EA and Micro-Transactions

Gunmonkey

Grimebox wrote: »

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

And so.....that begs the question...what incentive is there for a company to make a F2P game where someone can not pay them a penny and still get hundreds of hours of playtime out of it?

johnny_ultimate

Gunmonkey wrote: »

And so.....that begs the question...what incentive is there for a company to make a F2P game where someone can not pay them a penny and still get hundreds of hours of playtime out of it?

The market is built around the concept that the paying players will effectively subsidise the whole production. The paying segment of the playerbase is probably by-and-large a minority. And yet the success of many F2P games illustrates that this business model, no matter how non-traditional, actually works - perhaps ultimately wielding greater profits than a traditional retail approach would. Best case scenario, even pretty 'OK' case scenario? Everyone wins.

Star Lord

When DLC/Micro transactions are done right, they can be great.
I think a pretty good example of this was Burnout Paradise (incidentally, where dynamic ad space was also introduced, and while noticable, was used somewhat naturally within the game)

They offered "packs" of unlocks for the various cars within the game, so you could buy the cars and drive them, without having to do the grinding through all the races and events to unlock them. I didn't buy any of those.

They also had some free DLC content, that added lots of functionality to the game, such as the option to change the time of day and the ability to race motorbikes. Followed by paid DLC that added additional areas to race in and extra cars. They also had paid DLC in the form of "Legendary" cars, where they had a bunch of cars done to resemble famous vehicles, such as the DeLorean (from Back To The Future) and Ecto 1 (from Ghostbusters), and two others. I bought the two cars I listed, and ignored the other two, as I did want to race those around Paradise City.

Up to the DLC being added in, the micro-transactions were optional, as you could otherwise unlock and use all of the vehicles, should you desire, and have the money to do so. I don't think this detracted from the game in any way, and the free DLC combined with the addition of some paid vehicles really added to the game and gave the feeling that Criterion put a lot of work into the game, and wanted the users to love it!

Grimebox

Gunmonkey wrote: »

And so.....that begs the question...what incentive is there for a company to make a F2P game where someone can not pay them a penny and still get hundreds of hours of playtime out of it?

Hopefully no incentive. I am telling them what I think of this business model with my wallet. It does bother me though that people have put hard work into a fantastic game and I am essentially robbing them. I will buy the GOYTE edition soon, it unlocks everything for around €35.

TF2 proved that this works very well: http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/16968/team-fortress-2-going-free-to-play-earned-12-times-more-revenue

Ironically I happened to stop playing around the time it went F2P. The game was ruined to an extent

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

dlc/microtransactions aren't bad in the same sense that chest high walls and cover mechanics aren't bad, but they will be abused mercilessly and games will suffer for it.

there is just no way that microtransactions are not the future. nothing to be done except learn to deal with it.

Mr Freeze

Well Dead Space 4 has been cancelled anyways.

Source: X360A

Despite being in the early stages of development, Dead Space 4 has been cancelled following the disappointing sales of Dead Space 3.

That’s according to a report published this morning, citing an anonymous source close to the unannounced project. Should it be true the revelation casts doubt over the future of the once-promising action horror series.

The source claims that Dead Space 4 was in production at developer Visceral Games, with a small team working on prototypes and potential narratives for the game.

However, following the failure of Dead Space 3 to live up to EA’s expectations, the publisher visited the studio last month to inform the team that work should stop.

In addition to this the source also provided some insight into the development of Dead Space 3 and none of it reflects well on EA.

Apparently the game endured several budget cuts and at one point was almost cancelled. What’s more the publisher is said to have ordered Visceral to change to ammo system in the game to allow for a microtransaction implementation.

Dead Space 3’s microtransactions would go on to cause quite a stir, generating ill-will for the title before it was even released.

The source claims that Dead Space 3 was to feature a weapon-specific ammo system, but it made a potential microtransaction system cumbersome, so generic ammo was introduced instead.

During development and post-release much of the discussion around Dead Space 3 centered on the game’s continuing shift towards all-out action and away from the series’ creepy horror.

According to the source this was a publisher-led decision, as EA wanted the game to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. The studio was reportedly told to make Dead Space 3 feel more like Mass Effect.

Unfortunately for both EA and Visceral, Dead Space 3’s shift wasn’t enough to secure the future of the series. Launched last month first week sales were down 26.6 per cent on those of Dead Space 2.

It has slid pretty quickly down the UK charts too, suggesting that sales are dropping pretty sharply.

EA has yet to comment.

I am not insinuating that the game did poorly due to the so called ill will due to the inclusion of microtransactions. We will need to wait and see how future games with EA microtransactions fair out, but I thought it was worth mentioning in the thread. (definitely not trying to ruffle any feathers)

I myself held off the on the purchase of the game, because of the mircotransaction thing and also because DS2 dropped in price really fast after I paid full price (this being the main reason).

Gunmonkey

The "ammo system in the game to allow for a microtransaction implementation" is odd, as apart from buying resource packs, there is no way to purchase ammo straight as a MicroT. Possibly they had a very different crafting mechanic for ammo before rather then the "100 Scrap Metal = 5 ammo" in the final game, maybe make Transducers work on something outside stasis.

gimli2112

I know it's a small sample of about 100 people but no-one who voted in the poll used the microtransactions and 42% citing them as a factor for not buying is pretty daming.
Absolutely loved 1&2 but have been a little underwhelmed by 3 tbh. I will come back to it but haven't the time at present.

Mr E

I smiled. Just a little.

EA backtracks stement that it will put Micro transactions in all future games.

Thats what happens when you let chief financial officers talk to the press.

gizmo

I flicked through the transcript of the Conference where the above quote came from and to be fair to the guy, it does sound he like he mixed up both the PC/Console markets and mobile ones.

Yes, so the digital business is broken up into a couple of pieces. One is pure digital downloads of full games. So someone buys Battlefield and downloads it onto their PC or their console. That business goes up and down based on the title. So in a Battlefield quarter, you're going to have a lot of that business. We had a lot of that 1.5 years ago, less so this quarter because of that comparison. The next and much bigger piece is microtransactions within games. And so to the extent that, as Rajat said, we're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business. We've got to have a very strong back-end to make sure that we can operate a business like that. If you're doing microtransactions and you're processing credit cards for every one of those microtransactions, you'll get eaten alive. And so Rajat's team has built an amazing back-end to be able to manage that and manage it much more profitably. We've outsourced a lot of that stuff, historically. We're bringing that all in-house now. The other piece of that puzzle is the mobile business itself. Playing games on a tablet or a mobile phone, smartphone, that business has evolved very quickly. It's become a very large part of our business and it's either an extension of existing franchises or new franchises. So The Simpsons, for example, is a free-to-play game, leverages, obviously, The Simpsons TV show, and you pay all along the way. Last quarter, we did over $25 million in Simpsons business alone. So there's an opportunity there, probably smaller opportunity on a per title basis than something like a FIFA or a Battlefield. But, as Rajat said, it's a place that's actually growing internationally as well for us so it helps to extend our business into Asia, which has not been a big console market over time.

The first bolden parts are where the quotes came from, the second is where he talks about the "mobile business itself". Less back tracking, more clarification I reckon.

The need for said clarification probably comes on the back of this...

EA Exec Accuses Video Game Website Of Making Up Dead Space Cancellation Story

Overheal

Thing is, in the last year I've spent more money on free to play games than "premium" titles. Let me into a game, let me play it, and let me decide if I want to dosh out more money for more content. I am fine with that model in most circumstances. Now, I don't want to walk up to a quest giver on top of a Mountain in skyrim that gives me a big long epic shpiel about dragon-riding werewolves and then tell me that in order to give me the location I need to pay him $3.95 USD. That would be a bit whacked up. Whereas in Planetside 2, I can play the **** out of that game (don't ask how many hours. Gah!) and if I would like to, I can go into the menus and requisiton some badder asser weapons, but it's not as if a Best Buy employee is standing around in a spawn room asking me if I would like to purchase a sniper rifle.

They don't even have to make these games free but they have to be practical. A single player experience, obviously is going to work better as pay to play and Skyrim is a good example of where the DLC model works good, and can add a lot of extra playtime to a game that didn't seem to require it in the first place. As long as the price matches the content and value, great. MP games need to be cheaper or even free in order to ensure the freshest possible supply of targets.

Microtransactions should still appeal to game balance. in PS2 the worst offender might be the rocket launcher, because you're forced at some point almost to just pay into an anti-air weapon, for the sake of practicality. But I'm also talking about buying a bunch of gear that is OP and allows you to trivialize large portions of a single player game. For instance, Radiant Tower defense on Windows 8 treats you to buy DLC flame weapons etc. all the time and continually hints at their effectiveness over the free weapons. I don't wanna pay to make something easier, but I mean hey, I will pay if it's more fun. Setting things on fire can be fun.

Arawn

Ea have a ****ing facination with making a great game in the beginning then relesase after release turning them into shooters. Mass effect is another they done it to

SB2013

Dead Space and Sim City will be two I won't be investing in unless they are on special sale somewhere for half nothing. I'm particularly disappointed by some of my favourite Youtubers endorsing them. The level of anti-consumerism from EA is sickening.

Grumpypants

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Well Dead Space 4 has been cancelled anyways.

Source: X360A


I am not insinuating that the game did poorly due to the so called ill will due to the inclusion of microtransactions. We will need to wait and see how future games with EA microtransactions fair out, but I thought it was worth mentioning in the thread. (definitely not trying to ruffle any feathers)

I myself held off the on the purchase of the game, because of the mircotransaction thing and also because DS2 dropped in price really fast after I paid full price (this being the main reason).

Read comment number 22

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-05-dead-space-4-cancelled-as-series-sales-decline-report

Red Crow

Micro Transactions would be the end for me. I'd just not bother with the next gen and I've a good idea for EA to make money; Make a good fcuking game!!! :pac:

Dave_The_Sheep

Mr E wrote: »

I smiled. Just a little.

EA backtracks stement that it will put Micro transactions in all future games.

Thats what happens when you let chief financial officers talk to the press.

So, we won't be using microtransactions in all our games. Just some of them. In the ones we're not using microtransactions in, they'll just be ... larger-than-micro-transactions for extra gear. But they're not microtransactions!

Idiots.

SB2013

I'm really getting annoyed with this now. Force Gaming channel tried to explain the situation by saying that the number of servers they would require on launch would not be sustainable and would be very high in comparison to what they would need over the life of the game. To me this simply says that they have no intention to support the number of copies they sell. WTF!

I know it sounds cliche but it's up to us as consumers to do something about this. I'll be boycotting EA from now on myself.

Mr Freeze

Grumpypants wrote: »

Read comment number 22

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-05-dead-space-4-cancelled-as-series-sales-decline-report

Kinda have to agree with him if the story is a fake.

Hopefully they heed some of the feedback generated by it at least (as if).

gizmo

SB2013 wrote: »

I'm really getting annoyed with this now. Force Gaming channel tried to explain the situation by saying that the number of servers they would require on launch would not be sustainable and would be very high in comparison to what they would need over the life of the game. To me this simply says that they have no intention to support the number of copies they sell. WTF!

Not quite, the logic is that the number of concurrent users at launch will be considerably higher than the usual numbers after, so they'd aim to have enough capacity for a number somewhere in between. Ideally it would be more towards the projected launch amount (even temporarily at least) to avoid the problems they're currently having but it would be impossible to justify the cost of having enough servers to cover everyone who has bought the game playing concurrently.

SB2013

gizmo wrote: »

Not quite, the logic is that the number of concurrent users at launch will be considerably higher than the usual numbers after, so they'd aim to have enough capacity for a number somewhere in between. Ideally it would be more towards the projected launch amount (even temporarily at least) to avoid the problems they're currently having but it would be impossible to justify the cost of having enough servers to cover everyone who has bought the game playing concurrently.

It was their choice to make the game so dependent on servers. If they couldn't back that up with the server capacity then it should not have happened.

Myrddin

What exactly are microtransactions then? Purchasing of costumes, upgrades/characters etc along the way in a 1p game? I assume these are entirely optional in the 1p experience of the game?

Mr Freeze

EnterNow wrote: »

What exactly are microtransactions then? Purchasing of costumes, upgrades/characters etc along the way in a 1p game? I assume these are entirely optional in the 1p experience of the game?

Pretty much, the controversy is really, cause they stuck a free to play model feature into a full retail game.

Don't think anybody really has any problem with MTs, just not in full retail games.

Supposedly in DS3, its totally optional, and non-intrusive. I haven't seen how its implemented, I will be waiting till DS3 is a bit cheaper.

Myrddin

Mr Freeze wrote: »

Supposedly in DS3, its totally optional, and non-intrusive. I haven't seen how its implemented, I will be waiting till DS3 is a bit cheaper.

I suppose its just moving along with how things are changing in games, back in yee olde days you had to be actually good at a game to unlock something or know a cheat code....these days you just give them money for it. As long as it is non intrusive & the single player end of the campaign is uninhibited, I don't think I'm too bothered by the notion

Gunmonkey

EnterNow wrote: »

I suppose its just moving along with how things are changing in games, back in yee olde days you had to be actually good at a game to unlock something or know a cheat code....these days you just give them money for it. As long as it is non intrusive & the single player end of the campaign is uninhibited, I don't think I'm too bothered by the notion

Played through DS3 twice and never was in a spot where they would be needed tbh, its entirely optional.

Theres 3 types fo DLC so far:
-3 suit and weapon skin packs (but you can make the weapons pretty easily ingame) plus DS1, the MOSTEST AMAZING GAME EVAR U GUYZ had faaaaaarrrr more weapons and skins on Day1 for sale
-3 upgrades for your scavenger bots (speed it takes, capacity and a vocal pack) and as I said earlier in this thread I see no real point to them, the increased speed is negligable and the capacity is no use you find more resources via lockers or off corpses
- a resource pack of a few hundred of each type, these can also be bought with the Ration Seals the scavenger bots bring back, had to google what they were 1/2 way through my second playthhrough to see what the deal was. You could argue the increased scavenger DLC's could boost the requisition of the Seals to bump up your resource stocks via these packs but the Seal aquisition is fairly random, somtimes I get 1/6/12 Seals from a bot.

Thats not to say there isnt hidden stuff, you get the best weapon upgrades and extra game modes unlocked in your overall game account for finishing the game, collecting audio logs, collecting 4 different types of hidden items, having Mass Effect 3 gives ya an exclusive armour skin, finish the game once gives you the suit from DS1. Plenty of bonuses not being sold, just useless extras.

Overall, its an added extra for people who want a small boost in the game to save on scrounging for stuff, not that you need to do much to make all the gear you need.

Azza

Yeah I don't see anyone can complain about the micro-transactions in Dead Space 3. Completely optional.

johnny_ultimate

People also forget that in many ways EA are one of the more progressive companies out there, especially in their promotion of LGBT rights and their representations in games. Just today for example: http://www.edge-online.com/news/ea-hosts-lgbt-event/

But I guess as long as they charge for completely optional content they remain equivalent to gaming war criminals.

Grimebox

EA get a ridiculous amount of unwarranted abuse

SB2013

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

People also forget that in many ways EA are one of the more progressive companies out there, especially in their promotion of LGBT rights and their representations in games. Just today for example: http://www.edge-online.com/news/ea-hosts-lgbt-event/

But I guess as long as they charge for completely optional content they remain equivalent to gaming war criminals.

Was that event after it emerged that there was only one homosexual in the entire galaxy of knights of the republic?

What they are doing to gaming is a disgrace as far as I am concerned. The Sims is the worst of it. There's €500 of dlc for that, targeted at children for the most part. Battlefield 3 is pay to win. Mass Effect 3 required extra payment for the full story to be unlocked. Dead space 3 and Sim City are just the latest attack on consumers.

And that's just the financial side. They have quite the rep for franchise killing. Remember a game called Command and Conquer? Dragons age?

COYVB

If people didn't use microtransactions they wouldn't exist. Gamers only have their fellow gamers to blame

johnny_ultimate

SB2013 wrote: »

Was that event after it emerged that there was only one homosexual in the entire galaxy of knights of the republic?

It was actually one planet, hidden behind a paywall. At least partially attributable to Bioware missing the point.

And yet even with such a ludicrous misstep they remain by a considerable margin the most progressive of the bigger publishers.