EA John Riccitiello thinking about charging money for bullets in games

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
 

...and that's why I stopped about 90% of my spontaneous buys and stopped any and all pre-ordering of games. Instead, we're going back to 16-bit consoles - no complaints so far; in fact, life is really peachy right now. I find it amazing to see how quickly 'the industry' has turned the market into what looks like a hostile environment.

The spell checker seems to have a hard time. What is pee-ordering?

Sizzle Montyjing:

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?

Yes actually. I have nothing against EA. They've published half my childhood games. I also seem to be the only gamer I've met so far with a basic understanding of how business works.

I hope to any deity that will listen that this guy's just trolling, because if not;

ElPatron:

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.

Yes, it isn't buying power, damn close but it isn't. If a gun can one shot, like the magnum rifle in Counter Strike: Source, then it can one shot. But its not all powerful unless it takes shots for you.

It basically has to be aimbot to be all powerful in a FPS. I don't care how powerful your gun is, if you hit once out of every hundredth shot then you won't be wrecking shop any time soon.

Also, try to use paragraphs instead

of

spreading

every sentence

out.

The unfortunate truth is that every single gaming company on the planet would do this in a heartbeat if they thought they could away with it. Anybody else who wants to call me "entitled" as though it's some kind of insult can look at this video and hopefully understand why trying to defend these companies is exactly what they want you to do so that they can shove these sorts of schemes down your throat and make you enjoy it.

nothingspringstomind:
I hope to any deity that will listen that this guy's just trolling, because if not;

Most CEOs of major billion dollar corporations dont joke at Stockholder meetings. Bare in mind Stockholders are the only people corporations care to please, and your trying to impress them enough so they invest in future projects.

Freak out, freak out, freak out, rabble, rabble, rabble, and I go back to Battlefield 3~

Aprilgold:
It basically has to be aimbot to be all powerful in a FPS. I don't care how powerful your gun is, if you hit once out of every hundredth shot then you won't be wrecking shop any time soon.

Are you kidding me? They ACTUALLY sold miniguns that would sit on a stand and chew away anything that would pop out to shoot it. Imagine MW2 turrets, but worse. The "corridor shooter" maps of Combat Arms made it almost impossible to flank a turret, and in MW2 you have the ability to use stun/flash grenades to disable electronics.

Grenades would have to land very close to destroy it, and it took more than one magazine of an assault rifle to destroy. Yet they were able to kill before you could let off the 4-5th shot.

Let's not mention that they waited 4 months to nerf the turrets.

They also sold Specialists. In case you don't know, they had a huge stamina and speed boost, while retaining the use of a "non existent backpack" (their model had nothing on the back).

Well, anyone playing with GP (in game currency alone) is able to get more speed. But they have to sacrifice 10% health points. And use a standard backpack, because bigger backpacks would take off that speed bonus.

Specialists were able to run around very fast and have more health than "speed vest" players.

They were also able to use the M32 grenade launcher, while weaker than a frag grenade it was fast firing and it was impact detonated. There was also a M32 that fired incendiary grenades, they could shoot at a spawn point and watch people dying before they would leave the spawn

The AWP has a feature.

IT CAN'T HIT ANYTHING. It doesn't have 100% accuracy, and that matters at range.

They had the M24, which had 100% accuracy but only dealt ~90% damage, and the L96A1 was the "AWP" of the game.

Then they added sniper rifles with 100% damage and 99% accuracy. It's completely unbalanced. Not to mention the bolt action cocked faster than other bolt actions and that it scoped in very quickly.

A game CAN be broken even without "aimbot" items. They did it, and then added aimbot turrets.

ElPatron:
-snip-

To clarify, its been years since I played Combat Arms. I'm talking open beta, so I don't think the game is broken due to my past experience being so long ago.

Aprilgold:

ElPatron:
-snip-

To clarify, its been years since I played Combat Arms. I'm talking open beta, so I don't think the game is broken due to my past experience being so long ago.

The BETA was the phase it should have stayed in.

You could have a M590 on secondary, if my memory doesn't fail me.

Now they changed the HUD and GUI beyond all recognition, ripped off maps from MW2, introduced more lag inducing items.

Oh, god. The lag. The AP mine warnings and the green glow on medikits takes a toll on your gameplay even if you aren't looking at them.

Connection is rubbish, gameplay is not fluid, people get better treatment for being friends with mods.

And Pay 2 Win scheme. Seriously. There is no way to use GP items against those OP weapons.

Draech:

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

Probably the better buy.

I disagree that indie games won't be able to put together microtransaction systems. They're not relatively hard and not financially burdensome.

Also, my skepticism comes from hearing this all before. People wouldn't stand for online passes, or elite memberships, or day one DLC, or horse arm...Okay, bad example.

If it was a free to play online FPS game, and if EA decided to say "Balance, fuck balance" than I could see this working, mind you the game as a whole would likely be very short lived. In a single player game this is just dumb. I would not be against however giving aesthetic changes for like a dollar. Example: Instead of yellow muzzle flashes you can pay a dollar or a couple cents to unlock a rainbow muzzle flair or something.

Zachary Amaranth:

Draech:

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

Probably the better buy.

I disagree that indie games won't be able to put together microtransaction systems. They're not relatively hard and not financially burdensome.

Also, my skepticism comes from hearing this all before. People wouldn't stand for online passes, or elite memberships, or day one DLC, or horse arm...Okay, bad example.

I havn't had any objections to those methods of doing business.

In the end I looked like I always have "is it worth my money?"

Eve monocle? no... it isn't worth my money. Elite membership? No it isn't worth my money. Day one DLC? Well is it any good? Yes? in that case ok.

EA clearly is not happy with Activision's reputation as the "worst publisher".

Draech:

I havn't had any objections to those methods of doing business.

Which would be great, except you're not the only consumer in the world. You're not even the only consumer in this conversation.

I buy a lot of DLC myself, all based on intrinsic value. A lot of it has been Rock Band DLC, because it greatly expands my gameplay options. Again, this is a YMMV sort of thing, but I play the HELL out of those songs, especially since they added keys. I evaluate based on my personal estimation of how much enjoyment will something add and weigh it against the cost.

If everyone did that, the system would:

A. Look like it does now, because everyone's satisfied with their purchases. I do not believe this to be the case, given all the whining.

B. Not support ridiculous DLC options. I believe this not to be the case, or there would be no market.

As such, I am forced to conclude most people don't follow this policy, at least to some degree.

The outrage we hear is belied by the sales figures.

As dumb as the idea is, I can't help but think this would produce some pretty entertaining games. Think about it, everyone would just run around knifing each other.

This is something I would never do, but financially it makes sense, people may well throw a dollar away to continue their streak. You can't really judge until you would see how it's implemented, could have a massive cool down, could be a once a game type deal. Not everyone who will use, and those that would, won't necessarily need to use it.

Zachary Amaranth:

Draech:

I havn't had any objections to those methods of doing business.

Which would be great, except you're not the only consumer in the world. You're not even the only consumer in this conversation.

I buy a lot of DLC myself, all based on intrinsic value. A lot of it has been Rock Band DLC, because it greatly expands my gameplay options. Again, this is a YMMV sort of thing, but I play the HELL out of those songs, especially since they added keys. I evaluate based on my personal estimation of how much enjoyment will something add and weigh it against the cost.

If everyone did that, the system would:

A. Look like it does now, because everyone's satisfied with their purchases. I do not believe this to be the case, given all the whining.

B. Not support ridiculous DLC options. I believe this not to be the case, or there would be no market.

As such, I am forced to conclude most people don't follow this policy, at least to some degree.

The outrage we hear is belied by the sales figures.

Supporting any kind of DLC that isn't similar to the "Expansion" model where it is clearly additional and expansive developed content after the fact pushes the market into a position where it fragments the product ever more, it also leaves the door open for exploitation like this and even beyond. If you as a consumer don't have the control of what constitutes an entire product you will always lose out, we've already seen examples where chapters have been cut out mid-game to be offered as "Exclusive Pre-Order Bonus" or sold as DLC for instance in games like L.A. Noire and Assassin's Creed 2 and as long as people like you are "fine" with that it will just get to be more, while the base price of the main product won't go down and the initial "included" portion of the game will.

Taking your "Rock Band" example, it is a prime example ripe for exploitation. Compared with other music games like Audiosurf or Beat Hazard on PC where you can load every mp3 from your music collection and it procedurally creates content based on that music and lets you play, you are literally being asked to pay twice or even more for your "favourite" music that you might already own on CD or as an MP3 instead of just using that. It would be simple to program the game to do that, but they couldn't cash-in as they can with this model, they often don't even let you transfer specific tracks between games. It's also prevalent in EA sports games and other games where they only change small parts of them that could basically be achieved in a Patch and with a roster update and sell it as a "new product", they did also increasingly start to close down Multiplayer servers after a timespan of only 1-2 years so people are required to take the hint and get their new products instead. It's not happening because of the cost involved for those things to happen, it's purely marketing.

Bobby Kotick put this line of thought rather well: http://www.destructoid.com/kotick-explains-how-to-screw-500-out-of-a-50-game-148764.phtml

In the last cycle of videogames you spent $50 on a game, played it and took it back to the shop for credit. Today, we'll (charge) $100 for a guitar. You might add a microphone or drums; you might buy two or three expansions packs, different types of music. Over the life of your ownership you'll probably buy around 25 additional song packs in digital downloads. So, what used to be a $50 sale is a $500 sale today.

They're making you pay more for the same and only doing it because it works and makes them stupid easy money, and as long as it does they will continue to do it and will also try to find new "avenues" like described in this video here, if they believed to be able to get through with it they would even make you add money by swiping your credit card or clicking "OK" every 5 minutes while playing a game, not because they had to technically or for a profitable business model, but because people like you are enabling them. That's also why only big studios are the pioneers of this entire "DLC", "Online Pass" etc. movement.

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

Nonono, not every death - every respawn.

"You can die as much as you like - but if you want to come back before the end of the round, it'll cost a little extra"

Faith. In. Humanity. Waning.

Dear John Riccitiello,

Please don't think anymore.

Sincerely,
The gaming community

Still wouldn't this make a good selling point to their opponents? I mean if i was gong for 2 very similar game and one i have to buy virtual bullets and in the other i don't the one with the free bullets ha to be a FAR worse game than the game with bullets that cost cash and even then i have all my old games and they all kick ass and all have free bullets. Then again i am a guy that only has purchased perhaps 2 DLC items ever being Yoda for... whatever Soul caliber had him and the ability to pot my rock ban 1 game into rock band 2, which i go back by trading in my now worthless rock-band 1

Zachary Amaranth:

Draech:

I havn't had any objections to those methods of doing business.

Which would be great, except you're not the only consumer in the world. You're not even the only consumer in this conversation.

I buy a lot of DLC myself, all based on intrinsic value. A lot of it has been Rock Band DLC, because it greatly expands my gameplay options. Again, this is a YMMV sort of thing, but I play the HELL out of those songs, especially since they added keys. I evaluate based on my personal estimation of how much enjoyment will something add and weigh it against the cost.

If everyone did that, the system would:

A. Look like it does now, because everyone's satisfied with their purchases. I do not believe this to be the case, given all the whining.

B. Not support ridiculous DLC options. I believe this not to be the case, or there would be no market.

As such, I am forced to conclude most people don't follow this policy, at least to some degree.

The outrage we hear is belied by the sales figures.

No but I am the only consumer I care about.

Do you give 2 flying fucks I dont like racing games?

Then why should I give 2 flying fucks about you not liking other optional products?

Dexter111:

Supporting any kind of DLC that isn't similar to the "Expansion" model where it is clearly additional and expansive developed content after the fact pushes the market into a position where it fragments the product ever more, it also leaves the door open for exploitation like this and even beyond.

Thank you for opening with this, it's silly enough to keep a smile on my face through the rest of it.

Taking your "Rock Band" example, it is a prime example ripe for exploitation. Compared with other music games like Audiosurf or Beat Hazard on PC where you can load every mp3 from your music collection and it procedurally creates content based on that music and lets you play,

I'm not familiar with Beat Hazard, but Audiosurf, to my knowledge, does not include things like accurate note charts for playing a real instrument, as current Rock Band DLC does.

The games I've seen that attempt to create actual note tracks for performance style interface, which Audiosurf does not, are wildly inaccurate. So you're comparing it to content that doesn't do what I'm looking for. Incidentally, I own and enjoy audiosurf. It's not that I dislike the game, but it's not comparable to the standard music rhythm game in most senses.

So, that being said, let's move on. Compared to incomparable musical ventures....

you are literally being asked to pay twice or even more for your "favourite" music that you might already own on CD or as an MP3 instead of just using that.

As opposed to the normal method of music distribution, where they give you new formats for free. When I was young, I had a bunch of vinyl records when I was a child, and they gave me tapes for free later. Then when compact discs became the norm, they gave me CDs to replace my cassettes. And if you go on iTunes and tell them that you already have a song on CD, they'll give it to you out of the kindness of their hearts.

And if you already own the CD of a track and go down to your local instrument shop, they will supply you with the sheet music for free.

Damn Activision and Harmonix for their evil, unique, selfish ways.

It would be simple to program the game to do that,

As is evidenced by the number of indie or fan projects that have done just that. Remember, we're talking comparable experience.

they often don't even let you transfer specific tracks between games.

Most tracks are transferrable in Rock Band (Others are off-limits due to licensing restrictions), and even later day Guitar Hero titles attempt to emulate this. This is unprecedented compatibility for a video game, but hey, ignore that. It's a profit conspiracy!

They're making you pay more for the same

Really, since "The same" includes more itself....

and only doing it because it works and makes them stupid easy money,

Yeah, the coding and licensing is free, so....

I bet you've never bought a console before.

Actually, while I'm on that, I bet you actually think peripheral sales are a new concept. Sure, bobby Kottick isn't a nice guy, but nothing he said was particularly novel here. Hell, expansion packs have been around practically forever, but that's inconvenient, so I guess it doesn't count.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the days of "expansions" or "fixes" being released as new full-priced games. Perhaps you don't remember the exorbitant prices for peripherals that were useful for even fewer games. Perhaps you are naive or innocent enough to think these are new affronts to gaming.

A La Carte selection is a step up from the old days, though perhaps I am dating myself by referencing anything as old as the Playsation 2.

That's also why only big studios are the pioneers of this entire "DLC", "Online Pass" etc. movement.

Yes, "Onlines passes" are exactly the same. Except the part where they actually are charging more for less. But why be honest? Why offer a fair comparison when you can pontificate?

Draech:

No but I am the only consumer I care about.

Do you give 2 flying fucks I dont like racing games?

Then why should I give 2 flying fucks about you not liking other optional products?

Then maybe you shouldn't get so hostile when I speak generally. Perhaps a deep breath and a reminder that you only care about yourself instead of outbursts like this.

Perhaps a little less of "oh no, but I'm a special snowflake!" Because it's especially hypocritical when you've already decided I don't give "2 flying fucks" about your personal opinions.

Zachary Amaranth:

Draech:

No but I am the only consumer I care about.

Do you give 2 flying fucks I dont like racing games?

Then why should I give 2 flying fucks about you not liking other optional products?

Then maybe you shouldn't get so hostile when I speak generally. Perhaps a deep breath and a reminder that you only care about yourself instead of outbursts like this.

Perhaps a little less of "oh no, but I'm a special snowflake!" Because it's especially hypocritical when you've already decided I don't give "2 flying fucks" about your personal opinions.

Ok then.

Would you change your purchase to not buy racing games because I dont like them?

Zachary Amaranth:
Thank you for opening with this, it's silly enough to keep a smile on my face through the rest of it.

I'm glad I could amuse you.

I'm not familiar with Beat Hazard, but Audiosurf, to my knowledge, does not include things like accurate note charts for playing a real instrument, as current Rock Band DLC does.

The games I've seen that attempt to create actual note tracks for performance style interface, which Audiosurf does not, are wildly inaccurate. So you're comparing it to content that doesn't do what I'm looking for. Incidentally, I own and enjoy audiosurf. It's not that I dislike the game, but it's not comparable to the standard music rhythm game in most senses.

So, that being said, let's move on. Compared to incomparable musical ventures....

They don't "include" things like "musical note charts", because that's not what the games are directly about, yet they generate certain game experiences based on the musical tracks used, I'm not sure how exactly your note charts would be "accurate" with only four buttons to press on some plastic peripheral, but it's just a thing of spectral analysis, see for instance here and very well possible: http://developer.echonest.com/forums/thread/146 It's largely doubtful that any of the people at Harmonix or whatever are going to sit there and input every note of a song "manually", if anything they touch it up for gameplay reasons.

As opposed to the normal method of music distribution, where they give you new formats for free. When I was young, I had a bunch of vinyl records when I was a child, and they gave me tapes for free later. Then when compact discs became the norm, they gave me CDs to replace my cassettes. And if you go on iTunes and tell them that you already have a song on CD, they'll give it to you out of the kindness of their hearts.

And if you already own the CD of a track and go down to your local instrument shop, they will supply you with the sheet music for free.

Damn Activision and Harmonix for their evil, unique, selfish ways.

Of course, only the games industry is beholden to greed... it's different though, the game industry got the amount of money they can gather to people through obscured digital transactions further than the movie and music industry have managed to do in almost a century.
While movies and music make you pay for things like Special Editions, different cuts etc. they don't quite yet have a built-in shop while watching a movie or listening to music using psychological experimentation to extract as much money from people as possible similar to "Social" games.

they often don't even let you transfer specific tracks between games.

Most tracks are transferrable in Rock Band (Others are off-limits due to licensing restrictions), and even later day Guitar Hero titles attempt to emulate this. This is unprecedented compatibility for a video game, but hey, ignore that. It's a profit conspiracy!

Really, since "The same" includes more itself....

Yeah, the coding and licensing is free, so....

I bet you've never bought a console before.

Actually, while I'm on that, I bet you actually think peripheral sales are a new concept. Sure, bobby Kottick isn't a nice guy, but nothing he said was particularly novel here. Hell, expansion packs have been around practically forever, but that's inconvenient, so I guess it doesn't count.

Perhaps you are too young to remember the days of "expansions" or "fixes" being released as new full-priced games. Perhaps you don't remember the exorbitant prices for peripherals that were useful for even fewer games. Perhaps you are naive or innocent enough to think these are new affronts to gaming.

A La Carte selection is a step up from the old days, though perhaps I am dating myself by referencing anything as old as the Playsation 2.

Yes, "Onlines passes" are exactly the same. Except the part where they actually are charging more for less. But why be honest? Why offer a fair comparison when you can pontificate?

Of course, buying entire albums for a video game, never to be used again or somewhere else is a great business model, and the Expansions of old that added almost as much content as the entire game in often elaborate campaigns are the same as the "DLC" and "Microtransaction" schemes being used on some of these games today and yes how can you reference the "Playsation 2" from the "old days" when I'm probably 10 and know nothing and didn't start gaming on a ZX Spectrum as long as it fits your argument.

People like you, not thinking on what they spend their money on and what that entails, are the problem why the industry as a whole is in the state it is in today, aside from a few rays of hope from the Indie scene and things like Kickstarter mostly just homogenized mass market games built for gradual exploitation through release of "additional content" and microtransaction models, as well as having to pay for Online play, Stats and more, it got exceptionally bad after the release of the Xbox360.

If he pulls through with this, he'd better not complain about used games every again. And if he calls me entitled, well, I'll never buy another EA game. I don't usually buy new or used that often anyways, so I won't miss this company. I don't pirate though, if that's what you're thinking. Piracy is evil and stuff.

Dexter111:
snip

@Music games that make their own charts: it is most definitely possible. I've got a DDR clone made by Codemasters that does exactly that. It's called Dance Factory, and while it only comes with four or five songs, it will generate dance tracks for any audio CD you care to put in the drive, and it even has a Monster Rancher-style monster generator that uses the CD to generate avatars to dance to the music on screen. It's actually pretty cool.

OT: Yep, this is why I've been complaining about this crap from day one. I swear, logic classes need to quit teaching the slippery slope argument as a logical fallacy. It's a fallacy in formal logic because of the very specific rule set used therin. The real world is essentially one big slope, and when the courts are involved, it's explicitly a slippery slope because of the way precedence works. The number of people I've seen who just go "I have no problem with this, and they'd never go further because the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy" is sickening. How much further do we have to slide before they realize we're moving?

I can't really see this happening.

Keep in mind, a dollar per reload sounds cheap until you consider how often you reload in shooters, and if you're like me, you like to keep the clips topped off. So EA could easily lose a shit load of customers off of that alone. And when you consider this on top of other costs, the fact EA can insta-ban you for any reason, the bugs that have still gone unfixed, you've essentially blown a shit load of money on a game that probably won't be worth the effort to stay in it any longer.

Nothing is good anymore is it....

The funny thing is: By the time you've purchased that dollar clip, someone has shot your head off and you've just wasted a dollar.

This is nothing more than a money making scam.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked