EA's reasoning of DLC scamware

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/eas-new-empire-an-interview-with-peter-moore/1100-6429703/

Words by Peter Moore, EA's COO.

And yet there is a pronounced resistance to this. Many fans express grievance towards obligatory DLC plans. On the other hand, I've heard executives tell me that DLC has become so important that, in some cases, it is sustaining the triple-A games business. How do you reconcile this conflict?

Well a lot of that resistance comes from the erroneous belief that somehow companies will ship a game incomplete, and then try to sell you stuff they have already made and held back. Nonsense. You come and stand where I am, next to Visceral's studio, and you see the work that is being done right now. And it's not just DLC, this is free updates and ongoing balance changes.

People will no doubt accuse me of being a total corporate shill for saying this, but I think there is some confusion within game communities that, when the foundations for future DLC is discovered in a game, such as the expansion levels in Destiny, people think that those expansions are already finished. The point being, development studios tend to put the basic foundations of future DLC on disc to help facilitate future updates, right?

That's true, and you have to do that from a technical perspective. Think of them as APIs. Knowing down the road that something needs to sit on what you've already made, means you have to put some foundations down.

What people are confused about is they think DLC is secretly on the disc, and that it's somehow unlocked when we say.

Click to expand...

I think I'm gonna puke.

Yes, companies focused on profit have suddenly become extremely generous and consumer-friendly.

Before DLC, they were being deliberately stingy with content - so they've simply decided to give us more content for less money these days.

We all believe that, don't we?

But of course we do! Who would doubt a word of a corporate COO?

Yeah, companies are terrible for trying to make money. It would be much better if they made 1 game and then went bankrupt. It's 100% possible to focus on money and still produce an excellent product. I do it everyday with my company, I put a ton of pride in my work and produce an excellent product and then I expect to get paid. There's a difference between being focused on making money and making money at any cost.

I personally don't care if they make the game and then pour through it and remove parts and try to sell them back to me as dlc. They still had to make the content and it's not my place to tell them how to sell it. It's just my place to decide if I want to spend my money on it.

It's a moot point anyway because consumers set the market not companies. The very consumers who complain endlessly about the state of the industry and then scoop up games like its crack. If the stuff didn't sell it wouldn't be around. Consumers spend so much time playing the victim that they forget they're in charge.

Anyway, I digress. Btw joxer, how's the dlc factory known as the sims or the season pass for farcry 4 or that dlc for skyrim you were going on about or.... Oh, forget it.

sakichop said:

Yeah, companies are terrible for trying to make money. It would be much better if they made 1 game and then went bankrupt. It's 100% possible to focus on money and still produce an excellent product. I do it everyday with my company, I put a ton of pride in my work and produce an excellent product and then I expect to get paid. There's a difference between being focused on making money and making money at any cost.

I personally don't care if they make the game and then pour through it and remove parts and try to sell them back to me as dlc. They still had to make the content and it's not my place to tell them how to sell it. It's just my place to decide if I want to spend my money on it.

It's a moot point anyway because consumers set the market not companies. The very consumers who complain endlessly about the state of the industry and then scoop up games like its crack. If the stuff didn't sell it wouldn't be around. Consumers spend so much time playing the victim that they forget they're in charge.

Anyway, I digress. Btw joxer, how's the dlc factory known as the sims or the season pass for farcry 4 or that dlc for skyrim you were going on about or…. Oh, forget it.

Click to expand...

I don't think you understand.

No one is saying it's wrong to focus on money. Certainly not if that's what you care about the most, in which case it would seem to be the natural thing to focus on.

We're just saying that trying to turn how EA deals with DLC into some kind of consumer-oriented model is utter bullshit.

Focusing on money CAN result in quality products, but that would be in spite of focusing on money - not because of focusing on money.

I don't care how deluded you are and how much you buy into capitalism, there's no way you can be honest with yourself and not understand that focusing on the product is the best way to ensure the quality of the product. That doesn't mean you can ignore the money, because you obviously can't. You simply can't focus on everything - which is what the concept of focus is about.

But I can see how it might be hard to stay neutral, given how you've openly stated you don't really care about paying too much for things that don't reflect that cost in terms of actual value.

From such a position, your thoughts on DLC are somewhat tainted by default, I'm sorry to say.

You must understand that most people have limited means, and they need to make wise decisions when deciding whether or not to invest in DLC for their games.

It's key to appreciate that your own position isn't that of other people here.

Exactly - I think something would break at EA if they were actually honest. We know that game production costs have soared, profits are hard to come by, and therefore DLC is a high profit 'razor and blade' sort of deal.

If you focus on money in this industry, you focus on mass appeal and marketing.

That doesn't mean you can make a bad game and expect to get rich at all, it just means you can't create a game that appeals to a limited audience - because the budget is simply too big and profit won't be sexy enough for the investors.

There's no way around it, and we all know it.

Trying to tell yourself that the best games are those that appeal to the largest audience is probably not impossible, but I'd say it's borderline delusional.

Still, there are exceptions to every rule.

We can talk about Skyrim and Grand Theft Auto V - which can be counted among the biggest hits in recent years.

Those are both great games, at least arguably so.

The question is whether they'd have been better or worse if the focus had been less on the masses and more on the enthusiasts in the audience?

Might not have made as much money, but would they have been better?

sakichop said:

…

Click to expand...

You missed the point and txa already answered with his first sentence.

sakichop said:

Btw joxer, how's the dlc factory known as the sims or the season pass for farcry 4 or that dlc for skyrim you were going on about or…. Oh, forget it.

Click to expand...

I won't forget it but will start backwards.

Skyrim is not DLC factory. It had only 3 DLC: Dawnguard which was a pathetic mess, Hearthfire which was a shallow attempt to emulate Sims and Dragonborn which, if was sold as a separate game, would be a goddamned musthave patchpolished masterpiece.

For season pass scam, FC4 and not just FC4 but all other games that have that scam included, I was clear. Not buying season pass, not buying games that have it until they get packed with all cutouts in a single package and sold heavily discounted. Or, as it happened with FC4 when you mentioned it, I bought it when they discounted that season pass to $0.
I really have nothing to add there.

Sims games are definetly DLC factory. And, I bet you heard, Sims 3 is widely also known as DLC:The Game (although an indie game of the same name exists).
But EA never lied about Sims. EA was clear since the beginning about that game, you get a "dollhouse" as a base game with certain gameplay options, during it's lifetime cycle you also get optional DLC with additional gameplay options or just decoration stuff.
Most of these DLC are simple cashgrab garbage only hardcore sims fans buy (Katy Perry stuffpack for example). But some of those DLC are so good they surpass the quality of the base game and add super interesting new gameplay options (World Adventures expansion for Sims 3 for example).

But Sims is a genre of it's own. It's designed to be sandbox DLC-o-rama since it's start, since the first game that was released in the year 2000. It's not storydriven RPG where you missed something very important if you didn't buy some DLC that contains additional NPC, additional superimportant story or more lore (example: Mass Effect 3 Citadel DLC)!
If EA is not capable any more to make or deliver a game that feels complete without postrelease (coutout) DLC, they should either admit their incompetence or turn onto phonegames and leave PC alone. Instead of spilling corporate bullshit as an answer in interviews.

DArtagnan said:

That doesn't mean you can make a bad game and expect to get rich at all, it just means you can't create a game that appeals to a limited audience - because the budget is simply too big and profit won't be sexy enough for the investors.

There's no way around it, and we all know it.

Click to expand...

Exactly - and it is why so many games have 'in game tracking' that reports out where people are going, what they are doing, and how much they are accomplishing. Because if you build a three-story building that is open for exploration, has items and minor quests and characters that speak ... it is MONEY. And if 50% of players see that building ... chances are it was money well spent - however if only 5% see it? Not much ROI. And if 0.5% see it ... just flushed that cash.

But like you said - it doesn't mean that big-budget games can't also be expansive and high quality.

Anyone that purchases games from EA or has Origins platform on their computer deserve everything that they get. I couldn't care less about how good a game supposedly is, when they hitch their wagons to either EA or the Origins platform, they only exist for me to ridicule.

DArtagnan said:

I don't think you understand.

No one is saying it's wrong to focus on money. Certainly not if that's what you care about the most, in which case it would seem to be the natural thing to focus on.

Click to expand...

Maybe I am, I'm not immune to missing a point here or there. What exactly has EA done in regards to DLC that's so bad it has Joxer vomiting? Making it? Saying it's not cut content? Do we have proof it is cut content? Even if it is cut content, who cares? They made it and are free to sell it as they see fit. Then the consumer can decide to buy it or not.

DArtagnan said:

We're just saying that trying to turn how EA deals with DLC into some kind of consumer-oriented model is utter bullshit.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying DLC is consumer oriented or even good or bad for the consumer. I'm saying the consumer dictates what sells, not EA. if nobody bought another DLC starting tomorrow, How long do you think they would keep making it.

DArtagnan said:

Focusing on money CAN result in quality products, but that would be in spite of focusing on money - not because of focusing on money.

Click to expand...

This simply isn't true. I've manage a few businesses and now own my own successful business. In every instance profit was the number 1 focus. That doesn't mean you forget everything else. The best way to make and build profit is happy customers.

My main focus is making money so how do I do that, I make the best product I can, buy the best materials for the job , do my best to put each customers needs first, build relationships and offer great post support. All of that is due to my main focus, money. I wouldn't do any of it for free.

I think when people hear about companies focusing on money they picture a bunch of fat guys sitting in a board room trying to figure out how to screw their customers out of money. It's not, it just doesn't work that way. Keeping a customer is much cheaper than acquiring new ones.

DArtagnan said:

I don't care how deluded you are and how much you buy into capitalism, there's no way you can be honest with yourself and not understand that focusing on the product is the best way to ensure the quality of the product. That doesn't mean you can ignore the money, because you obviously can't. You simply can't focus on everything - which is what the concept of focus is about.

Click to expand...

You can focus on everything and you have too. You just can't focus on everything in one moment. You break it down and focus on the tasks individually.

DArtagnan said:

But I can see how it might be hard to stay neutral, given how you've openly stated you don't really care about paying too much for things that don't reflect that cost in terms of actual value.

From such a position, your thoughts on DLC are somewhat tainted by default, I'm sorry to say.

You must understand that most people have limited means, and they need to make wise decisions when deciding whether or not to invest in DLC for their games.

It's key to appreciate that your own position isn't that of other people here.

Click to expand...

I want to have the best possible gaming experience possible so yes I splurge on my PC but I don't just throw money around carelessly. $2000 on videocards is definitely a lot but I'll keep them for a couple years then hand them down to my sons or other family for a few years. I get my money's worth even if the initial value is poor.

None of that really matters to the discussion though. I think too many consumers act like they are victims of corporations and it's just not the case. ( talking generally from my experience not directed towards you.) the consumers have the power to change the market if they wish. EA is often voted the worst company each year yet the are doing well financially. That tells me that there is blame to go around. Simply blaming the company isn't right consumer need to realize their part in this.

sakichop said:

Maybe I am, I'm not immune to missing a point here or there. What exactly has EA done in regards to DLC that's so bad it has Joxer vomiting? Making it? Saying it's not cut content? Do we have proof it is cut content? Even if it is cut content, who cares? They made it and are free to sell it as they see fit. Then the consumer can decide to buy it or not.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for joxer.

I'm not saying they're cutting content, as I wouldn't know. I also don't think it's a big problem to cut content and sell it off, just as long as you provide value that corresponds with the price.

We've had this discussion countless times before. I don't see the point in repeating myself once again.

I believe I've gone into significant detail about what's bad about DLC and how companies like EA are handling it more than once. It's on the Watch to be found, if you can't remember my points.

I'm not saying DLC is consumer oriented or even good or bad for the consumer. I'm saying the consumer dictates what sells, not EA. if nobody bought another DLC starting tomorrow, How long do you think they would keep making it.

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I can't agree. There are two parties involved here. Consumers is a convenient label that doesn't touch upon the reality of marketing and manipulation of the audience.

Then again, I don't think it's relevant who's to blame. I'm not trying to place blame - nor do I care.

I think DLC is bad for gaming - and I think the vast majority of consumers and investors are bad for gaming. I don't really care beyond that.

In that same way, I think the vast majority of movie goers and Hollywood studios are bad for the movie industry. But I'm not interested in pointing fingers and feeling good about myself because of it.

This simply isn't true. I've manage a few businesses and now own my own successful business. In every instance profit was the number 1 focus. That doesn't mean you forget everything else. The best way to make and build profit is happy customers.

Click to expand...

This isn't black and white. I'm not saying you'll be making poor products by focusing on money first. I said if you focused on the product first and the money second, your product would be better. You'd likely also make less money in the process. It's not about ignoring money and running your company into the ground.

My main focus is making money so how do I do that, I make the best product I can, buy the best materials for the job , do my best to put each customers needs first, build relationships and offer great post support. All of that is due to my main focus, money. I wouldn't do any of it for free.

Click to expand...

I have no idea what your own opinion of your own business is supposed to demonstrate here.

I'm pretty sure most business owners who're successful would say similar things, as would the heads of most gaming studios.

Also, I happen to think there's a huge difference between art/entertainment and other kinds of products.

I think when people hear about companies focusing on money they picture a bunch of fat guys sitting in a board room trying to figure out how to screw their customers out of money. It's not, it just doesn't work that way. Keeping a customer is much cheaper than acquiring new ones.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you think so, but you'd be wrong in my case.

I don't distinguish between human beings in that way. I don't think of suits as "bad people". They're simply not into gaming for the sake of games. That's what they'd have to be, to finance the best games. Well, that, or have a ton of luck.

You can focus on everything and you have too. You just can't focus on everything in one moment. You break it down and focus on the tasks individually.

Click to expand...

What a bunch of bullshit. We're talking about where the focus lies in general, not at a random moment.

As in, what's the priority of whatever company.

I want to have the best possible gaming experience possible so yes I splurge on my PC but I don't just throw money around carelessly. $2000 on videocards is definitely a lot but I'll keep them for a couple years then hand them down to my sons or other family for a few years. I get my money's worth even if the initial value is poor.

Click to expand...

Yes, you throw around money carelessly when it comes to your hardware, either due to ignorance or indifference, or both.

You can pretend otherwise, and talk about handing them down - as if you couldn't do that with cheaper hardware that's just as powerful.

That said, I really have no desire to rationally prove why you're being careless. I believe you've already admitted as much in the past.

If you want to dance around it - and be dishonest about it, that's your choice. I'll leave it be.

None of that really matters to the discussion though. I think too many consumers act like they are victims of corporations and it's just not the case. ( talking generally from my experience not directed towards you.) the consumers have the power to change the market if they wish. EA is often voted the worst company each year yet the are doing well financially. That tells me that there is blame to go around. Simply blaming the company isn't right consumer need to realize their part in this.

Click to expand...

Consumers as a whole, yes. Individual consumers, no.

I can't do shit as an informed consumer if I want to play my favorite games as a complete package. Well, I can wait years for a sale, but that wouldn't change anything about the model - as the uninformed consumers represent the vast majority and so they hold the power.

In the past, I could just pay full price for a game and I'd be feeling like I was playing a complete game. That's what I want.

I don't give a shit about 95% of available DLC - but I absolutely despise feeling like I'm missing out on content that may or may not turn out to be enjoyable or relevant to my experience. You can't know that with DLC in the majority of cases - because it's not reviewed - and every player values things individually. The only way to know what DLC is worth it or not is to actually play with it in the game.

That's what successful publishers realise - and individual companies CAN change the market if they wish, but since they're focusing on profit - they're exploiting the ignorance or indifference of the masses.

Why do you think so many passionate developers are moving away from publishers? Because they actually enjoy that model and what it does to their work? Why do you think the independent movie industry is booming? Because movie makers enjoy having studios corrupt their movies so the mainstream audience will lap it up?

We're all responsible for what the mainstream audience does, right?

There's a huge difference between a game that was financed and controlled by the investors and made by a separate developer, and a product made and sold by a single company full of people sharing the same profit-oriented perspective. That's why your own experience and company is utterly irrelevant here.

I'm sure you're the sort of person who'd hold consumers 100% responsible for the quality of fast food or the health issues suffered from smoking. I mean, the companies producing these things are completely innocent, as they're just selling what the people crave, right?

Wonderful position.

Personally, I accepted long ago that greed and ignorance both reign supreme when it comes to the human race. So I stopped caring about guilt and blame years ago.

But that doesn't mean I can't point out when something is destructive.

sakichop said:

This simply isn't true. I've manage a few businesses and now own my own successful business. In every instance profit was the number 1 focus. That doesn't mean you forget everything else. The best way to make and build profit is happy customers.

My main focus is making money so how do I do that, I make the best product I can, buy the best materials for the job , do my best to put each customers needs first, build relationships and offer great post support. All of that is due to my main focus, money. I wouldn't do any of it for free.

I think when people hear about companies focusing on money they picture a bunch of fat guys sitting in a board room trying to figure out how to screw their customers out of money. It's not, it just doesn't work that way. Keeping a customer is much cheaper than acquiring new ones.

Click to expand...

This is the crux of the issue with regards modern business. I completely agree that money does not equal low quality and that people who make high quality items are still highly profit oriented. Just look at premium brands such as Rolls Royce or Mercedes Benz, they put a huge amount of effort and focus into their products, but profit is still the sole purpose of existing and the number 1 priority.

What's happening across a lot of media platforms now is that most of the money is going on advertising. Rolls Royce and Mercedes Benz do not require such gigantic budgets because their brand is so well known that it almost sells itself by osmosis. Just as Bond films do or Football Manager games. Yes, they have promotion, but not the EPIC promotion that all the 'crap' needs in order to sell.

And people are sheep-like when it comes to promotion. There is a mathematical certainty of bums-on-seats created by promotion budget. In effect, quality is not a requirement for most 'new' modern products, all that's required is an average quality product and a huge promotional budget. From a business perspective, if the profit is greater from spending the extra cash on promotion instead of quality... why bother with quality? Promotion is the path of lesser resistance and the greatest paper-overer of any cracks. If people don't like the product, they can just trot out Dartagnons to defend it on a philosophical 'opinion' level, while the excessively dumb in our society happily lap-up whatever is shoved in front of them - to the detriment of quality as a standard business goal in the big picture of 'everyone'.

Carnifex said:

Anyone that purchases games from EA or has Origins platform on their computer deserve everything that they get. I couldn't care less about how good a game supposedly is, when they hitch their wagons to either EA or the Origins platform, they only exist for me to ridicule.

Click to expand...

I'm probably in the top 10 of your list.



I didn't buy them all, some were freebies I'd never buy (like Bejeweled 3). Some were parts of some supercheap package otherwise you wouldn't see them there. Also, I have Crysis somewhere in the box I never unpacked, never installed, never registered and never played. Maybe even some other EA game I forgot about.

But you're right. It doesn't matter how good a game supposedly is. Some games up there are good, some stink.
What I'm allergic is DLC scam. DLC that you can't see on the pic because EA hides it. And why EA hides it? Because eventually everyone would come to conclusion so many DLC they spent so much money on - was just a scam.
The sin is not just EA's, Steam and uPlay also hide DLC in your games library list. But unlike EA, Valve's and Ubi's COO don't think the audience are braindead monkeys when talking about DLC.

joxer said:

Also, I have Crysis somewhere in the box I never unpacked, never installed, never registered and never played.

Click to expand...

A bit offtopic, but just a random comment about crysis.

Imo Crysis 1 was a fun fps game. Sequels were dumbed down corridoor shooters designed for consoles, but orginal crysis was one of the more memorable fps games i've played.

Its been a long time though and I don't know how it compares to more modern fps games, but crysis 1 gameplay was fun and the game wasn't designed for consoles first.

People will believe it.

DArtagnan said:

I can't speak for joxer.

I'm not saying they're cutting content, as I wouldn't know. I also don't think it's a big problem to cut content and sell it off, just as long as you provide value that corresponds with the price.

We've had this discussion countless times before. I don't see the point in repeating myself once again.

I believe I've gone into significant detail about what's bad about DLC and how companies like EA are handling it more than once. It's on the Watch to be found, if you can't remember my points.



I'm afraid I can't agree. There are two parties involved here. Consumers is a convenient label that doesn't touch upon the reality of marketing and manipulation of the audience.

Then again, I don't think it's relevant who's to blame. I'm not trying to place blame - nor do I care.

I think DLC is bad for gaming - and I think the vast majority of consumers and investors are bad for gaming. I don't really care beyond that.

In that same way, I think the vast majority of movie goers and Hollywood studios are bad for the movie industry. But I'm not interested in pointing fingers and feeling good about myself because of it.



This isn't black and white. I'm not saying you'll be making poor products by focusing on money first. I said if you focused on the product first and the money second, your product would be better. You'd likely also make less money in the process. It's not about ignoring money and running your company into the ground.



I have no idea what your own opinion of your own business is supposed to demonstrate here.

I'm pretty sure most business owners who're successful would say similar things, as would the heads of most gaming studios.

Also, I happen to think there's a huge difference between art/entertainment and other kinds of products.



I'm sure you think so, but you'd be wrong in my case.

I don't distinguish between human beings in that way. I don't think of suits as "bad people". They're simply not into gaming for the sake of games. That's what they'd have to be, to finance the best games. Well, that, or have a ton of luck.



What a bunch of bullshit. We're talking about where the focus lies in general, not at a random moment.

As in, what's the priority of whatever company.



Yes, you throw around money carelessly when it comes to your hardware, either due to ignorance or indifference, or both.

You can pretend otherwise, and talk about handing them down - as if you couldn't do that with cheaper hardware that's just as powerful.

That said, I really have no desire to rationally prove why you're being careless. I believe you've already admitted as much in the past.

If you want to dance around it - and be dishonest about it, that's your choice. I'll leave it be.



Consumers as a whole, yes. Individual consumers, no.

I can't do shit as an informed consumer if I want to play my favorite games as a complete package. Well, I can wait years for a sale, but that wouldn't change anything about the model - as the uninformed consumers represent the vast majority and so they hold the power.

In the past, I could just pay full price for a game and I'd be feeling like I was playing a complete game. That's what I want.

I don't give a shit about 95% of available DLC - but I absolutely despise feeling like I'm missing out on content that may or may not turn out to be enjoyable or relevant to my experience. You can't know that with DLC in the majority of cases - because it's not reviewed - and every player values things individually. The only way to know what DLC is worth it or not is to actually play with it in the game.

That's what successful publishers realise - and individual companies CAN change the market if they wish, but since they're focusing on profit - they're exploiting the ignorance or indifference of the masses.

Why do you think so many passionate developers are moving away from publishers? Because they actually enjoy that model and what it does to their work? Why do you think the independent movie industry is booming? Because movie makers enjoy having studios corrupt their movies so the mainstream audience will lap it up?

We're all responsible for what the mainstream audience does, right?

There's a huge difference between a game that was financed and controlled by the investors and made by a separate developer, and a product made and sold by a single company full of people sharing the same profit-oriented perspective. That's why your own experience and company is utterly irrelevant here.

I'm sure you're the sort of person who'd hold consumers 100% responsible for the quality of fast food or the health issues suffered from smoking. I mean, the companies producing these things are completely innocent, as they're just selling what the people crave, right?

Wonderful position.

Personally, I accepted long ago that greed and ignorance both reign supreme when it comes to the human race. So I stopped caring about guilt and blame years ago.

But that doesn't mean I can't point out when something is destructive.

Click to expand...

I'll just respond to a couple things here as I think we'll both be just wasting are time with the other stuff.

I don't appreciate you attacking my character and basically calling me a liar. I've never said I throw my money around carelessly. Ive said I have a yearly budget that I haven't reached in years ( sounds smart not careless) I've said I'm aware that buying the Titan x is splurging and not a good value which I admitted in this very thread, I've said that I splurge on hardware because I want the best possible performance but I'm actually pretty modest in other areas.So I'm not being dishonest or dancing around anything.

As for you telling me what kind of person I am with the whole fat and smoking thing. No , I don't find them 100% responsible but probably 80-90%. You can give people a pass if you want but I won't. It seems in the past 20 years or so it's become pretty common place for people to blame their woes on everything or everyone else. It's high time that people start taking responsibility for their own decisions. Yes companies suppliy the stuff but we don't have to eat it, smoke it or purchase it.

You and I both buy DLC. The difference is I don't see it as a problem in the industry. I'm not a fan of it in general but it's not a big deal to me. You on the other hand find it to be a problem in the industry yet you support it by purchasing it. So in essence your contributing to what you think is a problem in the industry but you don't think you shouldn't be to blame. It's EA.

Wonderful position.

joxer said:

You missed the point and txa already answered with his first sentence.

I won't forget it but will start backwards.

Skyrim is not DLC factory. It had only 3 DLC: Dawnguard which was a pathetic mess, Hearthfire which was a shallow attempt to emulate Sims and Dragonborn which, if was sold as a separate game, would be a goddamned musthave patchpolished masterpiece.

For season pass scam, FC4 and not just FC4 but all other games that have that scam included, I was clear. Not buying season pass, not buying games that have it until they get packed with all cutouts in a single package and sold heavily discounted. Or, as it happened with FC4 when you mentioned it, I bought it when they discounted that season pass to $0.
I really have nothing to add there.

Sims games are definetly DLC factory. And, I bet you heard, Sims 3 is widely also known as DLC:The Game (although an indie game of the same name exists).
But EA never lied about Sims. EA was clear since the beginning about that game, you get a "dollhouse" as a base game with certain gameplay options, during it's lifetime cycle you also get optional DLC with additional gameplay options or just decoration stuff.
Most of these DLC are simple cashgrab garbage only hardcore sims fans buy (Katy Perry stuffpack for example). But some of those DLC are so good they surpass the quality of the base game and add super interesting new gameplay options (World Adventures expansion for Sims 3 for example).

But Sims is a genre of it's own. It's designed to be sandbox DLC-o-rama since it's start, since the first game that was released in the year 2000. It's not storydriven RPG where you missed something very important if you didn't buy some DLC that contains additional NPC, additional superimportant story or more lore (example: Mass Effect 3 Citadel DLC)!
If EA is not capable any more to make or deliver a game that feels complete without postrelease (coutout) DLC, they should either admit their incompetence or turn onto phonegames and leave PC alone. Instead of spilling corporate bullshit as an answer in interviews.

Click to expand...

You don't have to justify your purchases to anyone, much less me Joxer.

I just think if you find DLC to be a problem and you still support it you should at least acknowledge your part in the problem.

I boycotted ford about nine years ago because I was treated poorly by them, I suppose I could have just kept buying their product and bad mouth then on the internet but to me that would ring a little hollow. Obviously ford isn't missing my car purchase every few years but it make me feel better.

Yes, it's not lost on me that boycotting games that you really want to play would be harder than boycotting a car manufacturer.

DArtagnan said:

I'm sure you're the sort of person who'd hold consumers 100% responsible for the quality of fast food or the health issues suffered from smoking. I mean, the companies producing these things are completely innocent, as they're just selling what the people crave, right?

Click to expand...

If you are taking votes on this, I believe its 100% the consumer.

Very tired of people blaming everything else on their own lack of willpower to NOT purchase something.

You don't "accidentally" make a purchase. There is no liability to anyone besides the person that took a number of steps intentionally resulting in the purchasing and consumption of something.

lackblogger said:

And people are sheep-like when it comes to promotion. There is a mathematical certainty of bums-on-seats created by promotion budget.

Click to expand...

What's a "bum-on-seat" ?


I personally believe that decisions made at the top get through the employees' actions like a watermark through into the products and through / into the firm itself,
in the end influencing - again like a watermark - the WHOLE society - if the firm is just big enough.

A very rough example : If people interpret actions being made by a firm as "greed is good",, they'll eventually come to believe that they should believe and do the same.
Result : More selfishness, more egoism, more robberies - because the leaders - the top peaple are ALWAYS seen as leaders ! And Sheep follow them ! - act so. Like a watermark : What they do gets through into everything - because they are leaders. And people LISTEN to leaders. Just look at the Nazis.

Industry leaders therefore lay down the ground stones for what the society builds upon it. If the ground stone is "greed", then people will eventually believe that greed, generating most profits no matter what - is what even the smallest worker should aim for.

Watermark.