CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy

[Lovely Mixture]

Valve isn't perfect as a developer or a publisher.
EA is extremely faaaar from perfect as merely a publisher.

Guess which one I'm going to give more shit? Also Microtransactions are stupid, period.

 

[SadisticFire]

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

I would like to point out you can still find the hats in drops/trading and still do not have to pay for them.

To be fair, you do have to buy keys to open crates in TF2, and crates are the most frequent random drop. Most people who have a lot of items in TF2 got them from crates. Very rarely do hats and guns actually appears as drops. This seems to be the point that everyone in this thread is ignoring with TF2. If you have an ass load of TF2 items, chances are you've spent about the same amount as buying an EA games and then some on just keys. And that's before just buying items straight up.

And also, most of the items you get in TF2 have some kind of effect that makes them better than the base weapons, so saying that TF2 items don't effect the game is a lie. TF2's advantage is that its F2P, but let's be real here, it tries to grab your money in a more aggressive fashion than most EA microtransactions. TF2 items sets come out and are hunted down like Magic Card sets. Its quite ravenous and quite lucrative for Valve. So much so that Valve has added a Steam Market that only sells TF2 and Dota 2 items and gets a cut off of each sale. I can't really get mad at EA for trying to sell me microtransactions of weapons in the Dead Space series when TF2 was a)doing it before it was F2P and b) released before the majority of these bullshit microtransactions on story driven games happened.

I don't know where you got the first part of your argument, seeing as crates drop frequently, and so do weapons. Crates more often then weapons yeah, but weapons still drop at a relatively quick rate. I play session of TF2 can yeild me three new weapons or more. To also respond to your other point that TF2 base items are worse then dropped weapons is only half true really. Most(if not all) have a downside that can be countered by a base weapon. So far I have seen none that are just flat out better, with no downsides then base weapons.

But that's me being a valve fan girl, who plans on trying to get a job there. So take what value you want from that.

 

[MPerce]

Valve's micro transactions are for a F2P game, so that doesn't bother me (though we should remember it also used to be full retail, still with micro-transactions).

That being said...

He is right that we're beating up on micro-transactions too much. As long as you can easily ignore the micros and they're not being shoved down your throat, I don't see what the problem is, even if they are in a $60 game. The Dead Space 3 transactions, while ridiculously stupid, are at least easy to ignore.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I watched a video on Rev3Games that finally has gelled my thoughts.

Cliff. Hey Buddy. Here's my issue with it.

EA is choosing to be the Face of a trend that most gamers are having a problem with in gaming; They are proudly leading the Microtransactions charge which makes a lot of gamers feel ripped off. I grew up with gaming. A lot of people did. I had a colecovision growing up. I've been in it and supporting it all of my life, as a lot of people have. We feel like we've paid our dues making this into a viable entertainment choice and a career for people like yourself. We put in time. This is just as much of our thing as it is the developers' thing, because we could have easy found something out to do and it could have just been a fad.

But if the gaming designers choose these microtransactions to 'squeeze a little more revenue' like you say you find nothing wrong with (and please tell me you say that when your taxes go up, gas prices go up, or food prices do), that's fine. Then choose a price reflecting such a decision. Do not choose to charge me limited edition Hard Cover Book prices for the Cliff Notes version.

I just looked it up; The paperback of Atlas Shrugged is now currently 15.99 on amazon. The cliff notes version is 5.99. Most gamers are noticing alarming trends such like the From Ashes DLC that adds a Very Important Character and Back story that fleshes out some understanding. The comment is you don't need to actually buy the DLC, so it doesn't really matter. I can probably get a B on a test of Atlas Shrugged using the cliff notes, but I don't get the real impact of the book. And I shouldn't, because I paid for the barebones version.

I just don't want to pay the full experience price and get a little bit better than the bare bones version. And that's where a lot of us are afraid we're going to get to. And with a lot of the on disk DLC and withholding important characters and chapters... yeah, that's where it looks like we're going.

 

[Kathinka]

while i agree that the valve fanboyism / EA hate that is very widespread is completely retarded, i still think this guy is full of shit. microtransactions are still a ripoff, ea is still the bad guy. they just aren't as good in brainwashing fanboys as valve is.

 

[Rachmaninov]

How you splice it is irrelevant to the point that Valve charged for a game, and then introduced MT.

Charged one-fifth of the price EA would charge, and then introduced MTs, yep. Or are you saying that paying $12 (or paying $60 and getting four free games) is somehow equal to paying $60? I'd like do see you justify that.

Thank you for that subjective understanding with no scientific basis. It proves nothing.

Actually, this does have scientific basis. I'm just not going to go to enough effort to dig up studies for someone I strongly suspect would just ignore them anyway.

Westwood's owner shouldn't have sold his company.

True. Just like if someone is walking alone in the dark, and gets murdered, shouldn't have been walking alone in the dark.

Doesn't mean the murderer is suddenly innocent, though. No matter how hard you might wish it.

EA did nothing wrong buying Westwood. They did something wrong when they killed it.

Five New Games? Here I thought it was 1 new multiplayer game, 1 episodic game, 1 semi-tech demo that proved to be popular and 2 old ones. Changing the facts already to try and boost your argument?

Please, reveal to me the difference between "episodic game" and "game series" because I don't think one exists. And while you're at it, think you could prove how exactly Portal was a "semi-tech demo".

In fact, even your version of the facts still paints Valve the hero. Dead Space 3 wasn't packaged with three episodes of an episodic game, nor a semi-tech demo that proved to be popular, nor two old games.

Got any more semantics to try and make it look like you have an argument at all?

Mass Effect 2+3 topping the charts isn't a good thing?
The only thing EA has been alleged to rush out is Dragon Age 2. But now it's apparently everything they do? right.

Two games - which were part of a series that EA only has anything to do with because they bought out the owners - achieving success, justifies the rest... eh?

That next sentence is also a lie. EA have been alleged to rush out BF3, SWTOR, ME2/3, DA2, amongst the titles by Pandemic, Westwood and Bullfrog, immediately preceding EA firing the entire studio.

Who cares. Companies go out of business. Companies get sold. It's the way of the world.
Whoever owned the place shouldn't have sold it in the first place.

Buying a place, running it into the ground and then firing everyone who works there does not equal "Companies go out of business. Companies get sold." nor does it lay guilt at the foot of the previous owner.

You're talking like EA is a shark, and it just can't help but to eat people. Like the people are guilty for being in a position to be eaten in the first place. Pretty twisted logic for someone who's trying to make EA sound good.

The accusation was that EA was stagnating the market. I provided examples to the contrary. The fact that they developed them or not is irrelevant as EA is and always has been a publisher first and foremost.

And that tiny list, even if you take it at it's fullest (and ironically, least truthful) is still utterly dwarfed by the list of sequels they've churned out.

Fifty-eight FIFA games. Fifty-eight. Nineteen years, and they've made fifty-eight games about football. And that's only one of their EA Sports range, and the other titles have long lists of uninspired sequels, too.

That's not stagnation, no? Making the same game over, and over, and over again?

What like Valve hiring the portal guys?
Like Valve hiring the Counter Strikes guys? Dota?

Hmmn. Valve buys mods, EA buys companies. Does anyone see the similarities?

I see a tenuous link, sure. But no one here is attempting to use a short list of borrowed titles, to justify a massive dirge of uninspired sequels, except you. At least the games that Valve are directly responsible for are good, are not rushed, and are minimal on the "lets make this game over fifty times" mentality EA embody.

Now, those Portal guys, those Counter Strike guys, and those DOTA guys... well, they're all still employed. I can't say the same for the companies EA bought out. Does anyone see the differences?

 

[DarkhoIlow]

What CliffyB doesn't realize is that the Micro transaction model is and -should- be used only for Free to Play games for cosmetic/vanity items (Pay2Win can go screw itself) in order to be successful.

When a system like this is implemented in a single player game it can cause a big problem due to the content of the campaign being purposefully changed just to receive less resources or to require more "grind" or whatnot and being forcing customers that do not have the time for such trivialities to pay.

I find it utterly disgusting to use such a system in a single player game and I really think EA will shoot themselves in the foot if they will go through with the idea to use this system in every game they release from here on out.

 

[AsurasEyes]

Please, answer me. I need to understand how someone could honestly think that this isn't as clear-cut as a fight between The Allies (Gamers, Valve, Bioware, etc.) and the Nazis (EA and the rest of their ilk)

I'm sorry, you criticize me for calling someone immature? And then you compare EA to nazis?
Talk to me again in 10 years.

I'm sorry, it appears my metaphor wasn't clear enough. See, I didn't know that saying that a large group of people who only give a shit about themselves and treat everyone else (even their followers) as less than human, and that I couldn't understand why people would defend them when these people are compared side-by-side to another large group that has so far done very few hideous things, was immature.

EA hasn't yet committed acts of genocide (I think), but they are a large group of power and money-hungry pricks who exploit their own followers and have fanatical little zealots who leap to their aid at every opportunity. Much like another large group of power and money hungry pricks who exploited their own followers and had fanatical little zealots who would leap to their defense at the slightest provocation, but one that HAS enacted genocide.

But, you're right. It was immature of me, so none of my points are valid despite my making it a point of pride to buy (and frequently get screwed over by) a game with my own hard-earned money from my own job. It was perfectly reasonable of you to not answer a single one of my questions because of one immature statement I made, and I shouldn't bring up that the maturity of one statement doesn't fucking matter when someone is presented with a number of real questions that should have real answers.

In the interest of my maturity, what group of unambiguously evil people from history or fiction can be used as a metaphor for a group of impossibly sleazy businessmen in a way that is acceptably mature?

The Robber Barons?
The Jesse James Gang?
The Roman Empire?
Judas Iscariot, who got Jesus crucified for thirty pieces of silver?
Steve Jobs?
The Party from 1984?
The Pigs from Animal Farm?
Mammon, Patron of the Sin of Avarice?
Smith from the Matrix?
Lucifer, the angel who led a rebellion against God?'
Ridley Scott, who betrayed fans by making Prometheus?

 

[AsurasEyes]

When was the last time EA ever did a sale? like valve do all the time.

Right now, Cryis 3 and Dead space 3 are 30% off, BF3 and all the DLC were massively on sale just last week, half the Sims selection half price now as well..... Sigh some people are just intent on speaking stupidity.

Really? Holy crap, on what?

I've been trying to get Crysis 3 for a while but I'm too poor right now to get it full price.

 

[SoulSalmon]

See, for the most part I LIKE microtransactions.
I've probably payed over $500 to Riot for cosmetic skins in League of Legends and I don't regret that at all, I get nifty little extras and I'm supporting a game that I like playing.

I haven't shelled anything out for Path of Exile yet but I plan to, I think this is the first game I know of that sells bank space, yet gives you enough of the stuff so that only the most hardcore of players will actually need it.
Basically if you're playing the game enough that you have over 6 pages of items you need to store, you probably won't mind dropping $20 for 6 more pages, because at that point I can guarantee you've payed more then that for a game you've played a lot less.

The main difference here is that I'm not being expected to pay out $100 first (I'm in Australia and EA firmly loves the AU price-gouging, which is yet another thing Valve doesn't do much) and that these items don't actively affect gameplay.

FIFA games.

How does an ios title affect AAA console gaming?

Wut?
http://www.ea.com/fifa-soccer-13

Funny, I don't see that being sold for the iOS, it's being sold on 'real' consoles as a full price AAA game. Along with all the other FIFA games.
(Sidenote: I actually remember seeing an iOS version of FIFA 13 so I'm decently sure one exits, but it's not even listed on EAs website.)

 

[Twilight_guy]

Watch people bend over backwards to discredit a guy who made some personal statements about flawed logic he sees in gamers (a group with what seems like more then its share of assholes and idiots).

Anyways, the guy has some valid points about gamers' blatant and unabashed prejudices. Gamers are full of bile and unending hate at many many things and it often gets so caustic that people go rabid in their attacks. Cliffy may have the aesthetic eye of a bad 90's comic artist but at least he's trying to stop people from having irrational hate-ons.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

You know what I'M tired of? People trying to justify EA's blatant attempts to screw customers out of money and make the ways they do it become normal and expected by saying they have to make money somehow. EA is seen as a bad guy for a reason - it PIONEERS business strategies that result in less value for money, whether that be content, resellability, unfinished games that are completed after release, and it is a cancer on good games and studios. If these practices are necessary evils so people working for them can eat, why is Valve not implementing them? Valve don't expect people to buy and engagement ring for a ridiculous price, it's a f***ing novelty, the amount of revenue gained from that is negligible. EA expects people to buy resources in DS3, it's a gameplay mechanic.

 

[SoulSalmon]

FIFA games.

How does an ios title affect AAA console gaming?

Wut?
http://www.ea.com/fifa-soccer-13

Funny, I don't see that being sold for the iOS, it's being sold on 'real' consoles as a full price AAA game. Along with all the other FIFA games.
(Sidenote: I actually remember seeing an iOS version of FIFA 13 so I'm decently sure one exits, but it's not even listed on EAs website.)

Oh I know FIFA is a yearly release, my qualm with his statement was that he was implying there were 58 of the same FIFA games on the consoles. Admittedly having a look, a lot of them do seem as though they're on consoles however at the same time a lot of them are different. Basically there's the regular yearly FIFA game, full priced or whatnot, then budget tournament games for UEFA, then a street version, and a managerial version.

Yes, lots of soccer games, but the series sells. If the series was stagnating, people wouldn't be buying them. Also how much can you really evolve soccer anyway. It's filling a necessary niche that people enjoy.


Stagnation is about the creative medium, when every shooter becomes grey and brown and uses the same mechanics. FIFA doesn't promote that haha. I know you weren't implying that but that's just continuing along the other guy's argument.

"Also how much can you really evolve soccer anyway." is possibly the most level-headed thing I've seen said about the FIFA games, I can't say I was expecting sense out of you after some of those other posts. (That sounds mean... but I don't have a better way to word it)

"If the series was stagnating, people wouldn't be buying them." Unfortunately we both know that's not true... and it's a pretty big problem that there's no easy way to fix. "Using the same engine with only minor retouches" is how you can describe 90% of the FIFA games, there were a few engine re-writes and major graphical updates but all-in-all it's only minor tweaks and roster updates.

I can't say I really like Valve as game developers but Steam is a good service (regardless of what it used to be, it is currently a good service) and they don't appear as soulless as EA. I can accept the fact that EA gets hate regardless of whether it does good or bad nowadays, but it put itself in that position so I can't really feel sorry for it.

I think most people can agree on that much, regardless, I'm not going to get into an argument with you, as far as I can tell you've already been in a pointless one for the last few pages and to an outside viewer it just looks like "You're stupid." "No, YOU'RE stupid." "No YOU'RE STUPID!" with neither side going anywhere.