Not true at all. Voting with your wallet is basically useless in a market with millions of people. Changing the markets perspective, is what matters. I will give another example, in a completely different market.
Plastic baby bottles with BPA. (or any food container with BPA) There was some evidence that they were harmful, but the industry kept right on making them. Most people didn't even know or care what BPA was. If the small population aware of the issue simply voted with their wallet and bought glass bottles, nothing would have changed, other than a unnoticable drop in sales. Instead, people shared information. One person showing 5 people how it is bad, is far more effective then 1 just choosing a different product, as some of them will share with others. Now, countless products list in big bold letters, they don't contain BPA.
Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't. Silently voting with your wallet doesn't work. If you don't believe it is a big deal, why get into the fray? The other guy posted a half dozen+ posts for something he doesn't care about? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Apathy, however, is not an opinion. If you like microtransactions, say so. Otherwise your only argument is other people shouldn't care, which offers nothing in a discussion on microtransactions and if it is a good thing. I am not interested in comics, so why troll discussion posts on who would win, Superman Vs Batman and argue with people saying it doesn't matter.
[mod edit] EA is for microtransactions. Many gamers are against it. Support whichever side you wish. Don't simply say it isn't that big of a deal, in a thread discussing this very thing. Clearly it IS an issue or this thread wouldn't exist.
No, EA isn't the only company heading this direction and it parallels DRM in a way. Can we stop it? I don't know, but we can try. DRM for example has slowed down slightly, except for UBISOFT and their CEOs neurotic obsession with it. Every kickstarter for a video game displays DRM FREE in big bold letters. GOG is growing as a DRM free retailer. None of this would happen with the 'just don't play' attitude. This may not sound like much, but changing the sentiment of a customer base can have a profound effect. Once it reaches a certain point, companies like EA will listen. The same mentality shift needs to happen with microtransactions for purchased games.
Companies will push and push, moving the line until someone pushes back.
What else would u suggest except to vote with our feet?
i dont think ranting on a forum that ea obviously is not paying attention to constitute action. I am just being realisitic.
plus, like i said before, this hobby is just a hobby. It is not a necessity, and there are lots of substitute. And i highly doubt indie devs will go this way. So you can always play indie games.
Not true at all. Voting with your wallet is basically useless in a market with millions of people. Changing the markets perspective, is what matters. I will give another example, in a completely different market.
Plastic baby bottles with BPA. (or any food container with BPA) There was some evidence that they were harmful, but the industry kept right on making them. Most people didn't even know or care what BPA was. If the small population aware of the issue simply voted with their wallet and bought glass bottles, nothing would have changed, other than a unnoticable drop in sales. Instead, people shared information. One person showing 5 people how it is bad, is far more effective then 1 just choosing a different product, as some of them will share with others. Now, countless products list in big bold letters, they don't contain BPA.
Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't. Silently voting with your wallet doesn't work. If you don't believe it is a big deal, why get into the fray? The other guy posted a half dozen+ posts for something he doesn't care about? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Apathy, however, is not an opinion. If you like microtransactions, say so. Otherwise your only argument is other people shouldn't care, which offers nothing in a discussion on microtransactions and if it is a good thing. I am not interested in comics, so why troll discussion posts on who would win, Superman Vs Batman and argue with people saying it doesn't matter.
You said many gamers were against micro transactions. Thats more than just one wallet I would assume. Collectively consumers decide which companies/products make it and which dont. Thats just the way it works. And being an informed consumer and knowing exactly where and when you spend your money is also not useless.
I cant even believe you made that comparison. You just compared a harmful material substance used in common household goods being taken off the market to a freaking luxury good that is basically a glorified toy because you dont like the way it is designed. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? There is absolutley no similarity between the two.
I dont know how much more of this soccer mom logic I can stomach, to be quite honest.
As for expressing our opinions, this is not a "for it or against it" sort of issue. This is not a compulsory election process. This is a message board, if we think it is a non issue, then thats a perfectly valid opinion. If you dont like that, I suggest maybe you step out of the fray. Your posts are just getting ridiculous.
You said many gamers were against micro transactions. Thats more than just one wallet I would assume. Collectively consumers decide which companies/products make it and which dont. Thats just the way it works. And being an informed consumer and knowing exactly where and when you spend your money is also not useless.
I cant even believe you made that comparison. You just compared a harmful material substance used in common household goods being taken off the market to a freaking luxury good that is basically a glorified toy because you dont like the way it is designed. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? There is absolutley no similarity between the two.
I dont know how much more of this soccer mom logic I can stomach, to be quite honest.
As for expressing our opinions, this is not a "for it or against it" sort of issue. This is not a compulsory election process. This is a message board, if we think it is a non issue, then thats a perfectly valid opinion. If you dont like that, I suggest maybe you step out of the fray. Your posts are just getting ridiculous.
Did you miss the line where I clearly stated "Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't."
But fine, how about a simplier example. If you want your political candidate to win, do you just vote with your vote? If that is all everyone supporting your candidate did, your side would lose. Getting OTHER people to vote is how you win. This is why people campaign, to gain support for their side. It is all about changing public perception.
You said many gamers were against micro transactions. Thats more than just one wallet I would assume. Collectively consumers decide which companies/products make it and which dont. Thats just the way it works. And being an informed consumer and knowing exactly where and when you spend your money is also not useless.
I cant even believe you made that comparison. You just compared a harmful material substance used in common household goods being taken off the market to a freaking luxury good that is basically a glorified toy because you dont like the way it is designed. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? There is absolutley no similarity between the two.
I dont know how much more of this soccer mom logic I can stomach, to be quite honest.
As for expressing our opinions, this is not a "for it or against it" sort of issue. This is not a compulsory election process. This is a message board, if we think it is a non issue, then thats a perfectly valid opinion. If you dont like that, I suggest maybe you step out of the fray. Your posts are just getting ridiculous.
Did you miss the line where I clearly stated "Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't."
Theres still no direct comparison at all. They put warning labels on products because they believed them to be harmful, that is not even the same thing as "lets put a warning label on this toy, because I dont like EA making more money off people who arent me." Believe me, its still the stupidest thing Ive ever heard regardless of which way you slice it. That would be like me comparing abortion yay or nay to "do I want to supersize my fries or not". I'd fully expect to be laughed at for overblowing my own relatively meaningless issue.
What the hell does that even mean anyways, "changing the market"? Its supply and demand. Theres obviously a demand for video games, thats why they keep making them. Micro transactions is the upsell, that comes with pretty much any product you buy. "Oh you bought this, why not buy this too, or get 2 for 4 dolla" Its really not worth pouting over.
Originally posted by taziar But fine, how about a simplier example. If you want your political candidate to win, do you just vote with your vote? If that is all everyone supporting your candidate did, your side would lose. Getting OTHER people to vote is how you win. This is why people campaign, to gain support for their side. It is all about changing public perception.
So in effect you wanna convince other people to stop buying video games because they are offered a digital medium for which to buy additional content if they choose to.
Are you also going to protest outside your local McDonalds for having the audacity to ask you if you want fries with that?
You miss the point entirely. There were NO warning labels on BPA products, and only a few studies. If people didn't make an issue of it, that is how it would still be. Once people told their friends, and media got involved, warning labels came. Then, products stopped using it entirely. Now there are much larger studies showing how bad it is.
As far as the microtransactions, the problem isn't really today. It is annoying, but tolerable. It is tomorrow that is the issue. Once people understand that it will only get worse, they will begin to push back. But most people don't consider beyond 'ohh shiny'. If left unchecked, companies will take it to rediculous lengths. DLC sounded like a great idea. Day-1 DLC, less so. Day-1 DLC that was obviously removed to be sold as an add-on, even worse. Companies will sell completely stripped down games, and market the DLC like it is a wonderful addition, not something the game should have had in the first place.
You miss the point entirely. There were NO warning labels on BPA products, and only a few studies. If people didn't make an issue of it, that is how it would still be. Once people told their friends, and media got involved, warning labels came. Then, products stopped using it entirely. Now there are much larger studies showing how bad it is.
As far as the microtransactions, the problem isn't really today. It is annoying, but tolerable. It is tomorrow that is the issue. Once people understand that it will only get worse, they will begin to push back. But most people don't consider beyond 'ohh shiny'. If left unchecked, companies will take it to rediculous lengths. DLC sounded like a great idea. Day-1 DLC, less so. Day-1 DLC that was obviously removed to be sold as an add-on, even worse. Companies will sell completely stripped down games, and market the DLC like it is a wonderful addition, not something the game should have had in the first place.
[mod edit]
For the record, for every one of these clynical studies that shows a product is harmful, there are 5 more that jump the gun and have to come back and say "oops we were wrong, sorry for telling you salt was bad, didnt mean to put you at risk for brain damage."
Thats why I just gotta shake my head at all these proactive do-gooders who have to go around putting labels on everything. More harm than good, and self important little twits at that.
As for DLC, if it gets to that point, Ill stop buying video games, and so will most other worthwhile consumers. Company goes, oh, demand went down, we should probably change it back to the way it was, situation corrected itself. Companies are not going to kotow to your demands because you complain, they respond to the almighty dollar and thats it.
Thats pretty much what I said in my first post, I dont see why you cant get this.
The first game that had any special purchase I refused to pay and told my friends online and on sites like this that if they paid the fee then all games would go to this type of fee system.
I'm no even sure there's a way out of it now. It's hard to complain about free things. Even a lump of dog crap doesn't sound so bad if it's Free. This is worse for MMO's than the whole Theme park hold your hand direction that all major MMOs have gone in because this won't have any competition.
Sadly, this has been happening in Fifa since UT was announced. This has obviously provided them with loads of money as people want to be better than the rest.
EA is one of a few corporate entities whose domination of the gaming industry has caused many of the issues that industry finds itself in.
It is only the steady stream of new gamers coming of age that allows EA to put out the same old formats and appear to be doing something new.
In the fight for dominance and a slice of the cake Valve will now be launching Steam consoles. This is yet another example of pushing a universal gaming package, something EA has been in the fore front of. How long before we get an EA console?
EA and its ilk want to be to gaming what America Online wanted to be to internet users. The only place to shop, no choice, no alternative design vision.
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse!
Electronic Arts during a Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference stating that the company is so pleased with its forays into the world of microtransactions, that they are bringing the support for these in-house, and that "all" their future games will feature microtransactions.
"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."
Just goes to show you that this is all just a business and you will be nickel and dimed to death... While this may pertain to single player and co-op style games, EA also has a host of MMO's. This is why I support Sub style games and independent developers
Blame the players for that not EA for them its just business, making money.
As long gamers buy stuff in cashshops publishers/developers make sure you get what you want.
Its whole demise of the genre these days majority just can't play games without cashshops/macro/bots and cheats anymore and game developers see that so they make sure they spent there nickle and dime in there cash shop.
Its fault players not gamesellers.
Near future cash$$$ wil play the game not the player:(
Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse!
Electronic Arts during a Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference stating that the company is so pleased with its forays into the world of microtransactions, that they are bringing the support for these in-house, and that "all" their future games will feature microtransactions.
"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."
Just goes to show you that this is all just a business and you will be nickel and dimed to death... While this may pertain to single player and co-op style games, EA also has a host of MMO's. This is why I support Sub style games and independent developers
Everyone wanted F2P, and this is the result. It's sad, but you reap what you sow.
No this isn't F2P or Freemium... It's Buymium FFS! Buy the game (which prices aren't low) and then you find out that you've bought a game that has 50% of it's content locked and you can't use some of the weapons or gadgets because you have to pay for it now.
I wish EA would crash and burn... But that wont happen soon I guess..
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life." -------------------------------
EA and its ilk want to be to gaming what America Online wanted to be to internet users. The only place to shop, no choice, no alternative design vision.
And obviously EA is not succeeding. There are other big game companies: Activision-Blizz, Ubisoft ...
And there is an active indie gaming scene. Heck, Origin is not even as big as STEAM.
It is not really possible to corner the market on entertainment.
You miss the point entirely. There were NO warning labels on BPA products, and only a few studies. If people didn't make an issue of it, that is how it would still be. Once people told their friends, and media got involved, warning labels came. Then, products stopped using it entirely. Now there are much larger studies showing how bad it is.
The problem is there are no independent gaming media companies. All of them dictate their content to please their sources of revenue (game publishers). How are players supposed to spread their information and issues if they never get front page posting?
This site and many others never talk about the disadvantages that cash shop games have when players are allowed to buy advantages over other players during their reviews, and they all still continue to call these games "free".
The problem is there are no independent gaming media companies. All of them dictate their content to please their sources of revenue (game publishers). How are players supposed to spread their information and issues if they never get front page posting?
If you are a steam user, you see indie games all the time. And there are plenty of indie games website. Don't tell me players don't know how to use google to find new indie games.
This site and many others never talk about the disadvantages that cash shop games have when players are allowed to buy advantages over other players during their reviews, and they all still continue to call these games "free".
These games are free. You can play and you pay nothing. Isn't that the definition of free?
I am playing STO .. i pay nothing. Tell me what it costs me financially (obviously you still have to spend time).
The problem is there are no independent gaming media companies. All of them dictate their content to please their sources of revenue (game publishers). How are players supposed to spread their information and issues if they never get front page posting?
If you are a steam user, you see indie games all the time. And there are plenty of indie games website. Don't tell me players don't know how to use google to find new indie games.
This site and many others never talk about the disadvantages that cash shop games have when players are allowed to buy advantages over other players during their reviews, and they all still continue to call these games "free".
These games are free. You can play and you pay nothing. Isn't that the definition of free?
I am playing STO .. i pay nothing. Tell me what it costs me financially (obviously you still have to spend time).
How do you see independant gaming media and then relate that to steam indie games? To me that sounds like game journalism is held captive by game companies. Bad review = banned from press invites.
These games are not free. Servers, employees, and running them costs money. I wish everyone played these free to play games for free they would be out of business. If these games are so free why do they have cash shops?
"You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
How do you see independant gaming media and then relate that to steam indie games? To me that sounds like game journalism is held captive by game companies. Bad review = banned from press invites.
I think you put too much importance on game journalism. In this day & age of the internet, there is no lack of info about indie games. Information is just a google click away.
These games are not free. Servers, employees, and running them costs money. I wish everyone played these free to play games for free they would be out of business. If these games are so free why do they have cash shops?
They are free to a majority. It is well known that F2P games are supported by a minority of whales. And they are certainly free to me.
For people who don't use cash shops (and there are many), the games are free.
The problem is: games are not ANY product like socks or hats or chairs. And gaming is not a hobby like bowling or knitting. Gamers are VERY passionate about their hobby, and love *their* games much more. Also there is much less compeition/choice. If a group of bowling buddies didn't like a particular bowling club, they go to another. End of story. With games your choices are much more limited and you are WAY more dependent on what the developer offers.
Let's be honest here: gaming has a lot of an addiction. If some game is THERE and it halfway fits our "hunting scheme", we buy it. Period. Resisting NOT to buy a game usually fitting your interest is, due to the addiction faction, very, very hard.
Now the false conclusion of developing companies is: OH look, people are actually buying the 10 Dollar pony, lets put MORE ponies into the ingame shop. They conclude, most people like the shop, since they use the shop, and that is WRONG. The average gamer is addicted to HAVE IT ALL. He can't bear the idea there is some content which he hasn't. It's like eating chips. The more you eat, the more you desire to eat more, and you are never satiated but only even more greedy. People buy from ingame shops and DLC because gaming is like an addiction. Most people don't like it, but have not the strength to really say no.
As a result people are paying more and more with each year for the same content that previously was in a "flatrate" box. So we kinda fall back into the days before the "flatrate" economy made stuff affordable. All of a sudden the world is no longer equal, one box for all, no the gaming world is divided into rich people who have tons of extra and fancy stuff and poor people who have the barebone game. And I fundamentally HATE that. I loved it in games that for once, your RL money did NOT matter. One box, one content for all the same. And then what you got in the game was ONLY your dedication, your creativity and your intelligence, NOT your pocket purse!
Sorry, but EA has done NOTHING but harm the gaming development in the last 20 years. It's almost a monopoly now, and that is never good for the customer.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
"Now the false conclusion of developing companies is: OH look, people are actually buying the 10 Dollar pony, lets put MORE ponies into the ingame shop. They conclude, most people like the shop, since they use the shop, and that is WRONG. The average gamer is addicted to HAVE IT ALL. He can't bear the idea there is some content which he hasn't. It's like eating chips. The more you eat, the more you desire to eat more, and you are never satiated but only even more greedy. People buy from ingame shops and DLC because gaming is like an addiction. Most people don't like it, but have not the strength to really say no."
I don't think gaming companies have decided that a cash shop is fine and most players want one because they will use the shop. I think they do realise gaming is addictive, they do realise we want it all. That is part of their strategy to milk as much money from players as possible.
Originally posted by Jemcrystal Arrrrrrr. I smells a pirate who's after our looty.
In the immortal words of Captain Barbossa: "These aren't actual rules... more like... guidelines!" XD
Haarrrr!
The best review on Amazon was this, written by "plantos500"
"You'd think I'd be mega unhappy like everyone else at the constant waiting and lack of actually being able to play a game I purchased.
Well, you'd be wrong.
The hours upon hours since launch that I haven't been able to log in, whether it be sitting in queues, or server busy messages, or just plain old not working screens, I've managed to do a heap of things that I never do when I'm locked in my man cave playing video games.
I've washed the dishes, the laundry, changed the oil in the car, mopped the floors, dusted, did a spot of gardening, greeted my children who I hadn't really seen since Christmas, walked the dog, asked how my wife's day has been and listened to the entire response, restocked the groceries and many more things! My family has never been happier that they've got a father and husband again.
In fact, I feel like Simcity has given me a new lease on life. This wouldn't have been possible without the seemingly crazy decision to have constant online connections and server side save points even for single player.
So I can only thank EA and Maxis. Your failures have been my rewards. 5 stars!"
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
Comments
Not true at all. Voting with your wallet is basically useless in a market with millions of people. Changing the markets perspective, is what matters. I will give another example, in a completely different market.
Plastic baby bottles with BPA. (or any food container with BPA) There was some evidence that they were harmful, but the industry kept right on making them. Most people didn't even know or care what BPA was. If the small population aware of the issue simply voted with their wallet and bought glass bottles, nothing would have changed, other than a unnoticable drop in sales. Instead, people shared information. One person showing 5 people how it is bad, is far more effective then 1 just choosing a different product, as some of them will share with others. Now, countless products list in big bold letters, they don't contain BPA.
Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't. Silently voting with your wallet doesn't work. If you don't believe it is a big deal, why get into the fray? The other guy posted a half dozen+ posts for something he doesn't care about? You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. Apathy, however, is not an opinion. If you like microtransactions, say so. Otherwise your only argument is other people shouldn't care, which offers nothing in a discussion on microtransactions and if it is a good thing. I am not interested in comics, so why troll discussion posts on who would win, Superman Vs Batman and argue with people saying it doesn't matter.
What else would u suggest except to vote with our feet?
i dont think ranting on a forum that ea obviously is not paying attention to constitute action. I am just being realisitic.
plus, like i said before, this hobby is just a hobby. It is not a necessity, and there are lots of substitute. And i highly doubt indie devs will go this way. So you can always play indie games.
You said many gamers were against micro transactions. Thats more than just one wallet I would assume. Collectively consumers decide which companies/products make it and which dont. Thats just the way it works. And being an informed consumer and knowing exactly where and when you spend your money is also not useless.
I cant even believe you made that comparison. You just compared a harmful material substance used in common household goods being taken off the market to a freaking luxury good that is basically a glorified toy because you dont like the way it is designed. Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? There is absolutley no similarity between the two.
I dont know how much more of this soccer mom logic I can stomach, to be quite honest.
As for expressing our opinions, this is not a "for it or against it" sort of issue. This is not a compulsory election process. This is a message board, if we think it is a non issue, then thats a perfectly valid opinion. If you dont like that, I suggest maybe you step out of the fray. Your posts are just getting ridiculous.
Did you miss the line where I clearly stated "Obviously the seriousness in the example differs, but the concept of changing a market doesn't."
Theres still no direct comparison at all. They put warning labels on products because they believed them to be harmful, that is not even the same thing as "lets put a warning label on this toy, because I dont like EA making more money off people who arent me." Believe me, its still the stupidest thing Ive ever heard regardless of which way you slice it. That would be like me comparing abortion yay or nay to "do I want to supersize my fries or not". I'd fully expect to be laughed at for overblowing my own relatively meaningless issue.
What the hell does that even mean anyways, "changing the market"? Its supply and demand. Theres obviously a demand for video games, thats why they keep making them. Micro transactions is the upsell, that comes with pretty much any product you buy. "Oh you bought this, why not buy this too, or get 2 for 4 dolla" Its really not worth pouting over.
So in effect you wanna convince other people to stop buying video games because they are offered a digital medium for which to buy additional content if they choose to.
Are you also going to protest outside your local McDonalds for having the audacity to ask you if you want fries with that?
You miss the point entirely. There were NO warning labels on BPA products, and only a few studies. If people didn't make an issue of it, that is how it would still be. Once people told their friends, and media got involved, warning labels came. Then, products stopped using it entirely. Now there are much larger studies showing how bad it is.
As far as the microtransactions, the problem isn't really today. It is annoying, but tolerable. It is tomorrow that is the issue. Once people understand that it will only get worse, they will begin to push back. But most people don't consider beyond 'ohh shiny'. If left unchecked, companies will take it to rediculous lengths. DLC sounded like a great idea. Day-1 DLC, less so. Day-1 DLC that was obviously removed to be sold as an add-on, even worse. Companies will sell completely stripped down games, and market the DLC like it is a wonderful addition, not something the game should have had in the first place.
[mod edit]
For the record, for every one of these clynical studies that shows a product is harmful, there are 5 more that jump the gun and have to come back and say "oops we were wrong, sorry for telling you salt was bad, didnt mean to put you at risk for brain damage."
Thats why I just gotta shake my head at all these proactive do-gooders who have to go around putting labels on everything. More harm than good, and self important little twits at that.
As for DLC, if it gets to that point, Ill stop buying video games, and so will most other worthwhile consumers. Company goes, oh, demand went down, we should probably change it back to the way it was, situation corrected itself. Companies are not going to kotow to your demands because you complain, they respond to the almighty dollar and thats it.
Thats pretty much what I said in my first post, I dont see why you cant get this.
The first game that had any special purchase I refused to pay and told my friends online and on sites like this that if they paid the fee then all games would go to this type of fee system.
I'm no even sure there's a way out of it now. It's hard to complain about free things. Even a lump of dog crap doesn't sound so bad if it's Free. This is worse for MMO's than the whole Theme park hold your hand direction that all major MMOs have gone in because this won't have any competition.
Asdar
(\ /) ?
( . .)
c('')('')
Oh.... and here goes Trion!
http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/03/05/trion-hopes-youll-pre-order-some-defiance-dlc-along-with-your-d/
http://www.defiance.com/en/dlc/pc/
Ahh man...
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
It's a shame, I would likely have bought Sim City if EA wasn't involved.
EA in a nutshell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-LE0ycgkBQ
EA is one of a few corporate entities whose domination of the gaming industry has caused many of the issues that industry finds itself in.
It is only the steady stream of new gamers coming of age that allows EA to put out the same old formats and appear to be doing something new.
In the fight for dominance and a slice of the cake Valve will now be launching Steam consoles. This is yet another example of pushing a universal gaming package, something EA has been in the fore front of. How long before we get an EA console?
EA and its ilk want to be to gaming what America Online wanted to be to internet users. The only place to shop, no choice, no alternative design vision.
Blame the players for that not EA for them its just business, making money.
As long gamers buy stuff in cashshops publishers/developers make sure you get what you want.
Its whole demise of the genre these days majority just can't play games without cashshops/macro/bots and cheats anymore and game developers see that so they make sure they spent there nickle and dime in there cash shop.
Its fault players not gamesellers.
Near future cash$$$ wil play the game not the player:(
No this isn't F2P or Freemium... It's Buymium FFS! Buy the game (which prices aren't low) and then you find out that you've bought a game that has 50% of it's content locked and you can't use some of the weapons or gadgets because you have to pay for it now.
I wish EA would crash and burn... But that wont happen soon I guess..
"Happiness is not a destination. It is a method of life."
-------------------------------
And obviously EA is not succeeding. There are other big game companies: Activision-Blizz, Ubisoft ...
And there is an active indie gaming scene. Heck, Origin is not even as big as STEAM.
It is not really possible to corner the market on entertainment.
The problem is there are no independent gaming media companies. All of them dictate their content to please their sources of revenue (game publishers). How are players supposed to spread their information and issues if they never get front page posting?
This site and many others never talk about the disadvantages that cash shop games have when players are allowed to buy advantages over other players during their reviews, and they all still continue to call these games "free".
How do you see independant gaming media and then relate that to steam indie games? To me that sounds like game journalism is held captive by game companies. Bad review = banned from press invites.
These games are not free. Servers, employees, and running them costs money. I wish everyone played these free to play games for free they would be out of business. If these games are so free why do they have cash shops?
"classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon
Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer
Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/The problem is: games are not ANY product like socks or hats or chairs. And gaming is not a hobby like bowling or knitting. Gamers are VERY passionate about their hobby, and love *their* games much more. Also there is much less compeition/choice. If a group of bowling buddies didn't like a particular bowling club, they go to another. End of story. With games your choices are much more limited and you are WAY more dependent on what the developer offers.
Let's be honest here: gaming has a lot of an addiction. If some game is THERE and it halfway fits our "hunting scheme", we buy it. Period. Resisting NOT to buy a game usually fitting your interest is, due to the addiction faction, very, very hard.
Now the false conclusion of developing companies is: OH look, people are actually buying the 10 Dollar pony, lets put MORE ponies into the ingame shop. They conclude, most people like the shop, since they use the shop, and that is WRONG. The average gamer is addicted to HAVE IT ALL. He can't bear the idea there is some content which he hasn't. It's like eating chips. The more you eat, the more you desire to eat more, and you are never satiated but only even more greedy. People buy from ingame shops and DLC because gaming is like an addiction. Most people don't like it, but have not the strength to really say no.
As a result people are paying more and more with each year for the same content that previously was in a "flatrate" box. So we kinda fall back into the days before the "flatrate" economy made stuff affordable. All of a sudden the world is no longer equal, one box for all, no the gaming world is divided into rich people who have tons of extra and fancy stuff and poor people who have the barebone game. And I fundamentally HATE that. I loved it in games that for once, your RL money did NOT matter. One box, one content for all the same. And then what you got in the game was ONLY your dedication, your creativity and your intelligence, NOT your pocket purse!
Sorry, but EA has done NOTHING but harm the gaming development in the last 20 years. It's almost a monopoly now, and that is never good for the customer.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
"Now the false conclusion of developing companies is: OH look, people are actually buying the 10 Dollar pony, lets put MORE ponies into the ingame shop. They conclude, most people like the shop, since they use the shop, and that is WRONG. The average gamer is addicted to HAVE IT ALL. He can't bear the idea there is some content which he hasn't. It's like eating chips. The more you eat, the more you desire to eat more, and you are never satiated but only even more greedy. People buy from ingame shops and DLC because gaming is like an addiction. Most people don't like it, but have not the strength to really say no."
I don't think gaming companies have decided that a cash shop is fine and most players want one because they will use the shop. I think they do realise gaming is addictive, they do realise we want it all. That is part of their strategy to milk as much money from players as possible.
In the immortal words of Captain Barbossa: "These aren't actual rules... more like... guidelines!" XD
Haarrrr!
The best review on Amazon was this, written by "plantos500"
"You'd think I'd be mega unhappy like everyone else at the constant waiting and lack of actually being able to play a game I purchased.
Well, you'd be wrong.
The hours upon hours since launch that I haven't been able to log in, whether it be sitting in queues, or server busy messages, or just plain old not working screens, I've managed to do a heap of things that I never do when I'm locked in my man cave playing video games.
I've washed the dishes, the laundry, changed the oil in the car, mopped the floors, dusted, did a spot of gardening, greeted my children who I hadn't really seen since Christmas, walked the dog, asked how my wife's day has been and listened to the entire response, restocked the groceries and many more things! My family has never been happier that they've got a father and husband again.
In fact, I feel like Simcity has given me a new lease on life. This wouldn't have been possible without the seemingly crazy decision to have constant online connections and server side save points even for single player.
So I can only thank EA and Maxis. Your failures have been my rewards. 5 stars!"
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert