EA John Riccitiello thinking about charging money for bullets in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

The gist of what he's saying is correct. Players tend not to think too much about micro-transactions in the middle of everything, and if they have actual money, sometimes they don't think twice about using it. If you run out of ammo, and you can either go out of your way to collect in-game money, or spend a "mere" $1 to just instantly resupply yourself, many people will just give up the cash for it.

You can see it in most "free-to-play" environments, where yes, you can play the game completely for free, but there will always be extra unlockables that you have to pay for. He's saying it's a pricing model that works for the company, not that it's inherently a good thing.

I swear, some people are just blinded by EA fan-rage...

This honestly sounds like a SATIRE of DLC.

Seriously people, THIS is why you shouldn't buy most DLC. every time you give these people more money, they are just gonna see how much more money they can take from you

Kahunaburger:

MysticToast:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is probably fake? Do we have any confirmation that this was actually said by this guy?

I assumed this was a joke when I saw it. Does anyone have confirmation either way?

Not really direct confirmation, but, as I mentioned earlier, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has something that's shuffling in this direction.

Instant ammo restocks, which are expendable devices, that can be obtained from grab bags using either in game credits or microtransactions.

Remember when games tried to give you the most for your money? Hey you bought our game, have a CD with some of the soundtrack!/Official poster!/Artbook/etc?

I don't believe my ears, my ears are trolling me!

They do this nobody will buy that game, hell anyone who does will probably run around meleeing enemies to death until they decide melee is ruining the games industry and cut it.

Besides this will cause pay-to-win and that will turn too many people away.

I'll laugh now but I hope Dust 514 doesn't pull this crap. Its being console f2p fps is only reason I'm interested in it.

tthor:
This honestly sounds like a SATIRE of DLC.

Seriously people, THIS is why you shouldn't buy most DLC. every time you give these people more money, they are just gonna see how much more money they can take from you

I'm going out on a limb here and say that there's a big difference between Micro-transactions and Down Loaded Content.

Sure, I can see a connection between a DLC only giving you weapons/armor/appearances and small things like that relating to Micro-transactions. The thing is, DLC should be seen more as an expansion pack, something that adds on to what you already have.

Both of these are unrelated though. What is at stake here is playing the game. What I took from this is, "Not only will we charge people for buying the game but we will charge them to play it." That is what is scary in my mind.

Starke:

Kahunaburger:

MysticToast:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is probably fake? Do we have any confirmation that this was actually said by this guy?

I assumed this was a joke when I saw it. Does anyone have confirmation either way?

Not really direct confirmation, but, as I mentioned earlier, Mass Effect 3's multiplayer has something that's shuffling in this direction.

Instant ammo restocks, which are expendable devices, that can be obtained from grab bags using either in game credits or microtransactions.

Good point. Charging for one-use items in multiplayer is kind of beautiful in its evil simplicity. Bobby Kotick is probably kicking himself for not including buyable one-off killstreaks in MW3.

WoW Killer:

Zeel:
If there was a situation where a bunch of idiots could buy the game and it would have zero impact on the industry as a whole. Then no. I don't care how some idiots spend their wages.
However, right now, everything we do effects the industry. do you really think that if EA games can get away with charging people money to reload, they'd stop? Or would it become a staple in their games? And EA games owns alot of developers. I do not want to imagine how much shit EA games would do if they can get away with charging for ammo.

The problem to me lies in the overarching effect. We let the DLC slip by and now we can't even get games without DLC's. I rather the gaming force move as a unit then become divided as the 'casual market retards" and "smart gamer consumers". As a unit we are much stronger. hell, lets not forget that the casual market morons are A SIGNIFICANT force in the industry. We can not impact the industry without them.

So the real answer to your question is yes. Yes it would bother me.

So EA start putting it in all their games. I stop buying EA (already done this; I don't like DLC). Activision follows suit? I stop buying Activision. All the big publishers the same? You get the idea.

It's not like they'll be no games left; the Indie market is getting bigger every year. The void left by mainstream publishers turning away sensible gamers will only improve the Indie market. And you know what? Indie games are better anyway.

Well man. Boycotting huge publishers shouldn't be necessary. This relationship we have with the industry shouldn't be so antagonistic.

Indie games are fine and all but I like certain games EA produces. boycotting them because they get too greedy seems ridiculous. There is a balance here we should strive for that before we take drastic measures.

Though if it did come to that charging for ammo thing. I'd have no choice but to boycott the publisher.

Fawxy:

Zeel:
These guys arent about quality gaming they are about the money!

All of the big companies are "about the money". If you're under the delusion that these publishers provide great games out of the goodness of their hearts, you're sadly mistaken.

If a publisher could make money off of an incredibly shitty, under-developed game, they would. But they can't, so they're forced to make good (or at least passable, in most cases) games.

yes, but some companies are a bit less, shall we say, 'evil' about getting said money. some companies legitimately take pride in making a good product as well as making some money, where as companies like EA would rob a blind homeless man if it got them a good buck or 2..

tthor:

Fawxy:

Zeel:
These guys arent about quality gaming they are about the money!

All of the big companies are "about the money". If you're under the delusion that these publishers provide great games out of the goodness of their hearts, you're sadly mistaken.

If a publisher could make money off of an incredibly shitty, under-developed game, they would. But they can't, so they're forced to make good (or at least passable, in most cases) games.

yes, but some companies are a bit less, shall we say, 'evil' about getting said money. some companies legitimately take pride in making a good product as well as making some money, where as companies like EA would rob a blind homeless man if it got them a good buck or 2..

..and if they could get away with it, mind. Them getting away with is, or actually being defended for doing so, that's where the main problem lies, as has been pointed out by several people here. It's funny how just a meme like "Shut up and take my money" can devolve into something downright scary.

i do not know if i should laugh or cry since our gaming world is becoming more like a dilbert cartoon.


(skip to 17:15)

Zhukov:
...

Wow.

Woooooooow.

I still maintain my stance of, "If people are willing to pay, then there's nothing wrong with it." However, in this case I would most certainly not buy a shooter that charged me for reloading.

well this is capitalism. and it works both ways.
so EA has to pay me every hour for not detonating a feces bomb inside their studios.
and every minute when they are close to finish a game for not walking around their studios with a high powered magnet jacket.
when you are that far in developement, you won't be too price-sensitive.

Zeel:
These guys arent about quality gaming they are about the money!

image
you were asking for this meme.....

MammothBlade:
This would be perfectly ok with a free to play shooter, but not a product for which people have already paid full price and then some. It's a bit like putting another 1 in an arcade machine to play again. No-one complains of that, so I don't see why it's not alright for free-to-play games to charge after a certain usage.

When I play Time Crisis at the arcade, it charges me another $1 when I get shot 4 times, so I can play for as long as I want so long as i'm good at the game, it doesn't charge me $1 for every magazine of bullets I use which are in fact ESSENTIAL TO PLAYING THE GAME and the game CANNOT BE PLAYED VERY FAR WITHOUT THEM.

Charging people for shooting a gun within a game makes the game P2P, because you're paying for something that is REQUIRED for even a free to play experience. (also, do you know how fast you work through bullets on pretty much ANY gun?)

If I think Downloadable Content should be renamed Upload Your Money these days, if this what the future will be...

The moment EA even considers taking this any further than the current "idea" that it is, I'm done with them. They cannot do whatever they want with OUR industry. We are the players and they are the dealers. As players the game is OURS. Without the players, who the hell are you going to deal to, EA? Oh, and players (with enough motivation) can deal their own cards too.

If there was ever a time to have a change of heart, now would be it EA - or consumers will continue to cut you out of their lives. I say continue as plenty of people, as much as it pains them, are starting to boycott your products and services already.

I haven't bought an Activision game in over almost 2 years since initiating a boycott. I don't even regret it. Only better products/services would change that.

Antari:
And after they are done with that ... Why not charge them a dollar for each death while we're at it?

Ha, I can just imagine such a scenario.
"Oh, what's that? You want to keep playing the game you paid for? Well too bad! You died, and death comes at a cost, buddy! Fork it over."
OT: I hope this is a joke, because it's REALLY funny.
Captcha was "enjoy life". Thank you Captcha, I will. It's a crummy day, so I think I'll get a mug full of hot chocolate and read a book for a while.

Why not charge 50 cents for every bullet you fire too. Also this Battlefield so charge people for gas when they drive vehicles, gotta include a pollution tax as well. Hell just make it so you have to pay $1 for each XP you get per online game. Or you could save the trouble and crash your stocks, grow a beard, find a begging cup and a nice street corner.

Dfskelleton:
Captcha was "enjoy life". Thank you Captcha, I will. It's a crummy day, so I think I'll get a mug full of hot chocolate and read a book for a while.

I'm starting to suspect the Captcha is somehow sentient and watching our behavior. I got "face the music" while chewing out someone for being irrational as hell earlier...

And now it's saying "one hit wonder"... it's freaking me out...

Dfskelleton:

Antari:
And after they are done with that ... Why not charge them a dollar for each death while we're at it?

Ha, I can just imagine such a scenario.
"Oh, what's that? You want to keep playing the game you paid for? Well too bad! You died, and death comes at a cost, buddy! Fork it over."
OT: I hope this is a joke, because it's REALLY funny.
Captcha was "enjoy life". Thank you Captcha, I will. It's a crummy day, so I think I'll get a mug full of hot chocolate and read a book for a while.

Yeah, give a "competitive" FPS gamer a choice to pay $1 to instantly respawn, or wait 20 seconds for normal respawn, and they'll give you a dollar any day of the week.

Well if that model turns out to be profitable I wont be surprised if EA uses it. EA is (no surprise) a business and as such their only objective is making money.

Actually I can respect this, EA have realised that a significant proportion of their users are morons and are willing to milk them for all the money they'd spend. I'd do the exact same thing to my consumers if it would work.

Future of gaming:

Don't want your character to fall over dead from hypoxia? Just pay $1 to supply your character with oxygen for 5 minutes!

What!? Did I just hear and read that? He better be kidding, because this is so idiotic that I almost refuse to believe that these words were spoken.

lRookiel:
Now excuse me while I hire an assassin to kill mr Riccitello.

Try the Black Sacrament. Proving Mr. Riccitello is a Templar would take more work, I'm sure.

Wow, just wow. I swear, if this becomes common in games, then I am giving up on modern AAA titles entirely.

Yup, its official, bastards are soulless

Zeel:

Luke3184:

Zeel:
I want to see the defence squad come in here and defend this. This is why I rail so hard against DLC's and the like. We have to nip this in the bud people. These guys arent about quality gaming they are about the money!

I'll give it a shot...

He's essentially saying that if you run out of ammo whilst playing it, you'll be able to buy new clips rather than wait and find some new ones. Now the corporation has every right to offer this, it's then the consumers choice whether they buy it. Whilst the general business model is reasonably dodgy, they way that he is suggesting it be applied is not actually an issue. It's the consumers choice to pay, they're not being coerced or blackmailed into it. So no, I don't see anything wrong with expanding on the service, where, in this case, they're not cutting content but just making it easier. You should also note that the pure amount of fuss it would be to purchase one clip of ammo would probably make it a service not so many people consider worth it.

Well that's my opinion, I look forward to finding out which kind of fanboy you decide I am.

Corporation having a right to do it isn't a defense in why they should do it. Which is what I asked of you. Do you have a defense for sleazy business practices or not?
And actually they are being coerced to pay for it. did you watch the video to the end? he said that we get the gamers invested, there in the middle of playing, and when they are thinking conservatively we SLAP THEM WITH 1 dollar ammo. That IS coercion.

I'm sure when we do inevitably get to this point the fuss will be massive but there will still be people there defending it. Like you are doing right now.

Since you had to put that condescending little remark at the end. I've doved you Corporation fundy fanboy. because you fundamentally love being screwed by corporations.

It think the issue is more with his phrasing than the actual intention, he was merely stating that whilst the person is currently invested in the game is the best time to put in the offer. So your issue is with the idea of corporation doing everything they can to make money? That's the point of corporations, making money... And what he is advertising is a lot better than what most of them do. However I do believe this debate may begin swinging towards economics rather than the games industry.

So I digress, I have no problem with them charging people for an ammo clip because, quite simply, anybody stupid enough to pay it deserves to get fleeced in a legitimate manner. I personally won't pay anything myself, especially due to not really buying EA games, but I'm more than happy to defend EA's right to take the money from the sucker who's willing to pay, in this case. Cut game content is another matter, before you bring it up, and I have different opinions on that.

And on a final note... Corporate fanboy is fine with me, can I call you a 'posting provocative and badly thought out comments all over the place' fanboy?

I'm in the crowd to let them do it, but I need to know when ever this sort of thing is implemented, so I can avoid it. It is a capitalist system and they can charge whatever they want. I won't go protesting in the streets because EA is being a snake oil salesmen. I would never buy something that requires a spilt second decision on the matter, especially since I might give them money with an accidental button push.

MammothBlade:
This would be perfectly ok with a free to play shooter, but not a product for which people have already paid full price and then some. It's a bit like putting another 1 in an arcade machine to play again. No-one complains of that, so I don't see why it's not alright for free-to-play games to charge after a certain usage.

This is a good comparison, but arcades are dying now a days. I think it might be a good indicator that it won't work. Although it may be the case of being too lazy to get out.

Also you have to watch out for when children buy ammo off their parents credit cards. Making purchases when you don't have to put in even enough time to give the credit card info is dangerous when it comes to children who don't know what they're doing. I guess thats what parents would get if they let their kids play M games before they know what money is.

Antari:
And after they are done with that ... Why not charge them a dollar for each death while we're at it?

Dollar to respawn in a game like Battlefield I can see happening. You either pay to respawn, or sit out for the rest of the game.

What's the logical conclusion to this?

---2 years later---

MASS EFFECT 4 DLC: CONTROLLER SUPPORT
$9.99 + tax

Aircross:
Wow...

...ditto

EA truly have no soul and do not care about their customers one little bit.

Kungfu_Teddybear:
I can't see this happening at all. Even EA isn't stupid enough to think this will pass. Even if it did I would be amazed if anyone was stupid enough to buy it... Actually no I wouldn't. But still, I don't see this ever happening.

If they tried this on something like Battlefield 3 I reckon most games would quickly turn into knife fights, because not a lot of people would be stupid enough to pay for things like this. I mean, $1 per clip? Considering the amount of ammo you burn through in a game of Battlefield 3, especially on PC, that's a lot of money. DLC and micro-transactions are, in some way, supposed to enrich the experience of the game, despite the money EA charge for it, they know this. This sort of thing wouldn't enrich the experience, it would destroy it. All this will accomplish is turning players away from Battlefield and onto Call of Duty. And EA wouldn't risk that with one of their biggest franchises. All this would do in the long run is hurt their profits.

I think this is just a joke.

You know, 10 years ago I thought people wouldn't be stupid enough to buy unfinished games and pay extra for parts of the game left out and I was wrong, I also thought people would never pay to play Online for normal games outside of the MMO model and I was wrong, 5 years ago I never thought people would pay money for gameplay tasks and then "Social gaming" happened, forgive me if my faith in that particular argumentative point is rather shaken...
Also, "turning players away to Call of Duty", are you serious? They already have that "Call of Duty Elite" thing with over a million people literally paying them to keep playing and crashing their servers because of demand and the number of "DLC" they release seems to be doubling with each iteration of the "game", as well as the development time seems to be getting shorter, and no this was certainly no "joke", it was during a stockholder meeting to assure them that their money is well invested in the company.

Soviet Heavy:
Is he trying to dethrone Kotick for biggest prick in the industry? Because he's doing an admirable job. Of course, given that it's EA, they'll still run second fiddle to Activision.

They could probably literally start sacrificing children at this moment and still couldn't touch Activision, luckily their PR department seem to have either managed to contain Kotick a bit or "gaming media" has to fear sanctions for posting any articles in regards to something like this or something he said (e.g. lost revenue through advertising, no more "Exclusive" interviews and previews/reviews etc.).

mad825:

Dexter111:
Found this on another site, it is a few months old but haven't seen it till now.

*Ahem* the Bioware forums?

...But yea, this doesn't bother me. I have Cheatengine at my side.

Surprisingly, no. Also "Cheatengine" won't do much on Multiplayer games.

Frieswiththat:
Here's a thought! Why don't you pay us a dollar for every IP EA has ruined?

Because they'd be going bankrupt doing that xD

Rawne1980:
And the amusing thing is.... Some people on this very site will say it's a good thing.

How right you were xD

I have no problem with pay items inside a game, however in my opinion it can't be something game breaking such as charging me to reload.
Something similar to the way LoL gets money from the customers is just to offer them a product that makes their characters look cooler, more of a pay to look cool, not a pay to win.

You know what?... let them do it.

I don't care either way, I won't be buying any EA game ever again, I already said I'm boycotting those sons of bitches anyways (along with ActiBlizzard and Ubisoft, except for Rayman Origins, that game deserves every single penny they're asking, because they're making it right, quality gaming without any DRM [beyond Steam] is a winner on my book), let them sink, that'll teach them and anyone else trying to make shitty business practices like this.

I'm not against DLC and/or microtransactions, I like them when they make sense (new content/cosmetic changes/convenience items not necessary to play with and certainly not necessary to "win"), but this... this is a whole new level entirely.

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip

>CLIP
>CLIP
>CLIP
>CLIP

IT'S CALLED A MAGAZINE YOU MORON.

I dont think they will do this but I hope they do and thats because I think its a terrible idea I hope they invest countless millions in it and fail horribly this isnt a microtransaction wherby they say give us a little money and you can have this forever no its give us some money and you can have a few bullets, everytime you fire you will see youre money go down.

This exerts pressure on you when you play like achievements but a lot more sinister as its harder to ignore something you have to continually pay for you will be managing youre expenses when you play and thats not fun thats work, people generally play games to escape from that.

Also this model would kill any competition game if you can get the edge by spending a little cash im afraid youre game is unbalanced.

He likes stating the obvious in yeah we are thinking of taking advantage of people when they are the most vulnerable (borderline addicted by the way he tells it), yes well that would be a good idea everyone knows this but you dont outright say it because its not a nice practice it usually comes across as an extremely sleazy practice TBH.

I can see them pushing DLC harder and harder and maybe even offering a lite version of this but I will still refuse to buy DLC and especially microtransactions I just hope the complete idiots who may buy into this idea of EAs dont have enough brain power to get a job and thus have any money to spend.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked