EA: Some Gamers Just Don't Like Change

[Fr]anc[is]

Listing off a random sample of games that don't have expansion packs as if that somehow has any relevance

I could tell you weren't going to be reasonable, but that's just funny

 

[teebeeohh]

We dislike publishers trying to decide for us what we want based on what is best for their profit margin.

Also:CHANGE, YOU GOT CHANGE?

 

[FalloutJack]

-Not Proof-

anc[is]


I could tell you weren't going to be reasonable, but that's just funny

May I join you in this laugh?


Hit the benches, Fooly-Cooly, before you hurt yourself.

 

[Baldur Moon]

"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 sat down. And you played the game until you got tired of the game. It was all on the disc."

"Games are turning into 365 days a year live operation experiences," he continued. "And rightly or wrongly we think it's our job to provide reasons every day to go play that game and enjoy that game. Technology is enabling that. Hardware is enabling that. Different game experiences like open world experiences are enabling that, and we're trying to react to what we believe is what gamers want."

"I can filter out hate, vitriol, rants, 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," he added.

I... I can't even... ughhh.... *sigh*
It's like you WANT people to hate you

Hit the benches, Fooly-Cooly, before you hurt yourself.

Dat reference

 

[weirdee]

which is more likely?

model 1: developer spends time and most as usual, and then develop full expansion packs during and after the game's release, spending more for their development. the game goes live, and they make money, and then get residual sales from the dlc packs after they're released.

model 2: developer spends time and money as they did before to complete a full game, and then works on dlc during approval phase after the development, spending the extra time and money on the dlc. the game and dlc go live and they make more money because the dlc was released on the first day, plus they only spent a small amount of time on it compared to full release expansion packages so profit margins are higher.

model 3: developer keeps the whole budget and timespan the same, and the publisher cuts the difference out from the main game. the game and dlc go live, and they make roughly the same amount of money as the previous model, because no one customer can quantify what the game has had removed. customers who almost can figure it out are not in the target market to begin with.

compare to these additional models

model 3: developer makes the game as usual, but then the publisher takes the game, splits it up into chunks, and markets the smaller chunks as dlc, while leaving the bare essentials at 60 dollars. since the "additional content" has already been completed in advance, there is no need to keep the people around afterwards to develop it, and manpower is either removed or repurposed. in addition, publisher also decides to market buying the entire dlc package at once as an "all access pass" which portrays being charged twice for the content that was already paid for as a great deal (as opposed to being ripped off three times for buying each item individually).

model 4: the same arrangement as above, but the developer keeps a skeleton crew onboard to mush pre-existing content together in ways that are unrecognizable to most customers to continue milking the game. any actually new assets added to the game are created at a negligible cost to the publisher compared to how much they charge for those features, considering that these assets are intangible and unlimited.

model 5: the same arrangement as model 4, but the developer puts those assets in a randomized format that makes customers pay for a chance to acquire new content. the publisher is in full control of the odds and therefore can adjust distribution at the highest possible profit.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I can handle change EA provided it's not all at once and it's for the better, the changes you're talking about are definitely NOT for the better.

 

[The White Hunter]

How about we talk about how all of the people who were early adopters of Battlefield 3 have to pay $50 for Battlefield Premium so we can get all of the expansions to your wonderful game while you're selling Premium and BF3 for $70. How can we ever be comfortable with change with Publishers jackknifing all over the place?

Not to mention the pay-to-win unlock packs, the steadily more fucked up game balance (it was fine before the first patch, then they broke the USAS and it all went downhill from there...), the greedy and ridiculous rent-a-server option essentially ruining the experience on consoles, the overpriced map packs that come with overpowered unbalanced weapons (fucking FAMAS was broken for months and nobody can convince me otherwise, I know, I used it > >)(can't speak about close quarters since i didnt buy it), premium can just fuck off frankly it seems on paper to actually be slightly inferior to COD Elite, at least a lot of Elite you get free and it's definately more functional than Battlelog.

 

[Bloodstain]

"I can filter out hate, vitriol, rants, 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," he added.

Oh, this very thread proves him so very right.
I'm fine with EA and DLC and so on because I understand that large game companies are businesses that need to make money.
Above all, however, I am fine with all of that because I still enjoy EA's games, which really is all that matters. Enjoyment.

"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.

By that logic, you should hate Steam, because you don't own your Steam games. Which is why Steam can take your games away if you don't agree to the new TOS. The games are not your property.
And I don't think this is a bad thing. This is the future.

 

[Lieju]

I do like change.
I don't like paying 80 dollars (60 + dlc prices) for what I would have expected to be in a 60 dollar game 5 years ago.
Saints Row 3, I'm looking at you in particular. And you too ME3.
I don't mind paying for extras, but when you take out the core or weaken the core for the purpose of selling it later you are doing me a disservice.

My thought exactly.

I love the idea of DLC, getting more content for a game I love, that will make me interested in the game again. Maybe a mini-sequel, or what would have been called an expansion before.

But my fear in general is that we are getting less and less content for our money.

Also I'm sure online-multiplayer is great, but it's not something I want in a game. So it annoys me when it bleeds in otherwise single-player oriented games. At the very least, it's not the kind of content I get any enjoyement out of.

 

[Sis]

DS and ME multiplayer are blatantly tacked on to appease the MP crowd, buttmunch. Learn to make proper MP's before you make an interview like this.

 

[EnlightendDead]

-Horrible Attempt at Proof-

May I join you in this laugh?


Hit the benches, Fooly-Cooly, before you hurt yourself.

You guys mind if I join in to?

 

[unLucky500]

{By that logic, you should hate Steam, because you don't own your Steam games. Which is why Steam can take your games away if you don't agree to the new TOS. The games are not your property.
And I don't think this is a bad thing. This is the future.]}

Thanks for saying what I was thinking. You can't get angry at EA for not allowing you to "own" your games when Steam has been doing the same thing for years.
Not to say you can't get angry at EA for other things, and I do agree the whole on disc DLC thing is a bit of a joke.

 

[ScruffyMcBalls]

Just gonna throw my hat into the circle for a second; EA blows, it's not because we don't like change, we don't like shit change. We don't "rag" on EA because it's cool, it's because EA and others like them genuinely piss us off to our cores. We aren't whining over invalid grievances, we're complaining over perfectly valid bullshit.
Oh, and does anyone else suspect that this whole "extending play-time well beyond the couple hours it used to be" thing is just a shade indicative that the industry has run out of ideas it's willing to run with / doesn't know how to make money off of smaller titles? Or is that just me?

 

[Syntax Error]

Says the head of the guy whose introduced online passes to games. To prevent Used Sales. Where's the "You don't have to be online..." for that?

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Games are turning into 365 days a year live operation experiences," he continued. "And rightly or wrongly we think it's our job to provide reasons every day to go play that game and enjoy that game. Technology is enabling that. Hardware is enabling that. Different game experiences like open world experiences are enabling that, and we're trying to react to what we believe is what gamers want."

What "open world" experiences?
That Galactic Readiness grindfest in Mass Effect 3?
Social gaming?

This shit might have meaning if your company actually sold games that fit that premise on anything other than the loosest definition.

"I can filter out hate, vitriol, rants, 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," he added.

Do you know why it's "cool" to rag on you guys?
Because even when you aren't mismanaging your properties and developers, you still don't add anything but "baggage" to the experience.

Whether it's bullshit DRM (Spore), ludicrous legal stipulations (Origin's EULA), increased emphasis on DLC over main content (you went on the record saying you would charge players for bullets if you thought you could get away with it) or grotesque mismanagement (virtually every developer you've bought out and destroyed), your company's involvement tends to WORSEN the resulting product.

You might have even been vindicated of the haters ragging on you if your company had only recently started pulling this shit. But no, EA has been doing this for over a decade now. You were given a chance to change and do better. But instead your company continues to act like it owns the goddamned gaming business, even as it continues to fall.

You don't have a monopoly EA. You aren't King. So for once, stop pretending that these complaints are just idle haters, and address your obvious issues.

At the very least, stop SAYING you're great when you aren't.

"But the vast majority of people do, and are certainly connected. And then if you go multiplayer, I like to think most games that enhances the experience. But there are some guys who just want things never to change."

It isn't about a few gamers not liking multiplayer (and why should they complain unless the multiplayer was mandatory?), it's about taking games that are, by their nature, TRYING TO ESTABLISH A SPECIFIC MOOD AND TONE, and tacking multiplayer onto them so you can extend their playtime artificially.

"CoD4.x succeeds almost entirely because of its multiplayer, ergo ALL of our games need multiplayer! BUSINESS LOGIC!"

Adding multiplayer to something like Dead Space is stupid, because those are supposedly HORROR GAMES.
Isolation and tension is a core part of horror psychology. Nothing is scary when you break that tension.

Shoehorning multiplayer into every game in this manner is akin to throwing a cake across the room to someone when they ask for some. Sure, the cake technically arrives at its destination, but it's going to make a mess; which is just a waste of otherwise good cake.

 

[Scrustle]

People don't like change. Therefore, any criticism of any change is invalid!

 

[Blunderboy]

EA having shitty PR and the public telling them they are evil while neither side gets anywhere

But at least nothing is changing. Man I hate change. I wish change had a face so I could punch it.

 

[A Username Not In Use]

Moore's right I do fear change.

I'm terrified that one day EA will not release a new (insert favorite sports governing body where applicable) game for me to to buy because EA decided that it would be better to not spend all those millions getting sports licences, followed by millions more to make the same game every bloody year, instead spending all that money to make the sort of decent gmes they used to produce.

How can anyone live with this sort of fear.

 

[Tradjus]

I'm reminded of Officer Barbrady from South Park.
"Nothing to see here people, move along."
You know, I had sort of assumed that E.A talking heads couldn't possibly behave in a more asinine fashion than they already had, but again they've proven me wrong, well done.

 

[Mr. F]

anc[is]

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 bought WC3 years ago. Around release. I bought The Frozen Throne when it was released. Since then I have not spent a penny.

Dozens of maps were handed out free. Entire free campaigns were handed out, again not a penny spent. Hours of gameplay. Free.

When people state that DLC is a bunch of bullshit they are not talking about all DLC. It annoys me when people like you try and state as much. You USED to get free shit. Warcraft is just one example.

If Diablo 2 had been released in the last 2 years the expansion pack would not have existed. It would have been split into the "Lord of Destruction Quest Pack", the "Lord of Destruction Item Pack" etc etc, each item being split off and sold for more then the price of the original expansion.

That is what pisses people off.

Not DLC like "The Pitt" (Looking at you Fallout 3, One of the best examples of DLC that there is) but weapon packs for 4 bucks, map packs for however much morons pay for those things. Back in the day that stuff was just added along with patches, more maps, more weapons, tweaks, shit like that. Now it gets sold off half baked as DLC. True, the DLC costs less than an expansion pack. But it contains far less and companies now expect us to pay for things we got for free.

You want to know why people hate DLC?

Go buy some old games. Like Warcraft. Play them through then download the patches and try and count all the free shit. Try the same with 1942 (Which, admittedly, did start the trend towards "Utterly Pointless Expansion Packs").

Gamers do not MIND paying for DECENT DLC. DLC that plays out more like small expansions (The Pitt, Mothership Zeta, Point Lookout etc) but they DO mind being told to pay for maps, cosmetic shit, horse armour, weapon packs, you know, the shit we used to get in patches.