Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

All future EA games to feature microtransactions

All future EA games to feature microtransactions

Wed 27 Feb 2013 2:16pm GMT / 9:16am EST / 6:16am PST
Publishing

"Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business"

EA has made the announcement, in a rather roundabout way, that it will be implementing microtransactions into every single game it makes in the future.

In a speech at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, transcribed by Seeking Alpha, CFO Blake Jorgensen explained the plan.

"The next and much bigger piece [of the business] is microtransactions within games," he revealed. "We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be, and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."

However, Jorgensen also pointed out that it's not quite as simple as letting people buy a gun or costume whenever they feel like it.

"We've got to have a very strong back-end to make sure that we can operate a business like that. If you're doing microtransactions and you're processing credit cards for every one of those microtransactions, you'll get eaten alive. And so Rajat's [Taneja, EA Global CTO] team has built an amazing back-end to be able to manage that and manage it much more profitably. We've outsourced a lot of that stuff, historically. We're bringing that all in-house now."

The plan might be a popular move with investors, but much of EA's core audience has yet to be convinced, with fans reacting poorly to the inclusion of microtransactions in EA's recent Dead Space 3. However, as both Jorgensen and Taneja were keen to point out, other major EA franchises such as FIFA, Battlefield and The Simpsons: Tapped Out, already reap huge financial benefits from granulated payment scales.

In questions following the presentation, Jorgensen was quick to quash rumours that EA's non-attendance at Sony's PS4 announcement meant that it wasn't interested in the platform, perhaps because of the machine's download focus.

"At the end of the day, we're very excited about Sony's platform. We think there's a huge opportunity. It's great, as Rajat said, the technical power on the platform is going to allow us to do a substantial amount of things that we've never done before. I've seen the new Battlefield and it is stunning.

"At the end of the day, we do think there's going to be more digital business and digital download business. But a lot of it will depend on when we release titles, when Sony and Microsoft choose to release titles. And in no way do we want to see the retail channel disappear. We think that's an important part of the overall industry and we want to keep that a vibrant channel for us long term as well. So it's balancing all of those. But without a doubt, you're going to see more digital business and particularly more digital components of the gameplay allowed because the ease of it will be much better and the storage capability better."

70 Comments

Dave Herod
Senior Programmer

517 734 1.4
Popular Comment
"...consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."
I think there's a difference between "enjoying" and "not being quite irritated enough by it to put you off playing the game".

Posted:A year ago

#1

Ben Campbell
Graphic Designer / Freelance Games Journalist

17 20 1.2
Popular Comment
z
z
z
-.-

What Blake Jorgensen ACTUALLY means:

I heard you like payments yo, so I've put payments in your payments."

Posted:A year ago

#2

Rick Lopez
Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 941 0.7
Popular Comment
"...consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."

Seriously, are you kidding me. Im a consumer, and Im completely irked by the whole concept. I feel it will break gameplay. I feel that it will come to a point were playing a game and game progression wont be a bout skill, but how much money you have. And they will purposly make a game frustratingly hard and make it easier for people who pay up. The gameplay will end up broken or it might end up being much like an interactive movie where you pay real money to see the next part.

So I wonder if they go to bioware and tell them that they HAVE to include this in the next mass effect or dragon age game. What about a new SSX. Part of the thrill of SSX was unlocking stuff, clothes, new courses, boards etc. What.... now we have to pay for them???

Im completely against this. Its gonna be like what Zynga did to there games. If you wanted all the cool stuff yu had to pay real money or it was frstratingly hard, impossible or long to aquire something cool. EA doest speak for the gaming community. They do well with listening to what they want.

It sickens me that you buy a game, that isnt cheap, then they make you pay more in order to have the cool stuff or enjoy the complete expirience. they turn every game into a subscribtion service or a pay as you go service.

I dont want it.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Rick Lopez on 27th February 2013 3:53pm

Posted:A year ago

#4

Benjamin Crause
Supervisor Central Support

79 36 0.5
This is not surprising for me. I expected this especially from EA. Customer do not want it that way. There are just still too many who don't recognize how much money some spend that way. But this will change quickly. Customers will adapt to this model lightspeed fast. Also for the (hard)core gamers this is more annoying than anything. They want to buy a game for a fixed price and get exactly that. If I buy a so called Triple A title for around ~60 bucks I expect it is all in there. However, in the last few years EA was leading the pack with turning this more and more into a pricey expensive mess.

Posted:A year ago

#5

John Pickford
Owner

44 146 3.3
Seems a bit daft to apply to ALL games. I'd be more impressed if they were going Free To Play on everything. Sounds more like they're selling horse armour on top of the 40 price.

I expect they'll change their mind about this.

Posted:A year ago

#6

Andrew
Animator

148 158 1.1
I think there's a difference between "enjoying" and "not being quite irritated enough by it to put you off playing the game".
The strategy taken with Battlefield 3 did exactly that for me. I went from loving the game to never playing it almost overnight when the premium stuff came in.

I guess I won't be playing battlefield 4 then :(

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andrew on 27th February 2013 4:37pm

Posted:A year ago

#7

John Donnelly
Quality Assurance

313 38 0.1
EA.... You tried this with DLC by trying to nickle and dime players by offering the ingame content for a fee.

Please stop.
I am not going to keep buying your AAA titles if it means I have pay even more to get access to the content that comes on the disk/download.

Extended content is a different story.

Posted:A year ago

#8

Steven Hodgson
Programmer

77 120 1.6
I don't have much of a problem with microtransactions, as long as the game doesn't revolve around them like Dead Space 3. They should be like more like modern day cheats and skins

Posted:A year ago

#9

Tom Keresztes
Programmer

632 239 0.4
consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business
The same way as EA is making huge profits nowadays ?

Posted:A year ago

#10

Emily Rose
Freelance Artist

80 34 0.4
I don't mind microtransactions as long as they aren't getting in the way of the game. Diablo's auction house is doing it wrong, content packs is doing it right.

I think the main issue people had with Dead space 3 was that you were paying for cheat codes.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Michael Levine
President

4 40 10.0
Popular Comment
First off, I never post here, like ...ever. I am an industry veteran of over 20 years and worked at LucasArts "back in the day" on everything from MI2, X-Wing, Dark Forces, Full Throttle, The Dig and many more.
I applaud you all for speaking up about this. Funny, as I don't see a single post saying "Oh boy, micro-transactions! Yay, this is what I have been waiting for!"
This has been a sore spot for me as of late. Having broken from AAA games years ago to make online games and now fully in mobile, my team has been living in the F2P world for longer than most. Let me be clear before I say what I am about to say - and that is, I have no gripe with the concept of Free. None whatsoever. I also don't have a problem with micro-transactions, when done in a way that is not annoying or obtrusive to the player or game. However I now strongly feel this current flavor of F2P, is basically like a cancer. Its grip, driven by greed, is spreading like wildfire to all forms of games. And here is the funny thing - when you talk to almost any game designer - they agree with me on everything I am saying here. This is NOT being driven by creativity, which drove this industry for decades - this is being driven by SUITS, who are NOT thinking long term. I wish people and companies would wake up!! But I admit, its a temptation hard to resist. We do have F2P apps in the app store. But what this has taught me, is it's bad on every level - it's bad for games, its bad for players and its going to be bad for business. You can already argue it is. Look at Cliff B's article. Listen to what people were saying at DICE. This industry is facing a massive crisis. Consoles are in trouble. For every one Clash of Clans on mobile, there are 1000 games making only pennies a day.

This current flavor of F2P, is not even about game design. Don't believe anyone who tells you it is. It's about psychological manipulation. It's about pushing people to their edge - to the point where they are just frustrated enough to think about buying something, but not enough to hate the game/publisher/developer. And that is a very fine line. (And yes I am generalizing, there are of course a few bright lights out there but they are becoming harder and harder to find). F2P, in its popular incarnation, completely fundamentally changes the progression and flow of a game. And lets be real, most mobile games are THRILLED if they convert 3% of their players to someone who pays. A hardcore console game - maybe 5%? I am not sure but its not more than that I would bet either. So what are we doing? We are educating a generation that games should be FREE. And we are designing games to MILK money from those dumb enough to pay. We focus in on these "whales" and every ounce of effort goes into getting them to pay us more, and more and more .... . These people are not the most into the game per se - they are the ones weak enough or have enough income to give into buying items rather than "really playing".
And here is the truly sad part - I don't see any going back. This is similar to what happened to the music industry - but that was driven by technology. What is this driven by? Crap - we didnt have to do this. Looking at Mobile, where my company, HappyGiant is focused - didn't Angry Birds and Where's My Water teach people you can make money on paid games still? What about The Room or TellTale's The Walking Dead series? You can still make money on paid apps. Or do Free in different ways, like League of Legends, where it doesnt affect the gameplay (as much at least).
Do people agree with me? I am curious to hear what others think. Let the hate posts begin (joking, I think most will agree. The ones who don't - ask em where they work!!)
Well -- I just wanted to get this off my chest. Thanks for listening! (-:
--Mike
[link url=""]www.happygiant.com[/link]

Posted:A year ago

#12

Christopher Bowen
Editor in Chief

402 526 1.3
The issue I have with this mindset is that it not only takes me out of the game ("I see your player is injured! Would you like some DLC to get him off IR?"), but that I don't trust EA not to design their game around said microtransactions ("Nice all-star defenceman you got there... hate to see something happen to him..."). Will injuries in sports games - speaking to my expertise - be longer, or more frequent, as a nod to make people purchase DLC that recovers from injuries in franchise modes? Will default characters be so weak that it makes buying equipment with stat boosts a virtual requirement to be competitive (I.E.: online avatar modes such as the EA Sports Hockey League in the NHL games)? EA will consistently toe this line between pay to win and just giving a little boost, and just having to look at that line is tiresome.

Posted:A year ago

#13
yeah just what people want, small print, bait and switch, and incomplete content in their games. My god. I can see an EA RPG now, NPC whispers, " Hey Buddy, want a quest?" . You reply "sure", the npc replies, "it'll cost you, I accept visa and mastercard"..

OH Joy...

article should be titled "How the suits can ruin just about anything."

Posted:A year ago

#14

Pablo Santos
Developer

23 18 0.8
Yet another reason for me to *not* buy more games from EA. Good.
Seems like they are making my choices easier =)

Posted:A year ago

#15

Art C. Jones
Writer / Blogger

58 78 1.3
The mobile revolution in gaming isn't so much about innovation as it is about monetization.

I find that personally disappointing, but it doesn't change the reality.
The WiiU released a new controller that allows for innovation (it's a swiss army knife of possibilities). However, developers are more excited about mobile game micro-transactions or making explosions bigger and "more realistic" on the 720 or PS4 than they are in the new game play opportunities of the WiiU.

What developers decide to support plays a big part in the "reality" of the game industry today.
Personally, I think we can make a lot of cool stuff, and if you include DLC as in-game purchasing, I'm not against it. The focus, however, needs to be game play first. Make the paid stuff additive instead of interfering, and there is a nice spot where I can get more content. The reality is that with micro-transactions you can do real-time expansion packs for games that merit the extra content. That's actually pretty cool :).

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Art C. Jones on 27th February 2013 5:36pm

Posted:A year ago

#16

Adam Campbell
Associate Producer

1,137 914 0.8
Its quite simple, I don't have to buy the games if I don't get my money's worth from the outset.

Posted:A year ago

#17

Maarten De Jong
Marketing / Research partner

10 6 0.6
"We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be
Whatever it might be!? Woah! They certainly need to think that through. A limited Sim City where you have to make a microtransaction to unlock certain buildings will definitely put a lot of people off.

Full access to all assets and features for one fixed price is what people want. I like the comparision an industry expert once made with Disney's theme parks. In the old days you had to pay per single ride. But people demanded to pay one fixed price allowing them to get on as many rides they possibly could. The same counts for games, freedom to explore everything for one price.

Maybe 'accelerate your progress' by buying extra credits to use in game. Basically pay to cheat. For example Football Manager offers the complete game without any limitations, but you can make a microtransaction to fund your team with loads of money enabling you to buy Messi straight away. Not that much fun, but people do it.
So a fixed price to get on all the rides in the themepark and microtransactions for people that want to jump the queues. Then everybody is happy.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Maarten De Jong on 27th February 2013 5:45pm

Posted:A year ago

#18

James Verity

132 25 0.2
I think the next gen will mark the date that even more Devs will go out of business... Gamers dont like paying for things that should be in the game from the start...

looks like some Devs are gonna learn the hard way, but then again there is always piracy and second hand market to blame instead of themselves...

some people dont deserve to be in business let alone be in employment...

Posted:A year ago

#19

Craig Bamford
Writer/Consultant

40 54 1.4
Slapping microtransactions on top of an already-expensive game just seems to be an excellent way of ensuring that consumers won't be buying any further games.

Has anybody at EA looked outside of their offices and seen what consumers are actually going through? Here's a hint: F2P isn't huge because the audience love microtransactions. It's huge because it's the only way to possibly profit from an audience that's by-and-large broke. Jorgensen might not get that now...but rest assured, he will soon enough.

Posted:A year ago

#20

Paul Gheran
Scrum Master

123 27 0.2
Christopher that is definitely how the trend appears. I already steer clear of EA after transaction based game play made it in to BF. When I played BF Heroes I knew that this was not something I was interested in. Its too bad, because previously, I had bought 7 Battlefield titles, and enjoyed all of them to varying degrees.

I don't see how the new player experience can be positive in an online competitive environment when some people have out spent you. My tolerance to pay will be based on my first gaming experience, and when that experience is not positive I rarely think, "Oh, I'll show those assholes!" and pull out my wallet. I psychologically declare the game unbalanced and a waste of my time, even if paying a modicum amount would completely change the experience, I have no way of knowing that, and have been burned too many times across games in general to make wallet diving my new reflex behaviour.

I hope the ARPU justifies this, because I, an historically paying customer, am completely out of EA's ecosystem now. Not just in the Battlefield series, but the mentality is so pervasive across the titles in their portfolio which interested me, that I don't see a point in being concerned with EA at all.

But to me, the much lauded World of Tanks suffered from the same problem. I'm interested to know what everyone thinks of this in general, not just related to EA or a specific franchise. Michael really laid it down, and Chris described the biggest fear. So which games or genre outside of Action RTS genre do this well?

Posted:A year ago

#21

Nicholas Lovell
Founder

183 166 0.9
It's a smart move by EA.
- We are seeing a polarisation where the big are getting bigger (CoD, GTA V) and the niche are thriving (FTL, Joe Danger) but the middle is getting squeezed.
- Customer acquisition costs are going up, yet the audience isn't growing. Companies can't make more money by selling more products. They have to allow their biggest fans to spend lots of money on things they value.
- Players will only pay a maximum of $20 for a piece of DLC (i.e,. content), but some are happy to spend $50 or $100 on a virtual items that provides them with self-expression, progress, a small advantage or whatever
- the price of anything that can be shared digitally is trending towards free driven by the iron laws of economics and (slightly less iron) technology.

The best way to survive the changes is to use a free or paid game as a customer acquisition tool and then allow those people who love what you do to spend more and more over the lifetime of their game. I believe that EA's strategy will become the only viable way to fund the creation of high-quality gaming content over the next two decades (and similar business models will need to be applied to music, movies, television, books and, with the advent of 3D printing, to physical products too).

Posted:A year ago

#22

David Canela
Game Designer

40 68 1.7
I think microtransactions can be implemented in a sensible way in many cases. But they're just too tempting for there to be more than a handful of examples where that actually happens. Also, they're being presented as a silver bullet by its zealots and lots of people buy into that. Hopefully people will recognize the value of offering an experience where you get the business transaction behind you smoothly in the beginning and then can focus on playing a game without having to constantly think about your wallet. I don't think people fully realize what it does to always have the money aspect hanging in the room during an experience.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Andrew Goodchild
Studying development

1,228 388 0.3
I loved Dead Space, and a lot of the earlier titles in EA's franchises, but I just have no urge to buy any of their new titles, except the odd EA partners title. It's not conscious boycotting, but I just groan whenever I hear what they do. With promising ideas. I think as long as EA continue with their "treat their customers like simpleton cash cow" policies, if I do want a first party title I'll wait until it hits a fiver. They have destroyed my perception of value.

Posted:A year ago

#24

Andrew
Animator

148 158 1.1
The best way to survive the changes is to use a free or paid game as a customer acquisition tool and then allow those people who love what you do to spend more and more over the lifetime of their game.
@Nicholas
You may be right but people should remember the chance of monetising a player is generally very low and you need a lot of people playing your game to make money from it. Going free to play or offering micro transaction is not the license to print money everyone seems to think it is.

Posted:A year ago

#25

Nicholas Lovell
Founder

183 166 0.9
No, you don't need lots of players. That is one of the biggest misconceptions of free-to-play.

If you are like Zynga, making games that appeal to the mass-market, many of whom prefer not to spend money on games, then yes, you need big volume.

If instead you are making a niche game aimed at core gamers where,say, 10% of users are happy to spend $40 per month on something which they count as their primary hobby, you don't.

Too many people who dislike F2P really mean they dislike F2P as practiced by Zynga or Gameloft. F2P (and paymium) is not about volume, it is about connecting with fans.

Posted:A year ago

#26

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
What is the big deal with this? It's completely optional and as far as i have seen it implemented (in Dead Space 3, Mass Effect 3 and SSX) it does not in any way put people who don't purchase extra at a disadvantage.

I have actually used the service on Mass Effect 3, to check it out and see how it works and it's simple and can enhance your experience. I was a bit apprehensive about this when i first saw it (after all i paid full price for the product), but after thinking about it for some time and using it in one game, but not in the other 2, i feel it has no actual impact on my experience at all.

So all in all players have a choice to either invest time or a little money, they can take the service or leave it, people who don't use it are not any worse off and a company in the industry makes a little extra cash. How is this a bad thing?

Consumers vote with their wallets. If nobody buys the product or people turn away from EA products because of this, then they will re-evaluate it i am sure. But it's very little cost to put this in place and the returns obviously seem to be promising.

I really don't get people who are upset about this. It's not like EA is holding a gun to your head to first of all buy their game and secondly spend additional money on extra features. i.e. @Rick: you might well be a consumer, but you are not the only one. and simply because you are irked by it does not mean i, or anyone else, has to be. or does it?

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andreas Gschwari on 27th February 2013 6:40pm

Posted:A year ago

#27

Nick Parker
Consultant

279 143 0.5
The man who taught/informed/introduced free to play to EA was Kristian Segerstrale who is now leaving EA (coincidental timings of news stories). My concern is EA executing on a new free to play strategy without really understanding the ramifications. On the positive side, however, EA has enough talent on the strategy side to trial this and adjust/uturn/react to create the right service for different gamer preferences. I understand the impact f2p could have on console/triple A gamers but I am hopeful EA will learn and respect their needs.

Posted:A year ago

#28

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
It is the new reality.

Posted:A year ago

#29
As an outsider, I need to get a handle on what market research has proven to EA that charging once, and then adding micropayments work for the modern consumer?

Posted:A year ago

#30

Max Priddy

64 12 0.2
I'm sorry, but I don't pay 30-40/$60 for a game just to get nickel and dimed by some bullshit business ploy of needless pay walls for power ups and other things that should be freely available in-the game, and the idea of even charging for something like cheats is just plain insulting to the customer.

I wouldn't wish this on any developer, but it'd be great if EA went the same way THQ did, it'd certainly be one way of eradicating the growing cancer in that company.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Mike Engle
Senior Game Designer

17 11 0.6
I'm hearing a lot of comments which sound like, "The artists who make games for me need to starve to death making those games for me."

For me, microtransactions which don't compromise gameplay integrity are fantastic. It's only "pay to win" style purchases which I personally dislike.

How good is it for gamers if all their favorite developers go out of business because they stuck to their guns and avoided business models that work? We've seen a lot of developers go out of business lately.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Mike Engle on 27th February 2013 9:47pm

Posted:A year ago

#32

James Verity

132 25 0.2
"We've seen a lot of developers go out of business lately." and a lot more will follow...

what happened to developing a good game, with value for money... instead of thinking up more ways to screw money out of the consumer... if your not making enough money producing games, please explain WHY are you still in the same job?

Posted:A year ago

#33

Kevin Patterson
musician

182 96 0.5
Not all Micro-transactions are bad, only the ones that act like cheats or should have been free in the first place.

However, I am not a big fan of the system, and in certain games I understand it more, but I don't like the idea of the next Dragon age or Mass effect game having them. I buy alot of DLC (Not Micro Transactions) for the games I love, but what EA did with the paid DLC at ME3's launch was disheartening, and not cool. DLC like "The Stone Prisoner" makes sense, as it's a reward for buying the game at launch, but releasing DLC that your charging for day 1 that deals with plot details from previous 2 games is money gouging. I guess I'm a afraid that essential in game items might be placed for sale in future games, instead of being made available with the game in the first place.

knowing that a new title is going to be filled with Micro-Transactions would probably make me wait till I can get the title much cheaper on a sale or bundle deal, and less likely to buy it new at launch. I would imagine that many others would agree with me.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Kevin Patterson on 27th February 2013 10:27pm

Posted:A year ago

#34

Mike Engle
Senior Game Designer

17 11 0.6
"what happened to developing a good game, with value for money... instead of thinking up more ways to screw money out of the consumer... if your not making enough money producing games, please explain WHY are you still in the same job?."

The game developers whose companies went out of business aren't in the same jobs. Their companies didn't make enough money producing games because market forces (customers) changed direction and they didn't.

If all of the growth of the industry over the last 5 years happened in Buy Once games, and no growth happened in Microtransaction games, guess what types of games everyone would be making.

Posted:A year ago

#35

Spencer Franklin
Concept Artist

93 124 1.3
The problem is, for me as a consumer... that what is being offered in these "micro-transactions" are things that once were standard parts of the games I played. Hidden characters, alternate costumes, secret areas, cheat codes...all the little bonuses that made PLAYING the game fun. Now you want me to Pay 60.00 to start the game, and then nickel and dime me for those "extras". Nothing new or different... just charging me for things that once were enjoyable things to find.

Of course some devs say "you can still get all those things from playing the game...", yeah, I know, but now they have designed the game to make it extra difficult or time consuming to acquire...just annoying enough to hope that I might spend more money in their cash shops. I wont do it personally, not ever. Seems devs are more concerned with monetization schemes, than actually creating compelling game play that people would gladly pay for.

Posted:A year ago

#36

Pier Castonguay
Programmer

189 105 0.6
Works great for their Simpsons Android game. But did the micro-transaction of Dead Space 3 were really worth it? I doubt the sales were very high, it was spam above everything.

Posted:A year ago

#37

Curt Sampson
Sofware Developer

595 356 0.6
It sounds to me as if they're just developing a standard platform to support microtransactions throughout all their games. Presumably this means that I can load up my EA account with credits (or whatever) and use them interchangeably on Battlefield 4, Crysis N, Need for Speed Whatever, and so on. And of course the developers of all EA games will have standard libraries to integrate this functionality, should they choose to use it.

Is that not a quite reasonable, in fact good, idea? Or am I looking at this in the wrong light here?

Posted:A year ago

#38

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
Ah this article provide great entertainment value in the morning. I guess i'll add to it! (thank god publishers and smart developers ignore the vocal 1% of customers on internet forums)

The first thing that gets me is this outright dismissal and hatred toward the idea of having microtransactions in boxed/full priced titles. I would like to know who here among those that feel so strongly about this feature have actually tried it.
@Spencer, @James and @Max in particular: I HAVE used the service and i HAVE actually bought several EA games in the last year and i have analyzed and looked at their system. The things you can buy: they are also available for "free". In SSX and Mass Effect 3, all the things you can purchase via microtransactions you can also purchase with in-game currency, which you get by playing (read: investing time). None of the things drastically alter the game either.

So let me make this clear to those who complain and don't actually know how the system works: it's optional. it delivers things that you can get through normally playing the game if you want. It also does not affect other players who don't spend additional money. So please, consider these things and then explain to me how providing an additional service like this is actually a bad thing?

All the games i checked, are perfectly good value for money without using the microtransactions as well. God knows i pumped more then 30 hours into SSX and probably close to 50 hours into Mass Effect 3.

What EA realizes, and many people who work in the industry still don't grasp, is that there are very few customers who want skill based reward, a few more customers who want times based reward and there are a lot of people who really just want to be entertained and some of those are willing to pay a little extra to get that fix quicker.

It seems clear to me that people hate EA (same as they hate Activision/Blizzard and Zynga) and it does not matter what these companies do, there will always be fury. Shut down studios and make people redundant? You should have made better games and more money! Try to make more money to sustain a large company and make sure people keep jobs and investors get a return? You are killing the soul of what's supposed to be a good game!

Other games have been doing this for a long time. World of Warcraft is a fully priced box title. It also charges a monthly subscription fee. And for a while now they had the store - selling mounts, pets, name changes, server transfers and similar. Despite all that hundreds of thousands of players purchase gold and items from third parties. Many customers just want a quick way to be entertained. And they are happy to pay.

What i would like to know from those who are so up in arms against a service like this: Please explain to me how this impacts you as a person, as a gamer, as a consumer. Be detailed if you can.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Andreas Gschwari on 28th February 2013 7:57am

Posted:A year ago

#39

gi biz
;,pgc.eu

341 51 0.1
I've stopped playing EA games so long ago I don't even remember they used to make games.

Posted:A year ago

#40

Isaac Kirby
Studying Computer Games Development

40 37 0.9
I have no problem with microtransactions, as long as there are in game ways to unlock everything.
It's when some things that "should" be in game are paid for i have a problem.
I also have a problem with games putting Paid For content in my game, as it brutally shatters my experience.
EA did this in Need For Speed Most Wanted "If you find it you can drive it" the opening said.
This was a lie, there are 5 cars i have found, that i can not drive. Because i have not paid 10 to unlock them.
This is not on.
I hope Consumers wise up. But i fear they will not.

Posted:A year ago

#41

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
@Isaac: Curious to hear about this NFS:MW example. Were those cars that you could not drive part of the core game or were they part of a paid for DLC? or were they part of the online pass you needed (i.e. did you buy the game used or new)?

If they were part of the core game, which you paid for new, then this is a good example of how not to do things. If it is paid for DLC, or cars as part of the online pass to discourage second hand sales, it's a different story.

What do you mean with "I hope consumers wise up." Surely it is consumers who use the service provided, if nobody would use it, i doubt EA would spread this service out to all games going forward. As many games have shown (MMOs above all i think): consumers are happy to pay extra to save time and get entertainment.

Posted:A year ago

#42

Filipp Issa
Founder

3 2 0.7
The Games Industry was always driven by creative people and innovation (not "suits"^^) and so it will be in the future I am sure.

Today there are even more and better opportunities for indies to release their own games on many platforms for almost no costs - games that people might love to play - more than "suit-made"-titles.

But let us not close our eyes a face reality - we are experiencing a major shift in technology and this affects of course our Industry - there are big challenges and also big opportunities.

We have the chance to build very new games for multiple platforms with a reach (e.g. 2-3b gamers) that was never been there before. We will see new platforms, new game designs and new business models.

Why should I blame EA for making a statement on future strategies? There a many small companies gaining great profits with their free-to-play games - all from microtransactions and/or ads. Just have a look yourself in the AppStore!

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Filipp Issa on 28th February 2013 9:11am

Posted:A year ago

#43

Dave Herod
Senior Programmer

517 734 1.4
Like Bioware said about day one DLC (I think it was them anyway): "We'll stop making it when you stop buying it".

Posted:A year ago

#44
The harsh (for most commenters here) reality of this is that the only reaction the massed gamer ranks have to microtransactions is one of apathy and tacit acceptance. EA is making this move because microtransactions, where they and other publishers have implemented them in the past (most notably FIFA but also Assassins Creed and several others etc.), have not only provided a major revenue boost but have done so with no material impact on underlying boxed product sales. FIFA unit sales have grown every year FIFA UT has been implemented; ACIII's first week unit sales were double that of AC:R despite the vocal outcry over their multiplayer microtransactions implementation. As long as players keep buying microtransaction-equipped games and then spending money on hard currency, publishers will keep implementing them. If players were to stop doing this for whatever reason, I've no doubt EA would change this monetisation strategy.

Posted:A year ago

#45

Isaac Kirby
Studying Computer Games Development

40 37 0.9
I purchased only the core game.
The cars in question were displayed in game at their "jackspots" (where you take control).
I drove upto one, pressed the button to hop in and it took me to an online store asking for 10 for some "ultimate speedster" DLC.
These cars are IN the core game. I could see them. The models were THERE. Yet it was asking for money to drive them.

By Wising up i mean thinking about what thier actions will encourage. Action and Consequence. By paying for microtransactions EA will use more. If they do not buy games until they are in a sale, or fall in price, maybe EA has to charge less.

Posted:A year ago

#46

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
@Isaac: well of course they would be in the game. That is to encourge players to purchase the DLC. But since the cars are part of the DLC it is reasonable to expect the player to pay extra - unless you suggest all DLC should be free.

From a flow point of view this sounds like a great, effortless, way to expose the player to potential DLC and cut down on time it takes to purchase it - much better than me having to go through the store to find potential DLCs or have to look through announcements. I would expect this option to buy the DLC was not available before the DLC was launched - so you would never have noticed it then.

As for your wising up explantion: Action and consequence is exactly my point. EA would not use this system if players would not use it. EA putting it into more games (rather than stop using it) is a clear indication (to me at least) that consumers ARE using the system. Something many developers should take to heart (and something the casual/social/mobile industry does on a daily basis): know your customer and your customers habits.

As for pricing of games, that is an entirely different issue and it's not like EA sets the boxed price alone. They follow market trend and SRP.

Posted:A year ago

#47

Isaac Kirby
Studying Computer Games Development

40 37 0.9
The problem is not where it is, but the promise at the start "If i can find it i can drive it". This is a lie. A bare faced lie.
I found it, i could not drive it. It is a false promise to the player at the start of the game.
They do not say "if you can find it you can pay extra to drive it".
Clarification:
The DLC in question came out a month after release. I purchased NFS:MW a week ago (PC). It seems EA, through Origin, updated me to the latest version with these cars in the game world. (Something im sure the EULA let's them do). It's just a shame the epic promise made at the start has been made false.
Surely they knew they were making a mockery of this promise, and leaving it in is frustrating. I dont mind "BUY DLC" in load screens, but to invade a game world so brazenly felt wrong, like having the EA salesman next to me. Yes it's good business, but after so much hard sell, some customers will be permanently put off. I think this mindset will come back to haunt them.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Isaac Kirby on 28th February 2013 1:05pm

Posted:A year ago

#48

Al Rhodes
Web producer/designer

22 13 0.6
Sounds to me like there is a gap in the market for some gamer research companies to poll gamers and find out what they actually want based on real stats and feedback.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Al Rhodes on 28th February 2013 11:27am

Posted:A year ago

#49

Eric Pallavicini
Game Master

259 165 0.6
It is happening anyway, and it's not about having a clear manichaean view on it (whatever side it goes) that will change that fact.

Some are going to do it right, some are going to do it wrong. Some are going to be fair, some are going to be greedy. Some will succeed, some will shoot themselves in the foot.

Before microtransactions, before Free-2-Play, before all those new fancy words did even exist in the industry and in the audience they were bad games, they were so-so ones and they were good ones, but none (or nearly none I guess) was universally and objectively good or bad and all products found their hardcore fan boys. But yes, we usually measure the success of a game by it's sales volume, even at that time. While the Pareto principle is getting even more exposed with the microtransactions, and I am sure every decent Business Intelligence & Marketing department will highlight it pretty fast, that it could be before (you buy the box, if you really are into the game you may buy the expansion and throw more money in the product). So what is bad about offering the ones who want to throw in more money into your product if they deem it fair for themselves, and at the same time support it (even if they may actually support other projects since this money may not be allocated to "their game" but to other projects) ?

Yes pay-to-win, or force-splitting your gaming community by restricting access to areas is most certainly a bad choice on the long run, at least it may seems to be for the ethically-idealist oriented person working on or around such a product. So it seems, and perhaps so it is. Now the fact is, if they are cows willing to be milked and if some companies are taking advantage of that, if they are many people who are ready to buy and pay even more for a crappy games because they have no idea, or don't care, about what is a good game, then so it be.

I don't really see the point of all this "oh my goat! we all gonna die, EA is going on microtransaction frenzy!". At the end one provides a source of entertainment, one other takes it or leave it, and luckily we are still free to be dumb enough and buy crap, or be dumb enough and don't buy that crap like all others do.

And now specifically about EA, if they fail to get what they want while really giving their customers what EA thinks they want, then it will be EA's fail and they will change strategy if they don't sell enough that way (because that is the one and only metric that matters - at least, at the end). And maybe some kind of stargazer will come and say "hey, but happy cows produce more milk!" but fact is that as long this is not a substantially proven fact (which tends to be proven wrong by the very concept of F2P as "frustrated, unhappy cows tends to produce more milk because they want to be happy cows), why would a "suit" as some of you called them (the executives) in this thread listen to him ?

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Eric Pallavicini on 28th February 2013 1:14pm

Posted:A year ago

#50

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
@Isaac: sorry to say but i feel you have a very narrow point of view there. If you take the core game, before launch of the DLC, their statement was true by the sounds of it. And even after that the statement was true: if you find it you can drive it. Just with the caveat that you purchase the DLC.

The only way i could agree with your point of view that it was a lie would be if those cars had been in at the launch of the game and when you walk up they tell you "wait for the DLC or pay 10 quid now and drive them". Was that the case do you know?

EA has had questionable marketing statements in the past, but in this case i don't feel they mislead the player. Not when a DLC is concerned that was launched months after the core game came to market. If it would have been day 1 paid DLC, then it would be another story entirely.
Obviously the way you saw this is a valid way of approaching it, your perception was/is that you were lied to. That is definitely not good for long term customer retention and if enough customers felt that way, maybe we will see this be handled differently in the future.
Then again, if EA can track how many people purchase the DLC from inside the game as they come across these cars, and that number is, say, higher than normal DLC uptake through traditional sales venues, then we might see more of it.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andreas Gschwari on 28th February 2013 12:11pm

Posted:A year ago

#51

Bruce Everiss
Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
Some people seem to think that all microtransactions are bad.
And when it come to pay to win they have a point.
However if you value your customer (and you really, really should) then your first aim must be to provide a compelling experience. Then the customer will want to pay money to enhance that experience.
It is a matter of balance. Cynically seeking to maximise revenue before everything else is bad. Creating a great experience that is badly monetised is also bad.
At the moment we are all learning how to manage this new relationship we have with our public. World of Tanks seems to be a good example of getting it right.
One thing is for sure. If you are getting people to pay whilst they play, your game has to be very good.
There is no room now for the rubbish some people have got away with in the boxed product market for so long.

Posted:A year ago

#52

Eric Pallavicini
Game Master

259 165 0.6
It is a matter of balance. Cynically seeking to maximise revenue before everything else is bad. Creating a great experience that is badly monetised is also bad.
At the moment we are all learning how to manage this new relationship we have with our public. World of Tanks seems to be a good example of getting it right.
It's a matter of balance, indeed. WoT or LoL (League of Legends), are definitely good examples of microtransactions offers that do not split communities or do not generate Pay2Win situations. At least as entertainment products (not talking about the communities behind, since this would be a more complex topic).
One thing is for sure. If you are getting people to pay whilst they play, your game has to be very good.
There is no room now for the rubbish some people have got away with in the boxed product market for so long.
Well I disagree on that, there is as much room as there was before for bad games (and you will find payers for many "bad" games for some reasons - of which I will not give the detail here), except that in the F2P industry the potential customers can try the game (for a long time and generally full content) and see for themselves if they like it before putting the hand to the wallet (unlike limited content demos of boxed versions, if there was one), which is not a bad thing in my humble opinion.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Eric Pallavicini on 28th February 2013 1:02pm

Posted:A year ago

#53

Klaus Preisinger
Freelance Writing

1,036 916 0.9
@Bruce

how are we to look at EA offering then? Do we get a complete 60 experience of a game which just happens to have another game packed in for free? Which is how Fifa ultimate team can be looked at. Or are we to look at the 60 experiences as the new baseline model, which was the catalyst to slowly turn the TV in our living room into a remotely operated one-arm bandit? Even in the best of circumstance, the nature of what we have installed in our homes is drastically changed.

EA's step certainly tells us a lot about how the next generation consoles intent to conduct and enable business. The state of the industry can be measured, when a company with "Arts" in the name shifts over to selling compulsion loops instead of interactive entertainment products. Not that EA did not try to sell "cheats" before. Just open an old EA to find hotline numbers, or look no further than the cheat modules of consoles past. Or the "hints" section of magazines for that matter. The product being sold in f2p has always existed, the means of delivery and the level of taunting is what has changed for the worst.

Posted:A year ago

#54

Dan Howdle
Head of Content

278 802 2.9
Popular Comment
Thirty years from now we'll look back on microstransactions with embarrassment similar to that which we currently feel towards Seventies sitcom racism.

Posted:A year ago

#55

Spencer Franklin
Concept Artist

93 124 1.3
@Andreas Gschwari

I am personally not against micro-transactions/DLC...what I am against is them stripping the game down to bare bones, only those things you NEED to play the game, and removing all else... and then attempting to sell that to me piecemeal. That I take offense to. The items I mentioned previously, for example. I'm not against them creating new content after the fact, and then selling that, that is completely fine. They can charge whatever they want in that case, as I will determine it's value to me and whether or not I want to purchase it. But selling me a disc loaded with content that can't be accessed unless I pay more... NO. And don't kid yourself, we know well that if developers/publishers feel they can get away with it, they will push this very thing.

Look at what Gazillion has done with their soon released Marvel Heroes. They have actually put a value of over 750.00 to enjoy the COMPLETE experience of their game (that they will sell to you currently for 200.00). Regardless of whether you can acquire those things just from playing the game or not, it's the idea that they have placed the value that high already that should send warning signs up. People are talking about how prices on console games may move up to the 70.00us mark... but that's the least concern... its with these micro-transactions/DLC that they will actually be charging you much more to get the complete experience. The games will be designed in this way. And your simply kidding yourself if you think they wont be.

You want to give your "bare bones" game away for free, and then add micro-transactions, fine, have at it. But that's not what he's claiming here. No, what they want is you to first invest your 60-70 dollars...then invest some time in the game..then, when it's getting good, they hit you with "well, you CAN do it with what you have, but it will look cooler if you buy this, or be faster if you buy that... you know, since we intentionally made sure that doing these things with the "base" game would be very difficult, or extremely time consuming. I've worked for several publishers, I have sat in on games where the "cool" stuff was held back so that it could be packed into a premium DLC or added to the cash shop. But I guess my view is extremely narrow also...

Posted:A year ago

#56

Andreia Quinta
Creative & People Photographer

200 476 2.4
This statement only gives more credibility to my EA argument on that comment section.

"I have no idea what I'm doing" also comes to mind.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Andreia Quinta on 28th February 2013 11:36pm

Posted:A year ago

#57

Aaron Brown
BA Computer Science Student

56 21 0.4
I don't want the actual game content like skills, weapons, or the campaign to be what gets monetized.
Players shouldn't gain any sort of advantage by paying extra.

But monetization does make sense applied to costumes and weapon skins and additional multiplayer maps. This sort of monetization is far more lucrative because it caters to an extremely inelastic market. Players in this market want the additional content and will pay however much they want for it. And those that do not pay for any additional content are at no disadvantage.

Posted:A year ago

#58

Greg Wilcox
Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,134 1,039 0.5
Real Racing 3,from what I'm hearing makes you buy in to keep playing or wait something like 15 minutes while your car repairs itself. Is that a good thing or a not so good thing?

As someone who loves driving games, that's not a good thing. Of course, some newer users will "get used to it" but I'd just move on to a game that lets me play it how and when I want without asking me to spend any more money unless it's on a screen away from the action.

Posted:A year ago

#59

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
@Spencer Franklin
I am personally not against micro-transactions/DLC...what I am against is them stripping the game down to bare bones, only those things you NEED to play the game, and removing all else... and then attempting to sell that to me piecemeal. That I t
take offense to.
Agreed! 100%! If a full priced boxed product does this, then i would also take offense with that. If it's a free to play title, obviously that is the entire strategy: provide the bare bones for free then charge for the piecemeal. And that's fine.

So the good news is then that you won't really be upset by the EA move or take offense to what they do in the game. At least not as long as they stick how they have done it so far. Because you get the full game for the price, no piecemeal offering for extra charges. The things you can buy through microtransactions you can easily gain in game through playing.
No, what they want is you to first invest your 60-70 dollars...then invest some time in the game..then, when it's getting good, they hit you with "well, you CAN do it with what you have, but it will look cooler if you buy this, or be faster if you buy that... you know, since we intentionally made sure that doing these things with the "base" game would be very difficult, or extremely time consuming.
This, i am afraid, is just outright wrong and i think this argument (and you are not alone with it) stems from pure bias. Reading a headline or an article and having a knee-jerk reaction to it without actually having played the games in question.

Have you played either SSX, Mass Effect 3 Co-Op or Dead Space 3 and have you tried using these microtransactions? Neither game puts the player in a position where they have to spend extra money to progress, or in order to get more than the base game. And the base game is definitely NOT tuned so you spend money. i.e. it is not more difficutly and it is not really more time consuming (not when you consider playing it to be fun in the first place). Microtransactions in AAA games, implemented as they are now, are an optional service that has no impact whatsover and does not diminish the game at all for those who do not chose to use it.

All i can say is to those who have not tried it yet, at least look at it. Play a game that has it. Depending on why you have an opinion it might change it or it might not, but at least you'll know what it's about.

Interesting blog by CliffyB on this as well (read it here first before gi.biz makes it a news-story!):

http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/

Posted:A year ago

#60

Eric Pallavicini
Game Master

259 165 0.6
Real Racing 3,from what I'm hearing makes you buy in to keep playing or wait something like 15 minutes while your car repairs itself. Is that a good thing or a not so good thing?
Basically I would say they are currently 6 main types of microtransactions ;
* Comfort (basically it is about stripping down the UI or limiting gameplay features "to frustrate the player" and encourage him/her to pay to be more cosy by restricting/monitoring the "playtime" and/or pace of the game).
* Itemization (Any thing that may give a paying player a direct in-game advantage over others, what has been labelled "cheat codes" somehow).
* Subscription (clubs, gold, premium memberships, etc. that offers various advantages in addition to standard microtransactions, which is basically the same as the classical Pay to Play model somehow).
* Services (server transfers, faction changes, name changes, etc.).
* Extra content (including DLC's but also uniques play areas or unique characters, classes, vehicules, etc.).
* Vanity content (typically avatars/skins and pets which are usually not giving any gameplay advantage or a very slight one, usually at least).
None of those categories do have clear limits, and hybrid forms often happen in practice (services could be included in itemization, i.e. item that allow to change your character name or account display name). Nevertheless both of those may have a negative impact or a positive outcome on the general gameplay experience and also on players behavior accordingly to their starting expectations on the product.

Your Real Racing 3 example falls into the "comfort" category. For example, in the now famous World of Tanks when your tank get destroyed in the game you have to wait till this game finishes to play that tank again, after repairing it for in-game currency (a bit like it was in America's Army to name one, but...) and theoretically this could be a deal breaker for many gamers as they may not want to look in spectator mode to the rest of every game they died in. Now in WoT, you are offered the possibility to go back to your "Garage" and play with another tank, which allows the player who died early to jump straight away to another game. Although it is very possible that you end up with no tank available and then the solution comes from having a lot of available vehicules and to have more you could buy extra tank slots. A skilled player will most certainly not require hundreds of slots, as he/she will generally survive long enough in each game to have the time to play his/her second or third tank and come back to see its first already repaired and ready for another battle (there are other incentives/reasons to buy more slots of course). Now of course, if you die after just a few seconds in every game, you may very soon end up willing to buy some more slots to avoid interruptions (this is not the only reason, of course, why you may want to buy extra slots in your garage but it contribute to the success of this microtransaction). If a designer's work don't get stripped to be turned into microtransaction opportunities, then it may not be an issue at all. As long as extra slots in your garage, mechlab or stash is not a "must have", but remains a "nice to have" then it is allright I guess.

Typically all categories have solutions to not be a hindrance to the player while still having a high incentive for him/her to be willing to purchase them and for the "feature" to be still profitable enough for the publisher. I.e. for itemization, everything in the shop should be accessible to the non-paying user through a reasonable amount of play time (typically any cash-shop item should be obtainable in game or purchasable for both soft and hard currencies from the shop, game or other players) which actually could apply for maybe not all (typically services, content or to another level vanity to some extent) but most of the other categories as well.

All this to say, that no matter the category of microtransaction, what is important is how well designed or hindering for the lambda player it is or may become.

The fact is, as much as we need good designers and concepts to make good games (besides the other technical, financial, etc parts of this creative process) , we need good monetization specialists and strategies that are fair to the audience (which is, nevertheless also a creative process where innovation has its place too). At the end of the day, EA or any other developer/publisher could find the appropriate "microtransaction magic recipe" for each product that will both suit the company's objectives (in terms of income and expenses ratio) and the audience needs and expectations. And there is still room for innovation and improvement in this recent concept as well.

That is why I do think that EA's announced strategy shouldn't be deemed "a bad one" (at least not yet). There is a way to do it right (and please everyone or at least a sufficient and decent majority), like there is a way to do it wrong and everything in between or beyond. But the announced intent/strategy does not mean anything on its own and it is how they will apply it in the future that is the real thing that will maybe be questionable for each and every product they will publish. It is maybe a necessary step in the evolution of the industry that some of the biggest actors (who have appropriate means and won't fail because of the lack of those) try to experiment or explore.

Edited 7 times. Last edit by Eric Pallavicini on 1st March 2013 1:03pm

Posted:A year ago

#61

Justin Biddle
Software Developer

149 456 3.1
For anyone who thinks EA are going to get this right they need only read this article http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4042704/real-racing-3-available-in-the-us-for-free

Posted:A year ago

#62

Spencer Franklin
Concept Artist

93 124 1.3
@Andreas Gschwari

I don't think it's a knee jerk reaction, at least not for me. I base this on the many PC/mobile games I have played that do this kind of thing. I do understand more where you are coming from, which seems to be from a position of them (EA and others) doing it right... I guess in this I am biased because I fully expect them to use the most abusive form of micro transactions.

I took a look at the example you gave for Mass Effect, and it's one of the ones I dislike .. random lock-boxes, which has been a craze amongst many Asian MMO's (and is being banned in places). It's a scheme to play to peoples addictive nature, and much like gambling.. it pushes people to keep buying in hopes of getting that one item they may want. With this type of scheme, they have to make it seem a better deal than than playing the game to find said items (I'd have to compare the time it takes to grind out the in game credits vs. the cost in Microsoft Points, which I will try over the weekend).

Because this is Multiplayer, It doesn't personally bother me as much, as that is a side game to the Main...but had this been a part of the main game... I'd be very upset. And this is what I believe he was alluding to, this type of thing being in the base game (the full priced base game..). Time will tell...but this particular company has a negative track record that's not hard to follow...
But I do appreciate your candor and input, and I do hope that the future you see in this is closer to truth than the one I see.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Spencer Franklin on 1st March 2013 6:05pm

Posted:A year ago

#63

Andreas Gschwari
Senior Games Designer

555 607 1.1
Good stuff you tried it out - and yeah it has that slot machinr aspect to it. Personally I am ok with it as I can take it or leave it and it does not affect my expeience.

The slot machine aspect of it though can become dangerous as Christopher pointed out in the other article.

Posted:A year ago

#64

Ridgyaxe
Unemployed

1 0 0.0
I wouldn't mind micro-transactions, so long as they don't go the path of Candy Crush, a game on the iPhone 4S (Not sure if it's on other phone's) where in order to get further, you MUST pay to get progress (Side note, they have over 200 levels), or get insanely lucky.

However, if they continue doing things like they did with ME3, or like I think they did in Dead Space 3 (I only saw microtransactions for weapon parts, as I've only played the Demo), then paying for stuff that you want would be completely fine. People that choose to pay for an item that helps them out a little bit, or getting an item that's awesome would be their own choice.

So long as the micro-transactions don't affect the core gameplay element of the game, it'll be fine.

Posted:A year ago

#65

Matt Ernst
Studying Culinary Arts

24 20 0.8

Posted:A year ago

#66

Jeremie Sinic

43 18 0.4
What this simply means is: "We know investors all think microtransaction is the new holy grail, so let's send a signal that EA is going to do microtransaction the most."
Nothing to do with what players actually like or would like.

Posted:A year ago

#67

David Serrano
Freelancer

298 270 0.9
Selina Kyle warns EA: You think this can last? There's a storm coming, Mr. Jorgensen. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us.

Posted:A year ago

#68

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now