Support NeoGAF

[Ushojax]

Can we not forget the part where EA's microtransactions are actually doing good things for the industry? The bevy of free Mass Effect 3 multiplayer updates would like to say hello. Like, just saying. There are examples out there providing reason to not always completely overreact and haphazardly smash the "I HAET DIS COMPANY" button ad nauseam.

Free content updates are not microtransactions.

 

[Orayn]

I can't believe that would even be legal.

What law would prohibit them from doing that?

Free content updates are not microtransactions.

There's the rub - You can use microtransactions to subsidize free content for everyone. Team Fortress 2 has used that model for a while now.

 

[Acidote]

I have no problems at all with people paying for early unlocks. And ofc, cosmetic stuff.

The thing with early unlocks is that it ends up with them sending the usual unlock to the end of a grinding hell.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

sir_crocodile : None of my games will be from EA

 

[raphier]

What law would prohibit them from doing that?



There's the rub - You can use microtransactions to subsidize free content for everyone. Team Fortress 2 has used that model for a while now.

EU law for anti-consumer practice and intentional fallacy

 

[Metalmurphy]

The thing with early unlocks is that it ends up with them sending the usual unlock to the end of a grinding hell.

Hence my first part of the post. For example, I don't consider the BF3 unlocks to be at all grinding, and I don't have any problems with the DLC unlocks they put in the game.

 

[Rush2thestart]

EA is such garbage holy shit. To think people hate Activision more because of COD.

 

[Orayn]

anti-consumerism EU law

Sounds kind of vague. Would it really be illegal to give people a give people the option of taking a crappy deal if you're not being deceptive about it?

 

[Mxrz]

The way LoL, Hawken and MechWarrior Online do microtransactions is terrible, since they lock up nearly all of the game's substantive content behind either unreasonable grinding or a paywall. It'd be better if they offered a one-time unlock like Tribes: Ascend now does, or at least some sort of season pass that would give you all the new content for some number of months at a steep discount.

Dota 2 and Path of Exile have the right idea: Keep the microtransactions game mechanics completely separate.

Wait. What's Riot locking up with LoL? I've played for about two years, and all I've ever needed to pay for were a couple of skins I dug.

 

[PedroLumpy]

This is my concern. It doesn't seem like their games have been designed to hinder your progress unless you stump up the cash to progress but i'm wondering how long that will last?

I'm not a whale and i doubt i will be if i haven't found a game i want to spend extravagantly upon yet. I'm sure people who don't purchase a couple of games a month are more likely to go for it than us.

Consider that if the best case we can hope for with this is only that 'It won't make things worse', than it's probably worth opposing right now.

If there was actually some possible benefit to the consumer, it might actually be worth defending. But from consumer perspective right now, it's like they're saying 'All EA games might punch you in the balls when you purchase it.' At that point, whether it actually punches you in the balls is kind of irrelevant, you still would rather they not do it.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

To compliment the rising cost argument often thrown around.

Games cost 2005 = 60$, almost no on-disk dlc and micropayments in the start

Games cost 2013 = apparently should be 70$, +on-disk dlc+micropayments everywhere.

Makes perfect sense.

Also I fully expect that you won't reach certain levels (upgrades, skills whatever) in a game if you don't pay up. Good times ahead.

 

[sammex]

Sigh. More bad news for next gen. More content that should be included in games will be taken away from the player, just like with most DLC.

 

[SteveWinwood]

Wait. What's Riot locking up with LoL? I've played for about two years, and all I've ever needed to pay for were a couple of skins I dug.

You have to buy heroes (or champions or whatever). That's shit.

 

[Pandemic]

Who do they think they are?!

 

[Pyrokai]

Will buying content be the only way to get stuff like items, etc? Or can I, like, play, win, and unlock?

 

[Saty]

 

[TheContact]

I've hated EA since they ruined Ultima

Tiger don't change her stripes

 

[Sentenza]

Well, see ya, suckers.
Probably not going to buy any of your games ever again.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Man, these days it feels like I just come to Gaming side to laugh at all the obnoxious anti-consumer practices proposed for next gen. Seriously, it's getting ridiculous.

EU law for anti-consumer practice and intentional fallacy

I don't think microtransactions would be contrary to any EU law.

 

[Fistwell]

I can't believe that would even be legal.

Oh but they're not forcing you to buy this crap! It's only there as a convenient option for people who really want to win!

(hope you enjoy getting your nuts exploded by an untouchable banana-throwing monkey in a petting zoo!)

 

[Orayn]

Wait. What's Riot locking up with LoL? I've played for about two years, and all I've ever needed to pay for were a couple of skins I dug.

Well, what I mean is that paying players get an advantage due to the sheer impracticality of unlocking everything for free.

I think it should either be a flat price, or no price at all.

 

[Dead Man]

Of the examples I've seen, it has had no negative effect on those who wish not to purchase the goods for sale and play the game as normal. The example above may yet disprove that, but I'd wager they are in the minority. Example: my friend purchased Battlefield 3 on the PC the other day after having played it on console for a year. He didn't feel like he wanted to go through the unlock treadmill all over again, so he seriously considered simply purchasing the quick-unlock packs and getting everything right there and then. I do not see the problem here, as it exists in its current form.

And yes, I am aware of the potential for perverting such models going forward.

But keep on ringing that alarmist "shill" button. I suppose that's the easier route, right?

Hey, you are the one claiming they are doing to benefit both parties and ONLY to benefit both parties. Sure, some DLC is fine. But to shoehorn it into every game is a pure cashgrab.

 

[AngryMoth]

Then I won't be buying EA games. Don't like micro transactions when it's just for consmetic stuff and fucking despise it when it is part of the game design. Games are already too expensive, I don't want to have my wallet under assault while I'm playing as well.

 

[GenericUser]

EA is desperate, that is why they are trying to make money with everything they can think of.

Microtransactions may make sense from a business perspective...

 

[dmr87]

Good for you EA.

 

[Woorloog]

This doesn't bother me, i ain't paying, i'll play normally. Someone wants to, let 'em.
Microtransactions in multiplayer are fine as well, if they're not pay to win, like Mass Effect 3's multiplayer system.

EDIT need that "i'm ok with this comic"...

 

[rvy]

Deserves a "Shocking News" title change. God, EA is such shit.

 

[Az]

Luckily I have very little interest in EA games.

 

[subversus]

The quality of EA games has fallen since 2010. So no loss for me.

 

[GoddyofAus]

Micro-transactions in BF4? Hey EA, do you want to just break the whole fucking premise of the game?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

I'm not one to knee jerk "boycott" companies, or anything video game related for that matter, but if this holds true I honestly think I am 100% done ever buying an EA game ever again.

 

[Axspell]

Hey, you are the one claiming they are doing to benefit both parties and ONLY to benefit both parties. Sure, some DLC is fine. But to shoehorn it into every game is a pure cashgrab.

Well, you do have a point that to do it in "every" game might be over-saturating things to a point that it's pretty much just shoehorn a go-go. And that's why I said that there's no illusion here that this has the potential to very easily be perverted going forward.

I suppose I just hope that perversion doesn't become the case. If it remains as something so harmless as "Pay $1 to get a pack of 10 healing potions in Dragon Age III", then I really don't mind.

At any rate, thanks for actually talking the issue through with me. Appreciate it.

 

[Mxrz]

You have to buy heroes (or champions or whatever). That's shit.

With IP that you earn from games, yeah. Calling that grind is a bit of a stretch. I mean I have friends that never made it past level 20, but still had a couple 6300ip champions. But even new champions get a f2p week once the next champion hits.

Well, what I mean is that paying players get an advantage due to the sheer impracticality of unlocking everything for free.

That is the beautiful thing about their progression setup. In order to get to the point where runes, or even a certain champ can have meaning, the player needs gameplay experience. In order to get that experience, they play games and earn ip. One feeds into the other.

That feeling of learning one champ while earning IP for another was pretty addictive. If I'd had complete access to everyone, I'd probably just fucked around with a couple eye-catching champs and then quit. That limited selection is also what made the differences stand out all the more too.

 

[alstein]

Step 1: Create arbitrary roadblock
Step 2: Charge consumer to overcome roadblock
Step 3: Profit

If they really gave a shit about the consumers experience, there wouldn't be a roadblock in the first place.

By the time folks get tired of that crap and refuse to buy it, there will be an new crop of folks ready to pay for it, it's not going away.

All we can do is put our money where our mouth is and support more honest companies.

I don't mind some DLC, but it really is on a case-by-case basis.

That said, I haven't bought an EA game in years.

 

[Achtius]

If it is anything like mass effect 3 mp, I dont mind too much (coop multi)

 

[web01]

Well I wont be buying any more EA games then, not that I was buying many now anyway.
Its like EA wants to run themselves into the ground. The casuals wont be around at the start of next gen ready to cough up money for their BS.

 

[AngryMoth]

I just pray that game reviewers start hammering them for this.

 

[PedroLumpy]

Well, you do have a point that to do it in "every" game might be over-saturating things to a point that it's pretty much just shoehorn a go-go. And that's why I said that there's no illusion here that this has the potential to very easily be perverted going forward.

I suppose I just hope that perversion doesn't become the case. If it remains as something so harmless as "Pay $1 to get a pack of 10 healing potions in Dragon Age III", then I really don't mind.

At any rate, thanks for actually talking the issue through with me. Appreciate it.

Consider that if the best you can hope for is that it 'remains harmless' then perhaps it's worth opposing anyway.If there's something that is likely to screw me, but there's an off chance it won't, I'm still not going to be happy about it.

By the time folks get tired of that crap and refuse to buy it, there will be an new crop of folks ready to pay for it, it's not going away.

All we can do is put our money where our mouth is and support more honest companies.

I don't mind some DLC, but it really is on a case-by-case basis.

That said, I haven't bought an EA game in years.

All I can do is hope, and stand on my tiny soapbox here.

I would technically consider DLC and microtransactions to be fairly different animals, but that's probably not worth getting into here.

 

[UnluckyKate]

pause / Skip cinematic dlc will be 10$
saving your progress will be 1$

 

[Deku Tree]

This is going to be great for online multiplayer.

People who buy micro-transaction upgrades will own all you !!!

 

[rvy]

I just pray that game reviewers start hammering them for this.

And lose their precious ad money? Crazy talk.

 

[Dead Man]

Well, you do have a point that to do it in "every" game might be over-saturating things to a point that it's pretty much just shoehorn a go-go. And that's why I said that there's no illusion here that this has the potential to very easily be perverted going forward.

I suppose I just hope that perversion doesn't become the case. If it remains as something so harmless as "Pay $1 to get a pack of 10 healing potions in Dragon Age III", then I really don't mind.

At any rate, thanks for actually talking the issue through with me. Appreciate it.

No worries, apologies for the shill comments, I just get het up when people defend this sort of rubbish double speak.

 

[patapuf]

just to play devils advocate:

if you look at game like ME 3, BF 3 or FIFA the microtransactions/DLC so far has not made the game worse for people that don't buy any of it.

 

[Kouriozan]

EA : $59 for a game isn't enough anymore.

 

[JB1981]

EA will never change will they?

They are making money hand over fist. Why wouldn't they do this if they can buy a vacation home in Florida and drive a Lambo?

 

[DragonSworne]

I didn't buy Dead Space 3 because of this.

Seems like I won't be buying EA games anymore in the near future unless I can buy them used at a micro price.

 

[Somnid]

Sports license exclusivity, online passes, always-online DRM, $70 games, blanket microtransactions in every game whether or not they are warranted, all this with yearly releases to games. Seriously, every goddam way in the book to monetize aside from making better games. I'm usually pretty lax on these things but the fact that EA is not even embarrassed by their shit-hole business practices means I can't in good faith buy another game from them. What a disgusting company.

 

[Moff]

nice, in the early days, cheatcodes were free

now they charge us to ruin our experience, great

 

[JCizzle]

This makes sense in a free to play game. Not a $70 game

 

[Abandond]

I still have not bought Kingdoms of Amalur because I dont want to give EA money.

I might just go and grab it used.