Quake3World

He has a point; you don't have to spend your money on stuff in game, so why bitch about it?

Not only micro-transactions, but in a full price game with day 1 DLC you have to buy on top of that. Exchanging cash for an in-game advantage.

Here's EA's CEO suggesting to charge people for ammo during a game, once they're hours in and "not very price sensitive" at the time:

[/quote]

Real money for ammo.

All of this doesn't have any impact on me though, I stopped buying EA's games.

Money for ammo is just fucking stupid

not quite sure how ridiculously idiotic and shitty this is supposed to be. no one forces anyone to buy EA games, or to buy into the microtransactions models. like the guy said, people will vote with their wallets

also, lol @ the 'nice Gabe' story on reddit. he lets a guy with a serious medical condition have paid leave to recover - i.e. standard practice for any employer this side of the Atlantic, minus the massive medical bills

Don Carlos wrote:Money for ammo is just fucking stupid

yes, which is why smart people won't go for it

conclusion? if it's successful, it will be because of dumb people. who wants to play dumb people's games?*

* aside from half the people on this board of course

exactly - he has a point but has missed the source of the sentiment - ea act like cunts, same for ubisoft and activision. people cut valve more slack because they seem less like a bunch of vicious sister-whoring arseholes. companies need to make money, but do they really need to make absolutely rapacious day 1 dlc salt-earthing money?

idk, would like to see demographics of the users for each company - ea/ubisoft/activision's playerbase is probably a lot younger than valve's (consoles being a big part of that). if you're thinking about selling bullets at pocket money prices (and maybe they aren't, this video is old and idk the source) then that's a tacit admission that you're marketing adult-rated games directly at children. unless they're playing a game where it might be pertinent (e.g. eve or some other trading game) grown-ups have better things to do than fuck about with micro-transactions.

Cliff missed the point, but he hinted at it. He said we should vote with our wallets, but we can't effectively do that because, like he also said, we are the minority. Even if everyone on reddit boycotted the new Sims game, Maxis (and EA) would still make money hand over fist on the game because most of the playerbase doesn't use reddit or even know WTF it is. How many gamers use social networking sites to keep up to date on and discuss development company practices? Even a wildly viral anti-EA meme wouldn't have an appreciable impact on sales, I'd wager. IMHO FWIW YMMV.

Transient wrote:He said we should vote with our wallets, but we can't effectively do that because, like he also said, we are the minority.

vote /= veto

Fucking hell, just reading this shit makes me rage.
If ever there was a correlation between video games and actual violence, it's right there.

Pay full price, get full product. End of exchange.

If a whore is gonna stop mid BJ, demanding additional funds, that's a black eye well deserved.

seremtan wrote:

Transient wrote:He said we should vote with our wallets, but we can't effectively do that because, like he also said, we are the minority.

vote /= veto

As long as the profits of microtransactions outweighs the loss of sales from unhappy customers, EA will do it.

The problem isn't just micro-transactions or DLC, but games that are tailored in a way that makes italmost impossible to complete or win the game without paying (additional) money. Just read this Real Racing 3 review to see what I'm talking about.

Transient wrote:As long as the profits of microtransactions outweighs the loss of sales from unhappy customers, EA will do it.

profits > losses: pretty much the foundation of every successful business model

Anyone remember back in the good ol' days when DLC's were free? If you paid for anything it was an expansion pack that would include at the very least an additional 60% of extra game time offered by the original game.

nah, you're imagining things were much better than they actually were. jesus, next you'll be telling us there was some glorious heyday of FPS gaming where player-created content would define most of the themes, features and game modes we regard as commonplace today.

seremtan wrote:not quite sure how ridiculously idiotic and shitty this is supposed to be. no one forces anyone to buy EA games, or to buy into the microtransactions models. like the guy said, people will vote with their wallets

also, lol @ the 'nice Gabe' story on reddit. he lets a guy with a serious medical condition have paid leave to recover - i.e. standard practice for any employer this side of the Atlantic, minus the massive medical bills

yes, and yes.

clif b is a dumb ass polski

and gabe's so fat that he can't shit out HL3

seremtan wrote:not quite sure how ridiculously idiotic and shitty this is supposed to be. no one forces anyone to buy EA games, or to buy into the microtransactions models. like the guy said, people will vote with their wallets

"Voting" with your wallet may be a way to show the developer/publisher that you're not interested in the content they have on offer, but it doesn't inform them on why you're not interested. It may eventually push the developer in a different direction, but maybe that's not the direction we want to go in. That's why it remains important to sound off on issues like this. Gamers, bloggers and professional gaming journalists should write about their dislike of these systems. Only then developers and publishers will understand what they're doing wrong.

Also, having said that, the problem is that a large group of hardcore gamers dislikes the in-game purchases. Unfortunately, there's an even bigger group of casual morons that will throw money at everything without thinking twice. Some young children are growing up with day one DLC and so-called "free-to-play" games. They're simply ignorant and have no idea how things used to be.

Many PC gamers are complaining about "consolitis": games being aimed at console gamers. They're shorter, easier and lack features we've come to expect from PC releases. PC gamers may stop buying games that are most guilty of this, but the result is that the publisher won't release future games on PC at all anymore, because that's not where the money is. That's an example of what I meant with pushing them in a different direction, but not the direction we want them to go in. And it's also an example of the publishers following the majority of gamers. If you don't agree with what the majority blindly swallows, then you're straight out of luck. Voting with your wallet will only drive the publisher further away from your cause.

U "mad"?

He mad

Oh yeah I forget, this is Q3W anno 2013. Having discussions about anything is something we stopped doing back in '07

So what I meant to say is:

no u!

Calm down Randy.

He mad for sure

Eraser, you are wrong about "voting with your wallet" not working. It's like saying you should write how you don't like Britney Spears' new album every time she releases one; when you've already made it clear that you don't like pop music

Eraser wrote:

seremtan wrote:not quite sure how ridiculously idiotic and shitty this is supposed to be. no one forces anyone to buy EA games, or to buy into the microtransactions models. like the guy said, people will vote with their wallets

"Voting" with your wallet may be a way to show the developer/publisher that you're not interested in the content they have on offer, but it doesn't inform them on why you're not interested. It may eventually push the developer in a different direction, but maybe that's not the direction we want to go in. That's why it remains important to sound off on issues like this. Gamers, bloggers and professional gaming journalists should write about their dislike of these systems. Only then developers and publishers will understand what they're doing wrong.

Also, having said that, the problem is that a large group of hardcore gamers dislikes the in-game purchases. Unfortunately, there's an even bigger group of casual morons that will throw money at everything without thinking twice. Some young children are growing up with day one DLC and so-called "free-to-play" games. They're simply ignorant and have no idea how things used to be.

Many PC gamers are complaining about "consolitis": games being aimed at console gamers. They're shorter, easier and lack features we've come to expect from PC releases. PC gamers may stop buying games that are most guilty of this, but the result is that the publisher won't release future games on PC at all anymore, because that's not where the money is. That's an example of what I meant with pushing them in a different direction, but not the direction we want them to go in. And it's also an example of the publishers following the majority of gamers. If you don't agree with what the majority blindly swallows, then you're straight out of luck. Voting with your wallet will only drive the publisher further away from your cause.

point

but there's considerable diversity in the game industry. just as there are the studios producing World-of-Tanks-style grind-worthy cash cows, there are also studios doing things the other way. i mean, just because Hollywood throws dumpster-loads of cash at glossy superhero CGI shitfests doesn't mean there isn't an indie scene, or that big-budget movies that are actually good don't get made

and to the "casual morons" you mentioned i'd just like to say this: