Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

EA is really outdoing themselves!

1678911

Comments

  • ShakyMoShakyMo BradfordPosts: 7,207Member
    Gudrinx

    Good post

    Except for diablo 3. Diablo 3 is activision / blizzard pulling the same shit as ea.
  • alkarionlogalkarionlog SPosts: 1,125Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by toddze
    [mod edit]

    Nah .. sheep are those who blindly following hate.

    Those people with minds will judge each game separately. Last good EA game? Dead Space. Phenomenal game. Good immersion. Good critical response. Good sales.

    sheeps are those who blindly follow anything without thinking for himself.

     

    pretty much all people who follow the new fashion, and things saying you need to buy this new thing, ignore all the product problem if you don't buy it you will be branded as tasteless fool and boring.

    FOR HONOR, FOR FREEDOM.... and for some money.
    image

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by ShakyMo
    Nari

    And then they cocked it up by Making deadspace 3 into a cod style corridors and cutscenes man shoot, with day 1 dlc and an item shop.

    DS3 is actually better than 2 .. because of the locale. I finished it without using the item shop .. so it won't bother me.

    And it was a pretty good ride, though not as original as the first game. There is nothing wrong with COD shoot out, particularly in a sci-fi horror setting.

    And oh ... they add crafting, which is a nice mechanic.

  • Paradigm68Paradigm68 New York, NYPosts: 884Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wighty


    "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."

    This is why SimCity has always on internet connection. It's not anti-piracy drm. Its because every costumer who buys the game and isn't connected is potential lost revenue. Just like with Diablo 3. Sure you may not use the RMAH but the chance of you using it is a lot higher if you are connected than if you're not connected at all.

    There is no benefit to the player at all with the always on connection required by these games. Just restrictions to gameplay and an opportunity to spend more money.

  • WightyWighty Westbury, NYPosts: 665Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by toddze
    [mod edit]

    Well in reality EA's bread and butter is their sports game franchise like FIFA and EA SPORTS... That is likely 75%+ of their market...
     

    Whether you believe it or not EA is one of the largest domestic (US) game companies. Believe it or not I think Zynga just edged them out.

     

    EA is way to big at this point to care what we think... There is no way that you can "vote with your wallet" becasue in truth the segment of games that we here are interested in (MMORPG's) is a fraction of their business... It's like throwing crumbs at a tank.

     

    With new consoles on the horizon they are only going to cement their position further... Again this mainly due to their sports franchise...

     

    At best we can only hope that EA starts to trim the fat and sells off some of the "less profitable" companies they purchased and someone else picks them up and does something with them.

    What are your other Hobbies?

    Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...

  • NethkharNethkhar YorkshirePosts: 13Member

    EA is a huge company and as such it will without a second thought do what it can to bleed you dry of every last bit of cash you have. EA are not alone in this, this is the norm for businesses, more so for big companies.  They are not there to provide a service they are are there to make money for shareholders.

    It amazes me that people who think that microtransactions and stripped down, basic, almost impossible to play games, without  investing huge amounts of extra cash is acceptable.

    This is, unfortunately, the future but only because consumers are prepared to be nickel and dimed to death. I don't blame companies going down that route because they want to make money. I blame the consumer who participates in this activity because it's the only way they can get their leet sword and extra bag space. 

    Only in the gaming world would this be acceptable, what does this say about us as consumers.

  • blackcat35blackcat35 Lake Orion, MIPosts: 479Member

    I know as a gamer that its a mistake for EA to try to have a cash shop in all there games (sports being there biggest).  If I was a parent and my children wanted to spend a ton of money on a game that forced them to be online just to use content that should be included in the game I spent $60 + on, I wouldn't allow it.  I wouldn't give them my credit card info.  Cash shops are understandable in MMORPGS that are free to play, but when you already spent money to buy the game, any extra stuff should be free to play in non-mmorpg games.

    I can buy one of there older games for cheap and don't have to be online or have a cash shop in it.  

    ==========================
    The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Nethkhar

    Only in the gaming world would this be acceptable, what does this say about us as consumers.

    Uh ... didn't you order from a menu in a restaurant? An extra cup of coffee costs extra, right?

    Like it or not, consumers are used to paying line item by line item. Not every restaurant needs to be all-you-can-eat.

    And if it is not acceptable to you, you don't have to play that game, do you?

    It is a free world. Companies can charge whatever way they want. And consumers can decide if and what they want to buy.

  • NethkharNethkhar YorkshirePosts: 13Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar

    Only in the gaming world would this be acceptable, what does this say about us as consumers.

    Uh ... didn't you order from a menu in a restaurant? An extra cup of coffee costs extra, right?

    Like it or not, consumers are used to paying line item by line item. Not every restaurant needs to be all-you-can-eat.

    And if it is not acceptable to you, you don't have to play that game, do you?

    It is a free world. Companies can charge whatever way they want. And consumers can decide if and what they want to buy.

    I think you just made my case for me :)

    As a side note if the restaurant said £30.00 for three courses but you have to pay extra to sit at a table, I wouldn't be a diner there. The restaurant can charge what they want, do what they want and we can decide to eat there or not.  What I find interesting using  this analogy,  is I doubt anyone would think charging extra for the table is acceptable, but for some reason some people think it is  acceptable for games.

  • BizkitNLBizkitNL NetherlandsPosts: 2,280Member Common
    Originally posted by Paradigm68
    Originally posted by Wighty


    "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."

    This is why SimCity has always on internet connection. It's not anti-piracy drm. Its because every costumer who buys the game and isn't connected is potential lost revenue. Just like with Diablo 3. Sure you may not use the RMAH but the chance of you using it is a lot higher if you are connected than if you're not connected at all.

    There is no benefit to the player at all with the always on connection required by these games. Just restrictions to gameplay and an opportunity to spend more money.

    I had no idea I had to stay online during my entire gaming session just to buy DLC.

    10
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar

    Only in the gaming world would this be acceptable, what does this say about us as consumers.

    Uh ... didn't you order from a menu in a restaurant? An extra cup of coffee costs extra, right?

    Like it or not, consumers are used to paying line item by line item. Not every restaurant needs to be all-you-can-eat.

    And if it is not acceptable to you, you don't have to play that game, do you?

    It is a free world. Companies can charge whatever way they want. And consumers can decide if and what they want to buy.

    I think you just made my case for me :)

    As a side note if the restaurant said £30.00 for three courses but you have to pay extra to sit at a table, I wouldn't be a diner there. The restaurant can charge what they want, do what they want and we can decide to eat there or not.  What I find interesting using  this analogy,  is I doubt anyone would think charging extra for the table is acceptable, but for some reason some people think it is  acceptable for games.

    I don't think we have any disagreement. You don't think it is acceptable. Many others do (otherwise EA won't do it).

    And it is not uncommon for fancy restaurant that have a fixed price for a tasting menu to charge extra for high price ingredience. A tasting menu cost $200. If you want the cavier dish or truffle dish, you have to pay $50 extra. That is quite common and acceptable.

    Heck .. even in some all-you-can-eat restaurant, drinks (like alcohol) is extra.

     

  • PhelcherPhelcher Boston, MAPosts: 1,053Member
    EA's CEO should be himuliated for taking EA in this direction. EA is not to blame, the greedy phucks runing that company are to blame.

    "No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."


    -Nariusseldon

  • NethkharNethkhar YorkshirePosts: 13Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar

    Only in the gaming world would this be acceptable, what does this say about us as consumers.

    Uh ... didn't you order from a menu in a restaurant? An extra cup of coffee costs extra, right?

    Like it or not, consumers are used to paying line item by line item. Not every restaurant needs to be all-you-can-eat.

    And if it is not acceptable to you, you don't have to play that game, do you?

    It is a free world. Companies can charge whatever way they want. And consumers can decide if and what they want to buy.

    I think you just made my case for me :)

    As a side note if the restaurant said £30.00 for three courses but you have to pay extra to sit at a table, I wouldn't be a diner there. The restaurant can charge what they want, do what they want and we can decide to eat there or not.  What I find interesting using  this analogy,  is I doubt anyone would think charging extra for the table is acceptable, but for some reason some people think it is  acceptable for games.

    I don't think we have any disagreement. You don't think it is acceptable. Many others do (otherwise EA won't do it).

    And it is not uncommon for fancy restaurant that have a fixed price for a tasting menu to charge extra for high price ingredience. A tasting menu cost $200. If you want the cavier dish or truffle dish, you have to pay $50 extra. That is quite common and acceptable.

    Heck .. even in some all-you-can-eat restaurant, drinks (like alcohol) is extra.

     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

  • blackcat35blackcat35 Lake Orion, MIPosts: 479Member
    Originally posted by Gudrunix

    One critical point I would like to make:  the very first computer games were 25¢ to start a game and 25¢ to continue.  They were a shameless micro-transaction pay-for-power model.  Want another life?  Pay for it.

    The reason game companies switched over to boxed games was because players didn't like getting nickeled-and-dimed (literally!).  Players wanted to pay one price and be able to play the game as much as they wanted.  Once boxed games came out, arcade games went into a nearly terminal decline which they have never recovered from.

    Game companies now appear to think that they've hit the jackpot by rediscovering the quarter-eating-machine model.  They haven't.  A quick review of the biggest hits of the last few years show that by far the biggest hits - Guild Wars 2, Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, Terraria - have been boxed games.  Players still like and still favor the boxed game model, for the most part.  So-called free-to-play games are (with one significant exception) small players whose sales do not approach those of the boxed titles.

    This is complicated, but only just a bit, by the presence of games that charge extra for vanity features.  This is classic economic pricing along the demand curve, though - game companies know that some players will pay more for what is effectively the same product, so they add some meaningless bells and whistles, and those who want to pay more will do so.  (Meanwhile, those who want to pay less will wait for it to hit the bargain bin.)  This is the "deluxe edition" pricing, only it's being done through DLC instead of as part of a packaged box.

    The only thing that's really changed is that one company - Riot Games - has figured out that, for just the right kind of game, you can set the boxed price to $0 and make enough money to run the company on sales of vanity alone.  That's neither the boxed game model nor the quarter-eating-machine model, and it's doubtful as to how well that will work for types of games other than online battle arenas.

    Where I see game companies going wrong is in believing that they can get away with charging players for the box, then tacking on a quarter-eating-machine to the game.  That isn't going to go over well with players, and hasn't been going over well.  The price for the game needs to be fixed - $60 or $0 - with the only additional costs being for meaningless vanity or for significant content expansions.  Anything else, and players are going to boycott, just like they left the old arcade games to gather dust.

    In your last paragraph, I agree with it.  Eventually this cash shop fad is going to lose its luster, just like old arcade games.  Old arcades that use to exist have gone out of business.

    ==========================
    The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

    "worse" is just a matter of perspective. More cash shop = more F2P (this is a standard price discrimination argument in econ 101). You want more people in your game if more are accepting cash shop.

    So it is actually quite good for the free players who have will power not to buy from cash shop.

     

  • blackcat35blackcat35 Lake Orion, MIPosts: 479Member

    You can compare gaming to going to a restaurant.  But its not exactly the same thing.  Few differences.

     

    1  In gaming you usually stay at home.  Maybe your using one of the hand held devices for your gaming.

     

    2   In gaming you can often find games that are free.

     

    3   Your not going to find alot of restaurants that give food away for free. 

     

    4   While both going to a restaurant and gaming is a luxury item, eating is a necessity.  Computer Gaming isn't.

     

    5  Ordering off a menu is something you could do daily, but your still going to get hungry again.  Computer Gaming doesn't have to be designed to have CASH SHOPS, its an obvious method to part you from your money like the old arcades.

    ------

    Its wrong to have you pay for a game  and then have a cash shop attached to it.  I don't think MMorpgs mechanisms should bleed into other gaming models.

    I didn't buy diablo 3, so no clue how there CASH SHOP faired.  I did buy Torchlight 2, and guess what, it didn't have a cash shop.  Diablo 3 price - $60  <> torchlight 2 - $20.

    My guess is that EA saw how well diablo 3 and other cash shops were doing and by there own admission got greedy.

     

     

     

    ==========================
    The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.

  • blackcat35blackcat35 Lake Orion, MIPosts: 479Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

    "worse" is just a matter of perspective. More cash shop = more F2P (this is a standard price discrimination argument in econ 101). You want more people in your game if more are accepting cash shop.

    So it is actually quite good for the free players who have will power not to buy from cash shop.

     

    its one thing to have a free to play game CASH SHOP, but EA is talking about CASH SHOPS in all there games now....according to the OP.

    ==========================
    The game is dead not, this game is good we make it and Romania Tv give it 5 goat heads, this is good rating for game.

  • psiicpsiic Tampa, FLPosts: 946Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by asmkm22
    Originally posted by Wighty

    Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse!

     

    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."

     

    http://www.develop-online.net/news/43388/EA-taking-microtransactions-in-house

     

    Just goes to show you that this is all just a business and you will be nickel and dimed to death...  While this may pertain to single player and co-op style games, EA also has a host of MMO's. This is why I support Sub style games and independent developers

     

    Everyone wanted F2P, and this is the result.  It's sad, but you reap what you sow.

    Problem is that companies like EA do not stop there, they want you to pay for the box + a monthly sub + a microstore.. all to play what they try to convince you is a FREE to play game.

    Honestly the corruption and disqusting level of greed in this industry lately is screaming for some form of oversight and or regulation aimed at protecting the consumer. 

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Justin9820
    Originally posted by asmkm22

    Everyone wanted F2P, and this is the result.  It's sad, but you reap what you sow.

    This is nothing like free to play. this is buying a game and paying more to unlock content that came on a disk you already purchased.

    I'm so going to get hated for this, but what else is new right? lol

     

    What's the difference between buying a game from EA and Anet, then buying items from a cash shop ingame?  There isn't any, yet EA gets a bad wrap for it, while everyone loves Anet...makes no sense to me lol.

     

    Edit: You don't have to buy the items in either cash shop, but people will readily do so.  Only EA gets slammed for it though.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by blackcat35
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

    "worse" is just a matter of perspective. More cash shop = more F2P (this is a standard price discrimination argument in econ 101). You want more people in your game if more are accepting cash shop.

    So it is actually quite good for the free players who have will power not to buy from cash shop.

     

    its one thing to have a free to play game CASH SHOP, but EA is talking about CASH SHOPS in all there games now....according to the OP.

    And may be they will either drop the price or make games free to get people into the game.

    Plus, it is not like i have to play EA games. If they charge $60 and i don't feel i am getting my money worth, my business goes elsewhere.

  • NethkharNethkhar YorkshirePosts: 13Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

    "worse" is just a matter of perspective. More cash shop = more F2P (this is a standard price discrimination argument in econ 101). You want more people in your game if more are accepting cash shop.

    So it is actually quite good for the free players who have will power not to buy from cash shop.

     

    It's not a matter of perspective, in the future the F2P will become so restricted it will be impossible to play for free. You are limited now.  I've been attempting to play swtor free, but how successful do you think i'll be when I cannot use a bank , I cannot trade with other players I cannot have more than 1 companion crew skill.   Yes it's possible but not really practical.

    I am not saying companies shouldn't implement these methods to make money if they choose to, thats there perogative, and as a consumer you can choose to participate or not.  Just don't be complaining when F2P no longer exists, and you are forced to not only play online but constantly asked to pay for services that were once provided as part of the game you might have actually paid money for. 

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    It's not a matter of perspective, in the future the F2P will become so restricted it will be impossible to play for free. You are limited now.  I've been attempting to play swtor free, but how successful do you think i'll be when I cannot use a bank , I cannot trade with other players I cannot have more than 1 companion crew skill.   Yes it's possible but not really practical.

     

    How do you know what is in teh future?

    And what do you mean limited now? I play STO, DCUO and DDO for free. There is no need to spend a dime to enjoy myself. One game (TOR) did it wrong does not mean all games do it wrong.

    Plus, it is a competitive market. Games that put too many restrictions will have a smaller market share. I don't have to play TOR, you know.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    Agree totally and while the people carry on accepting that and slowly the industry add more and more "extras" (which in gaming terms means removing base game componants) , the more accepting consumers become. Unless consumers stop being so "accepting" in large numbers it will just get worse. The one thing you can bet on is that companies will invest alot of time and effort in creating ways of parting you from your money.  Let the companies do what they want, we as consumers need to shop smarter.

    "worse" is just a matter of perspective. More cash shop = more F2P (this is a standard price discrimination argument in econ 101). You want more people in your game if more are accepting cash shop.

    So it is actually quite good for the free players who have will power not to buy from cash shop.

     

    It's not a matter of perspective, in the future the F2P will become so restricted it will be impossible to play for free. You are limited now.  I've been attempting to play swtor free, but how successful do you think i'll be when I cannot use a bank , I cannot trade with other players I cannot have more than 1 companion crew skill.   Yes it's possible but not really practical.

    I am not saying companies shouldn't implement these methods to make money if they choose to, thats there perogative, and as a consumer you can choose to participate or not.  Just don't be complaining when F2P no longer exists, and you are forced to not only play online but constantly asked to pay for services that were once provided as part of the game you might have actually paid money for. 

    How do you know that?  Swtor is IMO not a very good implementation of a f2p or cs games.  Aion is a good one, FE is a good one, by all accounts STO is a good one.

    Because some games have bad f2p now, it does not follow that all games will have bad ones in the future.  That may be true, it may not.  The history of f2p shows that it may not be true, as they went from mostly bad, to some very good ones. 

    I do think that virtually all games will have some kind of microtransacation in them, heck they all do anyway now. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • DrakynnDrakynn The Pas, MBPosts: 2,030Member

    It's pretty simple EA is gonna keep pushing the boundaries in how it rakes in money from it's consumers until there is enough consumer backllash to make them stop.This is how a free market is suppsoed to work.

    The problem is unlike generations in the past we don't value the money we earn as highly and many consumers liek to side with the corporations because they think it makes them seem smart and rationalise thier wasteful consumer habits.This coupled with bought and paid for politicians(in all parties around the western world)has shifted market forces in favor of exploitive business practices.

    Hell the U.S even told it's businessmen they can be irresponsible ans immoral and as long as thier business is big enough they'll suffer no consequences and get bailed out.

  • NethkharNethkhar YorkshirePosts: 13Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by Nethkhar
     

    It's not a matter of perspective, in the future the F2P will become so restricted it will be impossible to play for free. You are limited now.  I've been attempting to play swtor free, but how successful do you think i'll be when I cannot use a bank , I cannot trade with other players I cannot have more than 1 companion crew skill.   Yes it's possible but not really practical.

     

    How do you know what is in teh future?

    And what do you mean limited now? I play STO, DCUO and DDO for free. There is no need to spend a dime to enjoy myself. One game (TOR) did it wrong does not mean all games do it wrong.

    Plus, it is a competitive market. Games that put too many restrictions will have a smaller market share. I don't have to play TOR, you know.

    How do I know what's in the future, by looking at what has happened over the last 10 - 20 years and seeing the trend.  I'm not saying swtor is a good implementation but  it makes sense for any company making a game to make it nigh on impossible for you to play it for free. Why wouldn't they. They aren't charities.   I don't know about the other games you mentioned but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that a company that makes a game that makes no money will not be around long.

Sign In or Register to comment.