EA's answer to Steam came out two years after Steam was released. They've been trying to make Origin 'good' for eight years now. How much more time do you think they need?Lt. Rocky said:
CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.Andy Shandy said:
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.
This seems to be looking more like, once again, people getting mad at EA and Cliffy B because of EA's bad marketing and the fact that people don't like Gears of War. EA sure as hell didn't invent the microtransaction. Hell, that was around back in the days of Runescape and Habbo Hotel. I get that EA doing it after charging people $60 and then $10 for a season pass is pretty shitty though. EA just handles things in a worse manner every time. I just think its hypocritical to exclusively be mad at EA for doing what a big chunk of publishers do. No one raged with Square Enix did it with Sleeping Dogs. Very few were vocal about when Saints Row the Third did it under THQ.
Is that all of his games, or is it just Gears of War hate like the majority of people on this site that like to pretend they never played Unreal Tournament.Rogue 09 said:
Wow, I'm so glad Cliffy B ditched Epic so he has more time to offer his enlightened views to us plebeians from his soapobox. [/sarcasm]
...Let's see... Casual, sneering and unwarranted dismissal of the opposition as "the hipster/boomerang kid generation", check... Usual well-established hooey about companies existing to make money, check... Failure to understand issues with Origin, check...
Basically, he says two things right, they're going to be ignored because he says them in an arrogant and condescending way, pads them with bullshit, and those two things kind of contradict one another.
One, EA needs to make money. As I said elsewhere, EA has lost over 2 billion dollars in the last three years. If they would own up to that rather than continually telling us that their day-one DLC, microtransactions, digital distribution policies etc. were about giving us what we want, maybe we could come to a compromise rather that seeing them as a bunch of perfidious scum-sucking vermin.
Two, we should vote with our wallets. I do. Which is why EA hasn't gotten any money from me in quite some time. But I can either ignore EA's actions or vote with my wallet, Chuckles, I can't do both.
Go back to game design, Cliff. You're almost as bad at this public statement thing as EA's own hacks.
...Let's see... Casual, sneering and unwarranted dismissal of the opposition as "the hipster/boomerang kid generation", check... Usual well-established hooey about companies existing to make money, check... Failure to understand issues with Origin, check...
Basically, he says two things right, they're going to be ignored because he says them in an arrogant and condescending way, pads them with bullshit, and those two things kind of contradict one another.
One, EA needs to make money. As I said elsewhere, EA has lost over 2 billion dollars in the last three years. If they would own up to that rather than continually telling us that their day-one DLC, microtransactions, digital distribution policies etc. were about giving us what we want, maybe we could come to a compromise rather that seeing them as a bunch of perfidious scum-sucking vermin.
Two, we should vote with our wallets. I do. Which is why EA hasn't gotten any money from me in quite some time. But I can either ignore EA's actions or vote with my wallet, Chuckles, I can't do both.
Go back to game design, Cliff. You're almost as bad at this public statement thing as EA's own hacks.
I don't mind microtransactions. I also don't think EA are doing a bad thing at the moment, in fact I entirely support their model. I don't however buy any of their microtransactions, or at least haven't done so yet.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike some of the choices EA have made (Im not happy with them for the shafting of Black Box and how they overstretched the NFS franchise, coupled with their latest choice to hand the arcade NFS line over to Criterion) but ultimately I quite like most the games that come out with the EA badge on the cover.
Don't get me wrong, I dislike some of the choices EA have made (Im not happy with them for the shafting of Black Box and how they overstretched the NFS franchise, coupled with their latest choice to hand the arcade NFS line over to Criterion) but ultimately I quite like most the games that come out with the EA badge on the cover.
This just in: Out of work game developer defends games company.
This doesn't invalidate all his points, but one should keep in mind Cliff was part of one of those companies.
This doesn't invalidate all his points, but one should keep in mind Cliff was part of one of those companies.
Firstly, EA does make games. They own quite a few development teams and companies. Anything which is a wholly owned subsidiary of them is going to have to do what they say. Period.loa said:
Second, don't buy their games still works. Even when they are just acting as the publisher on a game, they likely have a good deal of control since they control the purse strings. So if they release a game that does something you don't like, don't buy it. They get to foot the bill on the development and reap less of the sales if you do that. I'm not sure where you get the idea that not giving them money for being idiots is somehow "retarded."
I think Cliff's got a fair point. I have no problem at all with the Origin game service - it's actually been pretty good for me. I never understand why it comes in for so much baseless criticism. It's always being updated, it always remains stable and wholly functional for me. It's just nonsense to pretend that it's anything other than a perfectly serviceable digital game service.
In a way I kind of agree with him, it's completely optional so yes it's down to the consumer to make the decision. And yes, companies need to make their money.
But the gripe I have is people at the top of a big companies food chain are getting paid ridiculous amounts of money, and then coming out and complaining about lack of sales, trying to justify cutting corners, shitting on their consumers, and then sacking the hard working people that actually make the fucking games, after paying them a shitty fucking wage.
You don't see Gabe Newell coming out and saying they NEED to sell at least 5 million copies otherwise things are going to get dire. And then if those predictions aren't met, just sack the lowest employees.
Plus the aforementioned TF2 being FREE TO PLAY.
I'm not saying EA are "evil", and I'm not saying Valve are "benevolent", but look at their history and you'll find out why people prefer one over the other. Yes people take things to their extremes, but ignore those people.
But the gripe I have is people at the top of a big companies food chain are getting paid ridiculous amounts of money, and then coming out and complaining about lack of sales, trying to justify cutting corners, shitting on their consumers, and then sacking the hard working people that actually make the fucking games, after paying them a shitty fucking wage.
You don't see Gabe Newell coming out and saying they NEED to sell at least 5 million copies otherwise things are going to get dire. And then if those predictions aren't met, just sack the lowest employees.
Plus the aforementioned TF2 being FREE TO PLAY.
I'm not saying EA are "evil", and I'm not saying Valve are "benevolent", but look at their history and you'll find out why people prefer one over the other. Yes people take things to their extremes, but ignore those people.
No, I was implying that I didn't pay 40 quid for the game.Akalabeth said:
Don't presume to know my intentions.
I actually think that's what he's doing. He's backing EA in the hopes he can get a new publishing contract with them for his new studio.Lono Shrugged said:
It doesn't matter how good Origin will be, or how bad Steam was. I am not having Origin (or Uplay for that matter) on my computer.
I already have Steam, and it has most of my games on it, so I'm not having another piece of bloatware clogging up my computer just so I can play EA games.
I already have Steam, and it has most of my games on it, so I'm not having another piece of bloatware clogging up my computer just so I can play EA games.
I'm not in the mood to have another semantics argument over the internet, so please, just it leave it there.Akalabeth said:
This is where my problem lies. I still have a myriad of problems with Steam. From not being able to play a legally purchased game because it's DRM at it's core. To the offline mode being half broken.RatherDull said:
Never encountered any of these problems with Origin. Part of this is function of I have more games on Steam than Origin, but that doesn't excuse Steam in the same way the stuff CliffyB said doesn't necessarily excuse EA. Origin has never mysteriously needed to 'complete the install' on a game when I'm in offline mode, then play it fine when I'm online again, despite doing nothing at all on half my games.
Oh the excuses, they are overwhelming. We left out a couple things there didn't we?
Let's see, the ring for example was and idea from the TF2 community and not from Valve themselves or most items that Valve charges in their games are cosmetics, while EA tends to charge weapons and other things like that or TF2 is ftp and the only source of income are the items, while EA charges for everything, including weapons and DLC even though the game is full price and let's not forget that TF2 has grown more than double its size since release without ever having to pay additionally for it whatsoever. Should I go on and mention all the bad things that EA has done to earn their reputation?
I'm sorry but when the company does often bad things and another one does good things then they simply will be treated differently. If you do something that's considered to be bad but usually do good things, then people are much more likely to forgive you for those actions because you've also done many good things. If, however, you usually do bad things, then they just stack and people are less likely to forgive you. What for? You generally do only bad things, one good thing won't change that.
It's EA's own fault so quit your whining, they brought it upon themselves. When EA started to get better a few years ago, like releasing games like Mirrors Edge or Dead Space and stopped those bad practices of them for a bit, gamers showed that they're willing to change their attitude towards EA but then EA's own actions changed that again. If you start doing many good things, people will eventually forgive you, IF you start doing good things. It's not the gamers, it's EA.
Sheesh, he sounds like a little kid that doesn't understand why he's disliked. I mean, he bullies the other kids, that's no reason to dislike him, right?
Seems to me like after he quit, he didn't get the attention that he wants anymore and writes something like this to be in the news. Then again, I've never had a good opinion of Cliffy C.
Let's see, the ring for example was and idea from the TF2 community and not from Valve themselves or most items that Valve charges in their games are cosmetics, while EA tends to charge weapons and other things like that or TF2 is ftp and the only source of income are the items, while EA charges for everything, including weapons and DLC even though the game is full price and let's not forget that TF2 has grown more than double its size since release without ever having to pay additionally for it whatsoever. Should I go on and mention all the bad things that EA has done to earn their reputation?
I'm sorry but when the company does often bad things and another one does good things then they simply will be treated differently. If you do something that's considered to be bad but usually do good things, then people are much more likely to forgive you for those actions because you've also done many good things. If, however, you usually do bad things, then they just stack and people are less likely to forgive you. What for? You generally do only bad things, one good thing won't change that.
It's EA's own fault so quit your whining, they brought it upon themselves. When EA started to get better a few years ago, like releasing games like Mirrors Edge or Dead Space and stopped those bad practices of them for a bit, gamers showed that they're willing to change their attitude towards EA but then EA's own actions changed that again. If you start doing many good things, people will eventually forgive you, IF you start doing good things. It's not the gamers, it's EA.
Sheesh, he sounds like a little kid that doesn't understand why he's disliked. I mean, he bullies the other kids, that's no reason to dislike him, right?
Seems to me like after he quit, he didn't get the attention that he wants anymore and writes something like this to be in the news. Then again, I've never had a good opinion of Cliffy C.
Okay, scratch that, I'm not in the fucking mood to get into another fucking argument over the fucking internet, period.Akalabeth said:
Yes, the game wasn't F2P originally, but it also only charged for cosmetic items, the point is that it's F2P now.
Microtransactions in the right place fine - in a $100 game, GTFO
Im also sick of $100 games being vessels to sell me DLC thats getting worse and worse
Im also sick of $100 games being vessels to sell me DLC thats getting worse and worse
Yes, well I wasn't aware that a throw away sentence would trigger the Spanish Inquisition 6 hours after I posted it.Akalabeth said:
So, anything the industry can do to make more money it SHOULD do, because it's an industry?
Seems legit. I guess everyone giving Nike flack for charging $130 for a pair of $4 shoes put together by Indian child labour is just all noise and rabble, right? They just want to make them dollars to pay their employees.
There has to be a point where games as an industry and games as an artform meet in some common ground.
You can't simply see video games as JUST a business industry, because it makes really shitty games that no one wants to play.
Quite frankly, I don't want to pay full price for the privilege of paying you even more money.
Seems legit. I guess everyone giving Nike flack for charging $130 for a pair of $4 shoes put together by Indian child labour is just all noise and rabble, right? They just want to make them dollars to pay their employees.
There has to be a point where games as an industry and games as an artform meet in some common ground.
You can't simply see video games as JUST a business industry, because it makes really shitty games that no one wants to play.
Quite frankly, I don't want to pay full price for the privilege of paying you even more money.