So, maybe you've heard, maybe you haven't. EA's Battlefield: Bad Company FPS is going to have tons of unlockable weapons, a small portion of which are "premium" content. In other words, you pay to unlock them. Stating clearly that I've never actually seen the game nor talked to anyone at EA about it, my understanding of the situation is that of 20 guns, 10 are unlockable through play, 5 are unlocked through promos, and 5 can be bought either with a special "Gold Edition" of the game or over Xbox Live.
So if you aren't that big into Battlefield or you don't really care about how many guns you get, you get the standard edition of the game and party on. If it's a bigger deal to you, you can buy the extras. I don't know how much it'll cost, but I can't imagine unlockable weapons are saleable for any more than $10 bucks altogether, and that is a generous assumption.
However, though, this doesn't stop obnoxious dweebs from getting all up in arms about having to pay for DLC, about getting an "incomplete game," and how this is the END OF THE FUCKING WORLD and they absolutely won't stand for it. Really, dudes? What's the big deal?
I actually think that games that offer a lower-priced "basic" experience while offering fans the opportunity to pay for extras are the future. That's the only way they do it in greater Asia, for example -- as a failsafe against piracy, actually, the basic game is totally free and users who really care have the opportunity to buy add-ons and expansions, as few or as many as they want.
A system that lets users pay exactly what an experience is worth to them -- a little bit if they're curious, ambivalent or casual, and a little bit more if they're engaged and hardcore -- is a win-win situation for everyone. Games are getting expensive, man. What if they start costing $70, $80 bucks by next year? When's it gonna stop? How much are you going to pay just to check something out? Wouldn't you rather pay less at the register and then pay more later only if you feel it's something you're personally invested in?
And doesn't that incentivize game companies to give you a game you can really hang with for a long time, that you'd be interested in continually adding onto?
If you feel you're being "nickel-and-dimed" after you've already paid for a game, would you rather pay more up front to get the whole thing? Oh, wait, in this Bad Company scenario, you can. Just buy the premium version. Or only buy one or two extra guns instead of all of 'em. Content costs money, kids; sorry. And the only way to reduce the price of games -- or even better, customize cost to the level at which you value the experience -- is to be open-minded to alternative revenue streams.
Really, I think this Bad Company boycott is a knee-jerk reaction from the ignorant kids. But if you have a tough time choking down this biz model, I'd hazard to say you ought to get used to it; I hear WiiWare titles like My Life As A King will allow you to buy additional classes beyond the basic four it comes with, and I'd be willing to make a bet right now that the next big MMO to approach WoW's level of success will either be free with microtransactions, or offer a free experience with a premium subscription model.
Anyway, here's another example. I'm a big Pokemon fan. You can only get certain Pokemon from Nintendo events -- in other words, a little something extra for the people who are geeked enough to go to Toys 'R' Us on their Saturday and download Manaphy. What if you could get a new rare Pokemon every month for two bucks? Some people have a few Pokemon games, they play a little bit, but wouldn't pay more beyond what they've already spent at retail for it. A fan like me probably would.
So should Nintendo bump up the scale of Pokemon games and make everyone pay more for above-and-beyond content? Or should they make the extra content, keep the price the same and allow it to be bought only by those who really want it? The option that these protesters want -- more content at the same price -- is not a possibility as development costs continue to rise.
Pokemon's probably a bad example, because its core audience -- kids -- don't tend to have credit cards they can whip out for microtransactions, so it's highly unlikely that friend code-loving Nintendo would go this way. But Nexon (MapleStory, KartRider) has a strong youth core userbase, and gets around this by selling little prepaid cards in denominations like $10 or $25 or something, that you can buy at Target, and that let kids buy items in their games in the amount for which the card provides. It's a really good biz model for them -- they make money even though their games are free. And it's good for their players -- some of its users pay $25 a month, some of them pay $5 every couple of months, and some of them pay nothing at all.
The free thing applies mostly to online games; I doubt if console games could ever be free. But they could be cheaper -- and that's the key.
Why is our audience so hostile to this? Imagine if your games ranged in base cost from free up to maybe $40, and then you had yourself a little monthly game card in whatever amount you chose to spend on additional content. In some cases, you'd probably end up paying just as much for the games you love as you do now. But in other cases -- with games where you don't give a damn -- you pay significantly less.
Anyway, the point is that making extra content costs developers money, and they can't keep raising game prices forever. There's a point of consumer resistance that they just won't make it past, and some people -- like EA's John Riccitiello -- think we might already be there. So to stay competitive, game companies have got to start exploring alternate ways to monetize content.
The major caveat, of course, is that microtransactions will only work well if they can reduce the price of the basic experience. But companies like EA cannot cut prices until they see how consumers react to paying for extras. My guess is this Bad Company thing, like EA's upcoming free-to-play Battlefield Heroes, is the company's way of testing the waters -- too bad so many people are missing the boat.
One more time -- more content costs more money, period. At least you're being given the choice.
I'd also hate to think that certain "members of the media" are rather unethically capitalizing on people's ignorance and reactionary nature to cause a fuss and raise their profile in "games journalism" on the strength of selfish sensationalism. Way to help out the medium, guys, you are WINNAR!
-- Hokay, back to my vacation.
[Update: Okay, maybe "dweebs" was harsh. Sorry. But I stick by "obnoxious"!]
48 comments:
My understanding was that My Life as a King would have have ONE playable race, and the other three would have to be unlocked. If so, that bugs me far more than this non-issue with Bad Company.
Perhaps part of it is people still think of EA as the malevolent overlord hellbent on destroying innovation and crushing customers under their titanium boots.
For Christ's sake, it's not like they're charging $60 for a game with no guns at all.
People need to calm down.
PS: Where'd the announcement post go?
I think part of the problem is that they're not exploring the possibility of charging less up front and then adding on stuff. They're exploring the possibility of charging the same up front and then more for stuff they've taken out, for that very purpose. It's not the first game they've tried it for, either, by any stretch.
But then, perhaps I'm just bitter at finding out how outrageously UK games are being shafted for Rock Band.
Ga*mers*, not games. Curse my overexcited ranting.
Sean -- I revealed too much info prematurely in this fast-paced world of blog journalism. Open mouth, insert foot! I'm sure I'll be able to talk more about it once I'm in the thick of things.
And yeah, it's popular to vilify EA but that doesn't mean it's always fair. People sure need to calm down, yes.
Simes -- Yeah, your point is a valid one, but they can't take a huge hit on lowering the game's price if nobody buys content. Paradoxically, they have to see what percentage of the consumers will buy it when the game is full-price to project whether it's viable if the game is lower-priced.
Problem is that what it *looks* like is that they're shafting people, rather than trialling a brave new world in content delivery.
And I'm just cynical enough to think that if they find out that people will pay full price for a game and then more on top for extra content, *that's* the model they'll adopt. They make more money that way, after all.
And, again, it's not like Bad Company is the first game they've tried this with. I imagine they've got a fair amount of data by now.
But, you know. Rock Band. Grr.
I don't have an objection to paying extra for additional content in principle, so long as the as-purchased game is a self-contained, fun experience on its own. But in a competitive game where you play versus other humans, knowing that your opponent will have an advantage if he's willing to pay more money can damage the experience. Some games are designed to be this way, like Magic the Gathering, and it is accepted up front that if you are willing to pay to collect better cards, you may have an advantage. I don't care for that type of game, but many people clearly do. But imagine applying this to a game of pure skill. If someone challenged me to a game of chess with the option to "buy back" a rook for $5 if he lost one, I wouldn't even consider accepting. The equality of the opponents is an integral part of the game and anything which removes this should be resisted.
I'll be curious to see where this new realm goes. I know I opted to try Hellgate: London's subscription model (and beta test their shoddy release) when it came out. While I may regret it, I do see potential for such business models. After paying one month, I was done and knew that I could slightly enjoy its single player mode and play online with my family while not needing to pay for the extras (especially since they're still teething and figuring out what should be subscription, what should not).
Personally, I wouldn't mind at all if they can get it right. I'd much rather pay for a cheaper game and opt-in if I like the game enough. Were more decent MMO's available without the initial buy-in, I'd more than likely given them a chance moreso than I do now.
Either way, something does seem like it has to change (such as downloadable games becoming something I'm increasingly a fan of, instead of having to go out and find a physical copy of the game).
I am quite alright with buying add-ons after the original sale if it means games could maybe one day drop back below that old $50 threshold that has been tossed to the side and beaten with a bag of NES controllers. It would be nice if I could buy 2 new games and pay less than $100 (with tax!) once again. Oh the memories!
An added gun is not necessary to fully experience what the game is to me. If you can still reach all of the levels and complete the game, then I am fine with having to pay for guns that I may feel I *need*. If I am missing out on whole levels from games, however, my opinion changes.
I don't mind throwing them $10 for guns I want and will use, I prefer that over paying $10 up front for 5 guns I don't even use.
I figured that's what happened.
Just thinking about the way I play, I very rarely touch the multiplayer aspect of games, unless it's to try and get some quick and easy achievements. I wouldn't mind being able to pay less for the single player campaign only. If there's online co-op available, I might be willing to pay a little more. And if I ever decide to try the multiplayer, let me pay for that when I want. Perhaps let everyone try the multiplayer for free for 48 hours so they can decide if they want to pay for it or not.
This might be more feasible if and when digital distribution becomes a more viable way to deliver games. Perhaps they could try it out first with Live Arcade games.
I agree with the eidolon in that EA's model damages competition. That and the fact that all of the data that you're paying for is actually on the disc is what's getting people all hot and bothered.
No one objects to other forms of DLC because they don't hamper your purchase. They are add-ons. They are enhancements. EA is asking you to pay full price (not some gimped price) for a gimped game. I am pretty sure that Bad Company's going to come out at $59.99 with the Gold or Collector's edition for $10 more. If I'm wrong, I redact this criticism.
As for My Life as a King, I know I'm going to pay that extra 800 wii points for the other races. Why? Because $15 for a final fantasy game isn't a bad price and neither is $23. Yes, it's outrageous of Squeenix to do this kind of crap, but I'm buying into it anyways.
Oh and penny arcade expresses the outrage the best: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2008/3/26/
I don't know, as long as DLC is done intelligently it doesn't really detract from the game.
Take for example Beautiful Katamari, one of the worst offenders. The game only costs $30, but unless you spend a bunch of extra money on additional DLC it's only about two hours worth of gameplay. laaaaame :(
At the other end of the spectrum I think would be Rumble Roses DoubleX. They have a bunch of extra costumes available as DLC that are only like a dollar a piece. It's like such a dumb little thing, but I bet those $1 add up and paid for some dude's mansion.
I really didn't put much thought on this subject, but I think that each case should be analyzed on separate.
I really think this "microrapements", as people like to call, is the future . Most MMORPGs out there are adopting the subscription-free-items-for-sale mentality and are doing quite well. Rock Band, from the same Evil King EA is building huge castles of monies from the DLCs of Rock Band.
On the other hand, we have the asshattery seen on the Horse Armor episode and what they did on the very subpar Beautiful Katamari. The content was already on the disc, for Christ's sake. Paying to use something you already have is kinda stupid, methinks.
I don't know how many weapons come with the "basic" Bad Company, or how many other you can buy online. But it's really not like EA is forcing anyone to buy the goddamn guns. If you think it is so abusive, don't download it. Worst case scenario, don't buy the game. There are plenty of awesome shooters out there.
Phew, I think I survived my first time commenting after many reads of this blog. Congrats on your work.
(And sorry for possibly bad english. Not my first language D:)
Jones,
Thanks for commenting! Your English is fine :)
It's because if they let Bad Company do it, every other dev / publisher is gonna start doing it, and it's gonna escalate by so much.
I think the Magic: The Gathering comparison is apt. The claim is that people who opt out of extra content are unaffected by its presence, but imagine playing Counter-Strike if the sniper rifles were only available as DLC.
Also, it may usher in a new era, but imagine if MLB 09 didn't have the World Series unless you paid more. That's not a delightful new era.
I also don't see this as reducing any prices. It's just like a convenience charge at Ticketmaster: if they can't charge more on the base price, they'll hide the extra charges elsewhere.
I understand expandable content, but the original game ought to be complete.
A separate question: How do you review DLC-enabled games? Is your review colored by the premium content? I guess it must be.
Right, anonymous, that's exactly the point. If it escalates it will ultimately lower the cost of games and let you pay however much it's worth to you, basically.
I respectfully disagree with your reckless assessment of me, my community, and my team.
This boycott is an effort to motivate people to NOT buy something, which is what you yourself suggested people do if they are not pleased with the situation.
With regard to our motivations, I wish you'd bother to ask. It's not about us, it's about a community trying to be heard by a major publisher. We think that BF:BC while not unique in offering DLC, is an experiment to see how far forward we're willing to let them draw the line.
The difference between the analogies you presented and what is happening with this title, is that we are being sold a $60.00 game, with content present on the disk that we are not allowed to access unless we pay more. Those that choose not to will have an arguable disadvantage in online play compared to those that shell out another 10 - 15 dollars.
We just think that's wrong and we're humbly trying to change it. Unfortunately we do have to resort to exaggerated trailers and other types of stuff these days, in order to show up anywhere on the radar and bring about awareness.
It's easy for you to sit in judgement on us because we don't have the blogging pedigree that you do. We are not, have never claimed to be, and will never be "journalists". We're just a community of normally fun-loving gamers with a touch of attitude.
A community that you decided to sling mud at today.
You take for granted that on a moments notice you can share a thought with thousands and thousands of people across a vast array of media outlets.
Just because we are finding a voice and some support in an effort that you don't agree with, doesn't make it okay for you to trash us. Personally I think it was a little irresponsible Leigh.
I'm done. I do enjoy reading your stuff, just not today.
Doc
@greg
I think the thing that people are missing is that Bad Company is till going to be a full game. You won't be hampered if you don't buy the guns for sale.
An MLB game without the World Series, on the other hand, wouldn't sit right with me. But would you be okay with paying for only the teams you wanted to play with? In my mind that's valid.
As far as reviewing games that use that microtransaction model, I think it'll be a trial and error thing. Since we're not used to having those kinds of games here in America, it'll take reviewers some time to come up with valid ways to review them. I'd hope that they'd tell us how the game is with and without premium content.
See, you don't really seem to understand the situation in it's entirety.
If EA were planning on releasing the basic version of this game at a lower price point, let's say, $45, and charging the normal retail price of $60 for the full version, I wouldn't be quite so mad. That's not their plan.
Battlefield Bad Company - the basic version - will cost $60. the other guns will be available for an additional cost (even though they will actually be on the disc if all of the info I've read is correct). This now creates a schism within the online multiplayer community. You'll be able to buy a better gameplay experience than the people who spent the $60 for what they believed to be a full game.
It's different when companies release map packs - Let's look at Halo 3 as an example. New DLC maps come out, and you can still play the game on equal footing with everyone else without them. If you have the maps, they'll show up in the match making playlists. If not, they won't. Simple as that. In this case, however, if I don't have a particular gun that I'd have to pay for, I could be put at a disadvantage to someone who spent the money on it. It creates an unfair playing field, and sets a nasty precedent. Sure, DLC is a big part of the future for gaming, but this is not the way.
First, if you want to remain sounding as mature and intelligent as you do then you should try to make your point without having to insult other people in the process. And the real reason there is such an uproar and this boycott started by Sarcastic Gamer is because the weapons that you have to pay for are *already on the disc*.
This means that they've been made and completely finished and included on the disc. Yet if I go to the store and pay the full $60 for the game I still don't get everything that's offered at release. There's something inherently wrong with this.
I have Rock Band and probably close to $50 worth of DLC for that, but I think the situation is different. I feel I got my money's worth with all of the content that was offered on the original disc and have no problems with paying to continue to enjoy new content. With BF: BC, it's already there, I've already paid, why should I have to pay more to unlock something on a disc I've already bought.
Just so it's known, I think the game looks interesting. I want to play it. But I completely disagree with the business model approach that they're taking with it. And out of principle and belief in my own feelings I will not be purchasing, or even renting, the game unless things get changed. It's just something that I, and thousands of others so far, have decided we won't put up with and will stand up and fight it. We're not trying to shut down EA, I don't hate them, we just don't think it's right.
And people wonder why I bought a Wii first. Because Nintendo releases full games! They don't make me pay extra if I wanna unlock Luigi. I suppose I'm on the boycott bandwagon but simply because EA publishes bad games and after a decade I learned that. I suppose I don't blame them because to survive they are going to have to do one of two things, make good game or rob the customer blind...seems the decided the latter of the two.
Well first of all I take offense to being called an "obnoxious dweeb" because I am member of this community and I support the efforts of this community. Perhaps if you had a "community" that you could support you might be inclined to agree to other people's opinions. Oh, but wait, it's sort of hard to be able to join a community when you run around trashing communities and calling them "obnoxious dweebs." I really cannot help the fact that you are so delusional with visions of EA company picnics where they all bow down and worship you for saving them from the horrible era of (insert offended community here) that you cannot consider what this move on EA's part does for the whole gaming community. And what it does, just in case you missed the point because you were too busy slamming and trashing a community that now has the backing of major blogs and gaming sites across the world by the way, is create a precedent for other companies and EA themselves to continue to dig into the pockets of consumers. Not to mention this "digging deeper into consumers pockets" is taking place in a time when people don't have the extra money to just blow on trivial items that should have been included when they made their initial purchase.
I don't care what credentials you have or where you came from, slamming and trashing communities by calling them "obnoxious dweebs" is childish, immature, and uncalled for. I regret to inform you that before today I had never heard of your blog and from this point on I will not waste my time reading such filth. I do believe that everyone that read your post is now less intelligent than when they started reading it. Thank you for being responsible for the dumbing down of all your audience members.
Mean Leigh is mean. :(
"obnoxious dweebs" er just a little bit harsh. If I had a blog where I basicly just called people names for expressing their opinions I guess I'd call you a "pretentious b****"
So it's OK for EA to hold content that's on the disc hostage for an additional $10? This is unfairly offering an advantage to those who choose/can afford to buy the $70 disc. Games are expensive and if publishers want us to invest in their game then they are gonna have to learn not to pull BS like this.
We will not purchase abusive DLC. This is a slippery slope and if this is successful you can bet it will only be a matter of time before we see a race to the bottom by the EAs and Activisions of the industry. And where they go the rest will follow.
Playstation One games cost $40, Playstation Three games cost $60 dollars. Now they want to tack on $10 just to get a whole game. If you don't see a trend then maybe we as gamers are in trouble.
Leigh it's time to make a choice. Choose wisely because the future of pricing models is being shaped right now.
Hahahahaa!! Sorry... I was going to complain about a video game blogger calling people geeks and dweebs, but I just looked at your little "credentials" paragraph.
If only I had a free Blogspot account, Yahoo email address and an overestimation of my own intelligence... then maybe someday *I* could write some freelance game reviews.
(Yeah, I've never heard of you or your fame before, and I used to run one of the largest FF7 websites around. But you are really important.)
So.... you're writing about so called "obnoxious dweebs" but you don't know anything about who these "dweebs" are or what they are being "obnoxious" about? Way to go with journalism. I hope to god you don't write your professional articles with the same lack of integrity. And by the way, stating that you know absolutely nothing about the subject doesn't clear you to be an idiot about the subject. It only makes you look like an idiot.
Now, if you'd take the time to make a respectful and informed post on the subject, myself and a lot of others would be happy to read it. You don't even have to agree with Sarcastic Gamer. Joystiq gave a so-so post about it. No one complained about that because they decided to do their homework and then make their own decision.
Obnoxious dweebs?
Ignorant kids?
Please God, get your head out of your ass!!
"Content costs money, kids; sorry"
Yes and obviously this game's content cost a lot more to develop because I don't recall ever having to pay extra for the guns included on the call of duty 4 disc!!
Also, as a potential reader of your blog who, admittedly heard of it for the wrong reasons I really don't respect being talked down to.
Hah, looks like someone mobilized a Minor Flame Brigade.
Ouch Charlie, that hurt!!
What the Boycott is meant to do is raise awareness about something that is just wrong; speak out; make our voices heard... Yeah, we can turn our heads and say, "oh if you dont like it just dont buy it" but then the next company is going to say "oh shit, they got away with it, lets do it too!!"
Hey, politicians bring up bullshit arguments to the table all the time... And recently, the united States as a whole has become a "turn your head" state... It's time to say NO ITS NOT OKAY!!! and you know what, it may be some stupid guns to you, but to us, it means a hell of a lot more...
Please reconsider your argument... I truly believe you are wrong this time Leigh...
Screw you we aint Dweebs maybe you are the dweeb if you love pokemon so much so that doeant give u the right to insult Boycotters you OBNOXIOUS DWEEB!
Sarcastic Gamer FTW
Leigh -
I hope your comments aren't permanently hijacked by 12 year olds. I appreciate Doc's sentiments which mirror my own, but... yeah. This is just getting ridiculous.
Oh and hypersexualized Gardevoir scares me.
I'm having a hard time understand why you care so much. Call your dad and ask him for more rent money. Then you can get back to masturbating to Pokemon and passing judgment.
Wow. That really IS fun. I can see why you do it.
I have never heard of you before today, when I read about your article on SarcasticGamer. I'm all for having your own opinion on the matter, but calling us "obnoxious dweebs" because we don't agree with you is going a bit far, I think.
Although I'm all for this boycott, I agree with you when you started talking about cheaper/free games, and paying to enhance the experience. I played Maplestory for a long time, but I ended up becoming bored. I'm very glad that such a game did not cost me money if I didn't want it to. Sadly, that's not the case here.
We are being asked to pay $60 for a game, and then another ten dollars to unlock more content ALREADY ON THE GAME DISK. I think EA is going overboard, and I don't agree. If the game were, say, $30, I may not have quite as much a problem with it. If that were the case, I would agree with you. But unfortunately, it is not.
In regards to what Doc said, I am overjoyed that I became a part of this boycott, to stop others from trying other things like this. Look up info on the new Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles game. Anyone who has played the series knows that you can choose from multiple different races. But in the new game, they have locked all but one race, and require a "small fee" to unlock the others, "if one so chooses". Square-Enix has already caught on to what EA is doing, and shit like this will continue to happen if people don't take a stand now.
All I can say is... Thanks for making youself look stupid but in doing so providing more publicity for our boycott :D
Sorry im with Sarcastic Gamer on this one. Something has to be done about EA before they think they can get away with selling each individual file of future games saying they are "additional content".
Anyway I won't rant too much, the bottom line is.. EA suck for what they do to games, and gamers.
You speak about a future where you could pay $0-$60 a game here but that's not the case. EA is charging $60 for a game that they know is incomplete and is making us pay more for the weapons that we should have gotten in the first place. We 'obnoxious dweebs' do not like it when a company tries to scam us. They try to say that these weapons will not unbalance the game, but that is never the case. For example, I could be terrible with an assault rifle but excellent with a rocket launcher and visa versa for you, but then what if I don’t have access to the rocket launcher? Also if these guns supposedly did not affect gameplay, then why sell them in the first place? This trend will not stop here; eventually they will start us much more incomplete games because we gave our consent through our wallets. The only way E.A. is going to take our complaints seriously is if we do everything in our power to hurt their sales. We happen to care about the gaming community which is why we are active in promoting our message.
You may think that we are all just dweebs, but we have gained a lot of support. Look at all of these sites listed in this link that have come on board:
http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/04/so-you-say-you-want-a-revolution.html
The idea is great, but they are shipping Five guns and they are pricing it normally, the way I hear, meaning you pay what CoD4 cost's for a game with 1/4 the guns, maps etc.
And then get the opportunity to spend more and STILL have less than Cod4(which is my favorite online game and a competitor in the market)
So I don't see this as a precedent we want set, anyway, do you know how freaking hard it is to download anything on you mom's credit card as a Minor?
I'll get it on the disc thanks.
*sigh* I've never seen so many kids get so upset about being called obnoxious dweebs.
Dear all you 'sarcastic gamers' that have come to troll, if you don't want to be called an obnoxious dweeb then maybe try being less obnoxious. It works wonders!
Thanks!
I don't see why you are whining about someone else whining. It just doesn't make plain sense. Complaining about complaining doesn't help, and I know that I will never be coming back here, and I will actively tell others not to come to such a worthless site like this full of obnoxious sluts.
@Shredz:
if speaking out about your opinions on a matter are obnoxious, then obnoxious I will remain until the day I die. The presidential candidates travel around the country, trying to make people understand their viewpoints, and trying to make people agree that they are the best candidate. We are doing that, only on a much smaller scale. We are informing people of your viewpoints, and trying to show people what we think is wrong with this situation. We have yet to start calling people names if they disagree, we are merely disappointed that they do not agree with our beliefs. I'm sorry if me taking a stand against what I believe to be wrong is "obnoxious" to some. But I would rather be considered an "obnoxious dweeb" and at least take a stand, then be considered cool, normal, etc. and sit on the sidelines while I watch something I disagree with take place, and affect me and my gaming experience
It's unfortunate that you apparently decided to make you're statement like this without talking to anybody from SG.
One of the commenters mentioned MLB08 earlier and I'll use that as an example. Lets say EA puts out MLB08 with the same content argument, but you begin the game with St Mary's High School and can only play at Yankee Stadium or Fenway by paying for DLC that's already on the disc.
Next thing you know, you're getting Madden 09... but all you get is an EA created Little League park with clay from the shared baseball field to play in. What's that? You want to play at Lambeau Field? Pay $5. You want Giants stadium??? Another $5 please.
You really showed your immaturity and irresponsibility as a so-called "journalist" on this one.
Good luck digging yourself out of the hole you just dug. I'd offer a hand but I'm just an "obnoxious dweeb" so maybe you can ask someone else.
@peterrocc...
if you read her latest post, leigh has apologized for calling names, and has actually talked to SG. I still think she was in the wrong for calling names, and saying what she did without ever talking to anyone about it...but how can you expect anyone to respect us if we're bitches to them like too many of y'all have been. Repect, and be respected.
I dont think most of you get the point of this. Yeah, sure its stupid that they are charging for guns that are already in the game, but the thing is this. If we let EA (Or any other company) charge us for things that are already done, then whats stopping them from selling a $60 dollar game with only a 3 hour story then selling expansion packs for ten bucks each? This is just going to snowball out of control. But if you like paying for stuff like that then be my guest. I'll save my money.
From an "Obnoxious Dweeb”
-Darrien
What a strangely long piece for a strangely misinformed opinion of the matter. This is surely EA dipping it's billion dollar toe into the water and seeing if they can get away with it.
Fair enough, sites like sarcastic gamer are going very overboard with the whole thing. But they are a tiny fish in a vast ocean of blogs and they are entitled to do so if they want some attention brought to something they feel strongly about.Hardly makes them obnoxiuos, or dweebs ( who uses that word...?. Their site may not be up to scratch yet, but they do produce a very fine podcast.
The thing that worries me is that these guns shouldn't even exist if they do nothing to alter the balance of a game. Their must be something to them. I wasn't going to buy the game anyway, but I think they'll change the way they are going to do this.
You describe microtransactions as add-ons to an already released game. Which is very much so the future of course. But to have these "add-ons" already designed and implemented way before the release of a game, and then to not include them, is asking a bit much.
@Leigh:
Call me paranoid (but please try and resist the urge ;) ), but this move from EA, if unopposed, could lead to game skill being augmented by money.
What would you think of a Halo 4 where you could buy a better shield than other people, or bigger, better, and faster guns? All of a sudden, everyone has to spend $ x + 30 just to stay on par (where x is the original cost of the game).
Think about it - it's the natural conclusion to *these types* of micropayments.
I, for one (because I don't pretend to speak for everyone else who might share my opinion), am not against micropayments and DLC, but it should be done so that the content is a "nice-to-have" and doesn't unbalance gameplay. Or it extends it, ala Guitar Hero. Otherwise it's just going to kill the multiplayer FPS market.
Maybe ;)
Right -- it does seem unfair to have content that provides a significant advantage that can only be gotten through extra cash. I can see the point that it's out of place here given the game's format.
Post a Comment