EA John Riccitiello thinking about charging money for bullets in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

into the Pirate Bay

I can say that this method of micro-transaction works, but usually no more than once.

I was playing Spiral Knights once, and after a number of deaths it will charge you ten dollars to respawn. In the heat of battle and not thinking about the money, I did this eight times.
Eight. God. Damn. Times.
Needless to say I haven't played since, and I was about ready to kill myself afterwards.
Now that I'm nearly broke and can't find a good job, I sometimes think back to that day, and I start making more voodoo dolls of SEGA executives.

I don't have a problem with DLC as such, not even if it's on the disk or available from day one.

My problem is how we are getting less and less value for the money. DLC is just an easy way to get people to pay more, since you don't notice how much money you are spending since you are paying it in small amounts.

But selling a DLC-less game that has 4 hours of gameplay for 60 bucks is not any better.

Yeah it's a big pile of ass if EA end up implementing this.

On the other hand we've got the amusing scenario, where, in 5 years time, online gaming is populated almost elusively with very well practised, very broke ninja 'have-nots' running across hug swathes of country side to stab each other in the face. While the 'haves' sit in a bell tower with the most expensive ammo and the most expensive high-powered rifles, picking their poor and broken comrades off the battlefield with gold plated coup de grāce.

Hmm, that would spectacular game, shame we're stuck in reality with these sniggering piles of cock-cheese.

Dexter111:

that image used for the video is totally in accurate, were is his twirly mustache and the helpless woman he is going to tie to a rail road track.

OT: EA, take a look at steam, notice the fact that they are making tones of money, now notice that people love steam, that's because they give you good offers and make you want to pay for a good service not because their a punch of money hungry dicks. At the end of the day a happy costumer is going to pay more then a angry costumer, why to you think a lot of retailers tell their staff to smile and be friendly.

TIMESWORDSMAN:
I can say that this method of micro-transaction, but usually no more than once.

I was playing Spiral Knights once, and after a number of deaths it will charge you ten dollars to respawn, In the heat of battle and not thinking about the money, I did this eight times.
Eight. God. Damn. Times.
Needless to say I haven't played since, and I was about ready to kill myself afterwards.
Now that I'm nearly broke and can't find a good job, I sometimes think back to that day, and I start making more voodoo dolls of SEGA executives.

Wow, I had no idea gaming was already this bad. But I shouldn't be surprised as I've seen this sort of behaviour before; I used to work in the gambling industry.

You'd be surprised just how often perfectly rational people can get mixed up in problem gambling. I'm talking people with minimum wage and part time jobs, people on benefits, spending hundreds, sometimes thousands, in a matter of hours. That thing Riccitiello said about the consumer being invested in a property; that's how gambling problems happen. Once behind, gamblers get fixated on winning their money back (often, with what is known as the gamblers fallacy, believing their recent losses guarantee them a future win). Say you put £20 in a machine and with a bit of luck go up to £100; if your next spin drops you to £95, the thought process becomes "I'll just get it back to £100 then call it quits", and before you know it you're down to zero and reaching for your wallet.

Now you can read this and think such people are just being stupid, but I used to witness this on a daily basis. Sure, some customers we had were idiots, but there were ordinary straight thinkers among them too. So, TIMESWORDSMAN, I feel for you. This is all too common in gambling, and I hope gaming doesn't go the same way.

With this in mind: we have separate legislature covering gambling. Is it fair to say that micro-transactions in games are worth some legislation and regulation?

It is fairly simple.

You cannot get away with everything. Eventually someone will get their fingers burned in attempts of pushing the customers and there will be repercussions.

Yes it is a business job to try and push as much profit as possible out of their customers, but push to hard and you will push them onto another provider, or a different market entirely.

Either this guy will change his tune fast or he will cost his company money.

WoW Killer:

TIMESWORDSMAN:
I can say that this method of micro-transaction, but usually no more than once.

I was playing Spiral Knights once, and after a number of deaths it will charge you ten dollars to respawn, In the heat of battle and not thinking about the money, I did this eight times.
Eight. God. Damn. Times.
Needless to say I haven't played since, and I was about ready to kill myself afterwards.
Now that I'm nearly broke and can't find a good job, I sometimes think back to that day, and I start making more voodoo dolls of SEGA executives.

Wow, I had no idea gaming was already this bad. But I shouldn't be surprised as I've seen this sort of behaviour before; I used to work in the gambling industry.

You'd be surprised just how often perfectly rational people can get mixed up in problem gambling. I'm talking people with minimum wage and part time jobs, people on benefits, spending hundreds, sometimes thousands, in a matter of hours. That thing Riccitiello said about the consumer being invested in a property; that's how gambling problems happen. Once behind, gamblers get fixated on winning their money back (often, with what is known as the gamblers fallacy, believing their recent losses guarantee them a future win). Say you put £20 in a machine and with a bit of luck go up to £100; if your next spin drops you to £95, the thought process becomes "I'll just get it back to £100 then call it quits", and before you know it you're down to zero and reaching for your wallet.

Now you can read this and think such people are just being stupid, but I used to witness this on a daily basis. Sure, some customers we had were idiots, but there were ordinary straight thinkers among them too. So, TIMESWORDSMAN, I feel for you. This is all too common in gambling, and I hope gaming doesn't go the same way.

With this in mind: we have separate legislature covering gambling. Is it fair to say that micro-transactions in games are worth some legislation and regulation?

Ok...

A few clarification.

A) It doesn't dock you money directly. It uses energy. More you die the more it costs to res you. You cannot waste money you havn't already put in the game.

B) Energy generates at a slow phase at all times. A 100 energy will generate over the course of 20ish hours (not sure about that). 100 energy is enough for a good player to do a full run of a 4 lvl dungeon. A poor player will die alot and therefore wont get get far for 100 energy.

C) Energy is purchasable for ingame currency. You can get as far as any other guy without paying a cent. It just takes longer.

It is not as bad as you make it out to be. There has to some sort of personal responsibility in this situation.

*Looks back from the horde of angry gamers and lowers my lightsaber*

You know, EA, it's starting to get difficult to defend you...

Draech:
It is not as bad as you make it out to be.

I'm not making that particular game out to be anything (I've not played it); I just saw the previous description and noted it was the kind of behaviour I've seen all too often from problem gamblers. The previous poster ended up spending more money than they could afford on a product they didn't need, in a transaction they would not have undertaken had they been in a clear frame of mind. That is bad no matter how you make it out.

Draech:
There has to some sort of personal responsibility in this situation.

You could say similarly (and quite rightly) that gamblers must take personal responsibility for their losses. But then we still have legislation surrounding gambling. Is this any different? If so how?

WoW Killer:

Draech:
It is not as bad as you make it out to be.

I'm not making that particular game out to be anything (I've not played it); I just saw the previous description and noted it was the kind of behaviour I've seen all too often from problem gamblers. The previous poster ended up spending more money than they could afford on a product they didn't need, in a transaction they would not have undertaken had they been in a clear frame of mind. That is bad no matter how you make it out.

Draech:
There has to some sort of personal responsibility in this situation.

You could say similarly (and quite rightly) that gamblers must take personal responsibility for their losses. But then we still have legislation surrounding gambling. Is this any different? If so how?

Your first point.
As I said you pre purchase the Energy.
Unless the person is never in a clear state of mind then he should have been in it when he bought them.

Your second point.
These method of payment has more in common with the arcade machines than gambling. And they should be governed accordingly. To make it seem worse isn't solving anything.

Draech:
These method of payment has more in common with the arcade machines than gambling. And they should be governed accordingly. To make it seem worse isn't solving anything.

The analogy is not meant to be sensationalist, don't get me wrong. Gambling goes far beyond the kind of damage that could ever be inflicted on someone through gaming. But it should serve as an example of where legislation is sometimes necessary to protect the customers (at least in theory; UK gambling laws currently do very little to prevent problem gambling actually), even when the problems are in a certain sense self-inflicted.

As for the arcades comparison, yes that works. But micro-transactions can take this to another level being electronic rather than an input of coinage, and often being of higher value. We have different restrictions and liscences in the UK for betting machines based on the stake and prize amounts they offer. There are very different rules for, say, catagory B2 machines (FOBTs) than from catagory C (traditional One Armed Bandit). So it would make sense to have different regulations on micro-transactions than on arcades anyway, even if they are included in the same legislature.

WoW Killer:
/snip

I like your post, it's indeed a difficult and complex issue. I play cash poker. I am OK at it, nothing stellar and I enjoy the competitive aspect of it more than the money (hence why I tend to stick to lower stakes) but I am most certainly in profit after years of sporadic playing. Poker in recent years, more so the online kind, has come in for some heavy criticism which I don't think is entirely justified. Yes, there are problem gamblers and they need help, certainly not scorn for being "stupid" but where do you draw the line? The US in particular has taken an extreme stance and virtually outlawed online poker, punishing everyone involved. Let's hear a yeehaw for the land of the free and home of Vegas. A balance has to be struck between personal freedom and regulation of immoral practices that prey on the vulnerable.

Responsibility is the key. Players (of all kinds, including those of video games) need to take responsibility and show they are mature enough to say "no" when presented with temptation. Companies offering a service (game developers, publishers) also have to stand up and take care of their customers, especially the ones that need it most rather than exploiting them. There is nothing inherently wrong or evil with gambling/poker, the same goes for DLC. Compromises have been made in online poker where bankroll management is encouraged, limits placed on money deposited, and pop-up reminders concerning losing and taking a break. This is the direction things should be going, not outright banning. The same applies to DLC as we should expecting - nay, demanding - certain quality and business standards in place. This goes far beyond the likes of a "professional" review that you'd read in a magazine partially funded by the company behind a product.

I don't have all the answers but first and foremost, we could vote with our wallets. It will start the ball rolling like nothing else could so please don't cop-out and pirate! Forget about the morality argument as it's largely irrelevant, develops and publishers will observe the numbers and see lost sales. Some will be, some won't but the very act of piracy is muddying the water and all will be better off without it aside from the plain thief who will take something just because they can or it's cheaper (free!). As a collective we can then say we don't like certain things and demand change without resorting to immaturity and stamping out feet saying we'll take it anyway.

Damn, I'm running low on coffee...

fake its gotta be fake.
... I hope its fake.

Crusader1089:
"A product is worth whatever it's purchaser is willing to pay for it."

You, the game playing public, have brought us to this place.

Not me, I have never bought DLC. Ever. If it doesn't come on a disk, I don't want to hear about it.

There's a big difference between optional extra DLC and fucking charging money for the bullets in your guns.

The former is essentially the same thing as an expansion. The latter is insanity.

Bhaalspawn:
*Looks back from the horde of angry gamers and lowers my lightsaber*

You know, EA, it's starting to get difficult to defend you...

You could defend them to begin with?


And that is but the tip...
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.355017-EA-Shutting-Down-Servers-for-Games-That-Require-Online-Pass
And that's recent. I don't think EA want defending.

How do we know that he isn't just talking about BF:Heroes?

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

"When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time."

"A consumer gets engaged in a property, they might spend 10,20,30,50 hours on the game and then when they're deep into the game they're well invested in in. We're not gouging, but we're charging and at that point in time the commitment can be pretty high."

"But it is a great model and I think it represents a substantially better future for the industry."

Keep buying that DLC and subscribing to those "Premium Services" and this is how gaming will look like 5 years from now.

LOL! This reminds me of the Game Infarcer in the latest GI.

Using a scanner like the Skylanders scanner to scan bullets into the game to reload. You have to actually by bullets and guns from the gun store and scan them.

It'd never happen. Not even the dumbest/wealthiest players are willing to pay a fucking dollar every time they run out of ammunition. I sure as hell wouldn't, anyway.

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.

The quality of the game has nothing to do with how it is developed or marketed. A game, to these guys, is an investment. It is researched, determined what people will pay for, what is currently trending is taken into account and added to the game accordingly, and a product that is guaranteed to return the developer's investment is released.

OhJohnNo:

The former is essentially the same thing as an expansion. The latter is insanity.

No, it isn't essentially the same thing as expansion. If the game is a bowl of icecream, an expansion is a banana split. A DLC is an extra icecream scoop. An expansion adds new content, new experience. DLC tends to add more of the same.

Vegosiux:

OhJohnNo:

The former is essentially the same thing as an expansion. The latter is insanity.

No, it isn't essentially the same thing as expansion. If the game is a bowl of icecream, an expansion is a banana split. A DLC is an extra icecream scoop. An expansion adds new content, new experience. DLC tends to add more of the same.

I meant the principle was the same - you're paying extra money to get an extension of the same gaming experience (even little cosmetic downloads are technically that). Most expansion packs I'm aware of keep the gameplay the same.

Still, regardless of all that, my point was that DLC = OK, this = very not.

Zeel:
Good business isn't my problem honestly. My problem is consumer rights. How can you defend this? do you benefit at all from watching them screw other people over?

Well, I think there is an element of schadenfreude when you watch people blow their money on bad microtransactions.

Elamdri:

Zeel:
Good business isn't my problem honestly. My problem is consumer rights. How can you defend this? do you benefit at all from watching them screw other people over?

Well, I think there is an element of schadenfreude when you watch people blow their money on bad microtransactions.

Unless it bankrupts them, there's no schadenfreude to be had... sadly. Cause I do wish for bad things to happen to people who would throw money at that. Cause then people will start thinking they can make me do it too.

Vegosiux:

Elamdri:

Zeel:
Good business isn't my problem honestly. My problem is consumer rights. How can you defend this? do you benefit at all from watching them screw other people over?

Well, I think there is an element of schadenfreude when you watch people blow their money on bad microtransactions.

Unless it bankrupts them, there's no schadenfreude to be had... sadly. Cause I do wish for bad things to happen to people who would throw money at that. Cause then people will start thinking they can make me do it too.

Oh, I don't know if I would say that. I mean, what was that one Korean game where they opened up some item for purchase for 10K real dollars and sold like a thousand of them?

Draech:
It is fairly simple.

You cannot get away with everything. Eventually someone will get their fingers burned in attempts of pushing the customers and there will be repercussions.

Yes it is a business job to try and push as much profit as possible out of their customers, but push to hard and you will push them onto another provider, or a different market entirely.

Either this guy will change his tune fast or he will cost his company money.

That's fairly optimistic, but I've heard it all before.

Zachary Amaranth:

Draech:
It is fairly simple.

You cannot get away with everything. Eventually someone will get their fingers burned in attempts of pushing the customers and there will be repercussions.

Yes it is a business job to try and push as much profit as possible out of their customers, but push to hard and you will push them onto another provider, or a different market entirely.

Either this guy will change his tune fast or he will cost his company money.

That's fairly optimistic, but I've heard it all before.

Meh even if he ends there I doubt that the entire industry will end there. Indi developers wont have the budget to put a micro-transaction system together.

There will always be a better deal.

And if not. Then Ill find something else to use my cash on. Like alcohol and women.

The day that became standard practice is the day I'd put down the controller, go out buy a real gun and find this person.

Overdramatism aside.

I wouldn't be playing many shooters.

bahumat42:

Zeel:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

I can defend it. If people want to waste their money on reloads, let them. If they aren't willing to, then this idea dies. It is just business.

Good business isn't my problem honestly. My problem is consumer rights. How can you defend this? do you benefit at all from watching them screw other people over? Wouldn't you rather everyone get good quality service at reasonable prices?

Seriously, whats your stake in this?

if some idiot actually pays for that then he doesn't deserve his own money.

Regardless of how stupid people are, they don't deserved to be taken advantage of. That's silly.

I remember when I was like 9 years old and some punk ass cashier stole my twenty bucks. This is unfair, just because someone is ignorant or being coerced, that doesn't excuse the offender.

$1 per clip? It will get a few thousand dollars as people ignorant of this method, hope in silence that shit will change further through the game, and then the entire freaking game, franchise, and company will get dropped harder than an atomic bomb in Japanese airspace.

What an absolutely stupid idea...

Volf:

Vigormortis:
And people keep asking me why I don't buy games from EA, Activision, and Ubisoft anymore. They say to me, "But if you like the game, why deny yourself the fun?!"

Uh...BECAUSE I HAVE FUCKING PRINCIPLES. And the shit EA, Activision/Blizzar, and Ubisoft have been doing the past few years are beyond appalling.

Speak with my wallet? I intend to continue doing so.

[pardon the expletives]

you could just buy used

True. But in my area, that would mean supporting Gamestop. And I refuse to do that.

Don't take that to mean I have something against used game sales. On the contrary.

I just have issue with Gamestop, but I don't feel like getting into a long-winded discussion on that as it's off topic.

Plus, you know, there's still the principle of the thing. I'd still technically be buying an EA, Activision, or Ubisoft title. Even if they're not getting my money.

Zeel:

bahumat42:

Zeel:

Good business isn't my problem honestly. My problem is consumer rights. How can you defend this? do you benefit at all from watching them screw other people over? Wouldn't you rather everyone get good quality service at reasonable prices?

Seriously, whats your stake in this?

if some idiot actually pays for that then he doesn't deserve his own money.

Regardless of how stupid people are, they don't deserved to be taken advantage of. That's silly.

I remember when I was like 9 years old and some punk ass cashier stole my twenty bucks. This is unfair, just because someone is ignorant or being coerced, that doesn't excuse the offender.

well yeah but the example you proved was illegal. And rightly so. But bullshit like people think will happen simply won't, the economics of it won't allow it to succeed.

These sorts of ideas spell the end of the "great big publisher" era. Digital distribution is eliminating the useless middle men, and they're scrambling to dig out whatever revenue they can before the show's over. Guys like this EA douche? They're just trying to sweeten the pot before retirement. They're not interested in leaving a functional, profitable company behind. Good thing, too, because EA lost like $500 million last year. I feel like this kind of behavior won't help.

Rawne1980:
And people will gladly pay.

£1 per clip? People will walk to EA HQ and throw their wallets at them.

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

I support day 1 DLC, but I do not support this. This is a new low which can only be compared to Facebook games. Well at least they don't charge you unless you want to get ahead. This is charging for something that is essential.

Aprilgold:
No, gaming will die when there is no longer gameplay, simple as that. Micro-transactions have worked in games like (...) Combat Arms

WORK? Combat Arms and "working" in the same sentence is an oxymoron!

Simply the game was torn apart by the microtrasncations. It's not even funny.

The game is using a game engine that is too hold to take the visuals they force into the game.

The microtransactions have unbalanced the game permanently.

They used to have a "we won't sell golden guns" pledge on the website but it was getting harder and harder to reach. Last time I checked it was almost invisible.

JoesshittyOs:
Though it does bring up an interesting idea of having to purchase ammunition with in game currency, to show the value of not wasting shots. Might go well with a tactical shooter. I'd like to see this implemented into a game at some point

Disregard the fact that in average it took 250,000 shots to kill each Taliban.

Ammo is expended in huge amounts. Basically only riflemen take care of their shots, but even them carry as much as 300-400 rounds with them.

Automatic riflemen...? They carry those pouches/box magazines with a belt of ammunition inside each, and there is usually a spotter who carries an extra barrel and even more ammo. Those guys fire bursts all day.

It was meant as a joke. You can even hear people laughing in the background.
But yeah, let's take everything for what it's worth.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

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