As if there wasn't reason enough to hate on EA, they dropped this bomb yesterday.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/02/27/in-the-grim-darkness-of-eas-future-there-are-only-iaps/
It is sad to see EA take this approach because they usually stomp right over the debate of "pay2win" and just give you game boosters such as experience and special unlocks, making your character more powerful.
Edit: Retracted http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-06-ea-cfo-backs-off-microtransactions-in-all-games-statement
The thing is, all their games already have this ability.
I'm not really sure he said anything meaningful there.
Just means more business will go to games that don't use this model.
I am not concerned that some they aim at some people who want to have it easy and fast, but that eventually games will be build around model: mindless and looong grind or you pay.
Not that i care much, I do not buy their games anymore.
Yeah *sigh* ...
Was a huge fan of Battlefield 2 for the PC with the Project Reality mod ... bought BF3 and was more or less dissapointed (outside of the graphics). Guess this means BF4 is finally going to drive the rest of the BF players away. *sigh*
How does their slogan go?
EA: Challenge Everything Ruin Everything!
My initial reaction is a kind of knee-jerk "EA is evil and this is going to herald the end of days for the gaming industry". But, it's probably not as bad as I am initially inclined to think. I don't like it much, I am more for the pay up front for a whole game and get free patches and updates, with later large expansions. But that's not the best business model, apparently. We'll see. I think that with digital distribution and crowd funding, good games will still be made. I'm not sure I am entirely against free-to-play+ micro-transactions. I just worry how far down the slippery slope some games and companies will slide. How bare bones will games be when released? But, I recognize that developers and publishers need to find a way to make more money for their games. I think about the games I payed $60 for 25 years ago, and think about the games I pay the same amount for today and how much more work it takes now to make a game. But it does make me worry.
Agreed. For me, a good example of a free-2-play multiplayer game with transactions ... that don't break the game .. is World of Tanks.
Doesn't matter to me, I refuse to buy any more EA games anyway. Sim City..one of my favorite games of all time...I refuse to buy because they want to force me not only to use Origin but to be online all the time...to play a single player game. NO!
I have been disappointed to hear that Sim City is sounding like one of those Facebook games, like farmville. I'm probably overreacting but it didn't sound like fun to me. I hope I'm wrong.
I swore off EA a long time ago, but I have to wonder: do they try to make gamers hate them?
For my self, I went over to Origin to play Command & Conquer, and after 90 minutes of play I really couldn't do anything else without buying anything, so in order to really defend my self, I have to buy tanks and what not to be safe. Because in 8 hours I will be pushed to the world butt-naked with only rocks to throw. To me, that's not fun...
Edit: Sorry, I have until 3/5 before I get attacked, unless I do first which means I lose my protection...
generals eh? how was it? good/bad? worse?
Nah, it was Tiberon Sun I do believe, the one you mentioned doesn't come out till later in the year...
I hate this kind of thing! When I play I like to set up the game in such a way that I will mostly fail and have to try again. Anything that taste of buy to win makes me sick. I want sandbox/skirmish/single player and not having to pay for pieces of the puzzle as I play.
Just because microtransactions works for some games, it doesnt mean that everyone should jump the bandwagon.
That is just another stupid web browser strategy game of a long line of similar ones. You really can't single it out without mentioning the entire crappy genre is like that.
So true, but if their going to do that with most of their games and always on meaning in order to play single player, you must have a online connection, then it's really going to suck big ones and if so, I can see the hate towards EA/Origin...
My main concern is this. Like many of you, I've been playing videogames since the early 80s (or earlier in many cases I'm sure.) So I know how companies tend to seize on successful business models and drive them into the dirt. And I also know how the industry can take on an inertia of its own that creates new - not always favorable to the consumer in my opinion at least - standards and practices.
So here's the nightmare that goes through my mind.
First and foremost, EA won't be the only company to do this. If it succeeds - and all precedents prior to this, especially in the last decade or so, indicate that it probably will as many will accept it without question or at least continue to buy the products that incorporate it whether they embrace it or not - other companies will definitely jump on the bandwagon.
So, okay. All the major publishers start doing this. At first this is all optional. No harm, no foul. Impatient gamers can pay more money to get what they could already get if they have more patience and perseverance. Experienced, core gamers can continue to do it the old fashioned way. And companies have a new revenue stream. Everybody wins, right? Well... at least in the beginning.
DLC was at one time free. Then it cost money. (Natch.) It's still "optional," but today in a lot of cases you really don't necessarily feel like you're playing a complete game unless you buy the DLC. And some of the DLC is already on the disc, or gives you a clear advantage in the game. So there is a tend there. There's an inertia, however slow, toward DLC feeling less and less optional, even if it technically still is.
So publishers get comfortable with this new "optional" microtransaction revenue stream. They market the hell out of it, they put it in every single game practically, and they all make a lot of new money. Then one day it becomes apparent that they are beginning to reach the limit on how much they can grow their revenue through this model. Their shareholders are none too happy about how slowly their profit margins are expanding. Hell, they might even stagnate or contract. That's unacceptable, of course. So now what do they do?
I think we all know the answer to that. Like "freemium" games on our mobile devices and web browsers, they start to increase the grind. The effort necessary to make meaningful progress in the game increases. Or the amount of fun decreases. Or the sense of fulfillment and "completeness" shrinks. These are subtle, psychological things that they can reasonably argue are both fair and subjective. So they aren't screwing anyone over, right? But then it gets worse. And worse. And worse.
I mean, it seems simple to me. Company needs more revenue + model not extracting sufficient revenue anymore = model must change to incentivize revenue again. In that context, isn't it sort of inevitable?
And that, my friends and fellow long time gamers, is my ultimate dread for the future of this industry. Please companies, don't do it. Please gamers... don't support it.
Thing is as much as we bitch about this it still doesn't stop the dumb ass masses from buying into it hook line and sinker.
Statement retracted http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-06-ea-cfo-backs-off-microtransactions-in-all-games-statement
Considering iirc the original statement only said they have the ABILITY to do microtransactions in all their games, I wouldn't call it a retraction. Just a poor initial choice of words.
The way it was phrased was that the player would have the ability, in the original statement.
Because people don't pay for crappy ass mobile games unless they get obsessed with them, then they pay out the ass. Just like all F2P games.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
