Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 8,778
Yeah, you'd think they were a profit making organisation, or something...
Microtransactions make money. Companies exist to make money.
Wow!!! really?
EA to include microtransactions in ALL future games.
- Thread starter Name
- Start date
Wow!!! really?
Yeah, you'd think they were a profit making organisation, or something...
Microtransactions make money. Companies exist to make money.
Lololol ok then, let's get milked dry by the corperate giants until half our games missing out of the box and your getting destryoed in mp by some rich kid who can afford all the added pay to win extras.
Your point of view is a dangerous one to have as a consumer.
Yeah, you'd think they were a profit making organisation, or something...
Microtransactions make money. Companies exist to make money.
By that same logic its OK there horse meat in your lasagne, because the company that made it exists to make money, and its making more when your eating a prized filly then a cow..
That's an old and tired argument.
Coding from the ground up to screw customers is beyond unethical.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2009
- Posts
- 9,952
Yeah, you'd think they were a profit making organisation, or something...
Microtransactions make money. Companies exist to make money.
That's why I make games. To make money.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,527
- Location
- Surrey
They're not screwing customers. You don't have to play their games.
If SWTOR's F2P model is any indication of every future EA title then I'm definitely going to boycott their games if I can at all help it.
It's one thing have purchasable unlocks, but having it rammed down your throat whilst you are trying to play 'normally' really irks me as a traditional gamer.
It's one thing have purchasable unlocks, but having it rammed down your throat whilst you are trying to play 'normally' really irks me as a traditional gamer.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Jun 2011
- Posts
- 1,448
Lying about the type of meat in a product is not the same as using a different business model. That's a poor comparison.
and incidentally, if this sales model screws the customer, as you put it, then those customers can and should vote with their wallets - we're talking about luxury entertainment products, not basic necessities like food. These companies don't have you over a barrel.
If they make games this way and continue to make money then someone is obviously buying these products. As a shareholder owned business, it makes perfect sense to keep making them. In terms of quality of product I agree that makes them worse, less value-for-money items and as such I won't be buying them (Sim Citv V being a case-in-point, if it had been a remake/update in the spirit of SC2k I would most likely have bought it on release at full or nearly full price (~£35-40). As a microtransaction packed sack of arse I'm doubltess going to wait for a LOT of reviews to be out before I even consider it.)
I didn't buy Diablo 3 because it was pay-to-win on the RMAH. I tried the demo and liked the gameplay enough, but with a massively inflated initial pricetag and PTW addons, I gave it a miss. Instead I played Path of Exile beta, and enjoyed the game and the ethical microtransactions (no pay to win, only for customisation/convenience, and importantly that's 'added convenience' not 'remove deliberately inserted inconveniences') and have therefore spent ~£35 on microtransactions in that game and consider it to have been worth the money.
As gamers, we have options and we have the power to decide which pricing/purchase models to endorse. If we keep buying the churned-out EA sports 2013 edition pay-to-win ********, then they'll keep making it and I can't say I blame them. If I was an icecream seller who found out people were willing to pay me £5 a go to lick my arse, I'd have a big pile of cash and a very clean bum.
That's why EA's parent corporation/financial backers bought an enetertainment company. So other people could have fun.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4,840
depends on whats available to buy. if its just fluff like skins or banners etc etc i dont mind it as i dont buy them anyways. but if its extra guns or access to vehicles in battlefield games or something like that.
boosters for XP gains are borderline for me, its something i dont want but i can see it being beneficial to a lot of people who cant play for hours (or just dont like grinds!)
boosters for XP gains are borderline for me, its something i dont want but i can see it being beneficial to a lot of people who cant play for hours (or just dont like grinds!)
Just because I'm not a paying customer doesn't forgo me the right to criticise there clearly unethical actions towrads the more unknowing consumer, like my 12 year old brother who doesn't really know any better and racks up Fifa transactions like you wouldn't believe.
Casuals will be all over it.
Core gamers will be like a bunch of lost travellers with the Indies being our saviour.
Core gamers cost too much to maintain, they are a like a WAG... high maintenance.
Those "gamers" who are saying "they exist to make a profit, they can do as they want", I can only summise you do not give a **** your hobby.
Core gamers will be like a bunch of lost travellers with the Indies being our saviour.
Core gamers cost too much to maintain, they are a like a WAG... high maintenance.
Those "gamers" who are saying "they exist to make a profit, they can do as they want", I can only summise you do not give a **** your hobby.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,527
- Location
- Surrey
He could have spent all that money on games, should game shops be classed as unethical then?
Gay but EA have a point. Loads of causal gamers are more than willing to pay to cheat.
Publishers can cater for these fickle people, ill move to kickstarter and independent.
Just look at what's out there either made like minecraft/kernel space program, or games that will be out in ~12months from kickstarter.
Publishers can cater for these fickle people, ill move to kickstarter and independent.
Just look at what's out there either made like minecraft/kernel space program, or games that will be out in ~12months from kickstarter.
My example stands, because at the end of the day it becomes a race to the bottom. Which coincidentally is how the whole lasagne thing occurred.
Apple are currently being ordered to pay out rather large sums because kids kept purchasing 'apps in apps' which I imagine is a similar model to what EA are looking to implement.
The clear line between illegal and legal isn't that clearwhen your trying to hammer your customers.
Apple are currently being ordered to pay out rather large sums because kids kept purchasing 'apps in apps' which I imagine is a similar model to what EA are looking to implement.
The clear line between illegal and legal isn't that clearwhen your trying to hammer your customers.
Well I'm going to have to closely look into the microtransaction reviews before going anywhere near next months Tiger Woods game. If I need to pay money to level up my golfer like the ipad game I'm basically going back to Everybodys Golf world Tour which was £7.99 with all the extras unlocked from the get-go in a sale and the characters get more powerful up-to a sensible limit depending on how well you play.
Tigerwoods Online has been like that since day ONE.
http://tigerwoodsonline.ea.com
It is free to play though, so over the year, I can throw £30 at it and do not feel cheated.
Would be different if I was paying £30 for the game too.
This isn't an issue with the model, it's an issue with parental controls and verification.
What is the big deal? Microtransactions did not effect Dead Space 3 at all, all it did was let lazy gamers buy items. Wow. When they start to make it p2w or when they make the game impossible to beat or boring without using microtransactions is a good time to moan, otherwise why care? 