the sense that you get paid, but it's basically what you do. You're here to find every little thing to pick on in someone's post.

You have 13 posts on the 5th page of this thread alone. THIRTEEN. That is a lot.

And your attitude. It lacks civility.

ElPatron:

boag:
Did you just imply that a pirated game is a lost sale?

Probably a third of my of posts were about how piracy was not a lost sale.

But it's a way people are saying "it's not worth it". They would not buy it anyway.

boag:
PC Gamers are responsible for Shitty FPS flood

That depends. Which flood?
This one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_first-person_shooters

Because the last one I saw made Battlefield look like Modern Warfare like two good little console shooter twins.

yep, console right? its not like they started on the PC right?

imageimage

Also, DRM is not a business practice. DLC isn't made to punish consumers, come on...

Who said DLC is made to punish consumers? I only made passive examples of how stupid the generalizations become and how easy it is to fall into a circular logic argument of He said she said.

which thanks to you, I have now become part of (see what im doing there, see how easy it is to blame others for ones own actions?)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked