EA planning microtransactions for ALL games

EA planning microtransactions for "all of our games" | News | PC Gamer

Well, that about does it. I remember the good old days; games shipped when they were completed, and DLC was called "sequels"

With more and more publishers/developers pushing the microtransaction envelope, it would seem that despite the vocal protestations we hear against microtransactions, enough people are purchasing them to make them worth including.

Do you purchase microtransactions? For F2P games or full games? Is it something you wish to see continue?

 

Micro transactions are for $1.99 iPhone games, not $50-60 AA-AAA releases.

 

Never. That was one of the reasons I dumped TF2. All that crap talk. Sure it's fun to have a bit of variety, but since it went F2P it became a bit too much.
There are some other interesting F2P games I wouldn't mind playing, but unfortunately those are more P2W than F2P.

 

I sure as heck Battlefield does not become all F2P with microtransactions. Damn bean counters ruining even our past time enjoyment. God forbid they create something entertaining that people can enjoy for $50. But no they have to suck every last penny out of it that they could. Not only that it ensures only online play. Single player campaigns are a thing of the past unfortunately.

 

I see your point @killkenny but i actually think Valve has done it correctly with TF2 and DOTA. TF2 is different as you can purchase weapons, but the weapons are balanced (imho the stock weapons are better) and you can make everything via crafting. I tend to be a bit more forgiving when it comes to F2P (how else would they make money), but I would still prefer the old school method - 1 box, 1 price, everything included.

 

Yes, I agree. TF2 was still great gameplay wise. Dunno, maybe I grew tired of it. And that items talk didn't help it either. Sometimes I thought I was playing Rune Scape judging by chat log...

I'm pretty sure there is a P2W Battlefield (based on BF). You could even buy a gun for a 24h period...

 

I've got no problem with microtransactions that don't affect core gameplay. New outfits for Mass Effect 3 characters being a great example.

I've got a big problem with microtransactions that do affect core gameplay. Like how getting new weapons and characters in ME3 multiplayer is an incredible time-consuming grind unless you start buying upgrade packs with $$$ instead of in-game points. It takes nearly two hours of gameplay to get a 99,000 credit-pack which might have one new weapon in it (totally random, so it likely won't be the one you want) adn which might have one new character in it (which is also totally random, and if it's someone you already have, it gives it to you again, just upping your level in that character a bit). Diablo III's loot is another example of microtransactions breaking a game. Good loot is far less common in D3 than D2, because they're now pressuring people into the real-money auction house instead of just getting gear by playing the game.

 

They aren't compulsory so not a big deal.

 

If it's just silly stuff that doesn't affect core gameplay as mentioned I don't care. But if the grind is too ridiculously long and/or difficult, it's not worth it to me either. At least in games like BF3 I always felt like I was progressing, unlocking newer and better things constantly. If it takes three times as long then it will suck. Like that random ME3 stuff mentioned, it would be nice to be able to pick your stuff. Random sucks. Everyone has different play styles and that kind of forces you to use something else.

 

Sounds like your playing on the wrong servers. I only have a few TF2 servers that I regularly play on; full of mature individuals who can care less of trading items.

As for EA, as long as the items are mostly cosmetic and not essential to the game; then I'm ok with it. However, if those items are essential to the gameplay, then I would too probably be done with EA.

 

Why should we have to pay for even cosmetic items? Used to be youd be able to unlock cosmetic stuff/easter eggs/secret weapons by actually playing the game, completing a challenge, entering a secret code, etc. I fear that as long as people keep paying for these MTs, they will continue to encroach on our gameplay.

To use a very, very bad example, The War Z (NOT the arma 2 mod) actually charges for bullets. Extreme example, but not too far fetched to imagine it coming to a game near you.

 

SW the old republic is my first foray into this world of microtransactions, and sincerely I have been avoiding that like hell. I can pay to get a mount earlier or get whatever weapon I want before (not that I could use it due to lvl constraints)

I still play those good old 50 bucks one finished game (or when the mood strikes me I call some TW games unfinished), and thats it. When they make strategy games P2W, I will only play the older titles, Im finding a very large absurd the money that I spent on 2 months of gameplay for the old republic, fortunately I will have an upgraded account so, for me the F2P limitations are not that severe

but sincerely, they can do whatever the hell they want, they are concerned about piracy and some of the lenghts that they travel push people out of purchasing their games (I dont buy ubisoft games anymore, despite loving anno 1404 and wanting to play anno 2070), or the beta state that games come out (really patch on the first day of play is a bit too much, looking at you and your monstrous 3gb update ETW), the famous P2W (that I actually swallowed since I became a subscriber for the old republic), those annoying microtransactions (looking at you me3).

So in the end we may lose some interest in this thing, like I did with ubisoft games (WiC was my last purchase from them, and even did it after the patch that removed the piracy thing that they had), or me that didnt play starcraft after the 6 months of play expired, or like me that wont play old republic after the 2 months subscription is gone, or me that wont buy another game on the launch, but when its on sale

Sometimes not to fight is the best option

 

Not really, it used to be that for the most part these things didn't exist in most games. People have this weird idea that post release DLC/content patches and unlockable cosmetic items used to be freely, widely available. They weren't.

 

indeed but some of the earlier dlcs were so different from the expansions that we were used to, basically lacking so much content. Off course there were terrible expansions, that lacked everything, but they either got more publicity or more common since the rise of the dlc.

Mods and other stuff still happen, with mod tools and some very large "protests" from the community.

Easter eggs still exist.

The problem is the rupture of confined purchase, when you buy something you have some expectations regarding it, so in the end that policy of microtransactions and other stuff hurt the perception of the value for those purchases.

 

I don't think I understand your point. I think DLCs that make you pay beyond the purchase price for integral parts of the game, for example, The War Z forcing you to buy ammo, or Asura's Wrath making you pay 7 bucks to get the "real ending", are bad. But I don't understand how being able to pay 2 bucks for a silly hat or a dollar for horse armor detracts from the game.

 

I think its good how EA / BioWare handled microtransactions in Mass Effect 3.
The DLC for multiplayer is free since they earn more money on the consumers who dont want to spend time grinding credits in online matches.

But if they make the MP DLC for Mass Effect 4 cost money as well as adding microtransactions then i would not be as understanding on it.

 

it detracts because that content could be linked to other titles from the company, as steam does, or could be spent on developing more interesting things, improving the quality of the game via the dlc, for example, the first dlcs for ETW where some units, really 4-5 units. If we look at the S2TW we see 2 new campaigns, rise of the samurais and the subsequent fall, thats pretty different from the silly thing that were those units

 

It's not like the people developing the silly hats and the new campaigns are the same people...

This is another silly idea that people have, that somehow everyone in the company can only focus on one thing at a time, and that everything they don't care about somehow detracts from things they do care about. Having silly hats doesn't mean you can't also have quality DLC additions.

 

I appreciate the fact that developers and community members can make money from their creations. What I guess I have a problem with is the nickel and dime feeling I get combined with the feeling I am not getting the 'whole' game; that parts are being left out specifically to be sold later.

In terms of this stuff not existing in older games, I disagree. Had some of the Super Mario brothers games been made in this age, I can see the raccoon tale being sold as a 'costume' and packs of stars being sold as well. Imagine the original Goldeneye having characters to purchase (everyone would have to buy oddjob!!!).

 

That's a very silly argument to make. You can't just pick and choose modern qualities to ascribe to games of the past. Imagine that Super Mario and Goldeneye were free to play? What about that?

 

Well, it's silly to compare old games to new games in the first place, but I hope you got the general idea of what I was trying to say. Over the years as DLC, MTs and the like have crept in, I've noticed a correlation in the quality of the games sufferring as it seems more and more is held back to sell at a later date. I don't object to paying the creators of these works the money they deserve; fair market capitalism and such. I also realize I am in the minority; if this stuff didn't sell it wouldn't be in place.

My fear is that if this continues, we as gamers will continue to receive our games in unfinished states.

 

Terrible games have existed forever. This is all nostalgia. We've always had unfinished games getting released. People tend to look at the past with rose colored glasses with respect to video games. I get the general idea, I just think it's a silly argument.

 

if they do it similar to Dead Space 3 then I'm fine with it. People who have spare cash to get better items early can go ahead and do that while I progress naturally.

 

@hockeymass, agree to disagree then. While nostalgia is certainly a factor, many of the things we see today in games as MTs and DLC's were items that were previously included at release, or saved and put out as a true sequel. Again, I know I am in the minority, so all I can do is try to avoid the games that use these transactions in ways I don't agree with.

 

That's pretty much an impossible argument to make, unless you have actual data that quantifies what used to be included in a game vs what is currently included in a game. You must see where this all falls apart. You can't base an argument on feelings. I can say that I feel that there are more fuzzy bunnies in video games now than there were 10 years ago, but that doesn't mean anything.

 

while I do agree that they can have more than 1 skinner, its a matter of resources and the allocation of those. They are doing this fr profits, there is more intrisic profit in a funny hat than in a 20 bucks expansion/dlc, the time and the money that takes to make one not the other is what moves here.

One acceptable argument would be that with those funny hats profits they can make those 20 expansions/dlcs

 

This is another silly argument. You just acknowledged that it is not an issue of resource allocation and then went on to say that it is an issue of resource allocation. Games like Mass Effect (1 and 2, we won't discuss 3 just now only because it can be a polarizing topic) and DA:O had both cosmetic addons and substantive additions, while also being complete games in their own right. Skyrim and Oblivion are the same. Clearly it can be done well without issue, so what's the problem?

 

As long as the items are merely cosmetic im not bothered.

 

In an ideal scenario, yes, there is no problem with microtransactions for additive content e.g., new outfits, guns -- as long as it a) doesn't give a real advantage to the player in multiplayer and b) if it doesn't take away (or fill a gap) in the core gameplay. In terms of microtransactions that allow you to get items sooner, this is also a faux pas, since it will spur devs to make it virtually impossible to get items in game in a normal way. Unfortunately, what will (and has in some circumstances already) happen is Devs will trim down the out-of-the-box game to it's utmost minimal level so they can grab your ankles for microtransaction content pieces. What you will get for $50-60 will essentially be a sandbox version of the game: for core content, you'll need to pay extra. There is NO WAY this is not going to be the outcome here if customers allow microtransactions to continue.

 

"EA planning microtransactions for ALL games"

You lost me at EA.

 

Very well put, and exactly what I fear will occur if we allow MTs to continue on in the way they are.

 

Did you guys played Real Racing 3 ? They are charging 99 dollars for 1000 gold in-game, an Koenigsegg Agera is 800 gold

 

What crystal ball are you using to determine this? In what case has a 60 dollar game been released with no core content and forced users to pay for, essentially, the entire game through microtransactions. If you guys could provide actual examples for instances where you claim the sky is falling, it would be real nice.

 

its far from a silly argument, the amount of work involved in creating a silly hat is great, to create a new storyline is huge.

Resource allocation exist, they are not going to dedicate an entire team for making silly hats, they are going to allocate those resources dynamically, and by that, they withdraw man power from areas that could benefit more the game than silly hats.

 

Then how is it that some games have both silly hats and meaningful content a la TF2?

 

That sums up pretty well the issue I have with mirco transactions, and have abstained from purchasing them.

Although I'd rather have micro-transactions and simply not partake in them than have always-on-Internet DRM as featured in Assassin's Creed 2 and what's that other game, from EA? Oh yeah, Sim City 5. The latter I won't buy, the former I might if I feel the base game is still a good value. If not, I might consider a Complete Edition a few years later that includes the whole can of tuna.

I have to acknowledge that hockeymass has a point in that old games were certainly not always polished and bug-free on release. Nowadays, a crash to desktop is a big no-no that's rare to find. It used to be that the occasional Blue Screen of Death while playing a game was not that unusual. Admittedly, part of that was Windows 9x being easier to BSOD than XP and later, but lack of polish was still a significant factor.

 

the answer to your question is in the same quote, dynamical allocation of resources, you can use 100 people to build a road, or you can use 80 for 1st and 20 for the 2nd

 

Or you could hire another 20 to build the second.

 

U I paid $60 for need for speed hot pursuit a few years ago... Loaded it up and was assaulted by a bunch add on packs that had to pay more money for...and the game had just been released. If I could have returned the game and got my money back I would have. It was the last EA game I ever bought for my PS and I was not a fan of how they are handling all the BF3 expansions either, just feels like content they can slowly release that was held back to keep profits coming in.

The only microtransaction service that I agree with or use is LoL because the items you buy have absolutely no impact in game, they are purely cosmetic.

Where I have a problem is paying for a game only to get the feeling that I only paid for 75% of said game and then having to fork out more money to get the rest. That coupled with the fact that most of these companies are just pumping out sub par garbage nowadays has really made me lose faith in pretty much every game I ever liked.

I also have to disagree with the people above who are saying you can't compare the old games to new ones when yes you very much can. One person mentioned Mario was a bad example because it wasn't free to play... Well news flash not all the games being loaded up with dlc options are f2p either. I don't doubt that it is only a matter of time before we do see a version of Mario where you can buy a new costume for him or add extra content because that is where everything is going. We didn't see it before because it is only the last few years that the Internet has been reaching into everything we do including our game consoles.

I am actually scared of what is to come with the next generation consoles and games. I don't like what I see now and I don't like where it is heading.



Sent from my Galaxy S3

 

You completely misconstrued my argument. First of all, I didn't say you couldn't compare them because old games weren't free to play. I said you can't pick and choose which qualities you want to compare old versus new games on. In other words, you can't just be like "new games sometimes charge for extra content, and old games don't, so old games were better", because you'd be ignoring a lot of other differences.

If you're opposed to DLC, ignore it. My whole point has always been that companies rarely released free content after launch, so it's not like they're charging us for something that used to be free. Likewise with this microtransaction stuff. It's not like they're charging us for something we used to get free. Just ignore it if you don't want it.

 

Guns are not cosmetic--they're core content in any shooting-based game (single-player or multiplayer). So I'm against microtransactions for more guns (ME2's weapons packs), or to get guns more quickly (ME3's multiplayer gear purchases). ME3's multiplayer grind to get new weapons is horribly slow if you don't pay for them.

But I don't see any harm in EA making extra money off "appearance packs." I don't care if my team-members have one outfit instead of ten, so long as those outfits are just how they look (clothing) instead of affecting combat ability (armor). That's not just "ideal scenario"--there are plenty of games in the real world where selling new outfits for characters hasn't ruined the game. ME2 springs to mind; I think they did this in the most recent Dead or Alive as well (because we all want female ninjas dressed like a provocative Mrs. Claus...that's DoA for you).

 

that actually depends, you have to understand that there are curves for efficiency and some other stuff.

Basically what I pointed is dynamical allocation of resources, that is actually quite final, if you dont have the budget for any game, and that is a measure that is case by case

 

I don't know if it's a language barrier or what, but I have no idea what you're talking about. Can you prove that there's a history of game developers pulling resources off meaningful content and expansions to develop "silly hat"-type stuff?

 

Bioware is a division of Electronic Arts, and they always used this nonsense since I can remember, so this is nothing new. I'm glad to say I never bought any of this crud, not even as a bundle.

Although Bethesda streamlined this idea with their stupid horse armor and mini-expansions, they never brought it to the low depths that Bioware have. Bioware's DLC always looked and felt completely cheap, sleazy and contemptible with their needless weapons and armor which don't even change the core gameplay. Buying this stuff must feel the lowest of the low, probably akin to what paying for a street hooker must feel like.

This is not a DLC where you get what you pay for, this is a mini-piñata of needless crap, usually on release day, in a blatant attempt to milk their customers for pocket change with flashing colors and empty promises. If you would look for the definition of being 'nickle and dimed', I bet this stuff comes the closest. This nonsense peaked with ME3's zero day DLC, I really can't believe we can get much lower than this.

Oh, right, we can. We always can:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...apple-after-son-spends-1700-on-free-ipad-game

Deplorable behavior, really.

There is very little merit in what these guys do, and defending this behavior, even for the sake of an argument, is just wrong. It's a symptom of the sickness of capitalism, nothing less.

Edit: this guy is completely right, though:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...yb-calls-on-gamers-to-vote-with-their-wallets

Valve are really no better in this. This entire milking industry is flawed.

 

its not a language barrier, its economics, resources are finite, and for that you have to manage those, the thing is that if you diverge people to somewhere they wont get their primary task done will they? And by that I assume its making quality meaningful content.

Its fairly simple:

I have 50 sacs of potatoes that need to be peeled, for that I hire 10 people. But we see a demand for peeling carrots, I get another 10 sacks of carrots, for that I need workers, if I hire too many workers I will incur in a non profitable situation, so what I do is to get 1 guy from the potatoes and put him in the carrots, hire one more for the carrots and I have almost the same performance that I had, almost, and thats the problem.

Funny hats, per their existence, they are to be much less labor intensive and present a very very small marginal cost increase. So I will usually withdraw from the labor pool that I already have and complement that with some other workers, I wont build something from scratch.

There are also barriers of knowledge here, not from the professional per se, but from the policies and the way that the job is supposed to be handled, aside that there is also the possibility of promotions, thus giving your previous group more incentive to keep there, because they can be a group leader someday when the world needs more funny hats.

the calculations for that are extremely boring, but fairly straight forward as you can see.

the model here is to produce, sellable content with non labor intensive methods, so that I can maximize the profit from that content that is to be sold at very dirt cheap prices, in the end off course 1 buck is going to turn out a good profit, but it doesnt mean that you wont make that as more profitable as you can.

 

These analogies have nothing to do with the situation at hand.

DLC in the form of an expansion pack, extra levels, actual content where you get your money's worth is all well and good. You get the game, and if you like it, you pay up to get more and there's nothing wrong with that.

Useless microtransactions that either don't add anything substantial to the game, zero-day DLC which cuts important content and the most evil of them all - 'free'2play business model where paying is the only way to advance, are morally wrong and should not be condoned.

 

If you never bought Bioware DLC, how can you comment on it?

And before you bash ALL Bioware DLC, do yourself a favor and go play Overlord, or Lair of the Shadow Broker (both ME2 DLC). Arguably better than the main ME2 campaign.

 

I never bought Bioware's microtransactions, doesn't mean I haven't tried 'em. What they offer is not much better than paintjobs, really.

Played both of those missions, though. Again, such DLC are A-OK.

 

But why is it bad? If it doesn't add anything substantial to the game, why can't you just ignore it?

 

Because it's immoral and it steals money, especially from clueless innocents like kids who spend their parents' hard earned cash and non-gamers who fall for this trap, get disappointed from the lack of real value and don't buy this stuff again, while the microtransactions guys just wait for the next victim to purchase these useless paintjobs+meaningless statistics done in 5 minutes work.

Plus, it degrades the entire gaming industry and encourages others to follow suit in this quick buck scheme. I can ignore the content itself, and I am, but letting it slide without speaking against this behavior is not right, in my opinion. I say treat your customers like you would want to be treated.