EA Asserts Customers Enjoy Microtransactions

Akexi

New member
May 15, 2008
144
0
0
So every game published by EA will not only have a required multiplayer component, but also try to sell you something on top of the initial price. All I have tho think is John Ravioli in his office saying, "your move, Kotick."
 

Quadocky

New member
Aug 30, 2012
383
0
0
I really really dislike Micro-transactions. Though I am the same person who does not even buy games on Steam even if they are like a dollar, if I don't want it, I don't want it.

But why I really really dislike Micro-transactions is that its not a good value, at all, in any case no matter what. I'd rather spend my money on overpriced soda at a comic book store than pay a 2 dollar microtransaction.

And on top of this 60 Dollars is a very hefty price in my point of view. I would ONLY spend that much IF I really really really wanted it and KNEW exactly what I was getting into. Serious Sam 3 for example, I knew what the heck this was, I knew it was going to be great, so I paid the highest price and all that for it (which was more like 50 Dollars Haha).

Of course this is all my point of view. 60 Dollars is completely unrealistic to me when most AAA games can't even guarantee quality. AND on top of this the obnoxious DLC that makes your game feel incomplete which usually runs around 20 dollars more per pack which may or may not add content that is WORTH 20 dollars.

Something has got to change because obviously the Consumer is not buying into micro-transactions given the gradual fall of Free to Play (which paying into doesn't guarantee new content mind you, Champions Online being a relevant example).

The only Free to Play System I actually WOULD buy into is the one set up by Valve and Dota 2. Cosmetic Items Enhance the entertainment by quite a degree, they are a good value, especially in Dota 2 since they are actually Priced properly.

MOST OF ALL: Micro-transactions are not fun. Which goes against the very nature of video games.
 

Quadocky

New member
Aug 30, 2012
383
0
0
AC10 said:
Well, I guess I'm done with gaming.
Not to say that the feeling is mutual, but at this rate freakin' Board Games offer a much better deal in terms of entertainment value and social enrichment.
 

PirateRose

New member
Aug 13, 2008
287
0
0
Children with weak parents or parents who don't watch their credit cards, love micro transactions.

In a way, it's a neat thing to have available, but at the same time, look how Zynga's crashing. On the other hand, EA doesn't entirely rely on microtrasactions like Zynga did. They have the initial $60 on the game, then $5-$10-$15 DLC packs. That keeps them covered when the microtrasactions slow down.


I'm too much of a single player type person when I am thinking about it though. I can see problems in multiplayer games, the imbalance when some kid buys all the best gear while everyone else grinds to get the gear. There was one multiplayer game I played regularly when I was a kid, and I remember everyone just bought the best gear, and everyone ended up looking identical. It killed the game for me.
 
Nov 28, 2007
10,686
0
0
Remember, kids! It's all right to make money. Just don't make it obvious that you like to make money, otherwise people will hate you.

Seriously, though, this is what people consider horrible news? The fact that EA has realized that microtransactions are working, and is planning to continue to use them? Quick question: does Valve use microtransactions? The answer is yes, in Team Fortress 2. Which, unlike most EA games, is entirely multiplayer. Yet people love that game. It's almost as if...microtransactions are not enough to ruin a game by themselves. Funny, that.

As for lowering the game price, I agree that that would be the right thing to do...IF the microtransactions were actually necessary. If not, I'll tell you what would happen. People would be the 30-40 dollar game, go off and not buy anything else, and EA would lose money on the game. Do you really think the only reason games are $60 is because of pure greed? If so, someone needs to inform...every console game developer for this generation. By the way, SNES games cost, when adjusted for inflation, the equivalent of $80-97 new. N64? About $70. We are fucking spoiled today if we are complaining about how expensive games are.
 

Quadocky

New member
Aug 30, 2012
383
0
0
thebobmaster said:
Remember, kids! It's all right to make money. Just don't make it obvious that you like to make money, otherwise people will hate you.

Seriously, though, this is what people consider horrible news? The fact that EA has realized that microtransactions are working, and is planning to continue to use them? Quick question: does Valve use microtransactions? The answer is yes, in Team Fortress 2. Which, unlike most EA games, is entirely multiplayer. Yet people love that game. It's almost as if...microtransactions are not enough to ruin a game by themselves. Funny, that.

As for lowering the game price, I agree that that would be the right thing to do...IF the microtransactions were actually necessary. If not, I'll tell you what would happen. People would be the 30-40 dollar game, go off and not buy anything else, and EA would lose money on the game. Do you really think the only reason games are $60 is because of pure greed? If so, someone needs to inform...every console game developer for this generation. By the way, SNES games cost, when adjusted for inflation, the equivalent of $80-97 new. N64? About $70. We are fucking spoiled today if we are complaining about how expensive games are.
Best way I can put is that the Market has gotten too big for its britches. The only people who reliably buy games (and pay into microtransactions) are the 'hardcore' gamers, and they are in the minority. So when you are trying to expand into a larger market beyond hobbyists and moderately rich people it would make sense to offer a better price?

During that time period you speak of, we used to rent games quite regularly instead of buying them new. (Also would buy PC games for cheap at best buy). Hell, some N64 Games were designed to be rent only, like that Clayfighter game and Daikatana 64.

In fact, the ONLY time we ever bought games was when it was a good deal (like DK64 with the Memory Expansion) or if it was on sale. Pretty much bought all games this way except on Birthdays or Christmas when they were most likely bought new or usually cheaper games.

I would let you know too that paying $100 Dollars for Ogre Battle 64 was a big deal.

...

But I do concede, I am spoiled in the way that as a kid I probably enjoyed games a bunch more in a general sense, even bad ones. Actually now that I think about it, there wasn't really any bad games so much as ones that were either 1. too Hard to play. 2. Scary as hell (Doom).
 
Dec 10, 2012
867
0
0
Oh, woo-hoo! Microtransactions! Finally all my favorite video games will allow me to spend every cent I have to immediately unlock all the things I would anyway if I just played the game the old way! This is truly a progressive age when multiplayer matches can only be won by the rich kids, and single player campaigns become redundant after the first ten minutes because you already have everything the game can offer. What a time to be alive!!

EA is dicks. It's that simple. And they like being dicks. They like being dicks so much that they think everyone should like them for being dicks, so they can continue growing their dicks right in our faces and then dip them in dick-gold.

People paying money for unlocks =/= people want to pay money for unlocks. That's retarded, EA. Other people like their money too. This is the kind of logic that only the most massively delusional cockends could ever come up with. This is simply more (at this point unnecessary) proof that EA is concerned with only one thing, and that is making the largest amount of money they possibly can, coming wherever possible at the expense of their consumers and the quality of their product. I am just sick and bloody fucking tired of all this.

Captcha: It is different.
No, captcha, it's the same. Same as it always has been.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
Phlakes said:
ITT: People angry about something that'll never affect them if they don't choose to use it.
They already affect me, for every game that has appearance based micro-transactions there are six that use micro-transactions to fundamentally change the balance of multiplayer gameplay. Single player games are using micro-transactions to mask content from players, this is only going to get worse. The day is coming where you will buy a Halo game for $60 and they will charge you $5 to use the Warthog in single player.
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
So the next Mass Effect will have microtransactions in it? Great, it's time to stop the reapers' backup plan but first, would you like an orange colored helmet for a dollar and twenty cents?
 
Dec 10, 2012
867
0
0
As a more positive side note, I really love this analogy. It is cool and I like you.
GodzillaGuy92 said:
On the (potentially) plus side, we all know where this is going; like Ungoliant growing so gluttonous that she eventually devours herself, EA's own greed will drive them to design their games around forcing the player to use the microtransaction system simply for the game to be functional.
 

cidbahamut

New member
Mar 1, 2010
235
0
0
Lhianon said:
i'd like to introduce EA to the concept of fiscal responsibility; if you are not able to pay your staff from the revenue made from a 60? game (which is more than 60$, but that is beside the point) then you should not expect us to pay for upgrades/weapons/flowers/lolipops/....... just so you can make a quick buck, instead you should focus on delivering a quality product that people like to buy for full price.
More to the point, companies need to learn to budget better.

If you can't break even and achieve your desired profits without relying on microtransactions, then you need to seriously re-evaluate how you're allocating your resources. Developers can't continue to pour ever increasingly large piles of money into games and expect to get it all back and turn bigger and bigger profits. It can't be sustained, and opening new areas of gameplay for monetization is to avoid addressing the actual problem.
 

Uber Waddles

New member
May 13, 2010
544
0
0
Phlakes said:
ITT: People angry about something that'll never affect them if they don't choose to use it.

They weren't a big deal in Dead Space 3 (at least not to the people who weren't trying to make them a big deal), but hey, it's EA trying to make money, so fuck them I guess.

*sigh.
It doesn't effect us? It actually does. The inclusion of micro transactions fall into 2 categories.

First one: The shoe horned.

I'll use Oblivion as an example. Horse Armor. Micro-transactions were not an integral part of game play, and thus, unimportant. They were just a blind cash grab. Which should come with the caveat of "If you were dumb enough to buy it, you deserve it." But that's not really the case. It sends a message to the developer when shoe-horned cash grabs are acceptable that it's okay to nickle and dime us. And it also allows developers to get more ballsy. Look at companies like Capcom, which have been known to lock content on the disk away until you pay for the unlock code. Or Mass Effect 3, where a squad mate is locked away on the disk unless you payed an extra $10. Oh, and the squad mate is a Prothean which offers back story on the most important race in the Mass Effect universe. You know what, Shoe-Horned Micro transactions in those cases DID effect me.

Second one: The integrated.

Your business model directly shapes your game as a whole - that is pretty much a chapter in Game Theory 101. Naturally, more and more games use Micro transactions as their business model - which effects how the rest of the game flows. A good game will never require that you use micro transactions if you want to succeed at the game. I'll use League of Legends as an example. The only bit of game play I can modify with cash is character unlocks - characters are individually unlocked with points you get for playing the game, so all you're doing is essentially speeding up the process. I can also modify the points I get after games for a certain amount of time, or modify my experience if I'm not max level. One thing I can't buy though are Runes - those can only be purchased with in game currency, not real life currency, and offer you additional stats. I can also choose to buy new skins for characters - if I want to make a Lovecraftian demon wear a top hat and speak like a gentleman, that's an option. I don't get more powerful - I simply look better. The game is centered around making convenience and aesthetic the only thing you can buy. A selection of champions is cycled each week so you can test them out without committing to a purchase, and people who spend money on the game do not have a competitive edge over those that don't. And the reason people put up with this is because the game is free. You are never asked to support them - and they even give you free stuff if their service is under performing.


And then lets look at a game that does it bad. Diablo 3. A full priced PC game. Diablo and Diablo 2 had a strong story focus for the core players, as well as a competitive multiplayer component that allowed people to interact, trade, etc. The core mechanics of these games were randomly generated loot and levels, as well as a game built off dynamic choice. If you screwed up your character build then too bad - deal with it. The modding communities also had a field day with these games - skyrocketing the lifespan of this game for years and years after it had ceased to be relevant.

Diablo 3 was built was a real money auction house in mind - where Blizzard gets a chunk of the change as well. To make sure people couldn't cheat, the game had to be Online always. If you lived in a rural or stormy area, and wanted a single player game for when your internet went out - well, fuck you then. There was no offline mode, which meant if your internet wasn't stable, you couldn't play a single player game. For those of us that did have stable connections - we couldn't play it for the first day or so because of various errors with the servers. Then, when we did, EVEN IN SINGLE PLAYER, it lagged. Modding was not allowed because, well, breaking the games code would result in Blizzard not making money from their real life auction house. So, micro transactions not only effected my experience of a game, but also limited it. Higher difficulties, something Diablo was based on, were also stacked in a way that you NEEDED to buy armor to complete it for the longest time. You would hit a roadblock that could only be gotten past with extreme luck or a fat wallet. Considering how short the original story was - the only respite was the harder difficulties. The way the game was stacked, you either had to grind for hours and hours for better loot, or pay for it - instead of having a natural progression curve, the game was slanted in a way that favored spending money over gameplay.

Once again, this effected me. Dead Space 3 was a game that allowed you to pay money to make weapons, therefore making it easier. Think about the message your sending. This is something you'd normally be able to tone in an options menu - difficulty. I dont think its far off to say that features like difficulty settings could be sold to you.

It didn't need to be in the game, and effects it as a whole. It was a system you never have to use because its already available in game - the only thing it does for you is allows you to go through a single player game easier. It doesn't add anything to the game, it detracts. Not only was this something that had to be programmed (which takes time, money, and development resources that could have been spent elsewhere), but its useless. "They're just trying to make money back" isn't a good excuse when they wasted a chunk of their budget to begin with. You also make is sound as if selling a game that has already been franchised is some HUGE risk that the developers are taking, and releasing because they truly love videogames at a loss for them. They make profit off of these games - especially with EA and their huge marketing push. Especially games that are sequels.

You have to be either apathetic towards consumers or just blind to defend a practice such as this. A full priced game thats trying to ring more money out of consumers without justification from a mechanical standpoint hurts the game industry. Plenty of games this generation have shown us that a developer will take any chance to nickle and dime us, and allowing them to do so with sentiments like "Who cares, it doesn't matter" just allow developers to get ballsier and ballsier with what they will cut out then resell to us.

This has effected us as a whole, this has sullied products many of us have purchased off of good faith, and is good enough ground for us to complain. If you want to act like its not an issue, thats on you. But don't say that it "doesn't effect people." Because it kind of does. And has. And, if at any point in the future, some game requires you to pay $5 to unlock the "Hard" setting of a game, I just want to point out that I told ya so.
 

Tiamattt

New member
Jul 15, 2011
557
0
0
R.Nevermore said:
A dark road to travel. Microtransactions are a good thing if done properly, but EA has a history of messing up simple things. Some rules for microtransactions:
1: No pay-for-power. This is rule number one. A player who doesn't use his wallet in game should never feel like he's hopelessly outgunned by someone who does. If something can boost your power, it must be unlock able in ways other than with money. Team fortress did it perfectly. If you want to rush for the new gun, buy it. If you don't have money, work towards crafting it.
It's also good to note that those new guns are rarely upgrades that can be used to outgun people, and when they are they tend to get nerfed. It's really more like paying for skipping the wait time then any sort of power, which is one of the many things that makes TF2 great. :)
 

Frostbyte666

New member
Nov 27, 2010
399
0
0
Consumers do not like micro-transactions and where they do work is probably a very niche area, pay to win multiplayer, maybe rare items for item crafting in single player if drop % is really low. What is happening is the consumer apathy of taking a metaphorical kick to the teeth. Makes me glad I've gotten over my own apathy and now find out how much of a game I actually get for the price and ignoring micro-transactions entirely. Still working on being more discerning with dlc, though I am getting better.
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
thebobmaster said:
Remember, kids! It's all right to make money. Just don't make it obvious that you like to make money, otherwise people will hate you.

Seriously, though, this is what people consider horrible news? The fact that EA has realized that microtransactions are working, and is planning to continue to use them? Quick question: does Valve use microtransactions? The answer is yes, in Team Fortress 2. Which, unlike most EA games, is entirely multiplayer. Yet people love that game. It's almost as if...microtransactions are not enough to ruin a game by themselves. Funny, that.
Yes but Valve is smart, EA is incredibly stupid. The microtransactions in TF2 are totally ancillary to game balance, why? Because every player has a steady flow of random free items being delivered to them every hour or so, the only items you can't get through this are hats and other totally appearance based items. If EA made TF2 all of the items would be cash only.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Is this really new news? I mean, EA has been including MT in all of their games, the idea that this attitude is something new really is somewhat laughable.

As others have pointed out, the relative costs of games in the 80s and 90s were much higher than what we pay today, and that was back when publishers could afford to pay most of their developers much less, as the teams that worked on them was comparatively smaller. The market for games has skyrocketed, but so has the cost of making these games. You also can't really discount expanded piracy.

MT actually isn't that bad of a compromise, instead of raising game prices in North America to what they were adjusted for inflation back in the day, DLC allows them to try and milk money from people who can afford it while not prohibiting those who can't.

Arguments can be made about how well they do their piecemeal DLC, but this article isn't about that so much, just the fact that they're going to keep doing them. Big surprise there.
 

Zipa

batlh bIHeghjaj.
Dec 19, 2010
1,489
0
0
thebobmaster said:
Remember, kids! It's all right to make money. Just don't make it obvious that you like to make money, otherwise people will hate you.

Seriously, though, this is what people consider horrible news? The fact that EA has realized that microtransactions are working, and is planning to continue to use them? Quick question: does Valve use microtransactions? The answer is yes, in Team Fortress 2. Which, unlike most EA games, is entirely multiplayer. Yet people love that game. It's almost as if...microtransactions are not enough to ruin a game by themselves. Funny, that.

As for lowering the game price, I agree that that would be the right thing to do...IF the microtransactions were actually necessary. If not, I'll tell you what would happen. People would be the 30-40 dollar game, go off and not buy anything else, and EA would lose money on the game. Do you really think the only reason games are $60 is because of pure greed? If so, someone needs to inform...every console game developer for this generation. By the way, SNES games cost, when adjusted for inflation, the equivalent of $80-97 new. N64? About $70. We are fucking spoiled today if we are complaining about how expensive games are.
TF2 also doesn't cost you 60 dollars up front to buy and it never did even before it was F2P.
 

Epic Fail 1977

New member
Dec 14, 2010
686
0
0
It always amuses me to see people proclaiming that EA, the most successful videogame publisher ever, has no idea what they are doing. Anyway...

I find this news very disheartening. Having played a lot of iPhone and iPad games in the last few years I am more than familiar with the various implementations of microtransactions in videogames (including mobile games made by EA). EA will no doubt experiment with their AAA microtransactions until they find the "sweet spot" between making money and pissing off customers (read: losing money) and then use that sweet spot as a basis for every game. Based on what I've seen on iOS, I'd say the most likely result is a grind-or-pay system. Think Dead Space 3 with much less loot lying around, so you have to either repeatedly play through areas that respawn every time you clear them or just pay cash to get the gear you need in order to continue (and trust me, you WILL need that gear in order to continue).

Or maybe I'm wrong and EA will just let customers use cash to "cheat" and/or customise the visual appearance of their avatars. I hope so, but it's not what I'd bet on.