EA including microtransactions in all games

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Newbian

Lifer
Aug 24, 2008
24,779
882
126
most micro trans games are not pay to win
they are pay to get some stupid outfit that does nothing for you (see hats in TF2, mounts in WoW)

paying for crap like consmetic items/skins/ dumb crap i have no issues with. let people spend their money to make their toon look like a pink bunny if they want, if it does not change gameplay so be it

GW2 is micro based as well and it works fine
PS2 as well - it may be more shifted towards pay to win but not totally. also its free to play.

I agree as long as it's simply cosmetic but the problem is the games realize they can make more if they offer more then that thus why many do and it ruins the game for me.

I laugh even more when the game costs money to buy or has a monthly fee then they do these also and double dip and that prevents me from ever trying them.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Microtransactions, the perfect reason for me to stop wasting time and money on games and gaming hardware. BF3 has become the only game I play and if it goes in this direction, Im out altogether.

...You realize BF3 already has a ton of them right? Every 'shortcut bundle' is a "microtransaction", and (shocker) it makes no difference to the majority of players.

Much ado over nothing. Some types of players just want to skip to the end or collect everything or need some extra help and they're just offering services to them to let them play how they want. I bought the "Co-op" weapons shortcut in BF3 because I wanted to unlock them for multiplayer out but didn't want to take the time to 'achieve' them all or play public co-op, $2 well spent imo and I appreciate the time saved.

Chances are they're just going to be skins or equipment type purchases like those in ME3, and you wouldn't even know they existed without looking at the store itself. Aesthetic things or "shortcuts" that make the game easier or more accessible for the crowd that's enjoys that kind of thing.
 

DeadFred

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2011
2,740
29
91
...You realize BF3 already has a ton of them right? Every 'shortcut bundle' is a "microtransaction", and (shocker) it makes no difference to the majority of players.

Much ado over nothing. Some types of players just want to skip to the end or collect everything or need some extra help and they're just offering services to them to let them play how they want. I bought the "Co-op" weapons shortcut in BF3 because I wanted to unlock them for multiplayer out but didn't want to take the time to 'achieve' them all or play public co-op, $2 well spent imo and I appreciate the time saved.

Chances are they're just going to be skins or equipment type purchases like those in ME3, and you wouldn't even know they existed without looking at the store itself. Aesthetic things or "shortcuts" that make the game easier or more accessible for the crowd that's enjoys that kind of thing.
Well that type of stuff doesnt bother me as long as they arent selling in game advantages like better weapons, perks, or what have you. Ill buy their maps but have zero interest in new camos for weapons or characters or paying for weapon unlocks.

If they ever implement the "you have to buy more ammo" type of crap that one of the EA honchos has mentioned in the past, then Im outta there.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
...You realize BF3 already has a ton of them right? Every 'shortcut bundle' is a "microtransaction", and (shocker) it makes no difference to the majority of players.

Much ado over nothing. Some types of players just want to skip to the end or collect everything or need some extra help and they're just offering services to them to let them play how they want. I bought the "Co-op" weapons shortcut in BF3 because I wanted to unlock them for multiplayer out but didn't want to take the time to 'achieve' them all or play public co-op, $2 well spent imo and I appreciate the time saved.

Chances are they're just going to be skins or equipment type purchases like those in ME3, and you wouldn't even know they existed without looking at the store itself. Aesthetic things or "shortcuts" that make the game easier or more accessible for the crowd that's enjoys that kind of thing.

Funny you bring this up. The move to "leveling up" FPS's based on playing time is what turned me off of 99% of the new shooters. If I want to level up I'll play an RPG or platform game. Online it just is an annoyance. Never cared for it. Then they went to the you can pay us to get all that now model and I just stopped playing them all together.
 

Red Storm

Lifer
Oct 2, 2005
14,233
234
106
Funny you bring this up. The move to "leveling up" FPS's based on playing time is what turned me off of 99% of the new shooters. If I want to level up I'll play an RPG or platform game. Online it just is an annoyance. Never cared for it. Then they went to the you can pay us to get all that now model and I just stopped playing them all together.

Yeah I hate this trend (now commonplace). I miss having access to all the weapons from the get go so I can decide how I want to play from the beginning, no grinding involved. It seems the newer generation of gamers only like to play if they're grinding towards a new weapon or achievement which is pathetic. It's like an alien concept to them: Having fun by just playing? Blasphemy gimme my achievements!
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Yeah I hate this trend (now commonplace). I miss having access to all the weapons from the get go so I can decide how I want to play from the beginning, no grinding involved. It seems the newer generation of gamers only like to play if they're grinding towards a new weapon or achievement which is pathetic. It's like an alien concept to them: Having fun by just playing? Blasphemy gimme my achievements!

I've thought a little about this, and I think it's largely an issue with the gamers.

I've seen where a game puts a char with a bunch of things they can kill, and the feeling is spend an hour and they feel 'done' with it and any more is repetitive and boring.

But put an NPC with 5o quests to kill 25 of this and 100 of that for a reward, and they can spend 100 hours doing it feeling it's satisfying.

It might be a bit of an ugly truth but that's how I see it working with gamers.

It's a reason RPG's have worked well with their advancing levels and skills and whatever else they put in.

Of course games like platformers have built-in rails you advance on.
 

Kev

Lifer
Dec 17, 2001
16,367
4
81
Yep. Nother reason to hate EA. Lousy gaming company and a reflection of it's leadership.

With this new micro transaction trajectry it will lead to developers being mandated to design games that make "something" very alluring and attractive prior to payment (New Gun, In Game Currency to buy unattainable Gun if forced to use standard means of obtaining in game currency, New Area, New Clothing, anything that is built up as highly desirable) and then deliver a dud after the payment.

Games need to make money,... but micro transactions are going to make for seriously un-fun and expensive gaming environments.

I'm having nightmares of some of the games ive downloaded on iPad for free,.. only to find out that the game is engineered solely around ridiculous time sinks unless I happen to shell out real money to progress in a timely manner.

If a free ipad game is also in the top grossing games, I avoid it like the plague.
 

chalmers

Platinum Member
Mar 14, 2008
2,565
1
76
Funny you bring this up. The move to "leveling up" FPS's based on playing time is what turned me off of 99% of the new shooters. If I want to level up I'll play an RPG or platform game. Online it just is an annoyance. Never cared for it. Then they went to the you can pay us to get all that now model and I just stopped playing them all together.

Agreed. People can't play a game to enjoy it anymore, it's all about how close they are to leveling up or acquiring a new weapon or "perk".
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
Agreed. People can't play a game to enjoy it anymore, it's all about how close they are to leveling up or acquiring a new weapon or "perk".

Yeah, it's pretty sad IMO. Pretty much all AAA games nowadays are tailored toward COD players since everyone wants a piece of that pie.

Yet again another great reason to support indie devs and get money away from that shit..
 
Last edited:

Midwayman

Diamond Member
Jan 28, 2000
5,723
325
126
I don't mind DLC as expansion packs. I don't mind micro-transactions in F2P. I despise microtransactions in a game I already paid $50-60 to play.
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
I don't mind DLC as expansion packs. I don't mind micro-transactions in F2P. I despise microtransactions in a game I already paid $50-60 to play.

This, and DLC which was clearly part of the original game and then cut. EA is growing more and more notorious for crap like that.
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Here's what this reminds me of - remember that thing that EA's CEO said a couple of years ago about making people pay to reload in shooters? I mean, he was giving it as an example, but, the day could be coming when, I mean, right now you expect to pay something like $60 for a game and maybe $30-50 for expansions/map packs/etc. BF3 Premium was $50 I think. But could the day be coming when EA raises the stakes and through microtransactions, such as paying for bullets, you end up spending like $40 per month for the same level of play you currently get for $110 per year? (assuming you buy the new version of a game every year).
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
as long as it is not "pay to win" as in the ability to simply buy better gear to quickly win the game or quickly beat other players.

do not mind paying for on going game revisions though.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
Here's what this reminds me of - remember that thing that EA's CEO said a couple of years ago about making people pay to reload in shooters? I mean, he was giving it as an example, but, the day could be coming when, I mean, right now you expect to pay something like $60 for a game and maybe $30-50 for expansions/map packs/etc. BF3 Premium was $50 I think. But could the day be coming when EA raises the stakes and through microtransactions, such as paying for bullets, you end up spending like $40 per month for the same level of play you currently get for $110 per year? (assuming you buy the new version of a game every year).

paying for bullet is NOT a play to win micro-transaction. game is still fair.

paying for bullet simple prevent folk from being trigger happy. making the game more real. as a reward. if you make a kill. you should get say 20 bullet.
 

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
paying for bullet is NOT a play to win micro-transaction. game is still fair.

paying for bullet simple prevent folk from being trigger happy. making the game more real. as a reward. if you make a kill. you should get say 20 bullet.

I wasn't talking about it from a pay to win standpoint, I was talking about it from a standpoint it costing a lot more for the same amount of gameplay.
 

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
I wasn't talking about it from a pay to win standpoint, I was talking about it from a standpoint it costing a lot more for the same amount of gameplay.

definitely not the same game play. using your example. the $40 guy only shoot at what needs to be shot. while the $110 guy shoot at everything anything.

remind me of the good old day with quake 3 mod. option for limited ammo so you take discretion in your shooting and last man standing no respawn so you play like it meant something.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
I wasn't talking about it from a pay to win standpoint, I was talking about it from a standpoint it costing a lot more for the same amount of gameplay.

But what if you got 1000 clips per dollar and the game was free up front? It would take an absolutely exorbitant amount of time to even approach the retail price of a game. It can go both ways; "microtransactions" doesn't mean more or less expensive, it just means smaller individual transactions.
 

DeadFred

Platinum Member
Jun 4, 2011
2,740
29
91
Soldiers DO NOT buy their own ammo the taxpayers pay for it. Besides no one playing as a support seems to ever drop ammo, so the ammo is already limited. :D
 

mindcycle

Golden Member
Jan 9, 2008
1,901
0
76
Here's Cliffy B's blog post on micro transactions for those of you who are interested.

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters

Here's just a few of points he makes. I'd suggest reading the whole thing if you have time.

I’ve seen a lot of comments online about microtransactions. They’re a dirty word lately, it seems. Gamers are upset that publishers/developers are “nickel and diming them.” They’re raging at “big and evil corporations who are clueless and trying to steal their money.”

I’m going to come right out and say it. I’m tired of EA being seen as “the bad guy.” I think it’s bullshit that EA has the “scumbag EA” memes on Reddit and that Good Guy Valve can Do No Wrong.

The market as I have previously stated is in such a sense of turmoil that the old business model is either evolving, growing, or dying. No one really knows. “Free to play” aka “Free to spend 4 grand on it” is here to stay, like it or not. Everyone gets a Smurfberry! Every single developer out there is trying to solve the mystery of this new model. Every console game MUST have a steady stream of DLC because, otherwise, guess what? It becomes traded in, or it’s just rented. In the console space you need to do anything to make sure that that disc stays in the tray. I used to be offended by Gamestop’s business practices but let’s be honest…they’re the next Tower Records or Sam Goody. It’s only a matter of time.

I don't really agree with this. If the game is good people will buy it and it won't need tons of DLC to remain relevant or continue to make money.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
Didn't need to read beyond this:

Those companies that put these products out? They’re for profit businesses. They exist to produce, market, and ship great games ultimately for one purpose. First, for money, then, for acclaim.

This is why gaming is going downhill, and is the reason most things go downhill. You have to love and respect what you do with a creative item or in the end you get trash. You're just going through the motions looking for your next paycheck or trying not to get fired.

Do you think that the people who made Aliens Colonial Marines when it was finished were sitting there going. "Wow. We made a great game didn't we? I can't wait to share this with the world!" No, it was probably more like, where's my check? One more paycheck, on to the next project.

Sadly, that is just how the world is now. They look at gaming as a commodity and how many sheep can we fleece, and not as entertainment. Not with an attitude of "I want to share what I've created with the world." There is no love. I'm sure the actual game makers try....but, it's really not their call at the end of the day. It's the suits call. He also mentions having to answer to stockholders. If he recognizes that as an issue, that tells you something right there.

The other issue is thinking just because you made it, that it is great. It's not for YOU to decide if it's great. It's up to the consumer. Review blackouts? That should be illegal plain and simple. He mentions capitol markets alot, and that really says where he is coming from. He's not there to make games, he's just there to make money. This theme obviously comes up repeatedly over the recent years. Charge as much as we can for as little content as we can and get away with it. Since there is no thing as refunds, we can deceive the customer into buying said product. It's been proven time and again, good games sell, regardless of price.

Until companies understand this (which they never will at that level) things will continue to go downhill.

He gets pissy about Valve, but I don't think anyone thinks Valve is flawless, they just haven't released any games that were obviously souless money grabs like EA (and other companies) has.

To produce a high quality game it takes tens of millions of dollars, and when you add in marketing that can get up to 100+ million.

Wrong. It takes YOU that kind of money. It doesn't take that much money to make a GOOD game. It can if you let it, and if you do it right, you might have a phenominal game, or a crap game, in the end, when you look at the finished product, you probably know which catagory it falls into. If it's trash, you shouldn't even release it. (Look at all the projects Blizzard dumped over the years).
 
Last edited:

UaVaj

Golden Member
Nov 16, 2012
1,546
0
76
Didn't need to read beyond this:

Those companies that put these products out? They’re for profit businesses. They exist to produce, market, and ship great games ultimately for one purpose. First, for money, then, for acclaim.

gaming will never die. there always be those that will play whatever (even if it is just ping pong) becuase they have nothing else better to do.

example. hate blizzard to the point where will never buy another copy of their game (to play solo).

cause other close family members do play multiplayer blizzard game. in order bond with them during leisure time. still buying every blizzard game.

it is a necessary evil.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,946
1,077
126
My main point is, when you're watching a movie, playing a game, or listening to music, generally you can tell who loves what they are doing, vs someone just going through the motions looking for another paycheck.