EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

Masterdebator

New member
Jul 13, 2010
36
0
0
"it's cool to rag on EA, it's cool to rag on Zynga, it's cool to rag on Bobby Kotick, it's cool to rag on Peter Moore"

EA public relations in action!

Best in the business. Great at saving me money.
 
Mar 25, 2010
130
0
0
Foolproof said:
Fr said:
anc[is]
Foolproof said:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.
Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.
I don 't recall GTA III, Fallout 2, Spider-Man or KOTOR ever offering expansion packs. Meanwhile the series that actually did offer DLC? Starcraft, The Sims, those gmaes? What a fucking coincidence, they have expansion packs that are still $40 a pop, same as they've always been.


Swing and a miss.

Got anything else?
Aw, but that's NEW EA, they charge asinine sums for Sims 3 expansion packs. Remember the Sims 2, the one that Maxis actually made? Remember how the expansions vastly improved the game more than Sims 3 expansions did, and they were only $20, just like the base game? Ah, those were the days...
 

Thoric485

New member
Aug 17, 2008
632
0
0
And here I thought the backlash against EA was all just a vocal minority, while the majority of gamers enjoyed what they did.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,836
0
0
No, its more like "Some gamers just don't like our change."

And it would appear more than just some gamers don't like EA. This one included.
 

userwhoquitthesite

New member
Jul 23, 2009
2,177
0
0
Olrod said:
Grey Carter said:
"I think people are worried gaming is going in a different direction than they were used to with N64, Sega Mega Drive, PlayStation and PlayStation 2," he said. "Everything was dominated by consoles. Pretty much everything was offline. You bought the game. You owned the game. You sat down. You owned the game. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. And you owned the game. It was all on the disc. That you owned."
There, I fixed that quote for you, Mr. Moore.

You're welcome.

It's not that gamers "fear change" it's that they fear donkey-helmets like you trying to rip them off, which you seem to be doing more and more often these days.
this.
I love dlc as a thing, I have only ever objected to dlc being content I paid for that was WITHHELD from me until I paid more for it

And it's not "cool" to rag on EA... it's LOGIC. EA has a terrible track record when it comes to customer service, perceived quality, and simple customer relations.
 

Lopende Paddo

New member
Aug 26, 2004
128
0
0
Foolproof said:
Fr said:
anc[is]
Foolproof said:
Yeah, the difference was we never got the DLC in the first place.

Give me one good reason that having extra gameplay available for purchase is somehow worse than not being able to get that gameplay under any circumstances.

No, don't go into your fantasy about how if DLC wasn't a thing, developers would have totally included the content just for kicks, stick with reality.
Except we did, they were called expansion packs. It was a good time, when we got more than cheat codes or skin packs for our money. I even hear tales of when map packs were not called map packs, they were just new maps, and they were free.
I don 't recall GTA III, Fallout 2, Spider-Man or KOTOR ever offering expansion packs. Meanwhile the series that actually did offer DLC? Starcraft, The Sims, those gmaes? What a fucking coincidence, they have expansion packs that are still $40 a pop, same as they've always been.


Swing and a miss.

Got anything else?
I preferred the old Expansion pack model, it felt more substantial and added content to a game that actually furthered the plot. some DLC still do that, but they are few and far between. most dlc are "horse armor"...
 

A-D.

New member
Jan 23, 2008
637
0
0
The weird thing of all of that is really that, for as much as EA, or well rather Peter Moore claims that we hate change, they havent actually changed all that much. I mean look at how the industry works nowadays, then look back at how it used to work, EA is pretty much doing the same thing, even those times when they finally adapt they kinda fuck it up.

Some examples, this is not a full list of all of them but a few anyways. Remember the first "F2P Browsergame" that EA shat out? The Tiberium Alliance thingy? Yeah, how come that, when compared to other games which essentially do the same stuff in a different coat of paint and without the C&C Name attached are either exactly the same, or better? I mean dont get me wrong, its not terrible, but their "F2P" turned quickly into P2W instead, like so many before, taking a good idea and running it backwards into the ground. Most of the ones already around pretty much do that already, to compete you have to cough up some cash eventually, rather than just buy stuff because its nice to have or only offers a minimal advantage i.e. less time-consuming.

Another example is SWTOR, now that its gone F2P. Why is it that, given the whole state of the industry to begin with, they even attempted to make a subscription MMO? I mean, look at all the recent games that have come out, vying for a big chunk of the MMO-pie that WoW essentially owned at the time, only a few were marginally successful at even getting a decent playerbase, most "failed", in the sense of not really making a dent in WoW's subs, and Players are a finite resource, there are only so many that are willing to shell out cash monthly and they usually dont go for multiple titles. So with that considered, how did they figure that SWTOR could compete? Especially in a genre which essentially is filled with games by now, most of which were F2P already, either for years or more recently. So instead of trying to come up with something really new to entice the playerbase to actually switch, besides the license attached, they copied WoW, or as they said, used it for inspiration. You dont succeed in "being the WoW-Killer" by doing what WoW does already, regardless of the paintjob you slap on it. Hell Tera boasted with its combat system, which mildly put was also copied off other games, Age of Conan did it first in concept, DCUO did it well in practice. SWTOR didnt have anything epic going for it except a storyline with fully voiced dialogue and choices which ultimately dont matter because MMOs are a consistent world, they dont change based on choices because not everyone makes the same choice. So, ultimately SWTOR failed to live up to its hype and marketing and didnt bring in the numbers, so it goes F2P. Which is funny because all other MMOs aside from WoW, EVE and Tera are F2P by now, well Rift too but lets see how long that lasts.

So to cut to the chase, why is it now that EA decided to use the worse F2P Model? Instead of doing it Turbines Way and essentially giving you a big chunk first and letting you earn it by playing the hell out of it, "Do feats for Points to spend for more content". Or Sony's Way, giving us the base game right from the bat and asking for 10 bucks every quarter year for another DLC with content? Instead of doing either, they restrict half the content, unless you pay up and add a cash shop on top of it. Its a "change" alright, i mean EA in the past would rather implode than give ANYTHING away for free, but its entirely in the wrong direction, in a direction which they should know its not going to be "the best option". They had years to look at the market, what works, what doesnt work, and then they throw it all out the window and do whatever makes the most cash fast, rather than trying to build a community and good-will from the retained players.

Its like Origin all over, they had a perfect example to work off of, to learn how to make the best thing ever and then they fuck it up. So no Mr. Moore, not all change is good change, especially from a company that is more interested in its bottom line than where the money comes from. Because if you push your customers away, the cashflow is eventually going to stop, and no more bottom-line for you. Basic Economics.

Im really just waiting for EA to make one decision thats based on logic and good business sense. So far, the best they came up with was "Meh".