GOOD NEWS! EA’s future games will all feature microtransactions!

[Goker]

Guess I'm a corporate cock-gobbler then. If the game itself is free, I have no problem with a micro-transactions model. Or ad-based model. This is based on the assumption that the free version is not a crippled POS that requires microtransactions to actually be playable/completable.

EA says "all" of their games will have microtransactions. Even Single-player ones, like Dead Space 3.

So the issue isn't just about the free to play model.

 

[Xardob]

I actually think this could work, if done right. If they come up with a system where you buy only what you want of the game, this has a lot of potential. Let's take The Witcher for example. Instead of paying $60 on the full game, you pay $10 for every chapter you want to play.

Or maybe with something like FIFA, you only pay for the leagues you're interested in playing with. Or maybe you only pay for the interesting game modes. If they do this right, it could even mean cheaper games.

I highly doubt this is what they have in mind, and would still like the option to pay for the full game in one go, but maybe I'm not dreaming too much.

 

[Notsure]

Im afraid so Xar , these companies just dont "get it" all they see is f2p making more money than them (or at least some  are starting to become competition ) and they want a slice of the pie without knowing how its done.

IMO they will charge the full price with fluff in game until down the line they let you buy gear right from the start.

 

[Kevlar]

Sure, cosmetic stuff, to begin with. That's how it started with DLC. Then customers got used to it and now we get on-disc, Day 0, dlc that often includes features that were supposed to be in the game to start with. Going to be the exact same thing with micro-transactions. First, you feed customers with meaningless stuff - "oh, that's not too bad, need to satisfy my craving" - before committing fully into it.

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

 

[Fehnor]

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

Done.

 

[Radalan]

I actually think this could work, if done right. If they come up with a system where you buy only what you want of the game, this has a lot of potential.

They're not saying that they want you to pay less for their product, they're saying that they want to profit more.

all they see is f2p making more money than them (or at least some  are starting to become competition ) and they want a slice of the pie without knowing how its done.

Where did the whole free to play angle come from? That everyone keeps mentioning,  because there's no mention what-so-ever of anything being free in the original article.

 

[Default Username]

This is excellent news indeed. Now I can sleep peacefully at night, knowing that EA has our best interests at heart.

 

[Jhessail]

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

REALLY?! Oh wow. This sort of wisdom... duuude, you just blew my mind! Insane! Please, O Wise Zen Master, teach me your ageless wisdom!

Or, you might have realized that smart customers are outnumbered 1000-to-1 by retarded morons who will buy any **** as long as gaming "journalists" and advertising encourage them. I've never bought a single piece of DLC, yet that didn't help stem the tide at all.

Where did the whole free to play angle come from? That everyone keeps mentioning,  because there's no mention what-so-ever of anything being free in the original article.

It's as I said - there's nothing nefarious enough that they could pull off that we wouldn't have corporate cock-gobblers coming in the thread, defending their actions, trying to justify them and spin the story around to make it look better. Fascinating, if a sad, psychological phenomenon, really.

 

[Amagic]

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

Core of the problem, really. Then companies get even more anal with their DRM bull****, just accelerating the downward spiral of retardacy this industry seems to be stuck in.

I actually think this could work, if done right. If they come up with a system where you buy only what you want of the game, this has a lot of potential. Let's take The Witcher for example. Instead of paying $60 on the full game, you pay $10 for every chapter you want to play.

You already are, its called day 1 or day 0 (or whatever, might as well be "****-the-playerbase-day") DLC.

But hey, profits are rising and moral reputation is plummeting, so the executives are probably dancing a jig from their double success.

Don't blame EA for adapting the massively successful business model of your favorite MOBA, League of Legends.

What. The. ****. Please research what you're talking about before making such absolutely stupid claims. Thanks.

 

[Punishment]

Good to see EA has our best interest in heart. 

 

[Mad Vader]

You could play their games normally without buying their extra stuff. That's actually the easiest thing to do. Given the amount of complaining this kind of news generates, it looks as if there are a lot of people who either can't help themselves but buy everything, or feel entitled to any additional content made by the developers.
Microtransactions are a fine idea to make more money. Or any money if your basic game is free. It doesn't necessarily mean less content for a full price, but more optional content for an additional price. Vote with your wallet and they'll hear you.

 

[tommylaw]

Don't like it, don't buy it. Simple as that.

REALLY?! Oh wow. This sort of wisdom... duuude, you just blew my mind! Insane! Please, O Wise Zen Master, teach me your ageless wisdom!

Or, you might have realized that smart customers are outnumbered 1000-to-1 by retarded morons who will buy any **** as long as gaming "journalists" and advertising encourage them. I've never bought a single piece of DLC, yet that didn't help stem the tide at all.

Where did the whole free to play angle come from? That everyone keeps mentioning,  because there's no mention what-so-ever of anything being free in the original article.

It's as I said - there's nothing nefarious enough that they could pull off that we wouldn't have corporate cock-gobblers coming in the thread, defending their actions, trying to justify them and spin the story around to make it look better. Fascinating, if a sad, psychological phenomenon, really.

I know people that willingly let themselves get milked this way. Then actively defend the dubious practices of those who milked them. It's truly bizarre.

 

[Splintert]

Don't blame EA for adapting the massively successful business model of your favorite MOBA, League of Legends.

What. The. ****. Please research what you're talking about before making such absolutely stupid claims. Thanks.

Double standards.

League makes all of their money on micro-transactions. Why can't other developers/publishers do the same without being hated for it?

The only reason to hate would be buying a full game and having less-than-optional micro-transactions. Dead Space 3 is a perfect example of something not to whine about, it's a singleplayer game.

 

[K-64]

Double standards.

League makes all of their money on micro-transactions. Why can't other developers/publishers do the same without being hated for it?

The only reason to hate would be buying a full game and having less-than-optional micro-transactions. Dead Space 3 is a perfect example of something not to whine about, it's a singleplayer game.

But League is a ****fest. I hate it as well.

Next!

 

[Goker]

Dead Space 3 is a perfect example of something not to whine about, it's a singleplayer game.

Because charging for what should be a cheat in a singleplayer game is what the industry should try to do next. You want better guns early on? Forget about a bloody cheatcode or a trainer, pay EA for it!

 

[Amagic]

Don't blame EA for adapting the massively successful business model of your favorite MOBA, League of Legends.

What. The. ****. Please research what you're talking about before making such absolutely stupid claims. Thanks.

Double standards.

League makes all of their money on micro-transactions. Why can't other developers/publishers do the same without being hated for it?

League of Legends sells virtual costumes to kids. EA sells you an overpriced game and keeps on milking your wallet long after that with stuff that's supposed to be in the game in the first game plus other things that are borderline pay-2-win. What I'm pissed about is that you actually think they're both ******** comparable.

 

[Splintert]

They're identical. Both involve buying more content into your game. They are both entirely optional. You can play League without buying a single thing, and you can play Mass Effect 3 without buying a single thing except the game.

By buying things in League, and other similar games, you support EA's micro-transactions.

 

[K-64]

But League is a ****fest. I hate it as well.

Next!

Splinter, you need to get a better place to stand than MOBAs for your "arguments"

 

[Mad Vader]

What is supposed to be in the game is highly subjective, and highly predictable when edgy gamers are discussing games: the released game+all the DLCs+all the preorder/microtransaction goodies, amirite? Plus there should be regular patches for at least three years, anything less would be immoral.
You are being babies. Foul-mouthed, nasty babies.

 

[Splintert]

But League is a ****fest. I hate it as well.

Next!

Splinter, you need to get a better place to stand than MOBAs for your "arguments"

It applies to any game with micro-transactions.