EA: Consumers 'enjoying and embracing' microtransactions

[DoPo]

So it's "fan reaction", actually.

Heh. That's pretty clever spin, actually. Someone in marketing deserves a raise.

It is clever, isn't it Especially, since if anybody bothers to look up where that quote is from, it's from an article called In defense of the 'Mass Effect 3' ending [http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/03/22/mass-effect-3-ending-bioware/]. Although the context of the quote is omitted - it's just explaining why the games were popular to begin with, but it's still out of context.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The title might as well read "EA's Consumers enjoying and embracing price hikes/gouging".

 

[Tom_green_day]

ive bought most mass effect 3 dlc and loved em. Im very happy to see it continue to get support 1 year later

Beside the point but big up to that!
I have the intelligence not to buy a microtransaction if I don't want it and so they don't bother me. They don't hinder my progress and I don't complain about them online.
However, I can see how people might dislike them.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Oh I see tell gamers that they love it and hope they believe it then just see how hard you can fleece them hopefully by the time they realise all their games are in bits they have to buy to put back together again people will just accept it as the way it is like a lot of DLC that has no right to exist atm because it should have been in game or left off entirely.

Wasnt it someone from EA a while ago who was on about charging for individual bullets that you fired in a gun in a game yeah sure you can collect ammo normally but need help well just take out that credit card and we will top up your bullet inventory for you, instead of say making the game balanced so it wasnt a problem unless you played like a complete tard.

I hope this blows up in their face seriously I play games to relax ive paid my money now I want to enjoy it not pay my money then have the game try and flog me other bits to it. There is a place for micro transactions and DLC in some games its just definitely not for all.

Free games may use micro transactions for instance no problem there they dont really appeal to me because of this business model but I can see why they would do it although how free they actually are is also up for debate some are pretty good about it while others are definitely not.

I dont play EA games have anything to do with and havent for years with very minor exceptions (had to get Alice Madness returns)so this will not effect me directly I just hope others dont follow suit but I wouldnt be surprise if Activision Blizzard didnt try something similar if it looks like its making EA a lot of money.

My main beef with micro transactions in particular is they feel so malign and sinister it reminds me of that story of the fruit from that tree everyone wanted because it looked and smelled so good eventually they gave everyhting they had just to try some and when they got this wonderful fruit they found that it was entirely bland to the taste and completely failed their expectations on every level and so they were left broken and hollow everything was lost. Except the one who sold the fruit of course he was a very rich person and also extremely hated by everyone.

 

[krazykidd]

ive bought most mass effect 3 dlc and loved em. Im very happy to see it continue to get support 1 year later

Well that's just DLC, which has been going on since previous generations. The micro-transaction part would be those "mystery packs" that you could buy in the multiplayer portion of the game, which I am yet to see gamers "enjoy and embrace".

Well if people buy them i guess it's the same thing as enjoying and embracing lol.

OT: Man fuck the Game industry . Now i'm just watching to see how much they can get away with , i don't even care anymore . I'm just going to sit back and watches people giving them money and sigh .

 

[Launcelot111]

The entirety of all the microtransactions I've ever bought is putting $5 towards two heroes on League of Legends. Beyond that, I'm heavily against microtransactions. I either buy the whole game as the traditional model would define it or I pay nothing (the only DLC I've ever bought is for Binding of Isaac because it was a dollar). The flip side of this is that free games I do enjoy are largely financed by microtransactions whether I support them or not. I guess in some sense, I am freeriding, but microtransactions often seem like artificial barriers to enjoyment rather than you getting extra enjoyment over the free user. I also wonder how the amount of new content released would change in LoL or something if you could buy a boxed version with all existing champions instead of microtransacting or saving up IP for each individual hero.

 

[DeadlyYellow]

if you want to see microtransactions taken to an extreme check out their sims3 store. 30 cents for a chair, etc it all adds up

Oh good god yes. Biweekly clutter sales, and a new item sale every six hours. Nothing like playing to an impulse community.

 

[ThriKreen]

Wasnt it someone from EA a while ago who was on about charging for individual bullets that you fired in a gun in a game yeah sure you can collect ammo normally but need help well just take out that credit card and we will top up your bullet inventory for you, instead of say making the game balanced so it wasnt a problem unless you played like a complete tard.

You mean the video of John Riccitiello talking about price points and impulse buying and asking the player when they're most engaged in a game (i.e. 2-3hrs into it)? Where one wouldn't be very price conscious at that point, using an example where if offered to refill your ammo in the middle of a fight, people might be more willing to do it? Nevermind no designer would really allow that in a multiplayer game, as it can be viewed as a 'cheat' - Whooo~ have $, unlimited spray and pray!

Of course that didn't stop people from misinterpreting the video to think "ZOMG EA IS GOING TO CHARGE FOR BULLETS" based on a poor example spoken out loud in a conference call.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Actually if they are making money on it and a large number of people (several thousand at least) which they most likely are, then I'd say that probably qualifies as embracing and enjoying. Doesn't really matter how many people in this echo-room of a forum dislike it if its working for them.

Actually this thread stinks of "lets take their latest statement that doesn't match our opinions and belittle them over it for our own amusement!" I think this is probably what racist white power groups do when the NAACP releases statements.

 

[Kmadden2004]

If EA are really so sure about this, how about they release some analytics to show us just how many people are even using these micro transactions, let alone "enjoying" them?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

EA doesn't even have decent f2p titles(except I hope the new C&C), what the hell they're talking about? Are people really really buying the "cheat code" unlock packs for bf3 and ds3? -_-

snip

I now need a bottle of Whisky, thank you very much.

Their F2P model absolutely sucks ass, not to mention the games are understaffed, rarely updated, with virtually no bug fixes or moderation of hackers, and totally underhanded in creating overpowered pay2use weapons and nerfing them so they're useless just before they release the next batch of even more OP guns.

But successful? People really do eat this crap up. Here's a thread from a guy who spent about £60 (pretty much $100) trying to get a single gun scope for one of his 4 characters (two of which you have to unlock through microtransactions) and the attachment isn't transferable between his soldiers.

http://battlefield.play4free.com/en/forum/showthread.php?tid=113541

He spent £60 on it. That's the price of 1 and a half new AAA games, and the kicker is that because the only way to get it is through a random item generator he didn't even get the item he wanted.

And that's a single attachment for that game, there are a hundred other (even more expensive) microtransactions that he'll probably use.

Personally I point blank refuse to pay any microtransaction ever, but this news doesn't really phase me, EA don't make any games that I'm interested in buying any more.

 

[rob_simple]

I usually try to defend EA, just because I like the challenge, but I really think they're confusing what people are happy with and what people are gullible enough to do. I'd be really interested to see a demographic breakdown of who is using micro-transactions the most.

As for my personal stance, I don't really have an issue with micro-transactions that just let you skim past game play (buying level ups, ammo etc.), if people are stupid enough to pay for that then it's their call, but I do take issue when devs --even good ones like the Arkham City guys-- start charging for things we used to get for free; like cheats and unlockable costumes.

At the end of the day though, it doesn't stop me from enjoying the games, I just don't use the micro-transactions; if they start to become intrusive ("You have run out of ammo. Please wait thirty minutes for your ammo to replenish OR pay £10 to recharge instantly") that's when I'll stop buying the games.

 

[Lunar Templar]

yeah? and?

Mircotransactions aren't going away, since the people like you whom complain about/don't like them are in the vast minority.

Besides, the practice isn't 'evil' by nature, how it used is another thing but there's nothing inherently wrong with 'mircotransactions'

 

[Elfgore]

In Battlefield 3, the smaller packs unlock weapons, vehicle upgrades etc and allow you to catch up with say, friends who have been playing for the last year, if you don't want to use the scavenger bots in DS3 (why you wouldn't I dunno, they are cool as shit) then you can just get resources NOW.

This pisses me off.

I worked insanely hard to level up my classes in Battlefield 3, and then some guy spends thirty bucks and has all the same stuff I do? Bullshit! It's the same with Halo 4 "Buy Mountain Dew and Doritos for free level gain." It's unfair for the few it seems nowadays who want to actually work to get better at games not pay money. if it was for singleplayer only that is fine, but as soon as multiplayer gets involved I get pissed.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Wasnt it someone from EA a while ago who was on about charging for individual bullets that you fired in a gun in a game yeah sure you can collect ammo normally but need help well just take out that credit card and we will top up your bullet inventory for you, instead of say making the game balanced so it wasnt a problem unless you played like a complete tard.

You mean the video of John Riccitiello talking about price points and impulse buying and asking the player when they're most engaged in a game (i.e. 2-3hrs into it)? Where one wouldn't be very price conscious at that point, using an example where if offered to refill your ammo in the middle of a fight, people might be more willing to do it? Nevermind no designer would really allow that in a multiplayer game, as it can be viewed as a 'cheat' - Whooo~ have $, unlimited spray and pray!

Of course that didn't stop people from misinterpreting the video to think "ZOMG EA IS GOING TO CHARGE FOR BULLETS" based on a poor example spoken out loud in a conference call.

Thats the one it wouldnt give you unlimited bullets though as people only have so much money to spend but yeah they wouldnt do that straight away as they would never get away with it but it gives an idea of what they would like and what they can aim towards, as for what designers want pfft they arent funding the project they will do what they are told and the cheat bit yeah dont think that will bother them and they could just say well duh its just more bullets the persona with better shooting skills will still win so it dosent effect balance it just gives less able players the option to miss more and still be able to play the game as they still have ammo people stop playing because of it maybe but thats why they have to make it a standard first so if they want to play a AAA shooter they have no alternative as all the other big companies are doing the same because they want some of that gouged money.

What they will do is just start small and see how far they can push it just like with DLC make no mistake EA arent doing this for the benefit of gamers or their passion for games they just see a potential way to make huge amounts of money for little effort.

 

[ThriKreen]

Thats the one

No it's not, and there never was such a video. Again, it was the CEO talking about the psychology of microtransactions, never did they say they would actually do such a thing.

And I'll repeat: 'Of course that didn't stop people from misinterpreting the video to think "ZOMG EA IS GOING TO CHARGE FOR BULLETS" based on a poor example spoken out loud in a conference call.'

as for what designers want pfft they arent funding the project they will do what they are told

No, because a good combat design team will be able to successfully argue that allowing such 'live cheats' will drive all the players away due to the imbalance, resulting in less profits long term vs. making people buy bullets for the instant payoff short term. Publishers can see reason you know, and not all dev teams are spineless sycophants.

Aside from those free/pay to win Chinese MMOs which I don't have a lot of knowledge on, I can't think of a single competitive multiplayer game that forces you to buy your bullets with real money first, or allows instant reloads in the middle of a round.

Aside from supply drops (or TF2 dispensers), but that's an intentional gameplay mechanic. Not to mention enemies can possibly use them too, or ambush people going for it, so there are disadvantages.

 

[mokes310]

You know what really made me sad? I got the Sims 3 a few weeks back (having enjoyed 2), and was insanely annoyed to discover I'd only bought about half the game. I'm not making this up, more than half of the items are locked, only available via real money purchase in game. EA sold me a game, then held the fun parts to ransom. Seriously? I'm supposed to embrace the fact that the same money is buying me less and less with every game they make? Well fuck that shit. Fuck. That. Shit.

It's pretty much the video game version of the film, Die Hard.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I think poor old Jorgensen might be a little confused, when he says EA consumers. He might be thinking of all the casual games and mobile gamers who get free games and then have to pay a little IAP to keep the damn thing going, or even fun, for that matter. I would have thought for most that the fun dies out pretty quickly when you have to start spending money, and all but my very richest of friends would stop and think twice before giving away a penny for something so stupid.

If you talk about the entire gaming community, then yes a lot of people are digging it. What he fails to realize is, this is only OK in so far as you aren't paying for stuff which you used to get free. You know, like unlocking costumes/skins, cheat codes, weapons, maps, secret endings, and so on. Thankfully on PC at least, and for a single player environment, there are still mods / trainers / hacks and such. For those in the multiplayer environment, well you're well and truly screwed I'm afraid...makes me remember all the grinding I did for Battlefield 2142, and now someone can just shell out $5 and get to where I was.

 

[Aeonknight]

In Battlefield 3, the smaller packs unlock weapons, vehicle upgrades etc and allow you to catch up with say, friends who have been playing for the last year, if you don't want to use the scavenger bots in DS3 (why you wouldn't I dunno, they are cool as shit) then you can just get resources NOW.

This pisses me off.

I worked insanely hard to level up my classes in Battlefield 3, and then some guy spends thirty bucks and has all the same stuff I do? Bullshit! It's the same with Halo 4 "Buy Mountain Dew and Doritos for free level gain." It's unfair for the few it seems nowadays who want to actually work to get better at games not pay money. if it was for singleplayer only that is fine, but as soon as multiplayer gets involved I get pissed.

If your attachments are the only thing that seperate you, who spent the time learning the weapons and unlocking it and mr. Credit Card, you're doing it wrong.

Using another example from BF3, the Vehicle Perk unlocks. Give a noob Air Radar and he's still going to have a hard time avoiding the ground, until he learns it for himself.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Valve releasing cosmetic hats for TF2 via microtransactions: Oh, those lovely rascals. Please, take all my money!

EA releasing cosmetic items(Sims3)/mystery packs(ME3) via microtransactions: OMFG EA IS THE DEVIL! BOYCOT! BURN THEM DOWN! RAAAAGE!

Ah well, it's the Escapist.
As long as they aren't selling advantages that cannot be obtained by ingame means, I will have no problems with microtransactions.

I think you forgot to mention the difference between the two games.

TF2 is free.

Sims 3 and ME3 cost $49.99 and $89.99 USD respectively.

(prices were pulled from the Origin webstore by a New Zealand IP and were for the standard editions)