Then there's the various DLCs for Mass Effect 3, some of which DID feature in a way story-relevant information, such as the Prothean Javik.
I am not sure why everyone keeps pointing to the Javik DLC as the good example of this, Leviathan was much more important to the ME3 story. If Leviathan was included in the original game I think there would have been less of an outcry about the ending, at the very least it would have been less shocking/confusing to people.
@deltago: Yes, but where does it stop? This whole situation has been creeping up on us over several years, it's insidious, and we, the consumers, have allowed it to happen by not being more vigilant or vocal. We need to stop this trend before it reaches new levels of greed.
Hmm, I think the crusader Kings 2 dlcs have been pretty good. Otherwise, I agree @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud (also on capitalism, though I still firmly believe that we can create a better system somehow along the road ^^)
Well kind of, they sell those overpriced portrait and unit packs that are purely cosmetic, but the actual content dlc is good. Strategy games are actually forced to make DLC that improves on the game, if they made some random content pack that takes 2 hours it would be fr more glaring than it is in other genres.
Here's the thing. Microtransactions really are the ideal economical scheme for companies. You know why? Because they can charge extra VAT on it. It's the case here in Europe already. Take Neopets again, for example. My sister once wanted to buy something using the site's own virtual currency, which is Neocash or something. I said 'ok, let's do this' and paid for her. You'd think that because 1000 NC = 10 euros, I'd have to pay only 5 euros for just 500 NC. But NOPE, I had to pay over 6 euros because of some VAT bullshit for some virtual items. The extra charge might not have been much, for a student like me it still means something. It also made me realise how STUPID it actually is to have to pay VAT for a virtual item I can't even touch with my own two hands. I can understand there VAT being charged for a physical object that is being transferred to your home, but virtual items? Come on. That just smells like milking the cow once again.
Fuck. I hate this fucking over-the-top hungry money wolf world. (sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's hard to translate some things accordingly from Dutch to English and I'm half-awake right now)
Hmm, I think the crusader Kings 2 dlcs have been pretty good. Otherwise, I agree @Kitteh_On_A_Cloud (also on capitalism, though I still firmly believe that we can create a better system somehow along the road ^^)
Well kind of, they sell those overpriced portrait and unit packs that are purely cosmetic, but the actual content dlc is good. Strategy games are actually forced to make DLC that improves on the game, if they made some random content pack that takes 2 hours it would be fr more glaring than it is in other genres.
In Paradox's case it also pretty evident how the sale of DLC is what keeps the development of the game going, just like it used to be with expansion packs. Only now they give us free content and features with every major DLC and you don't have to buy all the new expansions to get patches for original content bugs, like the old system worked.
Paradox's example is pretty much proof for why DLC is superior to Expansion Packs (not that there is much difference beyond distribution anyway) for both developers and customers, if only certain companies would stop trying to abuse it for money and behaving generally dishonestly.
Yeah, tho I would have prefered a comprehensive expansion pack instead of these little tidbits. However, the expense is not big, and as you say you can pick and choose whatever you want. I only have the Byzantium dlc for instance
Here's the thing. Microtransactions really are the ideal economical scheme for companies. You know why? Because they can charge extra VAT on it. It's the case here in Europe already. Take Neopets again, for example. My sister once wanted to buy something using the site's own virtual currency, which is Neocash or something. I said 'ok, let's do this' and paid for her. You'd think that because 1000 NC = 10 euros, I'd have to pay only 5 euros for just 500 NC. But NOPE, I had to pay over 6 euros because of some VAT bullshit for some virtual items. The extra charge might not have been much, for a student like me it still means something. It also made me realise how STUPID it actually is to have to pay VAT for a virtual item I can't even touch with my own two hands. I can understand there VAT being charged for a physical object that is being transferred to your home, but virtual items? Come on. That just smells like milking the cow once again.
Is this not normal? It just sounds like a sales tax, same as you pay when you buy anything. Or do you just mean that you have to pay a rate higher than the normal sales tax because of this VAT thing? 5 euros to over 6 euros would mean >20% tax, which does seem pretty high for a sales tax.
Here's the thing. Microtransactions really are the ideal economical scheme for companies. You know why? Because they can charge extra VAT on it. It's the case here in Europe already.
Um, you don't really understand how VAT works. VAT isn't good for companies - it increases the price to consumers but the company doesn't get to keep the VAT charged. They have to pay the VAT over to the government.
It's very similar to sales tax - and again companies don't get to keep the sales tax. It goes to the government. And yeah, 20% VAT rate is about right - although it does vary slightly from country to country within Europe.
It's horrible to hear about what's happening to SimCity. Anyone who buys it is telling EA that requiring an Internet connection for a single player game, not allowing you to play a single player game due to servers being unavailable, and intrusive DRM in general is OK.
By not buying it, you are telling EA that you do not want those things in single player games. I really want to play it, but I am not buying it for those reasons.
Paradox's example is pretty much proof for why DLC is superior to Expansion Packs (not that there is much difference beyond distribution anyway) for both developers and customers, if only certain companies would stop trying to abuse it for money and behaving generally dishonestly.
Interesting point, it makes good sense though, Total War: Shogun 2 is the same way now that I think about it.
I wonder if the new ME3 DLC will have a similar effect on the game, the whole came off as kind of fan servicey to me, but I understand it gives players one last hurrah with their favorite characters, something I think some people felt was missing from the third act of the game.
EA has now clarified that they didn't mean all would have microtransactions, rather that all their mobile games would have them. Whether this is genuinely what they meant all along, or just backpedalling due to consumer outcry, I can't say.
@TJ_Hooker: Pfft, it's just an excuse. Just like they made up excuses when ME 3 didn't turn out to be the cash cow they had hoped it would be. ME 3 already has microtransactions, I doubt EA will let slip the opportunity to stain their other future games as well. Just more PR nonsense.
I'm not sure why anybody gets worked up over this. The only message that anybody can send to Electronic Arts is with their wallets. If so many people -that would buy their games otherwise (an important distinction)- now choose not to, the impact on profitability will inspire change. If it's some vocal minority on a forum where the general consensus is that EA = Evil Overlord, then I don't see why there is any shock or awe.
If it ends up hurting them, then so be it. If not, it means that there are plenty of people out there that will pay whatever or do whatever. It doesn't hurt or affect me, so I have trouble caring. The only EA games I have bought in the past few years have been DA2, ME2 and ME3. I was admittedly very disappointed by DA2, and didn't love (also didn't hate) the ending to the ME trilogy. The added content thing doesn't bother me overmuch.
As for µ-transactions, the mere presence of them prevented me from bothering to even try Diabo ]I[ or Guild Wars 2 (the latter is reportedly excellent, but whatever). I don't know if I'm a minority in this, or if my feelings are widespread. If the former is true, EA isn't going to change their business model. If the latter, economics will force the issue.
I didn't know about µ-transactions in ME3 (and don't remember seeing an online marketplace or whatnot). *shrugs*
There are no micro transactions in Diablo 3. There's an optional real money auction house, but I've never used it and it doesn't seem to be used that much by anyone to be honest.
I don't think DLCs are inherently bad. Anything you've got ready by the time the game is done should be there along with it, instead of having to pay some extra for it, but I wouldn't mind the developers adding in whole new stuff much later. I didn't mind most stuff in Oblivion, for instance (horse armor notwithstanding), because to my knowledge, they weren't ready and waiting on the dock even when the game itself was published, to be brought out later to bring in more money.
"You have to buy the [item] DLC to use this" can go all the way to hell, though.
That said, I don't think the entire future of the computer gaming is looking very bleak. On the contrary, I feel like we're on the verge of a new golden age: sure, there's still a whole bunch of AAA games, but the indie games have risen up to give us something actually good to play, and Kickstarter is in the point of drawing an even brighter tomorrow.
What I don't understand is how companies give priority to the availability of Day 1 DLC and microtransactions instead of seeing to it that the game actually works. Take the new SimCity (produced by EA Maxis, published by EA) for example. On launch day a lot of people experienced technical difficulties. Some couldn't even play the game at all. Too much drain on the servers for a single player game. Yep, in order to play this game, you have to be online all the time, even in single player. This concept really baffles me. Why the heck do you need a constant internet connection for a single player game? Why not just implement a 'normal', traditional save feature? EA can very well stuff their games with DLC, but they can't get base problems like enough server capacity out of the way. It's highly unprofessional. Would it really cost that much to expand the servers somewhat? It could be a long-term investment and all other future releases of games would undoubtedly benefit from it. My boyfriend mentioned how BGEE also had problems during release, but the difference is that Overhaul still is quite a small company. I could undertand and just waited a week before downloading BGEE. EA, however, is a multi-million company. Do they really just not care about upgrading their servers or is it really that expensive? Mind you, I'm not talking about hiring some stand-in servers for a couple of days, I'm talking about a permanent upgrade/expansion of the amount of server capacity. Sorry for going off-topic, btw.
No, it really doesn't seem like they care. The difference is that the people in charge of EA probably aren't gamers themselves, and have no idea how this stuff is actually supposed to work. So it all ends up in a huge mess.
@Chow: True, but gamers or no, it's not hard to, you know, LISTEN to your customers. Even a damn monkey could do the EA execs' job better than they can. You'd think they'd have learned by now to either shape up, or piss off and let somebody who actually cares about games do the job.
It actually saddens me that they only act in drastic situations such as was the case with the Mass Effect 3 ending. And even that DLC wasn't perfect and still contained plot holes. It really takes a LOT to get an actual reaction out of them other than some generic PR nonsense.
EA does nothing wrong, in my book. If people are content enough with buying stuff like SimCity and like it this way? More power to 'em. I don't wanna play my games under those circumstances however. There are enough games out there that I still DO like. They can have my monies.
I wouldn't mind what other people play otherwise, except it encourages even more corporations to behave that way. It leads them into thinking DRM is the right thing to do, as are soulless AAA games with too much focus on graphics and too little actual substance, meaning there'll be even more of those and even less games I might actually like.
So in a roundabout way, they will still affect me and the games I'd play.
@Chow: True, but gamers or no, it's not hard to, you know, LISTEN to your customers. Even a damn monkey could do the EA execs' job better than they can. You'd think they'd have learned by now to either shape up, or piss off and let somebody who actually cares about games do the job.
It depends on what you consider their jobs to be. If their job is to ensure that EA releases nothing but quality game and keeps all their customers satisfied, then yeah, they kind of suck. If their job is to maximize profits, then they may actually be pretty good at their jobs (I'm just assuming here, I'm not about to review EA's financial performance).
Would it really cost that much to expand the servers somewhat? It could be a long-term investment and all other future releases of games would undoubtedly benefit from it. My boyfriend mentioned how BGEE also had problems during release, but the difference is that Overhaul still is quite a small company. I could undertand and just waited a week before downloading BGEE. EA, however, is a multi-million company. Do they really just not care about upgrading their servers or is it really that expensive? Mind you, I'm not talking about hiring some stand-in servers for a couple of days, I'm talking about a permanent upgrade/expansion of the amount of server capacity. Sorry for going off-topic, btw.
The thing is, I think they only experience these server issues at launch, when server loads skyrocket. It kind of makes sense to not upgrade just to meet these peak demands, as the vast majority of the time their current, lesser, server capacity will suffice. It'd be a bit like if someone who owned a compact car was moving, and went out and bought a pickup truck just so that they'd be able to move the big items, even though they have no need for the pickup truck in their day to day lives.
I think the bigger issue here is the fact that server capacity even comes into play for a single player game. If it wasn't for always-online DRM, it wouldn't even be an issue.
Yeah. That's true. But it's like shouting in a huge storm. Take... TV. I don't watch anything our commercial networks throw out anymore. Just crap or old episodes, which they repeat 1000 times. My parents do however. To each their own and they have millions of people who do to the same every night. What do I do against it? Support the niches I still find interesting. Although it is a bit defeatist, I guess.
@Chow: My thoughts exactly. If people wouldn't just blindly buy every small re-skin/weapon/map pack companies would throw at them, I'd have less of a problem. The fact is that some consumers just act like sheep, giving big companies the green light for cutting their game into more and more little pieces. Because nobody protests. The fans just let it slide and buy whatever falls into their lap. And that while the consumer CAN make a difference. One would say we have more options now and we can choose. That is in fact false. Instead of getting a quality product, we have to scramble the pieces of that product together ourselves. It's called 'customizing your own game'. Well, I didn't buy a package of virtual LEGO. I bought a game. I expect a full product for my honestly earned money. Choice is good, but I have the feeling companies are only exploiting the customers under the false guise of giving them 'choices'. In fact, it's not even a choice. It's the companies which decide what to cut out of the game and sell as a side package, afterall.
Comments
Fuck. I hate this fucking over-the-top hungry money wolf world. (sorry if that doesn't make sense, it's hard to translate some things accordingly from Dutch to English and I'm half-awake right now)
Paradox's example is pretty much proof for why DLC is superior to Expansion Packs (not that there is much difference beyond distribution anyway) for both developers and customers, if only certain companies would stop trying to abuse it for money and behaving generally dishonestly.
It's very similar to sales tax - and again companies don't get to keep the sales tax. It goes to the government. And yeah, 20% VAT rate is about right - although it does vary slightly from country to country within Europe.
By not buying it, you are telling EA that you do not want those things in single player games. I really want to play it, but I am not buying it for those reasons.
They're welcome to Take Activision and Valve down with them, too.
I wonder if the new ME3 DLC will have a similar effect on the game, the whole came off as kind of fan servicey to me, but I understand it gives players one last hurrah with their favorite characters, something I think some people felt was missing from the third act of the game.
http://www.gamespot.com/news/ea-clarifies-position-on-having-microtransactions-in-all-games-6404901
If it ends up hurting them, then so be it. If not, it means that there are plenty of people out there that will pay whatever or do whatever. It doesn't hurt or affect me, so I have trouble caring. The only EA games I have bought in the past few years have been DA2, ME2 and ME3. I was admittedly very disappointed by DA2, and didn't love (also didn't hate) the ending to the ME trilogy. The added content thing doesn't bother me overmuch.
As for µ-transactions, the mere presence of them prevented me from bothering to even try Diabo ]I[ or Guild Wars 2 (the latter is reportedly excellent, but whatever). I don't know if I'm a minority in this, or if my feelings are widespread. If the former is true, EA isn't going to change their business model. If the latter, economics will force the issue.
I didn't know about µ-transactions in ME3 (and don't remember seeing an online marketplace or whatnot). *shrugs*
-Edit to close the parens in the third sentence-
"You have to buy the [item] DLC to use this" can go all the way to hell, though.
That said, I don't think the entire future of the computer gaming is looking very bleak. On the contrary, I feel like we're on the verge of a new golden age: sure, there's still a whole bunch of AAA games, but the indie games have risen up to give us something actually good to play, and Kickstarter is in the point of drawing an even brighter tomorrow.
Edit: Someone better than me said it pretty well.
So in a roundabout way, they will still affect me and the games I'd play.
I think the bigger issue here is the fact that server capacity even comes into play for a single player game. If it wasn't for always-online DRM, it wouldn't even be an issue.
While it is clear damage control, it is nice to see that EA is re-evaluating some of their more obnoxious policies.
On a side note, I just bought Sim City 2000 from GOG.com. Cost me £5.99 and is still great, even after 20 years.