CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
in his defence he was asked if EA ever did a sale and he gave examples of EA doing itverdant monkai said:
No one believes that. They just seem to be one of the least money hungry out of the big developers/publishers.Slayer_2 said:
No matter what, having to load up Steam to play their games makes it DRM, the Steam offline mode is not perfect, not all their microtransactions are clear of criticism, and many people are still making fun on Valve for taking their sweet time in releasing the next Half-Life. I wouldn't be surprised if there are alot more, but those seem the most common. All businesses fall under scrutiny, and it's not hard to find all the criticism.
The thing is, EA have approached the F2P model in the same way that Jack the Ripper approached beautiful women. C&C Tiberium Alliances exists under their name, a browser game so shamelessly pay-to-win that it's beyond words. And now they got a "F2P" full title C&C on the way. Oh yeah, and then you got ToR, where they chop off parts of the UI and you can't sprint. They are a joke for a reason. Nobody is saying that Valve can do no wrong, but they are clearly incapable of SUCH levels of shamelessness. And yet, oh the surprise, their devs CAN ACTUALLY FEED THEIR FAMILIES, isn't that amazing Mr. Cliffy B? People have a reason to be worried when EA starts introcuding microtransactions in single player games. Their history is not exactly one that inspires confidence in consumer friendliness.
Anyone else calling it that the new gears has unannounced micro-transactions? I will agree tf2's micro-transaction model is kind of shifty and I swear to god items have been dropping way less since the mannco store became a thing and despite all transactions being entirely optional valve has probably siphoned far more than 60 dollars away from the average player. But in the end it can be a free game with enough restraint and resolve. Game cost plus microtransactions PLUS day 1 DLC, that's where it gets to selling something and tacking on an extra charge to make it a complete product.
I wouldn't even mind if something with a really ethical microtransaction system was a game that costed money. If I spent 30 bucks or something to buy league of legends i probably wouldn't be too out of sorts. Things like mass effect's "this crate might have absolutely nothing useful in it but you wont know until you spend 3 bucks on it, also one of the most important story characters is DLC" thing is absolute bullshit.
I wouldn't even mind if something with a really ethical microtransaction system was a game that costed money. If I spent 30 bucks or something to buy league of legends i probably wouldn't be too out of sorts. Things like mass effect's "this crate might have absolutely nothing useful in it but you wont know until you spend 3 bucks on it, also one of the most important story characters is DLC" thing is absolute bullshit.
Valve criticisms are something like "Oh Valve, so silly taking forever with episode 3". EA gets criticisms are along the lines of "EVIL, EVIL! Everything they do is BAD!" Don't get me started on Origin hate, even though it's not that different than Steam. I respect Valve a lot more as a company (despite how I dislike most of their games), but the fact is I really don't think the balance of criticism is quite fair or equal.Nazulu said:
Someone also mentioned how EA price gouges in Australia region while Valve does not; it's interesting to note that outside of their sales/first-party games, that their Steam service *very much* price-gouges the same way that EA does. Price (and sale discounts) are very much determined by the developer/publisher so a lot of it's outside their control, but still.
Price-wise and outside sales, Steam prices can potentially be just as garbage as Origin's service.
Price-wise and outside sales, Steam prices can potentially be just as garbage as Origin's service.
Actually, I see alot of people that are angry with Valve because they aren't patient waiting for HL3, it's pretty sad. However, you right. There is always too many people not gathering up the facts before they post, and there is always going to be some jerks making aggresive jabs. Cliffy B is pretty much falling into that trap now.Slayer_2 said:
What I think I can see now is those people don't want to just let EA get off the hook, so some people literally hurl themselves into the fray without thinking it through.
I missed the "defraud" use there.Akalabeth said:
You mean "default," but the ironic thing is that yes, there may indeed have been some fraud going on. Which has nothing to do with the sales of the game, but the management.
Perhaps you subconsciously knew the truth.
To me it begs the question why said multiplayer team weren't working on say another hub area, ME3 could certainly have done with one of them. Or a better Normandy the dark blue lights with crumbs and cables everywhere didn't do it for me. Point being it was something EA wanted shoehorned in, and in my opinion the main campaign suffered for it, official statements from EA/Bioware won't convince me otherwise.Vault101 said:
I see his base logic and yup share based componies are legally force to make money and god help us EA takes this to heart and well thats the way it works. Now the free to play model vs £40/$60 + extra crap is different but i'll let it slide he has a point no one ever really has a go at valve which considering there teired pre-order crap(which i just wait and see how high it gets upto the last week before preordering) which is a crock of poop we should be.
EA works hard to be hated but lets not get blinkered everyone is making money some systems are just more subtle. Also is CliffyB getting hired by EA soon?
EA works hard to be hated but lets not get blinkered everyone is making money some systems are just more subtle. Also is CliffyB getting hired by EA soon?
Ever hear the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen"? It can happen in game development too, and it's often better to separate a different team to focus on one area. And the more autonomous they are, the better. For another example, Ubisoft Singapore focused all on the ship combat for Assassin's Creed 3, letting the main Montreal studio to focus on the other parts of the game.verdant monkai said:
That's an unfortunate stance to take, not to mention very incorrect, especially since MP was always in the cards for the ME franchise. You know, using a well known FPS engine and all. It was just a matter of when and how to do it right that fits the game world. People like it, they're still adding content to it (as well as the main game), so it's not shoehorned in at all in a fire and forget act.verdant monkai said:
Cliff Bleszinski is burying himself so deep within EA's anal canal that the moisture on the tip of his tongue will quench their thirst.
There's a lot of people who criticize Valve for the recent fuck uppery that Steam Greenlight turned out to be. A few things about Greenlight have been giving decent reasons for the community that uses Steam to get pissed.Nazulu said:
The fact that out of 66 games that have been Greenlit, only 16 have been released.
Some of the released games were released in an alpha or beta state while telling people that the game was done(Cortex Command, Towns).
One of the Greenlight games lied to their customers in the exact same fashion as the WarZ devs(Miner Wars DRM).
Most of the 50 remaining games that have been "Greenlit" have been done for months and have been being sold on Desura and the websites of the developer. This going on while incomplete Greenlight games keep getting released first is just stupid.
Valve for sure is not looked upon with a "they can do no wrong" company by anyone who isn't a Valve purist.
OT:The argument that TF2 being allowed to do microtransactions because its free to play is countered by the fact that TF2 was sold retail at $50 retail in the Orange Box. TF2 has microtransactions back then as well. The is the same way a good majority of the more well known F2P MMOs started (LOTR Online, D&D Online, etc.) Most MMOs not named Guild Wars go F2P after being retail priced. All with microtransactions.
If you're going to get mad at EA for doing it simply because they charge you for the game THEN charged for small things, find a new reason. It seems that a good portion of F2P games started off with the exact same model that EA uses for their game.
I'm not saying don't be mad at EA for doing microtransactions, but don't be mad at them because they charge you the game first. Chances are one of your favourite F2P games started off with the same model.
Except that, like most conclusions that are drawn by limiting your considerations, that statement is erroneous. The cost of games might be "cheaper" when adjusted for inflation, but do you know what else is lower than it used to be when adjusted for inflation? How about the average income of a US household? So yeah, sure, today's games might be "cheaper" when you look at them on one scale, but they're more expensive when you look at them on another. So... yeah.Steven Bogos said:
As for the difference between Dead Space 3 and Team Fortress 2... one costs $60 to play, one doesn't. People aren't really upset about the micro-transactions as they are the fact that they already paid for the game, and now they're being told to pay for it more. Over-all, yeah, Cliffy IS right about DS3 not being that big of a deal on its own, but it's a straw that broke the camel's back sorta deal. EA has spent the past decade (at least) looking for more ways to nickel and dime us, and this is just one more thing to add to the list.
Besides... people DID make a big fuss about the ring (and the TF2 in-game shop in general). Just sayin'.
You're 100% correct, aside from the statement that I'm "forgetting" any of thatNoeL said:
You know how much I'd love to buy Bioware's games? or Dead Space? There are plenty of games that I'd love to get from Origin, but I don't.
It's a sad fact, but for the industry to grow into the one we want instead of the one we put up with, we have to start voting with our wallets