Go **** Yourself EA

richymcdermott

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/339863/ea-looking-at-game-subscription-models/

Well really its all the Cod kids/adults fault but since ea want to go this route aswell more will follow

:pac:

Somnus

Depressing really. It's just looking for more and more ways to squeeze gamers.

I miss the simple days when I got a game and played it months on end without onlin gameplay :P

Stev_o

Makes sense, the current way of producing and selling games these days with the expectation and standards set by gamers is just unsustainable. Id rather pay a monthly sub (albeit at a competitive price) for a game that receives a high dosage of content updates.

Antar Bolaeisk

If you don't like how they do business then don't buy the games. This is the reason I'm currently not playing Mass Effect 3.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

gamers are just too entitled. it's kind of a pain in the balls but the industry has to do something. if this happens and it brings them enough money that they feel secure, we might start seeing more big name brands branching out into "riskier" ip's instead of just brown corridor shooter #345288989746389274623432432

Venom

Stev_o wrote: »

Makes sense, the current way of producing and selling games these days with the expectation and standards set by gamers is just unsustainable. Id rather pay a monthly sub (albeit at a competitive price) for a game that receives a high dosage of content updates.

Sorry but that's complete rubbish.

Gamers have always expected high standards and have gotten amazing titles over the years from some fantastic development studios. Sadly most of those studios have been bough up by the likes of EA and its ilk and ruined, which in turn lead to games being produced to much lower standards.

You can see this in FPS games which used to take days to complete now being 6-8 hours max worth of gameplay or RPGs that have so much taken out of the format there nothing more than FPS game with some moddible equipment.

DLC which at one point was used to extend the life of a game months after its release is now nothing more than content cut from the original game to be sold on day one of the products release.

An industry which used to be innovative such as hosting servers for multiplayer content and to add value to the title is almost a thing of the past and all in the name of fleecing more money from the customer.

And the best part is after all the shady crap the industry giants have pulled that drives players away from there brand they now want to add a subscription fee to there games :rolleyes:.

Mr. K

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

instead of just brown corridor shooter #345288989746389274623432432

#345288989746389274623432432 was my favourite, vastly superior to #345288989746389274623432431.

It's an interesting idea; I'd expect a huge amount of amount of updates and extra content if I were paying a subscription fee.

It'd be a strange move though, especially since people are talking about the death of subscription MMOs. Maybe that reflects the falling interest in MMOs more than anything (aside from The Old Republic, but that's still new).

muppetkiller

To be fair I'd see no issue with a subscription service provided the game was worth the initial purchase and the promise of more maps. Activision lost alot of sales simply to their lazy effort on MW3. They could have tripled their subscribers if they just valued their customers in the first place. MW3 is rubbish, and even die hard MW fans have trouble defending that.

gizmo

Two things.

Firstly...

Speaking to VentureBeat, the exec hinted at the possibility of launching titles with a business model along the lines of Call of Duty Elite.

Sounds like it will be additional fluff which isn't directly required to play the game. On a similar note, Call Of Duty Elite now has approximately 7 million users with 1.5m of them paying $49.99 a year to subscribe to the service. With EA publishing CoD's biggest rival in BF3, they'd be crazy not to implement such a service. Of course it'll be interesting to see how they manage that with Battlelog already up and running but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Now, that other point. It's a little off topic but I think it's still relevant, especially given the tone of the thread. At GDC this past week, Chris Hecker, the guy behind Spy Party, vented somewhat over the perceived lack of originality in modern games. His target, however, wasn't specifically developers...

The core problem with players, he said, is that they buy, play, anticipate, and talk about the same games over and over again. He described visiting a thread at the website Quarter to Eight in which posters were talking about the Kickstarter funding opportunities granted to Double Fine's Tim Schafer and Ron Gilbert. The thread was asking what other games people would like to see funded in this way, and all of the games suggested, Hecker said, were sequels.

Sound familiar?

There is an imbalance in the press between the amount of attention granted to pre-release games and the amount of criticism they get after the fact, Hecker said. Citing frame-by-frame breakdowns of a Borderlands 2 trailer, he made the point that writers are granular about their previews, but their reviews don't mention many large flaws.

He held up a review of Call of Duty: Black Ops which listed "The Good" and "The Bad" about the game. The review contained a large number of "The Good" elements, while the only "The Bad" listed was "short campaign."

"The bad wasn't that you bought the same ****ing game six months previously?" Hecker asked. "I mean, what the ****!"

*cough*

Developers, who Hecker said he's been ranting at for years, are just "strip-mining the exact same plot of land deeper and deeper and deeper and deeper into the earth."

The common denominator in the three groups, Hecker said, is an "appetite for sameness."

"We have this appetite for the same thing, over and over again." We don't just tolerate sameness, we actively seek it out. Hecker said that he really doesn't understand what appears to be a fundamental truth to the art form that he's chosen to work in. It makes him feel like he's slightly insane, he said, which is not a fun thing.

Hecker proposed solutions for each of the three groups. Players: Request and purchase true variety. "Variety is not a turret mission in the middle of an FPS." You feed your body varied food to keep it healthy, and we should play varied games in much the same way. To the press: Provide context and hold players and developers accountable. "You're the conscience of our industry."

And developers? Developers have been mining the same ideas for years now. If the old saying "Developers make games they want to play" is true, "Can you please want to play more varied games?"

Personally, I look at it like this. Gamers will play what they want. Developers will (mostly) make what they're told. Publishers will make what will sell.

If you want to blame someone blame the people who lap these services up, who buy the next iteration of the same game every year, who holds off on buying games until the next big Steam sale, who only buys second hand games to save a couple of quid on each purchase, who decides some games aren't worth the money but still downloads them and plays them to completion and those who decide to whine to Valve about wanting Half Life 3 instead of emailing them urging them to release some sales figures to show how healthy the PC market really is.

Go **** Yourself EA? Go **** Yourself gamers.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Venom wrote: »

You can see this in FPS games which used to take days to complete now being 6-8 hours max worth of gameplay or RPGs that have so much taken out of the format there nothing more than FPS game with some moddible equipment.

im just gona ask this as ive been curious for a while

what mythical fps games are these?

you can blaze through quake 1 or quake 2 in a couple of hours.
duke nukem 3d is the same. blood, same. descent 1/2 .. maybe a little longer but only because you spent half the time trying to reorient yourself. doom 1 and 2, yeah. same. unreal.. i dont really remember but i dont think it was massively long either. wolfenstein?.. again dont remember but there is no way this game was a 20+ hours game. heretic, hexen?


only game I can think of is deus ex but it's not really fair to compare that to modern shooters in terms of length as it's "longer" than the other games ive mentioned too.

--edit

how did I forget ****ing half life.

Harps

Don't see the problem with it really, they're obviously a profit driven company and if there's a market willing to pay for the service then they'd be stupid not to take advantage.

If you're not happy with it then don't buy it, simple. The sense of entitlement and moaning with gamers is getting ridiculous of late

Magill

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im just gona ask this as ive been curious for a while

what mythical fps games are these?

you can blaze through quake 1 or quake 2 in a couple of hours.
duke nukem 3d is the same. blood, same. descent 1/2 .. maybe a little longer but only because you spent half the time trying to reorient yourself. doom 1 and 2, yeah. same. unreal.. i dont really remember but i dont think it was massively long either. wolfenstein?.. again dont remember but there is no way this game was a 20+ hours game. heretic, hexen?


only game I can think of is deus ex but it's not really fair to compare that to modern shooters in terms of length as it's "longer" than the other games ive mentioned too.

--edit

how did I forget ****ing half life.

Even HL only took about 8-12 hours depending on how good you are with a mouse ! (Some people can do it in a few hours if they just BHOP the whole way through it)


HL2 is a bit longer.. maybe 13-15hrs for me i think.

It is a bit of a myth that modern shooters are super short in comparsion to older generation ones. Systemshock 2 probably took me 12-14 hours i guess and goldeneye was about 7 or 8 hours aswel iirc.

Also... the new Dues Ex:HR is pretty lengthy.. especially if you do all the sidequests etc.

gizmo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

--edit

how did I forget ****ing half life.

Both can be cleared in about 8-10 hours depending on play style.

Venom wrote: »

You can see this in FPS games which used to take days to complete now being 6-8 hours max worth of gameplay or RPGs that have so much taken out of the format there nothing more than FPS game with some moddible equipment.

See the above comments. Now compare that to non-CoD/BF3 shooters released in the last year. Most clock in at around that, maybe a little under, yet despite many reviewing well and doing things a little differently in some cases, have failed to sell enough copies to, in many cases, even break even. At least we can wait a few weeks for them to drop in price or pick them up in nine months in a Steam sale!

Venom wrote: »

DLC which at one point was used to extend the life of a game months after its release is now nothing more than content cut from the original game to be sold on day one of the products release.

Just like that ME3 DLC content which was integral to the storyline? But turned out not to be. Which was finished and actually cut from the game? But wasn't. And which was even worse because it was on the disc? Which it isn't.

Maybe some gamers should stop thinking they're a producer?

Let me just throw one more figure out there. There are more people paying for Call Of Duty Elite (bearing in mind that's full game purchase and an additional $49.99 per year) than bought (to name but a few):

Demons Souls
Dark Souls
Rayman Origins
Limbo
Bayonetta
Vanquish
Beyond Good & Evil
Psychonauts
Ōkami

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Just like that ME3 DLC content which was integral to the storyline? But turned out not to be. Which was finished and actually cut from the game? But wasn't. And which was even worse because it was on the disc? Which it isn't.

Really? Because I was just talking to a friend just there that was telling me he and lots of other hacked the game to get the DLC and character costumes and all it took was changing a value in a file from 0 to 1?

gizmo wrote: »

Let me just throw one more figure out there. There are more people paying for Call Of Duty Elite (bearing in mind that's full game purchase and an additional $49.99 per year) than bought (to name but a few):

Demons Souls
Dark Souls
Rayman Origins
Limbo
Bayonetta
Vanquish
Beyond Good & Evil
Psychonauts
Ōkami

It's really not something to be happy about though.

calex71

This is fine by me I have a choice to opt in or out. It's already happening with season passes where companies throw any old crap at you to fulfil their season pass.

I pay my xbox live sub so I do not expect to have to pay to play online on top of that and the cost of a game. What I would take a major exception to is content being syphoned out of a game to be sold on after release and squeeze another 20 bucks out of me (this is already happening look at what ea wanted 10 quid for in the form of the ME3 dlc on launch day). I know they have issue regards pre owned games and their margins but subs would also effect gamers who buy new and is massively unfair.

Also take the Battlefield , FIFA's out of the equation, most other games online player base massively drops relatively fast after launch so they a simply not worth paying a sub for. If they had a sub for FIFA etc which they release nearly every year then the software should be free and then pay to play.

Potential-Monke

I think this will happen, but i won't be signing up to it unless it gets fantastic praise. I splashed and got the Elite MW3, and i have to say that so far it is completely worthless. Money down the drain, and it adds nothing to my game. I won't be renewing and it will stop me for taking a chance on anyone else doing a similar subscription service.

If it does get decent support and you actually get value for money then i would buy it. Otherwise, it can suck my balls.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Really? Because I was just talking to a friend just there that was telling me he and lots of other hacked the game to get the DLC and character costumes and all it took was changing a value in a file from 0 to 1?

Yep. Your friend was able to access the finished art assets, the character model, HUD elements and voice files. All of which would have been completed in the time between content complete and certification as Casey Hudson had said a couple of weeks ago. The remaining 600-odd megabyte download required would have been the mission/game files and additional supporting assets required for the characters mission.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's really not something to be happy about though.

My thoughts exactly.

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

Yep. Your friend was able to access the finished art assets, the character model, HUD elements and voice files. All of which would have been completed in the time between content complete and certification as Casey Hudson had said a couple of weeks ago. The remaining 600-odd megabyte download required would have been the mission/game files and additional supporting assets required for the characters mission.

Google it, there's tutorials online on how to do it. It's on the disk for the PC version for sure. I'll send the link in a PM since it's kind of a piracy grey... more so black area.

I'm not surprised, game developers lie all the time about influences and development to keep in a good light, the games media unfortunately will just release the press release as new verbatim so it's interesting to see them with egg on their face

As the warrior poet Flava Flav once said, don't believe the hype

Edit: ah I see only a portion of it is on the disc.

richymcdermott

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Google it, there's tutorials online on how to do it. It's on the disk for the PC version for sure. I'll send the link in a PM since it's kind of a piracy grey... more so black area.

I'm not surprised, game developers lie all the time about influences and development to keep in a good light, the games media unfortunately will just release the press release as new verbatim so it's interesting to see them with egg on their face

As the warrior poet Flava Flav once said, don't believe the hype

Edit: ah I see only a portion of it is on the disc.

which to me suggest they held back the finished content from the disk so they could sell it on as dlc .. as willy wonka once said its all there black and white clear as crystal :pac:

gizmo

richymcdermott wrote: »

which to me suggest they held back the finished content from the disk so they could sell it on as dlc .. as willy wonka once said its all there black and white clear as crystal :pac:

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Edit: ah I see only a portion of it is on the disc.

Speaking of egg on ones face... :pac:

deathrider

Kinda makes me glad I don't really get into the whole online multiplayer fiasco.

ShadowHearth

I love those who say: I have no problem with subscription bla bla bla.

Keep in mind this:

Cod elite made it and got away with it, now will go dice, then another big name etc. in near future any game you will pick up will be subscription based. I personally have a lot of games, but I jump between them. There is no way I could afford subing for even 4-5 of them that I play regularly.
They are trying out how thin ice is. They make it look that subscription will be only for additional content now. Then they will try out ice on full monthly sub for online. We all know how it works.
It's a shame that gamers lately are very similar to Irish, they just end over and take it in.

I haven't bough ME3, just because of their greed and then again I gave 8eu to free to play game tribes ascend. Not because I needed coins for weapons, but because I wanted support developer for a great game.
You will see, not mobile devices will destroy gaming industry, but greed of big boys like this ea fella. Soon gaming will be a sport for rich people, like golf...

super_furry

No real issue with this. I bought the Gears of War 3 season pass because, going on past experience, I'm going to pay for all the extra DLC and it not only represents a saving of paying for it all individually but there's usually some nice bonuses too. When it comes to something like GOW3 or COD Elite, it's clear that for the €40 layout you're extending the life of the game significantly. There's a year of content being delivered on a regular basis that for many people represents really good value for money.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Cod elite made it and got away with it, now will go dice, then another big name etc. in near future any game you will pick up will be subscription based. I personally have a lot of games, but I jump between them. There is no way I could afford subing for even 4-5 of them that I play regularly.
They are trying out how thin ice is. They make it look that subscription will be only for additional content now. Then they will try out ice on full monthly sub for online. We all know how it works.
It's a shame that gamers lately are very similar to Irish, they just end over and take it in.

This simply won't happen. As a poster above already said the reason it works for the likes of CoD is because it has a large and active userbase who will want all of the additional content and functionality such a service brings. Look at the XBox Live Activity charts for the end of February, note how all three of the last CoD games are still there. Hell, there are more people still playing Black Ops than Battlefield 3. The vast majority of other games simply don't have the staying power, nor the rabid fanbase, to warrant such a service. The exception may be the Fifa/Madden audience but you're already dealing with a demographic who are happy to pay for annual roster updates and gameplay tweaks rather than significant updates to the game.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I haven't bough ME3, just because of their greed and then again I gave 8eu to free to play game tribes ascend. Not because I needed coins for weapons, but because I wanted support developer for a great game.
You will see, not mobile devices will destroy gaming industry, but greed of big boys like this ea fella. Soon gaming will be a sport for rich people, like golf...

I can't understand this, what greed? It's already been seen that the DLC adds nothing really new to the story and it's been shown that it was neither completed by launch nor shipped on the disc. So what's the problem? How are they greedy? Sure it would have been nice if From Ashes had been a pre-order bonus like the Cerberus Network in ME2 but not including it isn't greed when 99% of other games on the market don't offer similar benefits.

Orim

I am gamer, hear me roar.

Gizmo is arguing the points I would make so I'll leave him at it. But I'll some figures as food for thought.

In 1995 on average a new game for a curent system cost ~£60. As above these were the same games we get today, some good, some bad and some ugly.

In 2010 based on inflation and the euro changeover those same games would cost somewhere between €115 and €150. Now I'm no economist but those figures should be accurate enough for a discussion point.

Now that doesn't take into account the massive increase in cost to developers and publishers needed to satisfy todays entitled gamers.

When you're paying 4 times what you need then it gives you a position to bitch. For me, I'm happy to pay cheaper prices, buy a bit of DLC and just keep waiting for games like in the list Gizmo posted.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

This simply won't happen. As a poster above already said the reason it works for the likes of CoD is because it has a large and active userbase who will want all of the additional content and functionality such a service brings. Look at the XBox Live Activity charts for the end of February, note how all three of the last CoD games are still there. Hell, there are more people still playing Black Ops than Battlefield 3. The vast majority of other games simply don't have the staying power, nor the rabid fanbase, to warrant such a service. The exception may be the Fifa/Madden audience but you're already dealing with a demographic who are happy to pay for annual roster updates and gameplay tweaks rather than significant updates to the game.


I can't understand this, what greed? It's already been seen that the DLC adds nothing really new to the story and it's been shown that it was neither completed by launch nor shipped on the disc. So what's the problem? How are they greedy? Sure it would have been nice if From Ashes had been a pre-order bonus like the Cerberus Network in ME2 but not including it isn't greed when 99% of other games on the market don't offer similar benefits.

Are you really so naive and believe what ea and bioware told you about that dlc?... I have no problem with dlc in general when it comes on launch day for users who buy new. They did bull**** there. Adds. Nothing to the story, but one of the most important I all mass effect lore character race is in that dlc... Deck it anyway, we are here not to discuss mass effect.

As for subscription. Let's see how will you like it when you will have o sub 5 games at the same time.

Plus with that sub you are forced in to buy all dlc. Maybe some of it is **** and I don't want to pay for it in advance?
Now it's harmless, but as we have seen before, there is no roof when it comes to publishers greed.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Are you really so naive and believe what ea and bioware told you about that dlc?... I have no problem with dlc in general when it comes on launch day for users who buy new. They did bull**** there. Adds. Nothing to the story, but one of the most important I all mass effect lore character race is in that dlc... Deck it anyway, we are here not to discuss mass effect.

Are you really so arrogant that you think you know better than the people who make the game? Numerous folk in Bioware have come out and explained how the development of the DLC worked. The content both on the disc and required for download verifies this. Other people in other studios have said the exact same thing for their games. Said content reflects that too. These are the facts, not just wild speculation from people who know nothing of how games are made.

Free DLC on launch day is not a right, it's something nice some developers and publishers give out. Other niceties include what CD Projekt are doing with The Witcher 2, releasing a pretty comprehensive patch for free to people who bought the original, what some developers do on Steam whereby you get a discount on the next game in the series if you own the previous ones and others who "upgrade" preorders to Limited Editions which may include either physical or downloadable content. All of these are great to see and in my case, I generally support these moves by buying the game. They are not, as I said before, a right so I'm not going to call a developer/publisher who doesn't do it greedy.

On a related note, I'll ask this question again since I still haven't gotten a satisfactory answer from anyone yet, especially given the huge amount of complaints about DLC: What game have you played which was made worse due to "missing" content which was later made available as DLC?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

As for subscription. Let's see how will you like it when you will have o sub 5 games at the same time.

You've basically just ignored every point I made. This sub system simply won't happen. Simple as that. If you want to debate, which I'm sure would be interesting, then please at least try and refute the points I made.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Plus with that sub you are forced in to buy all dlc. Maybe some of it is **** and I don't want to pay for it in advance?
Now it's harmless, but as we have seen before, there is no roof when it comes to publishers greed.

There's two different things being discussed here, sub services like CoD: Elite and Season Passes. The first one offers more than DLC for people who are "hardcore" fans, the latter is simply a bulk discount on DLC. Personally I would pay for neither, in the former case I have neither the time nor inclination to put that kind of effort into a game to justify it (nevermind not really agreeing with the content in the first place, if I want to see Jason Bateman in something I'll rewatch Arrested Development) and in the latter case I completely agree with you, why would I buy a Season Pass when I have no idea what the content is going to be? That being said there are people who these services appeal to, there's 1.5million in the case of CoD: Elite and countless who evidently buy enough DLC that they will fork out for the Passes. Why would developers and publishers choose not to accommodate these people?

Cuddlesworth

Orim wrote: »

I am gamer, hear me roar.

Gizmo is arguing the points I would make so I'll leave him at it. But I'll some figures as food for thought.

In 1995 on average a new game for a curent system cost ~£60. As above these were the same games we get today, some good, some bad and some ugly.

In 2010 based on inflation and the euro changeover those same games would cost somewhere between €115 and €150. Now I'm no economist but those figures should be accurate enough for a discussion point.

Now that doesn't take into account the massive increase in cost to developers and publishers needed to satisfy todays entitled gamers.

When you're paying 4 times what you need then it gives you a position to bitch. For me, I'm happy to pay cheaper prices, buy a bit of DLC and just keep waiting for games like in the list Gizmo posted.

Economics of scale. There is a much higher customer base now for triple A releases then there was.

super_furry

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

Economics of scale. There is a much higher customer base now for triple A releases then there was.

Maybe so, but the development costs and the money and staff it costs to make a triple A release are also much, much higher.

In relative terms, games have never been cheaper.

ShadowHearth

Sorry I can't qoute properly on mobile phone so I'll try to answer in paragraph ( I'll forget half of it lol )

I know not it's a subscription for additional statistic and bulk pay for upcoming dlc. Let's be honest, they cut out that statistic stuff and made in a subscription. Something like that should be included in a game already and I should not pay money for it again. As for downloadable content them I totally agree with you. Why should I pay for that content when I don't even know what will it be?! It's like you go and buy brand new merc and then salean takes subscription of you for a year too.
For what?
You know, new spoilers and wheels that we will make and give it for you.
What if I won't like that style of wheels and spoilers?
Well tough shiet lad, no choise, you have to take it or leave, but will keep the money!

Now I would really like for people to fudge of with " but games cost so much to make QQ ". It's bull**** argument and excuse to make these subscriptions and other crap that publishers and developers do.
Ging industry is like 100% of other industries in the world. You make investment in to your product. If its good, it will pay for investment and make profit. If its bad, then you will losse your investment, so make sure you make good product, not shiet. Companies who already made huge profits just dipping even more to screw their customer. That's all it is.

As for dlc who made game crap without it: fallout 3 and new Vegas. Ending was sold as dlc.

Dead space 2. Dlc that gives you all weapons and best armor from first shop for free. ( different side of the stock, but it still made game shiet )

Chairman Meow

After hearing that from ashes DLC for ME3 is day 1 DLC that apparently adds a vital character who provides tons of backstory and is quite important overall, ive decided not to buy ME3. Ive no problem with crappy day 1 DLC like costumes or even extra missions that are optional, but leaving out something thats apparently really quite a big deal just to scrounge and extra 6 euro out of the player? GET TAE ****

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Chairman Meow wrote: »

After hearing that from ashes DLC for ME3 is day 1 DLC that apparently adds a vital character who provides tons of backstory and is quite important overall, ive decided not to buy ME3. Ive no problem with crappy day 1 DLC like costumes or even extra missions that are optional, but leaving out something thats apparently really quite a big deal just to scrounge and extra 6 euro out of the player? GET TAE ****

very little of what you heard is true

Chairman Meow

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

very little of what you heard is true

Really, cause thats not what pretty much every other forum i visit had to say about that character. They said the dlc mission is small beans, but what the character adds overall to the game is fairly important.

ShadowHearth

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

very little of what you heard is true

You right " that money was just resting in my account " !!!

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I know not it's a subscription for additional statistic and bulk pay for upcoming dlc. Let's be honest, they cut out that statistic stuff and made in a subscription. Something like that should be included in a game already and I should not pay money for it again.

Well there's basics stats which should be included in games, say for instance the older Call Of Duty titles, and then there's stuff like heat maps for levels and other web-based visual feedback based on metrics in the game. I'd argue that these are a significant investment for a developer and could command an additional cost. On the other hand, when you're dealing with a game with such a hugely popular and important multiplayer fanbase, it would be a wortwhile investment in order to keep your title on top and as such, should be included for free. Of course, the paid version of Elite offers a bunch of other content too, official tournaments with prizes, more regular content in the form of MP maps and Spec Ops content and "Call Of Duty TV". As I said above, none of this content particuarly interests me and even if it did, I'd probably prefer to buy said content individually when it I want it. 1.5 million people seem to disagree me with me though.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

As for dlc who made game crap without it: fallout 3 and new Vegas. Ending was sold as dlc.

Aye, you mentioned that before. Only problem is a bunch of people disagreed with you and found the alternate endings from the DLC to be sub-par. So, who's right?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Dead space 2. Dlc that gives you all weapons and best armor from first shop for free. ( different side of the stock, but it still made game shiet )

I was actually going to use Dead Space as an example of an EA game where a subscription simply wouldn't work. What could they add for instance? More multiplayer maps? More skins? More weapons? Additional story-based animated movies?

But why would they bother? Dead Space 2 multiplayer wasn't exactly welcomed by fans of the franchise. The numbers playing it have dwindled to pretty much an insignificant number so there's no point in spending time working on additional content for that. And movies? Why would they not release them on DVD and Bluray when the two out so far have been extremely well received, both critically and commerically?

Chairman Meow wrote: »

After hearing that from ashes DLC for ME3 is day 1 DLC that apparently adds a vital character who provides tons of backstory and is quite important overall, ive decided not to buy ME3. Ive no problem with crappy day 1 DLC like costumes or even extra missions that are optional, but leaving out something thats apparently really quite a big deal just to scrounge and extra 6 euro out of the player? GET TAE ****

On this very thread last night we had people claiming the developers had lied, the content was all on the disc and wasn't it great that they had been found out. Of course, this completely ignored the fact that all of the content wasn't on the disc and what the developers had said about the development of the DLC was completely true. In fact, I'd wager that if you visited more forums even today, you'd still have plenty of people claiming all the content was finished in time and is all on the disc.

As for the significance of the DLC, the actual race of the character is quite central to the lore of the game, however if you had played the previous games in the series you'd know they really shouldn't exist and that its mere presence is more along the lines of fan service than anything of importance. That's also ignoring the fact that neither its mission nor presence in the game is vital in the slightest.

Retr0gamer

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Cod elite made it and got away with it, now will go dice, then another big name etc. in near future any game you will pick up will be subscription based. I personally have a lot of games, but I jump between them. There is no way I could afford subing for even 4-5 of them that I play regularly.
They are trying out how thin ice is. They make it look that subscription will be only for additional content now. Then they will try out ice on full monthly sub for online. We all know how it works.

Good point. Look how the last subscription based system worked with MMO's. It's all free to play now. I doubt this experiment will last.

super_furry

The model isn't subscription based though. In essence, you're paying for the DLC up front and getting a discount on it, which depending on your interest in the game, can represent good value.

ShadowHearth

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Good point. Look how the last subscription based system worked with MMO's. It's all free to play now. I doubt this experiment will last.

That's what I though too. Mmorpgs go free to play, there are even free to play games on ps3. Killzone 3 and that new dust game free to play. Tribes ascend, lol Fred to play. Hon then gone free to play BECOUSE of how well lol did.
There is some sort of battlefield going to be free to play to soon.

It's a new business model which works well. Then ea comes in and tries subscription like this!

Free to play has more benefits then just playing for free for some people. Keep in mind that People who play those games and never pay still gives alot of advantages to developer. Why? Well, because those people are filling in spaces and give paying customer players to play with somebody. Look at mmorpg who drop subs like anvil. So then paying customers who like game are left in empty worlds. They quit them too, because they feel like in desert. So they not just lost subs from people that don't want to play, but lost subs from people who like game, but can't experience content due to lack of people.

I am prety sure that a big part of people were turned to bf3, instead of mw3, just because of the cod elite alone. I really love how that big ea cheese says: that subscription will improve content... Bull fecking shiet. We all know that they just want more money. I have no problem to pay for dlc content that I like. I won't pay a full years sub for content, that I haven't even seen. Imagine paying a yearly sub for fallout new Vegas and find out that only 1 dlc out of all of them was decent ( old world blues ).

DarkJager

I wish developers would just get a heavy dose of amnesia and forget that this DLC **** ever got thought up. I absolutely despise it, not least for the fact that paying 60e for a game used to mean getting the full product. I'm getting to a stage where I will simply refuse to buy any title with this crap attached to it.

If that also means giving up gaming then so be it, because gaming as it is now with this obsession for online and DLC is a ****ing waste of money and time.

ShadowHearth

super_furry wrote: »

The model isn't subscription based though. In essence, you're paying for the DLC up front and getting a discount on it, which depending on your interest in the game, can represent good value.

Nope. They mixed in stuff which should be with the base game with dlc.

Let's be honest. More then 50% cod fan base haven't even tried single player campaing. They buy cod only for multiplayer. So such statistic thing like cod elite should be in base for such multiplayer focused game.

So if they will give statistic thing to all player and then sale dlc pack for a year, then it is something solid. Based on your faith and intrest in game you can take a gamble to pay for all dlc now. These things called season passes now? Gow and forza did those?

opinion guy

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im just gona ask this as ive been curious for a while

what mythical fps games are these?

you can blaze through quake 1 or quake 2 in a couple of hours.
duke nukem 3d is the same. blood, same. descent 1/2 .. maybe a little longer but only because you spent half the time trying to reorient yourself. doom 1 and 2, yeah. same. unreal.. i dont really remember but i dont think it was massively long either. wolfenstein?.. again dont remember but there is no way this game was a 20+ hours game. heretic, hexen?


only game I can think of is deus ex but it's not really fair to compare that to modern shooters in terms of length as it's "longer" than the other games ive mentioned too.

--edit

how did I forget ****ing half life.

You forgot Halo and Serious Sam - both of which are quite long if i recall.

Descent 1/2. LOVED that game for some reason

super_furry

I'm not sure if we're getting wires cross here but with COD Elite you get the stat-tracking for free - it's the maps and competitions that you pay for. You can still set up a COD Elite account free of charge and view all those stats.

This talk of a 'subscription' model is disengenuine and people seem to be thinking of a MMO type plan where you can only play the game if you pay a monthly fee. As far as I can tell what's up for discussion is the validity of DLC season passes, and that's what EA are talking about. As said before I don't see a problem with them at all.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I am prety sure that a big part of people were turned to bf3, instead of mw3, just because of the cod elite alone. I really love how that big ea cheese says: that subscription will improve content... Bull fecking shiet. We all know that they just want more money. I have no problem to pay for dlc content that I like. I won't pay a full years sub for content, that I haven't even seen. Imagine paying a yearly sub for fallout new Vegas and find out that only 1 dlc out of all of them was decent ( old world blues ).

You realise that CoD: Elite has a pretty large free component? The Premium sub, which is what costs money, only has the actual new content, access to tournaments with prizes and a bunch of videos based on the series and "tactical analysis". I don't really know why anyone would be turned away from the game because of this...unless they finally realised BF3 is the better game. :pac:

DarkJager wrote: »

I wish developers would just get a heavy dose of amnesia and forget that this DLC **** ever got thought up. I absolutely despise it, not least for the fact that paying 60e for a game used to mean getting the full product. I'm getting to a stage where I will simply refuse to buy any title with this crap attached to it.

Why would they when people keep buying it?

As for that other comment, I'm guessing you missed my question above. What was the last game you shelled out €60 on that, after finishing it, didn't feel like the full product?

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Nope. They mixed in stuff which should be with the base game with dlc.

Like what?

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

Well there's basics stats which should be included in games, say for instance the older Call Of Duty titles, and then there's stuff like heat maps for levels and other web-based visual feedback based on metrics in the game. I'd argue that these are a significant investment for a developer and could command an additional cost. On the other hand, when you're dealing with a game with such a hugely popular and important multiplayer fanbase, it would be a wortwhile investment in order to keep your title on top and as such, should be included for free. Of course, the paid version of Elite offers a bunch of other content too, official tournaments with prizes, more regular content in the form of MP maps and Spec Ops content and "Call Of Duty TV". As I said above, none of this content particuarly interests me and even if it did, I'd probably prefer to buy said content individually when it I want it. 1.5 million people seem to disagree me with me though.


Aye, you mentioned that before. Only problem is a bunch of people disagreed with you and found the alternate endings from the DLC to be sub-par. So, who's right?


I was actually going to use Dead Space as an example of an EA game where a subscription simply wouldn't work. What could they add for instance? More multiplayer maps? More skins? More weapons? Additional story-based animated movies?

But why would they bother? Dead Space 2 multiplayer wasn't exactly welcomed by fans of the franchise. The numbers playing it have dwindled to pretty much an insignificant number so there's no point in spending time working on additional content for that. And movies? Why would they not release them on DVD and Bluray when the two out so far have been extremely well received, both critically and commerically?


On this very thread last night we had people claiming the developers had lied, the content was all on the disc and wasn't it great that they had been found out. Of course, this completely ignored the fact that all of the content wasn't on the disc and what the developers had said about the development of the DLC was completely true. In fact, I'd wager that if you visited more forums even today, you'd still have plenty of people claiming all the content was finished in time and is all on the disc.

As for the significance of the DLC, the actual race of the character is quite central to the lore of the game, however if you had played the previous games in the series you'd know they really shouldn't exist and that its mere presence is more along the lines of fan service than anything of importance. That's also ignoring the fact that neither its mission nor presence in the game is vital in the slightest.

For a start the fact that the ME3 DLC character is on the disc but the DLC mission has to be downloaded just means EA learned from the crapfest that came out when the Bioshock 2 DLC was found out to be on the disc. There is no reason to have just the DLC character and sound files on the release disc at all.

Also while the DLC mission itself is tiny, the back ground that is covered in it plays a huge part towards the end of the story in that it gives pretty important information about the Reapers that otherwise comes totally out of the blue to players who didn't buy the DLC.

You even agree the DLC character shouldn't exist from a lore point of view yet you seem to believe every word as 100% truth from a company that would pull such a money grabbing stunt :rolleyes:

Venom

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

im just gona ask this as ive been curious for a while

what mythical fps games are these?

you can blaze through quake 1 or quake 2 in a couple of hours.
duke nukem 3d is the same. blood, same. descent 1/2 .. maybe a little longer but only because you spent half the time trying to reorient yourself. doom 1 and 2, yeah. same. unreal.. i dont really remember but i dont think it was massively long either. wolfenstein?.. again dont remember but there is no way this game was a 20+ hours game. heretic, hexen?


only game I can think of is deus ex but it's not really fair to compare that to modern shooters in terms of length as it's "longer" than the other games ive mentioned too.

--edit

how did I forget ****ing half life.

System shock 1+2
Unreal
Farcry 1+2
Doom 3
Quake 2
HL1+2
Crysis
Halo

All those games took me a few days to complete unlike the few hours that MW1+2+3, Rage and other newer FPS games seem to take.

DarkJager

gizmo wrote: »

DarkJager wrote: »

I wish developers would just get a heavy dose of amnesia and forget that this DLC **** ever got thought up. I absolutely despise it, not least for the fact that paying 60e for a game used to mean getting the full product. I'm getting to a stage where I will simply refuse to buy any title with this crap attached to it.

Why would they when people keep buying it?

As for that other comment, I'm guessing you missed my question above. What was the last game you shelled out €60 on that, after finishing it, didn't feel like the full product?

The problem is that people keep buying it. If people point blank refused to buy the half arsed add ons, you'd probably only ever see quality and worthwhile additions being churned out. As it is, people seem content to buy total crap like armor skins and things which have absolutely no right to have a fee attached.

As for the last game where I felt like it was 60e down the drain, that would be Saints Row 3. I finish an open world game and would like to now mess around with some cheats but shock horror - the cheats are a DLC pack that had to be bought. And that pretty much has guaranteed that I will never ever buy another Saints Row, and am seriously considering giving future THQ/Volition titles a miss.

Venom

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Good point. Look how the last subscription based system worked with MMO's. It's all free to play now. I doubt this experiment will last.

Its not all F2p. WoW is still the market leader and has a subscription fee even tho its lost a few million subs over the last year. GW2 is the only new big name MMO coming out that is B2P as The Secret World is both subscription + cash shop and I'v heard nothing regarding Tera.

The only MMO's that go F2P are really old ones EQ2 and LOTRO or the likes of AoC, Warhammer, CO, STO, DCU and Aion which all crashed and burned at release due to being for the most part utter crap.

gizmo

Venom wrote: »

For a start the fact that the ME3 DLC character is on the disc but the DLC mission has to be downloaded just mean EA learned from the crapfest that came out when the Bioshock 2 DLC was found out to be on the disc. There is no reason to have just the DLC character and sound files on the release disc at all.

Yes, there is. As has been explained by Bioware staff and a bunch of other devs over the last couple of years, towards the end of the development cycle, a stage known as "Content Complete" is hit. At this point all of the art assets for the final game should be in place and ready to ship. Awhile later "Code Complete" is hit which is the same for code. Finally you get to the Certification process where the final game goes off for platform holder testing and then after that, pending further bug fixes, pressing. In the case of Mass Effect 3, the character DLC would have been finalised between Content Complete and Certification, otherwise the artists would have been either twiddling their thumbs, moved onto another project or just sacked. There would also, of course, be code support of these characters, just like for the other ones in the game. This is why those files will be on the disc. The actual mission files and code support for them would have been added after this and wouldn't have made it in time for manufacturing.

As for the Bioshock 2 comment. Well again there's a perfectly reasonable technical explanation for this. When playing against someone online, you need to have the same content as them otherwise how would the player who doesn't have the content actually see it? The patching and content distribution process on the consoles is, as Tim Schafer pointed out recently, not only complex but expensive. He estimated it would cost DoubleFine about $40k to go through it. Bearing these two points in mind, as well as the fact that the additional costumes and characters for that DLC would probably have fallen into the same catagory as the ME3 stuff, it made perfect sense for the content to be on the disc.

Of course, the gaming media just went OMG THE CONTENT IS ON THE DISC, SOMEONE GRAB THE PITCHFORKS and gamers happily went along for the ride without actually sitting down and thinking about it.

Venom wrote: »

Also while the DLC mission itself is tiny, the back ground that is covered in it plays a huge part towards the end of the story in that it gives pretty important information about the Reapers that otherwise comes totally out of the blue to players who didn't buy the DLC.

While I haven't gotten that far yet, that is contrary to pretty much every user review I've seen thus far. The race is significant, his contribution to the game is not.

Venom wrote: »

You even agree the DLC character shouldn't exist from a lore point of view yet you seem to believe every word as 100% truth from a company that would pull such a money grabbing stunt :rolleyes:

For 27 years Superman was deemed the last survivor of Krypton too after, you know, the entire planet blew up. Then in 1959 Supergirl was created. Things change.

And I'm not believing every word from the company, they're just confirming what I already know about how the process works.

Venom wrote: »

System shock 1+2
Unreal
Farcry 1+2
Doom 3
Quake 2
HL1+2
Crysis
Halo

All those games took me a few days to complete unlike the few hours that MW1+2+3, Rage and other newer FPS games seem to take.

HL1 and 2 took you days to complete?

DarkJager wrote: »

As for the last game where I felt like it was 60e down the drain, that would be Saints Row 3. I finish an open world game and would like to now mess around with some cheats but shock horror - the cheats are a DLC pack that had to be bought. And that pretty much has guaranteed that I will never ever buy another Saints Row, and am seriously considering giving future THQ/Volition titles a miss.

You felt like it was €60 down the drain because the game didn't come with a fully featured cheat mode? Really?

On a series note, I can see a reason for that. A cheat mode in an open world game would be an utter nightmare to test for and ensure stability. The problem here is that the platform holders will not allow you to release a game or patch which crashes. When you start messing with a physics engine in a gmae like Saints Row and start having huge explosions, things can get messy. It wouldn't be a case of just toggling a few cheats, it would require some pretty rigorous control. Bearing this in mind, I can imagine a decent bit of time was spent getting this ready. Now, as I said above, a publisher/developer could charge for this. They have, after all, spent more time and money getting it ready however, as I said in a previous post, at some stage they should just suck it up and offer it to users as a thank you, perhaps those who bought the game new, as a thank you. So, are they being greedy? Not really. Are they giving customers that little extra? No. Solution: If you don't like being treated that way, don't buy the DLC. Tell your friends not to buy the DLC. And as you said, ask yourself whether you want to buy future games in the series.

EDIT: Oh yea, forgot about another point too. Do bear in mind that MS will not allow devs to release additional content on XBL for free. See the various Valve games released on consoles for more examples of this. This wouldn't apply to SR3 of course since they still charged £1.99 for it on Steam where no such restriction applies.

DarkJager

gizmo wrote: »

You felt like it was €60 down the drain because the game didn't come with a fully featured cheat mode? Really?

On a series note, I can see a reason for that. A cheat mode in an open world game would be an utter nightmare to test for and ensure stability. The problem here is that the platform holders will not allow you to release a game or patch which crashes. When you start messing with a physics engine in a gmae like Saints Row and start having huge explosions, things can get messy. It wouldn't be a case of just toggling a few cheats, it would require some pretty rigorous control. Bearing this in mind, I can imagine a decent bit of time was spent getting this ready. Now, as I said above, a publisher/developer could charge for this. They have, after all, spent more time and money getting it ready however, as I said in a previous post, at some stage they should just suck it up and offer it to users as a thank you, perhaps those who bought the game new, as a thank you. So, are they being greedy? Not really. Are they giving customers that little extra? No. Solution: If you don't like being treated that way, don't buy the DLC. Tell your friends not to buy the DLC. And as you said, ask yourself whether you want to buy future games in the series.

EDIT: Oh yea, forgot about another point too. Do bear in mind that MS will not allow devs to release additional content on XBL for free. See the various Valve games released on consoles for more examples of this. This wouldn't apply to SR3 of course since they still charged £1.99 for it on Steam where no such restriction applies.

GTA4 had cheats. So did Saints Row 1 & 2. Nothing but greed to blame for the fact they had a price tag in SR3. However, I'd estimate they have lost about €180-€240+ of future sales (depending on titles released which I'd have any interest in) from me alone. Now if there's many more people with a similar view to me, that's a pretty big ****ing mistake.

Venom

gizmo wrote: »

While I haven't gotten that far yet, that is contrary to pretty much every user review I've seen thus far. The race is significant, his contribution to the game is not.

1. Maybe YOU should play the game before YOU comment on what's true or not.

2. The DLC mission can be done right from the start of the game once you get control of the ship and can pick where you wish to go so again stop commenting on things you don't know about.

3. The DLC character tells you

that his people believed the Reapers are in fact being controlled by someone/something

which is a huge deal considering what the player learned in ME1+2.

gizmo

DarkJager wrote: »

GTA4 had cheats. So did Saints Row 1 & 2. Nothing but greed to blame for the fact they had a price tag in SR3. However, I'd estimate they have lost about €180-€240+ of future sales (depending on titles released which I'd have any interest in) from me alone. Now if there's many more people with a similar view to me, that's a pretty big ****ing mistake.

GTAIV had a development budget the size of a small countries GDP, it's not really a fair comparison. It is true that Saints Row 1 & 2 had cheats though, perhaps I wasn't clear, if they did purposefully cut the cheat mode then yes, it's pure greed but there are other factors to consider. Given the fact that the scale of the game was reduced over SR2, perhaps their budget was reduced? Maybe they were falling behind in development and couldn't afford to extend it anymore? It's not like THQ are exactly rolling in cash and since SR3 was one of their few big sellers during the year and they needed it out for the holidays, one of the above explanations is certainly plausible.

Venom wrote: »

1. Maybe YOU should play the game before YOU comment on what's true or not.

2. The DLC mission can be done right from the start of the game once you get control of the ship and can pick where you wish to go so again stop commenting on things you don't know about.

3. The DLC character tells you

that his people believed the Reapers are in fact being controlled by someone/something

which is a huge deal considering what the player learned in ME1+2.

Well a) I am playing the game and b) I specifically referred to the myriad of user reviews I'd read, not least a bunch of references to it on Boards, not my own opinion on it. If it turns out that it's significant then I'm quite sure you'll see my furious reply on the ME3 thread. In fact, if you look back you'll see an earlier post of mine where I was angry with it, then I read said reviews.