The fact that in Dragon Age you didn't have any permanent safe storage space unless you forked over the dough! that one really annoyed me. You have to sell perfectly usable items because you need to clear inventory space.Kermi said:
EA Isn't Trying to Blackmail You
- Thread starter Susan Arendt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know what? I can live with this. EA is trying to find new revenue streams and in the process effectively reward customers who are buying on Day Zero, when a very large chunk of the profitability calculation for a game is made ("opening week" is almost as big to gaming companies as to film studios). Considering Everyone's Favorite Reformed CEO? (John Riccitiello) is trying desperately to keep his job thanks to EA's underperformance in the stock market, anything he does short of backsliding into DRM nightmares, I can't fault him for.
Contrast, say, Ubisoft, just for example. Yves Guillemot can go eat a dick.
Contrast, say, Ubisoft, just for example. Yves Guillemot can go eat a dick.
Heh, I didn't think about it like this. So, buy new ($60) and get DLC ($0) free, or buy used ($30) and buy DLC ($10).hydrahh said:
If the game is complete (as in, the game is playable from start to finish without gaps or quests that can only be completed with $5), DLC is a fun extra. I've been known to browse DLC for games I'm thinking about buying, or games I've just heard of, or games I'm surprised even have DLC, and I have yet to see anything more than add- ons. The complaints about games like Mass Effect strike me as particularly odd. You have a full game. The developers then offer more of the game, for a small fee, and you go apoplectic. This is like (analogy alert) buying a hamburger and then getting angry when you have to pay an extra quarter for cheese, or a side of fries. You didn't buy into that; you bought a hamburger. DLC is not a right, and when you buy a game you should not expect it.
On- disc DLC irks me, though. In this analogy, now you get the cheese, but it's locked in a safe and you have to pay for the key.
As usual, Susan as a way of pointing out things that make me proud to be a gamer ... going to most game forums will likely strip you from such joy! (good thing there is the Escapist Magazine)
There are definitely games I'm willing to buy new in order to get all the gewgaws that come with a new purchase. Heck, I pre-ordered Mass Effect 2... Even if it's sitting on my shelf unplayed because I wanted to have it available as a carrot for getting another computer-related project done.
But this kind of air of "the stuff they've done so far isn't essential to the game, stop whining" really isn't helpful. It somewhat smacks of saying, "So they've unspooled fuse to your house. Why are you worried? It's not like they've set out explosives yet!"
These things tend to come down from on high, and you would have to be a fool not to recognize that, as policy, this could be a doozy. It's one thing for DLC to allow a developer to restore features and content that had to be cut to make a milestone. It's quite another for every game that comes out the door to be required to be designed from the blueprint up with later DLC in mind. Even if it's integrated brilliantly, there's a real danger of a large number of "complete" games coming to market with conspicuous holes in them. That you can complete a game isn't necessarily comforting if, say, your favorite character's backstory comes to a sudden jagged halt because of a missing quest... Or you have to trek through five miles of monster-infested swamp because there's a peculiarly city-shaped mountain range in the middle of the short route... Or you end up fighting a foe that was included, while the weapon that was planned around their major vulnerability ends up in DLC.
Please, don't tell me it hasn't happened yet. It can and will if it isn't clear that it will be met with a strong, negative response.
It isn't price so much that concerns me. I know that dev teams are getting larger, prices have remained more or less the same, and a lot of companies and developers are suffering. Honestly, I'd be willing to spend an extra $10 on a game to keep them in Skittles, because I'm one of the lucky ones who can afford to do that in my hobby. But I most definitely am afraid of major DLC becoming an acceptable given. That has the potential to affect games on the design floor in a long-standing, harmful way.
And I've got to take issue with
If you make a good game, then sell it at a reasonable price, and raise enough money to make some more good games (and some experimental games and some mediocre games and a few out-and-out stinkers), keeping on a staff that loves the business at a rate that's competitive within the industry to do so. That's what they deserve. Nothing more, nothing less.
But this kind of air of "the stuff they've done so far isn't essential to the game, stop whining" really isn't helpful. It somewhat smacks of saying, "So they've unspooled fuse to your house. Why are you worried? It's not like they've set out explosives yet!"
These things tend to come down from on high, and you would have to be a fool not to recognize that, as policy, this could be a doozy. It's one thing for DLC to allow a developer to restore features and content that had to be cut to make a milestone. It's quite another for every game that comes out the door to be required to be designed from the blueprint up with later DLC in mind. Even if it's integrated brilliantly, there's a real danger of a large number of "complete" games coming to market with conspicuous holes in them. That you can complete a game isn't necessarily comforting if, say, your favorite character's backstory comes to a sudden jagged halt because of a missing quest... Or you have to trek through five miles of monster-infested swamp because there's a peculiarly city-shaped mountain range in the middle of the short route... Or you end up fighting a foe that was included, while the weapon that was planned around their major vulnerability ends up in DLC.
Please, don't tell me it hasn't happened yet. It can and will if it isn't clear that it will be met with a strong, negative response.
It isn't price so much that concerns me. I know that dev teams are getting larger, prices have remained more or less the same, and a lot of companies and developers are suffering. Honestly, I'd be willing to spend an extra $10 on a game to keep them in Skittles, because I'm one of the lucky ones who can afford to do that in my hobby. But I most definitely am afraid of major DLC becoming an acceptable given. That has the potential to affect games on the design floor in a long-standing, harmful way.
And I've got to take issue with
...That way lies madness. And quite possibly suicide. It's possible that you could cut every major feature out of a game until it's barely playable and sell everything as DLC and that enough people would still buy it that you could make a profit. But even if you made more of a profit doing things that way, it doesn't make you more deserving of the money. It also calls into serious question what a brand is worth. If you alienate your marketplace when they're college students and they turn up their noses at the sight of your trademark when they've become professionals, the profits of ten years ago become cold comfort indeed.
If you make a good game, then sell it at a reasonable price, and raise enough money to make some more good games (and some experimental games and some mediocre games and a few out-and-out stinkers), keeping on a staff that loves the business at a rate that's competitive within the industry to do so. That's what they deserve. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's sad when I read something like this and agree wholeheartedly. It makes me feel like a jackass for complaining so much.WanderFreak said:
Anyway, I think this would prove to be a decent incentive to buy new games, since the money is going to the companies and thus they're able to make better products instead of cheaper alternatives. As long as they don't do the crap that Assassin's Creed 2 is doing.
Constant online. Give me a break. That is crap because I payed for the game and I should be able to play it any time I wish. That is just asking for a pirated version with that coding removed.
Though it will screw some people over still.
Actually, EA has already done this as I know they included a voucher with Sims3 for $10 to use in the EA store for the aforementioned game. I find this to be more of a marketing tool to encourage people to purchase DLCs.
I can't say I've had much experience for DLCs... so I can't sit here and say I don't like them. For me, I often don't either care that there is DLC for a game, or I find that the DLC isn't something I can foresee shelling out the money for to obtain maybe another few hours out of a game I already enjoyed. I liked it to start with, which is why I bought it in the first place. Games like Forza Motorsports that offer new car packs in DLC format sound like a good idea (I've never actually purchased it), but I can assume it is akin to downloading a new outfit for a different game.
Perhaps the only arguable position for the case of EA being "exploitative" in this situation is if they started to charge gamers for updates/patches for the games. In that scenario, I can say they are clearly being jerks if the material is needed to correct problems/issues with a game... but to encourage people to invest in DLC for extra content isn't negative in any way. If you are like me and don't use DLC much, this isn't such a bad promotion to get you to look around to use the voucher on something you otherwise wouldn't buy. But people can find problems in getting hung with a new rope... in this article, I can't find anything wrong with EA wanting to encourage people to get DLCs.
I can't say I've had much experience for DLCs... so I can't sit here and say I don't like them. For me, I often don't either care that there is DLC for a game, or I find that the DLC isn't something I can foresee shelling out the money for to obtain maybe another few hours out of a game I already enjoyed. I liked it to start with, which is why I bought it in the first place. Games like Forza Motorsports that offer new car packs in DLC format sound like a good idea (I've never actually purchased it), but I can assume it is akin to downloading a new outfit for a different game.
Perhaps the only arguable position for the case of EA being "exploitative" in this situation is if they started to charge gamers for updates/patches for the games. In that scenario, I can say they are clearly being jerks if the material is needed to correct problems/issues with a game... but to encourage people to invest in DLC for extra content isn't negative in any way. If you are like me and don't use DLC much, this isn't such a bad promotion to get you to look around to use the voucher on something you otherwise wouldn't buy. But people can find problems in getting hung with a new rope... in this article, I can't find anything wrong with EA wanting to encourage people to get DLCs.
It's just like when you go to a movie and have to leave at certain points because you didn't pay the theatre an additional 3.50 to watch specific subplots. You get the main story of the movie, so it shouldn't matter at all!
You traded in games, something you wouldn't have been able to do if this model was already standard.
Since nobody would be buying the trade ins (or at least the value would be even less).
Since nobody would be buying the trade ins (or at least the value would be even less).
I'm in Australia. I'm not even sure they have any tech support out here by phone. And no, it's not worth it. When my net comes back up, whenever that will be, I'll simply re-download it and play again. Ce la vie.CD-R said:
hell no. first of all, the content is already on the disc, but unlocked. second, if you bought a used copy and want the maps, you don´t pay 10 bucks, but 15, hence the name "project ten dollar" is bullshit. for me it´s a matter of principle. a game is a game is a game. a used copy should still have the same content, regardless. i don´t really care about the maps but if this goes on, at some point we will be getting blank discs only with unlock codes. and if someone, for whatever odd reason, wants to get all the content, he will probably pay more than a hundred bucks for content for a single game.
now if somenone´s going to get bad company 2 used, for example at gamestop, the used copy plus mappack might even be more expensive than the main game as gamestop likes to sell used games(at least where i live) almost at the price of new copies if it´s a new release. it´s obviously milking. consider the fact that everyone who get´s the game new will most likely use the code and the mp-maps, people with less resources who may only be able to buy used copies are forced to buy the mappack to participate in online play. that´s why it´s milking for me. because the only choice is not to have the content or not, it´s getting the maps and get milked or be with an partially incompatible game.
ea did pretty good in the past few years but actions like this will remind people of the old ea and they might scare many reformed fans right away with it.
now if somenone´s going to get bad company 2 used, for example at gamestop, the used copy plus mappack might even be more expensive than the main game as gamestop likes to sell used games(at least where i live) almost at the price of new copies if it´s a new release. it´s obviously milking. consider the fact that everyone who get´s the game new will most likely use the code and the mp-maps, people with less resources who may only be able to buy used copies are forced to buy the mappack to participate in online play. that´s why it´s milking for me. because the only choice is not to have the content or not, it´s getting the maps and get milked or be with an partially incompatible game.
ea did pretty good in the past few years but actions like this will remind people of the old ea and they might scare many reformed fans right away with it.
on kotaku they said the maps are on the disc. it´s no dlc. it´s content that´s there, you either buy a new game with a free code or you buy the code to unlock the maps. so it´s not a deadline thing here apparently.John Funk said:
EDIT: this relates to bad company 2
It's less about standing up for big business, and more about shooting down people who are getting disproportionately angry over a fairly minor issue.Dexter111 said: