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

[Jhessail]

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.

Please tell me that someone at least pays you for writing like that and you're not just doing it out of the goodness of your heart. The whole "gamers are entitled babies who just need to accept swallowing more corporate cock because Bobby Kotick needs a tenth sports car"-argument is retarded.

 

[Mad Vader]

There's no need to swallow corporate PR. I responded only because the worst thing I've seen in gamers, self-entitlement, rears its ugly head in threads like this.
Instead of dismissing microtransactions as a universally awful idea that somehow encroaches on the gamers' self-evident rights, there is the more reasonable approach of distinguishing between games that are doing it right, and games that try to scam you.

 

[Fehnor]

There is only one ethical implementation of microtransactions, and that is for aesthetic items that do not handicap gameplay.

I think WoW might be the only MMO that does this (not really sure what they've sold in the last 2 years though). How is it that ****ing Blizzard of all companies takes the only ethical approach in this regard?

Reiterating the argument for the 50th time:

If you pay a developer for an upgrade, you are paying to be manipulated. I would rather pay the developer for making a fantastic game.

 

[Amagic]

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.

The ****? There's a huuuge difference between paying for cosmetics to boost your e-peen and paying for actual bloody content (especially stuff that's supposed to be in the ****ing game in the first place). Just perfect that you mentioned Mass Effect too. Arrival DLC and Javik's DLC anyone? Yeah, definitely no subtle forcing there.

There's two simple ways to profit from a game. Either sell the damn thing for the set price to the player and let him play his damn game in peace, or give it to the player for free and implement microtransactions, which really only work in multiplayer and especially competitive games. If a company use both methods at the same time (bonus ******* points if its single-player too), they're just being... oh yeah, money grabbing dicks.

I could reword my argument a dozen more times, but the central point will probably keep flying over your head.

 

[Scully]

DLC, pricing, business models... All of that is second to good gameplay. We wouldn't care so much about all this if the games in question weren't mediocre ****.

I have no problem spending a bunch of cash on games I love.

 

[Jhessail]

There's no need to swallow corporate PR. I responded only because the worst thing I've seen in gamers, self-entitlement, rears its ugly head in threads like this.
Instead of dismissing microtransactions as a universally awful idea that somehow encroaches on the gamers' self-evident rights, there is the more reasonable approach of distinguishing between games that are doing it right, and games that try to scam you.

Ah now, that is true.

 

[Splintert]

Except the companies that do it wrong are copying off of companies that do it right.

Alternatively just don't buy any of it.

 

[BadabombadaBang]

How about a bane for Electronic Arts.



A bane from existence.

 

[Rujasu]

Alternatively just don't buy any of it.

And we're back on the second page!

 

[Kawee]

I don't have a problem with micro-transaction and f2p at all, when it's done "right."

F2P is good for MMO because MMO is only good when a lot of people play it.

However, the f2P in the MMORPG industry turns me off because you're still having to pay for content and competitiveness.

The micro-transactions for games like DotA and LOL is better because you can have all the game content for free (especially in DotA's case) and you can be just as competitive.

EA's stance is worrying because their games aren't always best suited for micros. Can you imagine if Pdox adopt the same stance? Having to pay more single-player content is ridiculous. It'll just drive up the cost.

 

[Sound Chaser]

I guess it comes down to how they implement it. If they can make it a trend and sell the idea to the flocks of consumers, it may have an impact on the future of the industry. It's always unfortunate when markets don't suit your individual needs, but that's just the way it often is. Then you either submit to the rip-off or don't buy the product. It seems, however, that there's a market for old-school gamers (what with games like wasteland 2 springing up), so it's not like introducing microtransactions will ruin the whole industry.

Taking a look at consumer behaviour reveals that most of what we consume is utter rubbish. It's quite predictable that since the gaming industry becomes more and more mainstream pop-culture, it also seeks to cater for the ever growing audience. People like ****.

 

[Mage246]

There has to be a middle ground in terms of what is acceptable for F2P vs full-price game. Should be room enough in the marketplace for, say, a game that's half price but offers a functional, but limited game with various unlockables. It shouldn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[Splintert]

There has to be a middle ground in terms of what is acceptable for F2P vs full-price game. Should be room enough in the marketplace for, say, a game that's half price but offers a functional, but limited game with various unlockables. It shouldn't have to be all or nothing.

Shh, don't give Bohemia any ideas. Arma 3's coming out relatively soon. I don't want to have to pay extra for a sight adjustment.

 

[Mage246]

That's not really what I was getting at. In this example, paying more gets you more playable content or more ways to play existing content (new classes, etc). It doesn't fundamentally change the game you already have, just adds to it.

 

[Goker]

I liked watching AlphaOmegaSin's rant on this. He is overreacting though.

I guess Dead Space 3 is the only example on what EA is planning on doing. You have some resources and while you can go around scavenging for them, you can also buy them as micro-transactions. It's a singleplayer game. When people get bored and try to speed things along in a SP game, they cheat. They don't pay for it. At least, they didn't use to. EA is monetizing cheats, basically.

That's not really what I was getting at. In this example, paying more gets you more playable content or more ways to play existing content (new classes, etc). It does change the game you already have, just adds to it.

That happens with DLCs and it is usually not a problem. But these companies have started releasing Day 1 DLC's. If they get the bloody content ready before release, why would it be "extra content"? In a full priced game, that is a huge problem.

If they do actually create content after the game was released and want to sell that, there is nothing wrong with that.

In Free-to-Play games, you expect them to make money off of DLC's and microtransactions. As long as they have a good system in place, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Mage246]

Creating a distinction based on when they develop it seems artificial. As long as they've developed the game to a certain level (ie, is it worth the price they are charging?) they have no obligation to release any content above and beyond that. A good developer will, to develop goodwill and buzz, but it's not a requirement.

 

[Goker]

Creating a distinction based on when they develop it seems artificial. As long as they've developed the game to a certain level (ie, is it worth the price they are charging?) they have no obligation to release any content above and beyond that. A good developer will, to develop goodwill and buzz, but it's not a requirement.

It is usually a thing the publishers do. You see, there is a difference between saying "Okay, this game is done, let's work on extra content and we'll charge for that" and "Let's take this content out and charge extra for that."

I think this first blew out in Mass Effect 3, in which they released a character as a DLC on Day One and you were still able to find some files of the character in the base game, which made it seem like it was deliberately taken out so it would be sold for extra money.

Consumers have no way of knowing which content was actually meant to be extra and which were taken out so the publishers could be money-grabbing whores. Thus the Day-One DLC issue is usually frowned upon.

So now they're selling Season Passes with the game, to avoid being frowned upon.

 

[Notsure]

Yes iirc the problem with ME3 was that someone dug trough the files and found alot of locked content which seemed to match the day1 dlc. Its a bit naive to have faith in EA and the like but some companies do get it i think TERA is a good exemple ( i havent played yet but from what ive seen its on the right path ) compared to Swtor it shows who gets it and who doesnt.

 

[Suspicous Pilgrim]

So many corporate cock gobblers in this thread. Keep ****ing ads out of the product.

 

[Goker]

So many corporate cock gobblers in this thread. Keep ****ing ads out of the product.

Actually, it seems like there are too many people who do not know what the **** is going on. What ads are you talking about? That thread was in the past. This is about microtransactions.