RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 2 1 2

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Non-RPG (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   EA All-in on Microtransactions (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19646)

Couchpotato February 27th, 2013 20:07

EA All-in on Microtransactions
 
Well we saw what happened to Deadspace 3 with the micro transactions. Surprise apparently it was successful enough that every game from EA will them them now.

Remember there slogan "It's in the Game" apparently not. Thank you consumers from the bottom of my heart.;)

Quote:

Electronic Arts during a Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference stating that the company is so pleased with its forays into the world of microtransactions, that they are bringing the support for these in-house, and that "all" their future games will feature microtransactions.

"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."
Link-http://www.develop-online.net/news/4…tions-in-house

It's a depressing world if this is true and not just Business Speak. They will just become more and more pervasive with the popular "its just biz" excuse whenever someone criticizes it or suggests that its compromising creative design.

All I know is I'm kind of dreading what they have in store for the next Mirrors Edge, Dragon Age and Mass Effect games. Forced multiplayer, more DLC than actual game content (that day is coming) and so on.

"Dont like it, dont buy it" doesn't work if the industry can push itself to a large enough audience with marketing.

joxer February 27th, 2013 20:18

No marketing will make me buy something I take as a fraud since the start.
No marketing made me to buy any DLC for DA2 rubbish nor I accepted their fraud model with ME3 DLC so called biowarepoints.

EA can search for cretins elsewhere. Meanwhile I'll happily toss hundreds on CDprojekt games and alike. Those things I can gift to ppl whithout making them feel moronic because there is some overexpensive DLC they should buy later.

JDR13 February 27th, 2013 20:32

I don't think Dead Space 3 had much to do with this. I doubt microtransactions were very successful in that game. This has been in the works for some time.

GothicGothicness February 27th, 2013 20:34

I haven't been buying a single EA title for years… as I've been boycotting them… glad to see I have been doing the right thing… they just get worse and worse… now EA please just don't buy and destroy anymore of my favourite game developer studioes!!

Couchpotato February 27th, 2013 21:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDR13 (Post 1061186131)
I don't think Dead Space 3 had much to do with this. I doubt microtransactions were very successful in that game. This has been in the works for some time.

Yes it has and that's what worries me. I have no problem with it in F2P games as its necessary. Now it looks like it's going to be in every game we play.

EA and others always push the boundary to see what is acceptable. They take in account the money made off sales and balance it with the outrage of consumers. It's a game to see what they can do and see if people support it or it backfires.

People have shown they welcome the new direction so here we are. The outrage of a segment doesn't bother the profit. It was the same with DLC. Now look were we are.

Alright long rant over.:)

Carnifex February 28th, 2013 00:05

Yup, I'll just continue avoiding EA products, both for myself and as gifts to others. It smacks of thievery the way some companies function these days, but then again the lemmings should know better.



-Carn

Fluent February 28th, 2013 00:22

EA isn't forcing you to buy anything. As long as they are not sacrificing the content in the game to do this I think it's a good thing.

xSamhainx February 28th, 2013 00:28

Its like, w/ DA:o i was forgiving, mainly because back then they had their PR bases covered, with what i felt were reasonable excuses. They still felt they had to defend DLC, and they did it well. Meanwhile, im an unrepentant DA:o fanboy, so i was willing to let them slide.

Now, they have no need to appease me with excuses - it's just the way it is from now on, take it or leave it! The honeymoon's over!

Thankfully, on one hand i have an impossible backlog of games. Secondly, theres enough creators out there NOT jumping on the dlc thing, that are probably as against it as everyone else. It just takes the entire industry in a really expensive direction

Couchpotato February 28th, 2013 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluent (Post 1061186161)
EA isn't forcing you to buy anything. As long as they are not sacrificing the content in the game to do this I think it's a good thing.

I knew you would. I recall the debates on how dlc is good for everyone.:) Come back to me in ten years then we will talk if adding micro transactions to every game is a good idea.

Fluent February 28th, 2013 00:46

I think in ten years I'll still probably be fine with DLC and in-game transactions :). It gives the consumer more options, which is always a good thing.

xSamhainx February 28th, 2013 00:59

The debate whether they are actually "sacrificing content" is definitely up for debate, its one that's been flogged to death. I dont see what would stop someone from removing certain juicy things from a finished game, and charging for this now "extra" content.

It's true that expansions have been around forever, and that's essentially what dlc is, thats what theyll tell you. The difference being that expansions came at least a little while later after a game was released, it was additional content for people who liked the original game and wanted more. The day one dlc isnt that, in my opinion.

Couchpotato February 28th, 2013 01:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fluent (Post 1061186164)
I think in ten years I'll still probably be fine with DLC and in-game transactions :). It gives the consumer more options, which is always a good thing.

Were beating a dead horse here. We will never compromise on this topic. That's fine though. Different viewpoints on topics make it interesting.;)

Part of me wonders though.We encouraged this. Cost of developing game goes up, willingness of gamers to pay full retail price for game goes down. Logical conclusion is that businesses must go outside the "retail box gets you everything" business model to make their balance sheets add up.

Short-sighted buyers would apparently rather pay for a $50 box and $50 more in DLC over a year than pay less than $100 up front and get everything. Go figure.

I should ponder on this more.:thinking:

Alrik Fassbauer February 28th, 2013 01:07

They sink and sink in my personal reputation scale.

Perhaps SWTOR led them to think this as well ?

Nameless one February 28th, 2013 01:30

Considering how many games with potential are coming out in 2013 and 2014 both indie and smaller publishers I really don't give a crap what EA,Ubi, and Blizz are doing,they are not very likely to publish anything really good anyway.

Arhu February 28th, 2013 08:09

Pic needs re-posting.



It's not hard to imagine what the next picture would look like.

(Thanks Alrik for finding the image.)

ChienAboyeur February 28th, 2013 09:27

For the price, I buy. Gonna sell those pieces millions.

Quote:

"And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."
This guy says it as it is. Consumers have always been supportive of these initiatives. Starting with embracing to be charged with online distribution only model (Steam), that relies on the Internet for a service that it is not needed.

As soon as consumers show a desire to be charged extra costs for unneeded services, it is hard to see how a seller could deny this to their consumers.
It is nearly beyond business at this point.

ChienAboyeur February 28th, 2013 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Couchpotato (Post 1061186171)
Cost of developing game goes up, willingness of gamers to pay full retail price for game goes down. Logical conclusion is that businesses must go outside the "retail box gets you everything" business model to make their balance sheets add up.
:

Maybe.Maybe not. Fact is that players induced extra costs for unneeded things in their games. Players have shown a willingness to pay to developp things that are unnecessary in video gaming.

If players want to fund the securing of software for SP games through services like Steam (that adds nothing to SP games) maybe they want to fund other unneeded to them features.

Maylander February 28th, 2013 09:57

I hate this development. Luckily, most major RPG developers have not been eaten by EA yet.

DArtagnan February 28th, 2013 19:11

Well, it's no surprise EA are doing everything they can to destroy the future of everything they touch.

I despise microstransactions and how it affects the design process.

Zloth March 2nd, 2013 02:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arhu (Post 1061186210)
Pic needs re-posting….

People keep going on like this is true but it just ain't. At least not with any game I've played. The game is full and functional without buying any DLC at all.

If you wanted that to be accurate, you would take the expansion off to the side and dice it up into half a dozen tiny pictures and put $10 price tags on each. And maybe a few tiny dots with a $5 cost (an extra gun, an extra hair style, allow your character to burp…).

The only game I can think of that got close to requiring DLC was Dragon Age: Origins with the keep that had the chest you could use for storage. I bought that, put a bunch of stuff into it, and never came back. The design of the game really didn't require that item at all.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 03:36.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch