EA Plans Free-To-Play For Every Major Franchise

[Norix596]

I wouldn't have a problem of expansion of Free-to-Play models buuuuuut... they're clearly not talking about FREE-to-Play. They're talking about PAY-and-them-pay-more. As seen in Dead Space,publishers and their subsidiary developers seem to be coming to a conclusion that you can sell a game for $60 and then still charge for microtransactions. And again I wouldn't have a problem with Micro-transactions (although I haven't played LoL recently, Riot Games has this system down to an artform) they are talking about competitive games and based on track records, I don't expect EA marketing (who passes down directions or edicts to the makers, remember) to treat their customers or their products with the respect to put in the effort or manpower to develop a microtransaction process that fits seamlessly into the game without upsetting balance or leaving players feeling ripped off.

I might be wrong of course, but that's where I'm at now.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Wait a sec... free to play using Mass Effect 3's multiplayer as an example?

Since when does ME3 multiplayer qualify as free to play? You have to buy the game to get the multiplayer component of it, therefore it is not free to play. Or am I missing something?

I was wondering that myself.

Maybe EA means that the ME3 multiplayer was "free-to-play" in that you didn't have to pay more to add multiplayer to the game.

In which case, it means EA is trying to redefine yet another industry term.

Addendum: Rereading the article, I believe this is the case.

The "multiplayer component" is described as "free-to-play".

Nevermind that it requires the base game for $60.00.

Mass Effect 3 wasn't Moore's example, it was mine, as one instance in which a free-to-play mechanic was successfully integrated into a conventional game. Serious fans can purchase upgrade packs to get extra weapons, classes, that sort of thing, but "regular" players aren't punished for not throwing money at it. It's a good, effective system, and illustrates how F2P mechanics can be implemented in conventionally-paid games.

 

[Mutant150]

I just wave goodbye to any possible of a good mirror's edge

Please EA, do not pull this shit with ME2.

 

[Dyf91]

I only hope EA delays all this bullshit until after Dragon Age 3 comes out, as I would like that game to actually be decent (yes, yes, I know I'm an idiot just for thinking this)

I also don't see how this F2P thing is going to work for them anyhow, especially considering they'll probably balls it all up by making all the microstransactions be for necessary things in-game, rather than boosts to exp or cosmetic items.

 

[Dr.Awkward]

Can we start a petition to change Peter Moore's position from "COO" to "COOCOO"? I think it's a much more fitting name for his position.

 

[Lunar Templar]

"And gamers either want to be connected, so that your stats and your achievements and whatever you do certainly reflect who you are, or you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that. We don't deliver offline experiences anymore."

Wait, what? Since fucking when? Not counting Multiplayer, cause I know some gamers live for that, and that needs to be online by nature now. I don't know anyone that gives a fuck about their 'stats or achievements' enough (read: at all) to wanna post them on anything.

Getting really tired of the know nothing brain dead fucknuts telling me what I want out of a game or console. Fortunately, there's the indie market, other wise I'd probably say 'fuck it, no more games newer then the PS2'

 

[Simple Bluff]

I'm ok with leaderboards I guess, and stats can actually be kinda cool for some games. And regardless, they're harmless if the game doesn't require always online.
This F2P thing is stupid though, even from a business standpoint. There's a term floating around these days known as "Free to Play fatique" and I believe it's a real thing. It's when you want to play a game but you feel heavily discouraged by the amount of transactions (or equivalent grinding) required to unlock some stuff, even if you don't mind paying the money in and of itself. It's like when you feel like replaying a game (let's say DA:O) but you decide not to just because you know you'll have to slog through that one dungeon (say, the Deep Roads or the dream dungeon in the mages' tower) regardless of the quality of the rest of the game.
The way I see it, casual players will lose interest in the game, whereas the more hardcore players will be too offended by the whole thing to even bother playing to begin with. Unless the game is really something special of course.

That said, F2P isn't inherently bad. Who knows, they might implement it in a decent way.

Wow. I actually didn't catch that the first time I read the article.
That's fucking hilarious if it was an honest mistake, but at this point that kind of twisted logic and half-truth corp talk is exactly what I've come to expect from EA.

Maybe EA means that the ME3 multiplayer was "free-to-play" in that you didn't have to pay more to add multiplayer to the game.

In which case, it means EA is trying to redefine yet another industry term.

Addendum: Rereading the article, I believe this is the case.

The "multiplayer component" is described as "free-to-play".

Nevermind that it requires the base game for $60.00.

The ME3 multiplayer comparison was made by Andy, not EA.

EDIT: Nevermind, Andy ninja'd me.

 

[Alar]

What? Mass Effect 3 wasn't free-to-play. Free-to-play means you get the came for free, and you can play at least a significant portion or all of it for free, without paying anything. These guys? They're talking about pay-to-play, or pay-to-win models. That's not the same thing.

 

[Frostbyte666]

I just have 1 response to their always online and F2P ideas, Simcity, yeah...sigh...I need a new desk, my head has busted the last one and I'm afraid of going near any walls at the moment. F2P is nice on some games...but not every franchise, just like multi-player can be good...just not every game ESPECIALLY well established single player experiences where trying to crowbar in multi-player is a complete and utter joke to the franchise. I also don't really consider achievements multi-player, hell I hate achievements. Why can't they learn that games aren't a 1 size fits all deal, it's like they don't understand what genre means and what experience the potential audience is looking for.

 

[shiajun]

So close EA, so close....but I guess a tiger can't change its stripes.

The "god 'ol times" I remember longingly were when the monetization scheme of a game was decided according to its design, no when the design of a games was tailored to the monetization scheme in mind. It was chosen on a case to case basis.

And yeah, that small dev/indie scene is increasingly looking so much better, plus you know, cheaper.

 

[TallanKhan]

"And gamers either want to be connected, so that your stats and your achievements and whatever you do certainly reflect who you are, or you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that. We don't deliver offline experiences anymore."

So according to Peter Mooron I'm not a gamer? Because I don't want those things!

Another example of EA telling people what they want rather than listen to what people actually want.

 

[JediMB]

The problem with "Free To Play" is that in reality is usually means "Only Fun If You're Willing To Pay... A Lot, And Even Then The Core Design Prevents The Game From Being As Fun As One Not Built Around Microtransactions".

Or, in short:
F2P = OFIYW2PALAETTCDPTGFBAFAONBAM

Captcha: interrupting cow

 

[Aitruis]

I have to admit, it seems I'm becoming more and more 'old fashioned' as well. 'Always on' gaming that constantly updates stats and such, fine, as long as it doesn't get in the way. Obviously I'm fine with the game needing to authenticate when it connects to play multiplayer, because I obviously have to be online to play multiplayer(online, that is, split-screen is still contained within the physical box, so we'll file that under the single-player concept).

What is not fine is making an entirely single player game, or even the single player portion of a game, have to be always on. Why do developers think it's a sound concept to have their game wave a flaccid willy in my face for having the gall to play their game after a drunk ran over the routing box on the street corner, leaving me without internet? Oh, because I might have pirated it. I wish I had viable stats for this, but I'm guessing games with retarded DRM just make people want to pirate more, just so they don't have to give something like EA money, and so they don't have to deal with the DRMalware.

If developers want to try and stick with this crap into future console generations, I'm just going to stick to my SNES and the grand old PC gaming master race.

 

[kasperbbs]

'Free to play' from EA, must be a joke.. I bet they will charge you to respawn faster in BF, not to mention the weapons, perks and customization and so on..

 

[cidbahamut]

EA's approach turns me off from buying their games. I don't understand how that makes for a good business model, but it is apparently working and that is what truly frightens me.

 

[Something Amyss]

"And gamers either want to be connected, so that your stats and your achievements and whatever you do certainly reflect who you are, or you want the full multiplayer experience on top of that.

I don't want either one of these. What does that make me?

No true Scotsma...Err...Gamer, that's for sure!

But yeah, I don't necessarily care about either myself.

 

[Scars Unseen]

This is exactly what I wanted to hear from the exclusive licensees for Star Wars game production. Yup. Just the thing...

One step forward and two steps back... I know this dance well, EA.