News - EA will build microtransactions into all its games

[crossy]

I think it's a good model, as long as customers are not stupid. If you're not stupid then it's only to your advantage.

I'm going to disagree - since we all know that the avaricious publishers (and yes, I do realise that these are _businesses_ and so have to make a profit) will start with "frills and fancies" and swiftly move it onto the "bread and butter" stuff.

I'm kind of lucky in that most DLC these days seems to be targetted around multiplayer. I don't really get into that so I'm not even remotely tempted. Likewise, all those "premium" packs for FPS don't appeal.

Maybe Hexus could make this question of the week - unless folks figure that we've already said all that needs to be. Some kind of poll could be interesting though - although I suspect it'll come out as very "anti" this practice.

[kalniel]

It will, because most people don't seem to realise that these are professionals - to pay someone to work full time on a game rather than it being a hobby or a govt. sponsored project you need to allow them to make a profit. In a free, luxury, market, there is no compulsion for people to play these games. If you don't think you're getting good value then just don't play it.

The only time it would become an issue would be if people start being stupid and using it to try and excuse piracy, which will only push publishers to the fremium model that works so well in other markets with high piracy rates.

[directhex]

There's an entirely different value proposition between:

• £50 game
• £0 game with microtransactions (e.g. most MMOs these days)
• £50 game with microtransactions

In the case of a £50 game, I already paid my dues to the publisher. They don't get to double-dip me - otherwise my question is going to be "why is LOTRO £0, and some EA game £50, if I need to keep paying money for success in both?"

[kalniel]

There's an entirely different value proposition between:

• £50 game
• £0 game with microtransactions (e.g. most MMOs these days)
• £50 game with microtransactions

In the case of a £50 game, I already paid my dues to the publisher. They don't get to double-dip me - otherwise my question is going to be "why is LOTRO £0, and some EA game £50, if I need to keep paying money for success in both?"

Why do you get to universally set what prices we should all pay? There should be a range of prices and we should all have the individual choice whether we think a game is value for money or not.

One of the great things about kickstarter was that it enabled people to pay what they thought it was worth for a game they were passionate about, and many people pledge way more than £50 for a game.

Base game + DLC is another way of doing that - if I think a game is worth £50 on it's own (hello Strike Commander, back in 1993..) then I'll pay it. If I think additional content is worth extra then I'll pay that too. Or if I don't, I won't. No-one is forcing me to play a game I won't enjoy.

[Saracen]

It will, because most people don't seem to realise that these are professionals - to pay someone to work full time on a game rather than it being a hobby or a govt. sponsored project you need to allow them to make a profit. In a free, luxury, market, there is no compulsion for people to play these games. If you don't think you're getting good value then just don't play it.

The only time it would become an issue would be if people start being stupid and using it to try and excuse piracy, which will only push publishers to the fremium model that works so well in other markets with high piracy rates.

No, that's not the only time it's an issue. It's also an issue if you're starting into a game not knowing what it's going to end up costing you, either in time or money.

If you buy a game at a fixed price, for argument's sake, £40, you know whay the cost will be. So all you have to do is decide if it's worth that to you.

But with this model, you're buying a pig in a poke. You don't know what it's going to end up costing you. If I start a game, I like to finish it, and it's very frustrating to quit part-way. But with this model, I've no idea what it's going to cost.

That's not my only objection to it, but it's enough for me.

As for people not realising it's not government sponsored and that they have to make a profit, that's daft. Of course people realise that.

But consider the film industry. They make a huge investment, and hope they can make enough from sales to make a profit. In fact, that's how most businesses work. Drug companies spend vast amounts, paying labs full of people, and hope, years later, to make vast amounts from the drugs that make it to sale. Or if you have an idea for a product, ir's going to cost you thousands, probably tens of thousands, for development, prototypes, packaging, marketing and promotions, before you make a penny.

It's why investment is risky, and it's what the vast majority of businesses, from one man bands to multinationals do, all seeking to make a profit with no guarantee that they will.

Make no mistake, I'm not saying EA can't do this. If this is how they want to go, that's their call. But they WILL alienate a lot if users, including me, if they do, and I've bought a lot of EA games over the years. I will not be buying any more under this model.

So the issue is how much they can increase revenue from the customers they still have? How many people don't care, or don't care enough to stop buying EA games? I guess only time will tell. But they've clearly made the calculation that they can afford to lose those that won't accept it. Okay, so be it. It's their right to make that decision. But any company deciding to alienate a chunk of it's userbase does so at it's own risk, because alienating is easy, getting them back far harder. But it's their call to make.

[shaithis]

Why do you get to universally set what prices we should all pay? There should be a range of prices and we should all have the individual choice whether we think a game is value for money or not.

In theory thats great.

In practice it's a joke because you hardly ever know "up front" what the total cost will be and/or what you will/may need to purchase later.

[Biscuit]

Why do you get to universally set what prices we should all pay? There should be a range of prices and we should all have the individual choice whether we think a game is value for money or not.

One of the great things about kickstarter was that it enabled people to pay what they thought it was worth for a game they were passionate about, and many people pledge way more than £50 for a game.

Base game + DLC is another way of doing that - if I think a game is worth £50 on it's own (hello Strike Commander, back in 1993..) then I'll pay it. If I think additional content is worth extra then I'll pay that too. Or if I don't, I won't. No-one is forcing me to play a game I won't enjoy.

I know what you're saying and i agree. In an ideal world that's fine but the world EA seems to be trying to forge is far from ideal. The fear here is that the line which is drawn between what you should expect from a £50 game and what should be made available by further purchases. This has the stinky feeling that all games will take the route of getting customers to pay for the base game but then being required to make further micro purchases if you actually want to be able to complete it or progress past a certain point. They will be sneaky about it aswell, it wont be 'buy to progress' it will be, 'struggling with this level? Buy the uber suit to help you complete'.... if you know what i mean.

At the end of the day they can do whatever they want and in theory, we should vote with our wallets for them to respond. In reality the public is too stupid for that and they will pre-order, micropurchase and DLC purchase regardless of how expensive it is.

[Saracen]

In theory thats great.

In practice it's a joke because you hardly ever know "up front" what the total cost will be and/or what you will/may need to purchase later.

Exactly. And I won't do that. But it may be that most will.

[kalniel]

In theory thats great.

In practice it's a joke because you hardly ever know "up front" what the total cost will be and/or what you will/may need to purchase later.

Isn't that an argument for bringing back the old fashioned magazine game review? £50 is not an insignificant amount of money to a lot of people for a luxury, the least you could do is research what you're getting for it before buying it.

[Sumarongi]

Another vicious and dangerous approach that is happening with micro-transactions is the trend to make them gambling oriented - i.e. pay for the CHANCE to get an in-game item that is unobtainable from any other source. This is unregulated online gambling that is available for children, and I have seen it eat literally thousands of dollars from young adults with a gambling weakness. Someone needs to look into this - it seems like there must be something illegal here.

Overall, FTP has already destroyed the MMORPG world, and is coming for the rest of us. Please resist with your wallet or PC gaming will become an upper class pursuit only. If a publisher can get 10% of the market base to pay many times the price using these tactics they will quickly no longer care if the price is out of range for the average person.

[Mama Sumae]

How about companies that rebalance or "fix bugs" actively changing/damaging the performance of items they have sold for real money, can you imagine any other industry where that would be acceptable?

Lets face it many of these companies pray on the age, ignorance and poor legal protection given to their customers in these matters, ultimately we are all responsible for our decisions and where we spend our money but that doesn't excuse every practice.

[kalniel]

I guess buyer beware if you are buying an item to gain a performance advantage. But yes that happens in other industries plenty of times, as long as it's clear up front that the item/performance/whatever is subject to change then you should be covered.

[crossy]

Isn't that an argument for bringing back the old fashioned magazine game review? £50 is not an insignificant amount of money to a lot of people for a luxury, the least you could do is research what you're getting for it before buying it.

Couldn't agree more - remember checking out a potential purchase in C&VG, PC World (rip) and later on PC Pro and Custom PC. The problem these days is that while the indy stuff gets treated fairly, (i.e. the good praised, and the bad condemned), the headline titles seem to get a "free pass" in that a game has to be absolutely dire for it to get even reasonable criticism.
The situation outlined in the video in Novaxyl's post (#29) is a case in point. Alien: Colonial Marines I remember being hyped to the hilt by the Official XBox Magazine, then when the game actually launched it got a rousing 6/10. So - as is in the video - if you'd gone on the previews then you would have been pretty hacked off.

I'm cynical enough to think that the big publishers will "lean" on the games magazines to make sure that their titles - especially the ones that are big name franchises - will always get the benefit of the doubt.

[kalniel]

Sure, but where there's a publication willing to be leaned on, there will be many more blogs run by gaming enthusiasts that are less liable, somewhere like rock paper shotgun for example.

[Saracen]

....

I'm cynical enough to think that the big publishers will "lean" on the games magazines to make sure that their titles - especially the ones that are big name franchises - will always get the benefit of the doubt.

I can't speak for games mags, having not worked for them, but after 20 years and thousands of articles for mainstream computer press, I can say that despite that same suggestion commonly being made, not once was I ever leant on for a good review (or offered inducements for one), and nor did any magazine ever chance the thrust of my reviews. Occassional sub-editing, yes, but nothing thst changed, for better or worse, the tone, thrust or conclusion.

Obviously, that's just my experience and cannot be extrapolated to guarantee it never happened elsewhere, but it never happened to me. And some of those providing stuff for review were certainly large, including MS, IBM, Dell, HP and many more. But no editorial pressure was ever exerted, and not once in those 20+ years did I ever exchange a singke word with the advertising department. I don't even know who they are.

Also, as a freelancer, if I had received pressure, I would have rejected it forcefully, and if it persisted, would have simply stopped working for that publication.

I understand the temptation to be cynical, but I can only relate my experience, and that's with PC magazines, photo press, technical and trade press, some websites (not HEXUS, I've never worked for them) and even some national newspapers, and the odd article for foreign mags.


Edit - I did once get threatened with legal action over a bad review. The editor and a lawyer had a chat with me about the extent and nature of my tests, extent of record-keeping, and whether, in hindsight and with the benefit of time, I thought the review fair and balanced. My tests were thorough, I had kept all my notes and I stood by every negative point. The mag told the company that if they wanted to sue, that was their right, but we stood by our comments. I never heard any more.

Edit 2 -thinking about it, and in the interests of full disclosure, I have written some game reviews, but not for many years, and only ever a handful, maybe a dozen or two. Some were probably EA games, too. And, for mainstream PC press, not games mags, which I don't think I ever worked for, from memory.

[Saracen]

Sure, but where there's a publication willing to be leaned on, there will be many more blogs run by gaming enthusiasts that are less liable, somewhere like rock paper shotgun for example.

And that's why, or at least, one reason why I would refuse to be leant on. As a freelancer, my reputation is critical. If you start putting out reviews that conflict with the general thrust, it's not going to be long before commussioning editors notice, word would spread and I'd be looking for a new career. Apart from it being just wrong, it's also simply not worth it.