EA putting micro-transactions "into all of our games"

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
  • roz123 27 Feb 2013 13:20:14 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    "The next and much bigger piece [of the business] is microtransactions within games," chief financial officer Blake Jorgensen said, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference (transcribed by Seeking Alpha).

    "We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be.

    "Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."
    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-27-ea-putting-micro-transactions-into-all-of-our-games

    I know this is being discussed in the "next gen" thread but it is big enough news to deserve its own page.
  • kalel 27 Feb 2013 13:23:51 86,417 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It's probably a bad thing, but not necessarily so.

    I don't really mind being given the option to buy things that are also possible to earn if I can be arsed. I also don't mind paying for extra new content as long as I'm not paying for stuff that should have just been there in the first place. And I don't mind there being a load of shit I don't need like funny hats or whatever, that others can pay for if they want to.

    However, making me pay extra for content that I should reasonably expect to be included in the original RRP of the game is not cool.
  • jellyhead 27 Feb 2013 13:24:26 24,350 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As long as i can easily ignore them and they do not design the game around arbitrary chokepoints to make paying for unlocks more attractive then i don't care as it will have no impact on me.

    However, i'm not hopeful that devs/publishers won't start to design games in such a way as to make this more attractive. The masses spend a lot of money on this crap and they are the market EA are going for. Not us lot.

    This signature intentionally left blank.

  • MrTomFTW Moderator 27 Feb 2013 13:25:57 37,379 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Clearly their experiments into micro-transactions have been successful. They wouldn't be doing this otherwise. They're a business, and as such have to change to maintain profits. Who do you blame - them or the consumers who are paying for them and validating the practice?

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • THFourteen 27 Feb 2013 13:28:57 32,880 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Ultimate Team is a great example. I've had tonnes of fun with ultimate team and never bothered to spend money on it. But i understand if people want to.

    As long as its like that, then i'm happy enough.

    What i wouldnt like is if they had (eg) a different set of players that were only available for cash, then i would feel that i was missing out by not spending cash.
  • graysonavich 27 Feb 2013 13:30:24 7,309 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Sims store purchases alone could keep a small country out of debt for 10 years. The amount they charge for the utter turd they pump out on that store is shocking. Which given the amount of quality free custom content widely available makes it even more banarnars.
  • Cappy 27 Feb 2013 13:32:12 11,832 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I think it's a thin end of the wedge scenario.

    The industry absolutely wants to get this micro-transactions pineapple up our arses, but they've got to take it slow or they'll blow it.

    To start with, it's going to be easy to live without, it's not going to hurt too much. Once they've got us used to it being there, they'll really start shoving it in. The problem is, that once EA start doing it, others large publishers have to start following suit because it's ceding a competitive advantage not to and shareholders will be asking about the bottom line.
  • oceanmotion 27 Feb 2013 13:38:07 15,665 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As long as I can avoid it and I'm not left in the cold from a game play standpoint, I'll be okay with it.

    If not, I will play other games or none at all if this is the direction but I think there will always be something if I continue to enjoy games.
  • Armoured_Bear 27 Feb 2013 13:41:08 10,306 posts
    Seen 6 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    It's probably a bad thing, but not necessarily so.

    I don't really mind being given the option to buy things that are also possible to earn if I can be arsed. I also don't mind paying for extra new content as long as I'm not paying for stuff that should have just been there in the first place. And I don't mind there being a load of shit I don't need like funny hats or whatever, that others can pay for if they want to.

    However, making me pay extra for content that I should reasonably expect to be included in the original RRP of the game is not cool.
    What are the chances of that not happening?

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 27 Feb 2013 13:42:41 6,654 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I don't think there's much of an effect my opinion will have on this, I think they're here to stay.

    At least the capitalists are tethered by the fact that they have to make the initial package compelling to play in the first place.
  • RobTheBuilder 27 Feb 2013 13:42:49 6,521 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Games designed around squeezing money out of us rather than real fun mechanics. Oh Joy.

    If publishers keep doing this, it is going to make indie games and non-cash scraper games seem instantly 10x more attractive.

    We need more publishers run by gamers rather than companies who appear to put the actual customer at the very very very back of the priority queue.

    Edited by RobTheBuilder at 13:43:40 27-02-2013
  • MetalDog 27 Feb 2013 13:43:49 23,708 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    With the Sims, they make you buy 'simpoints' before you can buy anything and then charge simpoints for the items, putting a deliberate layer of obfuscation between the user and how much they're spending on each item. It's deeply fucking cynical and since the monetisation strategy will all be planned out during development, you are going to be missing things from your game that would have been put in otherwise, as well as seeing lots of customisation bling stuff that in the past would have been put in as polish, but now you'll have to pay for.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • ecureuil 27 Feb 2013 13:43:55 76,527 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    If you take iPhone games as a template, it's going to be really hard to avoid. You get games like The Simpsons Tapped Out (also made by EA), and yes you can play without microtransactions, but it's a cripplingly slow and frustrating experience, and it's designed as such because they want you to get so annoyed with it you pay to speed it up.

    It's really sad to see gaming going this way. It's all so cynical and manipulative now.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 27 Feb 2013 13:48:12 6,654 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    One thing I do find funny; whenever you hear the suits that run gaming talk about issues like piracy and the justification of micro transactions, there's always an almost socialist mentality in terms of the welfare of the developer.

    Yet, when a game gets a 40 on Metacritic, the same people are happy to shitcan the entire studio.

    Edited by bitch_tits_zero_nine at 13:49:04 27-02-2013
  • Benno 27 Feb 2013 13:53:19 9,796 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    It all depends on how the game is calibrated.

    If game pacing/progress is tuned around boosts which are bought with money, its going to be terrible.
  • gamingdave 27 Feb 2013 13:56:11 4,187 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Not a positive step in my mind. I don't see how you can balance a game really well when you have them. As soon as it's linked to resources then it suggest to me that the game will be a slog if you don't make the micro payments. At that point I'm not interested.

    If you take something like Zelda it's normally very well balanced giving you enough items to succeed. Should you run out then a little bit of leg work can restock you quickly enough. But they make it so that legwork is enjoyable and also leads to new discoveries. If they simply made you pay 20p to refill your health and potions it would be loosing so much of it's charm.

    Will we see a driving game where you actually have to buy the petrol?
  • kalel 27 Feb 2013 13:58:01 86,417 posts
    Seen 34 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    It's probably a bad thing, but not necessarily so.

    I don't really mind being given the option to buy things that are also possible to earn if I can be arsed. I also don't mind paying for extra new content as long as I'm not paying for stuff that should have just been there in the first place. And I don't mind there being a load of shit I don't need like funny hats or whatever, that others can pay for if they want to.

    However, making me pay extra for content that I should reasonably expect to be included in the original RRP of the game is not cool.
    What are the chances of that not happening?
    If it happens to a ridiculous extent then they'll suffer for it. Games will be negatively reviews and people won't buy them.

    There's a middle ground though, which we're already seeing - cars and tracks you have to pay extra for in racing games for example. You could argue it should be there already, and you can argue it's extra content. As long as they stay in that grey area, I guess it's ok.
  • bitch_tits_zero_nine 27 Feb 2013 13:59:44 6,654 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    There's always rumours that Fifa is heading towards a subscription model.

    That would be terrible imo.
  • jambii267 27 Feb 2013 15:14:49 1,364 posts
    Seen 41 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It already is!

    NNID: Jambii267 PSN: Dr-Jambii 3DS: 0216-0806-8561

  • roz123 27 Feb 2013 15:14:49 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I would prefer it if developers were spending their time on making a better game, not finding ways of tempting me out of 50p.
  • MatMan562 27 Feb 2013 15:18:28 2,317 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I've never been massively against micro-transactions like a lot of people on here have and I still wouldn''t be if they had said something along the lines of they were hoping to add more micro-transactions in suitable games but saying all future games will have micro-transactions is ridiculous. The games should be made to be the best they can and then have micro-transactions if it makes sense to not the other way around.

    Imagine how different Mirror's Edge would have had to be if EA had this new policy back then.

    XBL/ PSN/ Steam/ NNID - MatMan562

  • bad09 27 Feb 2013 15:21:58 5,643 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    jambii267 wrote:
    It already is!
    It isn't though. You don't have pay every year to play, I still play FIFA11 sure it's not up to date rosters but it's still a game of footy. FIFA as a subscription game would be terrible as you would be forced to pay every year and I don't buy them every year.

    Mind you I stopped buying EA sports after their Tiger Woods scam on PC (they slapped a new name on their F2P online thing and sold it for 30 notes) so unlikely I'll be buying another FIFA ever again anyway :)
  • ecureuil 27 Feb 2013 15:22:57 76,527 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    MatMan562 wrote:
    I've never been massively against micro-transactions like a lot of people
    What's your justification for them then? And I'm talking about EA here, not an indie mobile developer that otherwise might not see a profit.
  • oceanmotion 27 Feb 2013 15:23:38 15,665 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    On top of that, higher retail price, DLC, pre order crap, season passes, yearly releases, pre owned maybe getting axed.

    I do wonder how much money they think people actually have to get one good game experience a year if you consider all the extras particular map DLC to stay with the community. A lot of money for one game.
  • Steve_Perry 27 Feb 2013 15:24:24 3,625 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Capcom are the biggest shitbags nowadays when it comes to this.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • ubergine 27 Feb 2013 15:27:08 2,090 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I'm putting EA games into Micro-Transactions. I only buy them a tiny amount of the time and only pay pennies when I do.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/ubergine

  • nickthegun 27 Feb 2013 15:29:10 58,885 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Steve_Perry wrote:
    Capcom are the biggest shitbags nowadays when it comes to this.
    They arent microtransactions. They just lock content away and charge you for it.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • roz123 27 Feb 2013 15:29:24 7,112 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    MatMan562 wrote:
    Imagine how different Mirror's Edge would have had to be if EA had this new policy back then.
    Big guns, Nike shoes and massive bouncing titties
  • graysonavich 27 Feb 2013 15:29:54 7,309 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I'm not sad enough to read the article but I do wonder how much of it is lost in translation when they actually mean a free to play transaction gaming model.
  • MatMan562 27 Feb 2013 15:33:45 2,317 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    MatMan562 wrote:
    I've never been massively against micro-transactions like a lot of people
    What's your justification for them then? And I'm talking about EA here, not an indie mobile developer that otherwise might not see a profit.
    Well, taking Mass Effect 3 as an example, you can completely ignore them. I think that's the only one I've played not including the "time saver" packs.

    Note that I did say "not massively against". I still don't like them and would rather they weren't there but they never seemed like a big deal until this.

    XBL/ PSN/ Steam/ NNID - MatMan562

  • Page

    of 4 First / Last

    Previous
Log in or register to reply