And EA does it... yet again!

[TPiddy]

Absolutely despicable. This system is an insidious way to go about taking your cash. They could have put it all upfront, and asked for a small subscription fee instead. Instead, they cloak it all with the veneer of buying new contracts for free using the in-game points system, but as the OP says, that's just ultimately unsustainable. You HAVE to start paying regularly eventually.

I never bought EA sports games before, and I certainly won't buy now. Very sorry to hear the OP has had to fork out money for a game with such a sleazily controlled main feature.

Yeah, it just disappoints me because this used to be one of my favourite game series and now they're destroying it.

 

[TPiddy]

You do understand however the game is supposed to be played like that ? I mean, it's a business model like any other subscription based game. Look at Magic The Gathering Online, Battle Forge, or any other online 'collectible card game'.
Don't like it - don't play it. Noone forces you to play in this Dynasty mode. It's made for people who like to trade cards/players and bid their luck buying 'boosters'.

What I don't like is that it's pretending to be free. It's pretending that you can just start it up and compete and if you're good enough you'll be able to manage your team. They DON'T tell you that you'll inevitably run out of contracts and be forced into a purchase. If they were up front about it I'd be fine with it because I'd know that going in, but they didn't explain any of this before I bought it and now I'm stuck holding the cheque.

 

[TPiddy]

Methinks you're taking an overly cynical attitude about this. To the best of my knowledge, EA and Bioware are mostly separate entities; Bioware does what they do best and EA picks up the tab (see: The Old Republic).

Contrary to the ridiculous perpetuation, I see no evidence that EA has tampered with Bioware in any way, shape or form (possible exception when it comes to DLC being mentioned on the ingame menu, but I'm pretty sure I've seen stuff like that for a while).

Customers would revolt en masse if Bioware started making DLC a requirement, and I doubt EA is thick enough to piss off their massive fanbase. As it stands now, Bioware simply makes DLC that make the game better, but are not required for completion. I see no reason or evidence that this will change.

I suppose the viewpoint that EA will eventually get to Bioware is a bit cynical, but looking at the trends it's hard not to think about this. I wonder what Bioware's DLC sales figures look like. Maybe that will be enough evidence to convince EA to back off and let them do their thing. The sports franchises are all EA first party titles, so that could explain why they're so corrupt now.

 

[DaOysterboy]

Yes it's arguably immoral... but who freaking cares?

THIS is what's wrong with the world today. I'm not a fan of the DLC model anyways. It just feels like they're trying to sell us World 3 of Super Mario Bros. separately. Sure, most everyone warps straight to World 4 anyways (i.e. you don't NEED it to finish the game), but if you actually played straight through and then found out that World 3 wasn't there, wouldn't you feel something was amiss? Why aren't expansion packs and endless sequels a sufficient method for nickel and diming us anymore? And I'm agreeing with the people who blame the consumers for this kind of crap.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Do people even realize that after all the DLC, they are paying double for a game?

As someone who has all of the Mass Effect DLC, most of the Dragon Age DLC, and as someone who will GLADLY pay for more...yes, I do think people are aware of what they're getting into.

Not sure it's fair to say that "They're paying double for a game." This is all stuff that is additional content. Both Mass Effect 1&2 and Dragon Age were complete experiences when I bought them. The DLC just adds more to the game and gives me reason to go back and do more playthroughs. When looked at it in that light, I'm not getting a 2 1/2 hour DLC for my $10, I'm getting another 35 hour playthrough.

That's more than worth it in my eyes.

 

[njsykora]

Ultimate Team isn't anything new really, it's been in FIFA for 3 years now and cost 800 MSP as an add-on when it first came out. If people are going to pay for the coins then EA will keep running the game like that. Why drop something that's making you money? The best compromise I think would be penalising you coins or stats to use players out of contract.

Madden 11 does this as well, I just stuck to regular online games eventually.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

THIS is what's wrong with the world today. I'm not a fan of the DLC model anyways. It just feels like they're trying to sell us World 3 of Super Mario Bros. separately. Sure, most everyone warps straight to World 4 anyways (i.e. you don't NEED it to finish the game), but if you actually played straight through and then found out that World 3 wasn't there, wouldn't you feel something was amiss? Why aren't expansion packs and endless sequels a sufficient method for nickel and diming us anymore? And I'm agreeing with the people who blame the consumers for this kind of crap.

If they're removing content that they finished before finalization so they can package that as DLC then that's bad and crap and someone needs to be shot for it.

However if they didn't have time to finish the content before finalization then they're not getting paid for that content out of the original game budget. So releasing it as paid DLC is fine.

I think some of the stuff EA is doing with the sports titles is really a step too far.
However I never buy sports titles so I don't know the extent to which players feel they have been ripped of by the new model.

At any rate the non-sports titles have most excellent DLC models.

 

[TPiddy]

The entire industry is moving in that direction with DLC. Besides, I didn't say that EA has tainted BioWare.

BioWare likely decided on their own to put the guy in the camp to sell you DLC. BioWare likely decided on their own to almost double the price of the game via DLC.

Do people even realize that after all the DLC, they are paying double for a game?

See, I didn't mind. I bought the special edition for $90 after tax, and bought two things of DLC. Overall I paid about $100 for it, but for 135 hours of game play, that's worth it. Anything over a 1:1 dollar / hour ratio is a good investment in my opinion. I then traded in that game and got Awakenings straight up, which I sunk another 45 hours into. So end result is that a $100 purchase got me 180 hours of Dragon Age. Fair trade .

 

[TPiddy]

Ultimate Team isn't anything new really, it's been in FIFA for 3 years now and cost 800 MSP as an add-on when it first came out. If people are going to pay for the coins then EA will keep running the game like that. Why drop something that's making you money? The best compromise I think would be penalising you coins or stats to use players out of contract.

Madden 11 does this as well, I just stuck to regular online games eventually.

Ok, well, it was new to me since I don't play FIFA or Madden, and it still sucks that you can't succeed without coughing up extra money

 

[JeanLuc761]

There are different perspectives but one perspective is: "OMG! I can't believe I have spent $130 on Dragon Age!", if you include the expansion. Ask yourself, is Dragon Age worth $130? I'm not sure any game is worth $130?

Would you pay $130 all at once for a single game?

That kind of stuff doesn't bother me. If I've gotten dozens of hours of enjoyment out of a game, I figure that $130 or whatever is a reasonable price. I've spent over $200 on the Mass Effect series thus far, and I don't feel like I've wasted a single penny.

Also, to answer your question "Is any game worth $130?
I'd like to point you towards the 20 Halo: Reach Xbox 360's, each worth $400, and the 25 Halo: Reach Legendary Editions, each worth $150, taking up room in the back of our Gamestop.

I fully expect every single one of those will be gone before tomorrow night.

 

[TPiddy]

I don't understand this argument. If they don't have time?? They are the ones who make that decision. If they need more time, they can have it.

It sounds like a cop out to me. If they can't push the game back to finish it then they can give the DLC away for free. However, don't you think it's a bit of a bad motive to say "If ya don't finish the game, you can make MORE money selling off the unfinished parts".

Well, the problem is that games will go gold several months prior to being released, and the developers are still working during that time. From what I know the Shale DLC was completed after Dragon Age had gone gold but prior to the discs being released for the holiday season.

Including free download codes it easier than re-printing discs.

 

[TPiddy]

That kind of stuff doesn't bother me. If I've gotten dozens of hours of enjoyment out of a game, I figure that $130 or whatever is a reasonable price. I've spent over $200 on the Mass Effect series thus far, and I don't feel like I've wasted a single penny.

Also, to answer your question "Is any game worth $130?
I'd like to point you towards the 20 Halo: Reach Xbox 360's, each worth $400, and the 25 Halo: Reach Legendary Editions, each worth $150, taking up room in the back of our Gamestop.

I fully expect every single one of those will be gone before tomorrow night.

Yeah, I was kinda actually hoping my 360 would 'break' so that I had an excuse to get one of the Halo 360's. Those are fucking awesome!

 

[JeanLuc761]

Fair enough. Damn near every game has DLC now, including WiiWare. Considering that people are paying twice or three times as much for a single game this gen as they have in the past, do ya ever wonder why the publishers are still so damn greedy instead of being happy that they are getting so much per title?

The entertainment industry has always been a greedy one, and I doubt that will ever change.
Still, I'm all for DLC if it's done responsibly. If I'm paying $50-60 on a game, I expect it to be a complete experience (i.e. I can play it indefinitely without being forced to pay extra). DLC should always be "In addition to."

 

[TPiddy]

Fair enough. Damn near every game has DLC now, including WiiWare. Considering that people are paying twice or three times as much for a single game this gen as they have in the past, do ya ever wonder why the publishers are still so damn greedy instead of being happy that they are getting so much per title?

Sadly, it's the way of the world now. Greed and corruption are everywhere. Why should gaming be exempt?

 

[Gindil]

Sounds like you get a pretty accurate feel for what being an NHL manager is like. Do you have to give press statements whenever your players go out and get drunk and get in bar fights and other stupid things too?

Hahha, no but that would be interesting.... the game does have other modes, but this was the big seller so I was quite disappointed to find out it was nothing more than a cash grab. Ah well, I've learned my lesson EA, and outside of Bioware titles, EA will get no more of my money

Yeah cause BioWare doesn't play the DLC game and didn't have a DLC advertisement built into the game? BioWare is no better.

$40 for Dragon Age DLC. $55 if you paid for Shale. No, that doesn't count the expansion. http://dragonage.wikia.com/wiki/Downloadable_Content

So if you bought it new and bought all the DLC, you have paid $90 on PC and $100 on the console, not including the expansion.

And people wonder why I hate monopolies. With the just recent 9th circuit ruling and the nickel and diming that some of the bigger game companies are doing, it's just better to support the smaller guys.

IWBTG, Cave Story, even this guy [http://www.positech.co.uk/gratuitousspacebattles/]

 

[JeanLuc761]

..but it won't always be "in addition to".

Do we know that for a fact, or is it just cynical speculation?

 

[TPiddy]

The entertainment industry has always been a greedy one, and I doubt that will ever change.
Still, I'm all for DLC if it's done responsibly. If I'm paying $50-60 on a game, I expect it to be a complete experience (i.e. I can play it indefinitely without being forced to pay extra). DLC should always be "In addition to."

Exactly this. Let it be there as an option, but not as a requirement. Hell, if the packs WEREN'T a requirement in NHL 11 I may have bought one or two just to see what I would get, but I wanted to be able to succeed on my own, without the benefit of money, and apparently there is no way to do that.

 

[TPiddy]

..but it won't always be "in addition to".

Do we know that for a fact, or is it just cynical speculation?

Well, the example I cited at the start of this topic certainly isn't "in addition to". It may LOOK that way, but it really isn't. Granted, this just one of several game modes on the disc, but it's still a step further than previous titles, a step towards not being "in addition to". Who's to say they won't keep stepping in that direction?

 

[JeanLuc761]

It's speculation for the moment but I think it's obvious that the industry is headed in that direction. They will use it as a justification to buy new.

"If you buy used you'll have to pay extra for the ending".

You don't see that coming?

I see it coming but I don't see it working. Buying used games is and always has been legal so to punish customers for it is a foolhardy move.

That's not to say publishers won't try though.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

So, if you knew what they were doing, why did you bother buying the game?
You don't see me complaining about running out of farmville cash.[footnote]Mostly because I don't play the damn thing anymore.[/footnote] Or complaining about the WoW subscription.[footnote]Don't play that either.[/footnote]

as much as I normally disagree with Judas here (they know what I'm talking about), I really have to agree with this. Why do you keep buying EA games if they piss you off so much?