EA and Micro-Transactions

Mr E

How to do micro-transactions horribly:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review

Dear god.

Azza

Icyseanfitz wrote:

not yet its not, but if ea can get enough fools to pay €50 for a game and then spend another €20-€50 euro for unlock content they will, big publishers like ea and activision are there to make money and thats it,

problem is for everyone one of us rational thinking people that wouldnt touch this stuff with a 10 foot stick there's 20 others who will, dead space 3 was just a test to see how far they can push people, know that they know that a lot of people find this acceptable they will push harder on their next venture

This reminds of that movie Minority Report. Convictions before the crime is committed.

Kirby wrote:

Micro transactions are the bane of modern gaming. It's everything thats wrong with the industry wrapped up in a little bow. And whats worse, we have gamers defending the practice!

New content created for the game you love is good. People should pay for it. Old content that is created pre release and then artificially locked is bad. People should not pay for it.

I'll just link to a blog post I made a while back to address this point.
http://futuresedge.blogspot.ie/

Note the picture at the bottom. It's a pretty good representation of game developement.

taytothief

I blame this shít on people who buy DLC.

degrassinoel

taytothief wrote: »

I blame this shít on people who buy DLC.

DLC and microtransactions are completely different.

The way i see it, MT's are paying for items levels/maps and gear which are already encoded into the initial release of the game and may require multiple payments.
DLC is future content added after release to enhance the game with items levels/maps and gear and requires a once off payment.

taytothief

degrassinoel wrote: »

DLC and microtransactions are completely different.

The way i see it, MT's are paying for items levels/maps and gear which are already encoded into the initial release of the game and may require multiple payments.
DLC is future content added after release to enhance the game with items levels/maps and gear and requires a once off payment.

Oh yeah they're different all right, but I still think it stems from the general idea that's it's okay to pay a higher cumulative cost for what is essentially one game. That's just my opinion though, I know I'm in the minority about DLC.
With DLC such an accepted presence in gaming now, once it became acceptable, it was always only a matter of time before they tried some other way of getting more money. Add the fact that there is, now, DLC ready at release on titles and it's hardly surprising that we see micro transactions.
And after micro-transactions, there'll be something else. Maybe it will stop at micro transactions, but if enough people use it, then it won't, it will become the norm, and they'll try something else on top.

degrassinoel

It's funny you said that as i was just thinking about the old C&C expansions that were made and given freely by Westwood.

Where are they now? consumed by EA, the franchise trampled to an unholy C&C4 death only to be revitalised by a division of Bioware no less into a microtransaction free-to-play model.

And sadly.. i'm looking forward to it

I came to terms with paying for dlc when i became addicted to WoW almost a decade ago, I blame Blizzard for all of this.

Azza

Picture wasn't made up by me, but it does a good job showing how day 1 DLC development occurs. I've asked people in game and software development and they said this is an accurate view on the development process.

Kirby

I know you. I've had conversations with you, I've played multiplayer with you and because of this I know you are a smart guy. But the fact that you buy that tripe makes me sad.

There shouldn't BE any day 1 DLC. It's a financial decision taken by the publisher to assign development personel and assets during development to HAVE day one DLC in an effort to charge more. The same team that is working on the DLC should be part of the core team making the game. Segregating them is a choice. And it's a blatant one. "People will be willing to pay for this bit. This will be the part we cordon off and charge for". It's a decision made well in advance.

EA can do that if they so choose. It's their right and hey, they are making billions so obviously it's working. But plenty of publishers don't operate that way so they can pony up all the graphs they want, I'm not buying their bullsh*t. And thats what it is.

Just to be clear since the graph sites Mass effect 3's development cycle, I bought ME3 and bought the DLC, including day 1 Javik. I did it because i liked the game and I would do it again. But that doesn't change what it was. A money grab.

Icyseanfitz

Kirby wrote: »

I know you. I've had conversations with you, I've played multiplayer with you and because of this I know you are a smart guy. But the fact that you buy that tripe makes me sad.

There shouldn't BE any day 1 DLC. It's a financial decision taken by the publisher to assign development personel and assets during development to HAVE day one DLC in an effort to charge more. The same team that is working on the DLC should be part of the core team making the game. Segregating them is a choice. And it's a blatant one. "People will be willing to pay for this bit. This will be the part we cordon off and charge for". It's a decision made well in advance.

EA can do that if they so choose. It's their right and hey, they are making billions so obviously it's working. But plenty of publishers don't operate that way so they can pony up all the graphs they want, I'm not buying their bullsh*t. And thats what it is.

Just to be clear since the graph sites Mass effect 3's development cycle, I bought ME3 and bought the DLC, including day 1 Javik. I did it because i liked the game and I would do it again. But that doesn't change what it was. A money grab.

here here, and yeah javik was a fcuking joke, how can a god damn character as important as that be optional :rolleyes:

ShooterSF

Day1 DLC could work. Look at the complains that were made when Mass Effect 3 was coming out with an online multiplayer mode about dev team members being diverted away from the core single player game. If instead they made the online multiplayer into Day1 DLC that would cost extra and assign devs from outside the single player development to create it it could be win win. They get full price for the single player game and extra cash for multiplayer, players who are only interested in single player gaming get a story that wasn't affected by the devs having to dedicate time to multiplayer and don't have to shell out for said multiplayer and multiplayer fans get a better polished single and (possibly) multi player experience at an expected cost.

Grimebox

degrassinoel wrote: »

It's funny you said that as i was just thinking about the old C&C expansions that were made and given freely by Westwood.

Where are they now? consumed by EA, the franchise trampled to an unholy C&C4 death only to be revitalised by a division of Bioware no less into a microtransaction free-to-play model.

And sadly.. i'm looking forward to it

I came to terms with paying for dlc when i became addicted to WoW almost a decade ago, I blame Blizzard for all of this.

Which C&C expansions were these now?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, all the c&C expansions were paid releases

unless you mean the old c&c and RA originals that were released for free five million years after they had originally been released

ancapailldorcha

Oh Azza, everyone knows Bioware don't have a QC department.

Azza

Kirby wrote:

I know you. I've had conversations with you, I've played multiplayer with you and because of this I know you are a smart guy. But the fact that you buy that tripe makes me sad.

I buy it because thats the reality. What makes me sad is you can't reason with people at all. They make up their mind with zero evidence or make up their own version of reality. Its unfortantly your post thats tripe.

Icyseanfitz wrote:

here here, and yeah javik was a fcuking joke, how can a god damn character as important as that be optional

He was not essential nor was he his storyline plot essential.
To suggest otherwise is a joke.

ancapailldorcha wrote:

Oh Azza, everyone knows Bioware don't have a QC department.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 where very good 95% of Mass Effect 3 was excellent.
Dragon Age Origins was excellent.
All there games are generally stable and not really buggy.
Everyone makes bad games now and then. Doesn't mean they don't have a QC department.

Grimebox

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah, all the c&C expansions were paid releases

unless you mean the old c&c and RA originals that were released for free five million years after they had originally been released

The only exception I can think of was the playstation release of C&C where Covert Operations was accessible by typing in a password

degrassinoel

Grimebox wrote: »

Which C&C expansions were these now?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah, all the c&C expansions were paid releases

unless you mean the old c&c and RA originals that were released for free five million years after they had originally been released

maybe i'm wrong, thought all the original and ra had free expansions - then again, it's been over a decade and my young pirate side may be showing.
Which one had the ants?

Azza

Cliffy B has got my back on this one :P

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-01-amid-growing-anger-at-micro-transactions-cliffyb-calls-on-gamers-to-vote-with-their-wallets

Grimebox

degrassinoel wrote: »

maybe i'm wrong, thought all the original and ra had free expansions - then again, it's been over a decade and my young pirate side may be showing.
Which one had the ants?

That was Aftermath for Red Alert. I spent hours going through all the extra skirmish maps and eventually came across that one and had no idea what was going on, it genuinely scared me at the time. There was another one where civilians had crazy weapons, from hand held tesla coils to hand guns that fired nukes

Azza

Ah those where the days when Command and Conquer was the bomb. Westwood could do no wrong.

Then they made Renegade. Then the world died inside.

Gunmonkey

Azza wrote: »

Cliffy B has got my back on this one :P

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-01-amid-growing-anger-at-micro-transactions-cliffyb-calls-on-gamers-to-vote-with-their-wallets

Cant wait to see the nerd whinge-fest that stirs up since he mentioned Valve and the BS prices for microtransactions in their games. Already see people claiming its only "children" who are buying microtransaction items....yeah, it was kids using their parents CC's to buy €100 diamond rings in TF2 :rolleyes:

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

I know you. I've had conversations with you, I've played multiplayer with you and because of this I know you are a smart guy. But the fact that you buy that tripe makes me sad.

Azza has, thankfully, covered this in a reply but just to reiterate, that graph is representative of the development process. Whether you believe it or not is completely irrelevant, it's reality, plain and simple.

What should be pointed out is that, generally speaking, the DLC will be planned for and outlined at the same time as the retail content. As I've said in previous posts, developers/publishers will see what can be accomplished in X amount of time within a budget Y, they will then look at what additional content can be developed for the specific purposes of DLC. This additional content will be developed using additional money so this perception that content that would have otherwise been included in retail is being cut for DLC is quite simply, in the overwhelming majority of cases, incorrect.

Kirby wrote: »

There shouldn't BE any day 1 DLC. It's a financial decision taken by the publisher to assign development personel and assets during development to HAVE day one DLC in an effort to charge more. The same team that is working on the DLC should be part of the core team making the game. Segregating them is a choice. And it's a blatant one. "People will be willing to pay for this bit. This will be the part we cordon off and charge for". It's a decision made well in advance.

See above.

Again though, as I mentioned in the PS4 thread, what do people really expect though? Game development costs have risen rapidly in the last couple of years and aren't going to decrease anytime soon due to the massive cost involved in developing higher quality art assets. On the other hand, retail prices haven't increased, sales of games outside of the massive franchises (which, amusingly enough is what EA is trying to cultivate, for better or worse, with sequels such as Dead Space 3) remain fairly stagnant and the second hand market is now larger than ever. Something was always going to have to give for these bigger budget titles and this is what has.

On the other hand, not every game needs to have a massive budget attached to it and there are plenty which don't (and thankfully don't feature some of the much-maligned features of modern games) so there are always options for people. It's a bit like complaining about the latest Michael Bay blockbuster topping the box office and showing in the largest screens in cinemas while The Raid is getting rave reviews and being shown in only a handful of small screens around the country.

Personally, I don't particularly like the majority of DLC and I really dislike micro-transactions but then again, I also die a little inside when I see people claiming they'll wait till games like Metal Gear Revengence are down to £20 because it only has a six hour campaign or that Journey isn't really "worth" $15 because it's only three hours. Meanwhile the BLOPS2 Season Pass is going for £34.99 on Steam and is sitting at the top of the Top Sellers list.

Azza

Gunmonkey wrote:

Cant wait to see the nerd whinge-fest that stirs up since he mentioned Valve and the BS prices for microtransactions in their games. Already see people claiming its only "children" who are buying microtransaction items....yeah, it was kids using their parents CC's to buy €100 diamond rings in TF2

Reminds me of the $70 monocle in Eve Online.
If only they sold a space Bentley as well I would of bought it in a heart beat so I could cruise around in Eve looking down at all the commoners in there commoner like spaceships.....bah puny worker ants!

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

Azza has, thankfully, covered this in a reply but just to reiterate, that graph is representative of the development process. Whether you believe it or not is completely irrelevant, it's reality, plain and simple..

Oh I believe it. I just don't believe its necessary. It's a choice made out of greed.

The attitude of shrugging and saying "this is how things work now. What can you do?" is not one I share. Plenty of top end publishers don't operate like that. It's a fincancial choice, not a necessity. I find it incredible that people just accept the party line from EA that this is the only way they can do business and make games. It's rubbish. It's a system designed to maximise profit.

Apathy and acceptance of this kind of thing is what has allowed it to happen in recent years. Lot's of people bitch and moan about it and then buy the damned stuff anyway, myself included regarding ME3.

You think its fine, I don't. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Oh I believe it. I just don't believe its necessary. It's a choice made out of greed.

How can you look at that graph and say it's about greed? It's utterly ludicrous. Once the main game hits content complete that's it, there'll be some assets fixes submitted but outside of that there's nothing for designers and artists to do. Instead they move onto developing additional content for the game (if any exists) which will be under a different production schedule. The only other thing they could do (outside of being let go) is move onto work on a different title but generally speaking only a limited number of artists would be involved in that as it would be during the pre-production stage and mainly concept based.

Kirby wrote: »

The attitude of shrugging and saying "this is how things work now. What can you do?" is not one I share. Plenty of top end publishers don't operate like that. It's a fincancial choice, not a necessity. I find it incredible that people just accept the party line from EA that this is the only way they can do business and make games. It's rubbish. It's a system designed to maximise profit.

Couple of points here, neither Azza nor I are saying there's nothing you can do, on the contrary, there is. You buy the games you like and want to see more of and you don't buy the other ones. You don't wait till they go on sale for 75% off, rent them or pick them up second hand, you go out and you buy them. I'm constantly surprised at how many people are willing to point out that all publishers care about is money (which is true, they're a business) yet ignore the logical conclusion that the best way to voice your opinion is to vote with your wallet.

I can't think of any major top tier publisher who doesn't have an alternative revenue stream to support themselves and who doesn't offer DLC in some shape or form. I can think of a bunch of smaller ones that don't of course, but they also don't generally make games with budgets as big as many EA games which brings me back to my previous point.

Finally yes, EA try to maximise their profit all the way. They're a publicly traded company, to not do so would be in breach of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

Kirby

gizmo wrote: »

. You buy the games you like and want to see more of and you don't buy the other ones. You don't wait till they go on sale for 75% off, rent them or pick them up second hand, you go out and you buy them. I'm constantly surprised at how many people are willing to point out that all publishers care about is money (which is true, they're a business) yet ignore the logical conclusion that the best way to voice your opinion is to vote with your wallet.

I'm not one of those people. Far, far from it. My thoughts on second hand gaming are known at this point, I wont go into them again as there is another thread on here dealing with that topic.

gizmo wrote: »

. Finally yes, EA try to maximise their profit all the way. They're a publicly traded company, to not do so would be in breach of their fiduciary duty to their shareholders.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with that as I have already said. But it is hugely naive to believe this isn't the reason for day 1 DLC. It isn't some altruistic endeavor to keep people in jobs like that graph suggests and some people seem to swallow. It's profit based. Thats reality.

gizmo

Kirby wrote: »

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with that as I have already said. But it is hugely naive to believe this isn't the reason for day 1 DLC. It isn't some altruistic endeavor to keep people in jobs like that graph suggests and some people seem to swallow. It's profit based. Thats reality.

Of course it's profit based, even my reasoning boils down to it being profit based from EA's perspective. There is no point in having those content creators sitting around doing nothing when they could be creating more content for a game that's about to ship. This is only a problem if the content that they're creating has been cut from the main game to the detriment of the final retail product. As has been explained before though, this isn't the case in the vast majority of cases.

ancapailldorcha

Azza wrote: »

Mass Effect 1 and 2 where very good 95% of Mass Effect 3 was excellent.
Dragon Age Origins was excellent.
All there games are generally stable and not really buggy.
Everyone makes bad games now and then. Doesn't mean they don't have a QC department.

I can't comment on Origins but the Mass Effect trilogy are the most poorly constructed games I've ever played. I've had more problems with them than with all the other games I've ever played combined (except Bioshock 2). The original was fairly safe and the only problem I had was reloading a save on Virmire as the boss didn't appear. In fairness to Bioware they put an autosave point just before the fight but it's not good enough. With Mass Effect 2, it crashed randomly and had all sorts of bugs like Shepard walking in midair. Mass Effect 3 was quite stable in fairness but there was the odd bug like Shepard refusing to go down some ladders.
If only EA/Bioware would put half as much time making sure the things actually worked instead of coming up with creative ways to milk consumers.

Azza

I had a completely different experience to that on PC. Having played through Mass Effect twice, Mass Effect 2 once and Mass Effect 3 twice I had next to no problems. Maybe one or two crashes tops in total in well over 100 hours of play. A few minor bugs in 1 to do with guns not cooling from overheating and some minor texture bugs. Had no issues with character floating in mid air or anything of that nature. I've played many games in the last few year and this series would towards the top end of the ladder in terms of stability and lack of bugs.

As far as I'm aware Mass Effect series has quite a good reputation when it comes to stability and lack of bugs. I havent seen any posts or articles on website suggesting otherwise.

Perhaps you where just unlucky.

johnny_ultimate

Frankly EA would be idiotic to ignore a valuable revenue stream. You'd swear reading some arguments that a company should actively favour not making money. Clearly microtransactions and DLC are here to stay, and are proving profitable. Lucky, we as consumers and players have the option to simply not pay for it - works damn well for me, I have to say.

As long as the game isn't rendered 'lesser' by the availability of paid content, its fine. I once had an objection to the likes of 'paid shortcuts', but TBH in single-player games that are perfectly playable without resorting to that then surely the time-strapped, money-happy player should be allowed do what they want? Also have no problem with the likes of paid costumes or alternate skins - effectively useless content, but in practice aesthetic remixes are something people still feel are worth something (a lot of FTP games basically live off that market). Again, my game doesn't suffer at all without 'em. I would like to see more elegant implementation of DLC, though. When playing NFS: Most Wanted I got into a car seemingly just sitting there to be driven but was informed that it was paid DLC, which was annoying. Similarly, Sleeping Dogs seemed to be pushing DLC at every menu or loading screen - again, distracting, and breaking my connection with the game. Once or twice is enough.

I've only paid for day one DLC once - the Black Label mode of DoDonpachi Resurrection. This was due to publisher Rising Star's (a tiny company) contractual obligation to developer Cave (probably the smallest, most niche console developer still knocking around). Would have been nice to have the content on disc, but at the same time I was happy to further support both small companies as it was reasonably priced for a healthy amount of extra content for a budget retail release. As gizmo said above, sometimes the games we really like can justify the extra small investment.

DLC and microtransactions are both children of a digital age - it was not really possible to utilise that revenue stream prior to the current gen consoles (PC yeah, but that was a whole different market dynamic). It's a double-edged sword - it can provide both meaningful extensions and superfluous luxuries. As consumers who are, I'd like to think, not unthinking robots, we have the ability to pick and choose what we want. As long as it doesn't negatively impact upon our games - just look at those FTP games that are basically unwinnable without heavy financial investment - then there's really no reason for shock and outrage. If and when full-priced retail releases are crippled by further paywalls - significant missing features, impeded progress - than we can justifiably get annoyed.

Grimebox

On the flip side, I have put ~100 hours into Tribes:Ascend (F2P with microtransactions) and haven't paid a penny