News Article

EA Plans For a Future With Micro-Transactions in All Games

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

"Buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be"

Some of us in the Nintendo Life team and, we're sure, throughout the community, remember the days when you'd buy a game once and have the full product right there in your hand. The march of time and technology waits for no-one, of course, and we now have extensive download options, additional paid DLC and, gradually, micro-transactions. Each have their supporters and critics, for very valid reasons, but the relatively recent emergence of micro-transactions within full-price retail games has been a more questionable evolution in the industry.

EA has been at the fore-front of this, arguably, with the micro-transactions in the recent Dead Space 3 being a high-profile example, with upgrades and items that can be purchased by patiently collecting in-game resources, or simply by putting down real cash. Blake J. Jorgensen, CFO at Electronic Arts, has now spoken at the Morgan Stanley Technology Media & Telecom Conference to say that EA is working to include this model in its full range of future games, to allow you to "get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be."

Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business.

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, CTO at EA] team has built an amazing back-end to be able to manage that and manage it much more profitably.

The other piece of that puzzle is the mobile business itself. Playing games on a tablet or a mobile phone, smartphone, that business has evolved very quickly. It's become a very large part of our business and it's either an extension of existing franchises or new franchises.

In theory it's up to the gamer to decide whether they want to pay for a full game and then spend money on minor things like upgrades or new guns, but who's to say developers won't draw out the natural "free" way to unlockables to force those who can't wait to cough up? It's gamer choice, yes, but for games with competitive multiplayer where better weapons and item sets affect your chances, this could manipulate some to spend even more money because they can't bear to have a weaker weapon than someone else. In the pursuit of money, just when are we deemed to have paid enough to fully enjoy a game?

Oh, and the difference between in-app purchases in the mobile and home console space — mobile games aren't typically £50/$60/€60.

Where do you stand on the idea of micro-transactions appearing in even more games, and possibly every EA game? You can sound off in the comments section below.

[via gamasutra.com]

More Stories

User Comments (119)

Mickey

#2

Mickey said:

I think this disgusting, who can profit from this? EA. Who will benefit from this? EA. Who really WANTS this? EA. It's sickening!

Kroisos

#3

Kroisos said:

I won't boycott EA games because I don't like their business model--but I will avoid buying games with negative features, which now seems to describe every upcoming EA game. Of course, what they'll lose from me will undoubtedly be made up for many times over, so I'm not surprised.

WesCash

#6

WesCash said:

EA can do whatever it wants, but I certainly won't pay for half of a game.

Geonjaha

#7

Geonjaha said:

If it's stuff that is just cosmetic, fine or it's stuff that you can get in game normally, fine. Otherwise no. If it's included with the game on purchase then no. I paid for the game - not a fraction of it.

Dashtag

#8

Dashtag said:

....and who cares about EA? EA is just sealing their fate with every comment like this. Plus, their games are terrible, at least imo.

idork99

#9

idork99 said:

The last time I purchased an EA game was Madden in 2001 during the release of the GameCube so this news is irrelevant to me. What should be relevant (Nintendo and everyone else) is that no matter how much I love a game, I've yet to purchase DLC for any game and don't plan to; ever (exception: Mario Kart 7)!

...and the free DLC on NSMB2 (because, surprise, it was free)

RoryLee

#10

RoryLee said:

"Buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be"

How about you give me all that content when I buy your game.

GiftedGimp

#13

GiftedGimp said:

This is bad for console gaming, ok, Micp-transaction in free ios/table games is a way for the developers to make some profit, being free to begin with no-one cares.
However, when you go to the shop pay 40/50 quid on a game you want the full game.
Dlc is becoming a bone of contention with more and more dlc turns out to be unlock keys for completed content that could of been in the game to start with.
Yes Mico purchases usually are a way to aid your progress, however for every table/iOs game where not buying stuff via micro-transaction wont hinder your progress too much there are 5 games that to get anywhere you really need to use micr-transaction content.
Maybe not straight away, but given time, it will lead to the same sort of thing on console games.
Also by boosting via Micro-transaction seriously destroys online play, EA's Fight Night 4 allowed you to buy Stat Boosters, anyone not willing to pay for these boosters, often found that they would be matched up with someone who's stats had been maxed, having no chance of a balanced match.

Its No suprise EA are at the forefront of pushing Micr-stansaction, this is the compony that introduced Online Passes, This is the company who releases the same sports game year-in-year out with little or no improvments, who will also then charge you each year to buy the same dlc you brought for last years sports game (Tiger Woods).

All publishers want/need to make profits but EA go beyone trying to make a profit. Trying to milk gamers for as much as they can get away with.
The only other publisher who are close to EA are Activision, but even they arn't quite as bad.

Ea supposedly don't like the WiiU, now as much as I wan't as many 3rd Party publishers giving us WiiU owners a load of great game As far as EA are concerned, they can (being polite) Go away, and stick to milking Xbox/Playstation owners.

Shworange

#16

Shworange said:

I can't wait until one day a person can buy a Madden game and will be forced to buy DLC to play right away. "You have to manage the team properly to earn money to buy shoulder pads and helmets. Even the football! For those that dont want to invest the 50 hours of boring office room gameplay in which you have to fill out forms the whole time, you could buy all the equipment for another 20 bucks and get right into the game. You don't have to buy the equipment, but it's there for a quick enhancement. Also, you'll be able to purchase cybernetic implants to run faster, jump higher and throw further! This will give you an unfair advantage when played online yes, but we're not forcing you to do anything!"
EA, you suck.

Farmboy74

#20

Farmboy74 said:

So they have re branded in-app purchases as micro transactions?. Not on my Wii U there not. I'm not a fan of this particular game model on my phone let alone on a console game.

RaylaxStaff

#21

Raylax said:

@MickeyTheGreat It is indeed sickening that a business should want to invent plans that they can profit and benefit from. Businesses in the game sector are, as we all know, exclusively charitable ventures with no interest in money-making whatsoever.

Sarcasm aside, this news doesn't affect me much. I genuinely haven't bought an EA game since it was known as Electronic Arts on the Mega Drive. That's not out of some internet-flavoured spite for the company, it's just a thing that has happened for no particular reason.

And to be honest, the way I see it, it's taking money off idiots, which can only be a good thing. Always milk an idiot, it makes life better for everyone else. You want to be the person who paid their way through a video game (that you already paid for), fine. Go for it. It strikes me as being akin to buying a cinema ticket, not watching the film, and then giving £10 to the first person coming out who'll tell you how it ends.

ueI

#22

ueI said:

It's really dumb to have extra fees in a game that ALREADY costs $60 in the first place.

Haxonberik

#23

Haxonberik said:

I hope EA dies a la THQ, I know it wont happen, at least not any time soon, but if it did their franchises will be on much better hands that these profit-seeking scum bags.

Haxonberik

#25

Haxonberik said:

@Raylax It's not about the money, it's about sending a message. But pop-culture quotes aside, the point is this will de-balance their games, specially on the competitive side. Imagine you could pay for, say, stronger pokemon, people would get discouraged from getting them without money because it would seem like a waste of effort, and they wouldn't play online because they know they'll find people with stronger paid pokemon.

LDXD

#29

LDXD said:

Lol I seen this coming ohh well buh bye mass effect,dragon age, dead space and anything else that ea decides to put their hands on I have a strong feeling also the this new generation of consoles will have more pointless overpriced dlc and the games are going to be much shorter than they already are. I don't know about everyone else but I rather pay a little more for my game and just be done with it. Makes me miss the good ol days of gaming

Lopezdm

#30

Lopezdm said:

There has been talks about this a few years ago. The integration of Facebook and other social media sites in games is just a money making idea. What if Chris Redfield stopped to check his email before killing zombies? It would break the games story by bringing real life things into a factious world. This happened in the new Dead Space. You can just buy new guns if you want one. I don't like it in my android games and the apps that do have this are played for about 5 mins and then deleted. I hope this doesn't come to first person shooters. Players won't have to win with skill they can just buy wins.

LDXD

#31

LDXD said:

Oh and yeah they also decided to screw me over with the new sim city because yeah it makes perfect sense to have to be always connected to EA servers to play a single player game sorry for the rant but I hate drm and micro transactions although some people may think it's harmless right now it's just gonna get worse. EA just stay away from dark souls please

SilentHunter382

#33

SilentHunter382 said:

I have no problem with micro Transaction games aslong as that game is free. Not pay €50 and have micro transaction in those games.

AlexSora89

#34

AlexSora89 said:

I'll be brutally honest here - gaming is enough of an expensive hobby as-is, so no thank you, EA.

Games used to have normally unlockable stuff. "Bribing your way to victory" (as Tv Tropes puts it) is a concept best left to the iOS games alone. Period.

hms

#35

hms said:

EA's seaon pass LOL ,no thanks. No more EA games.Micro no thanks too.

BakaKnight

#36

BakaKnight said:

Microtransiction...Macroproblem...

I just hate when a game play on be unacceptably slow for force you to speed up things with in game purchases. At least ios games are free, you see the matter, you stop play and lose nothing; but spending for a full retail game and feels unable to enjoy it cause you need to put extra cash for the fun... NO, just... NO!

Then again we can't judge EA plan without seeing how they want to put those "microtransictions" in the games. Quite curious to see how this thing will develop and really hope it want hurt our dear gaming hobby >_>;

Dinosaurs

#38

Dinosaurs said:

EA is looking like a premium label purchase if they figure with back-end a game brings in $70-80 due to 'pay to unlock' in all their games. Their fans may have to decide now whether they are premium content buyers or not if they want to have an advantage going forward.

carlocunanan

#39

carlocunanan said:

DLCs are fine but games that make you pay full price and then spam you with messages to put down REAL cash dissapoints me...

Rapadash6

#40

Rapadash6 said:

Good thing I've not had an EA published game in my library since Madden 93 on the SNES, and even that was my brothers. Absolutely doesn't affect me one bit.

Chrono_Cross

#42

Chrono_Cross said:

It's simple business tactics.

EA is losing money due to used games and competition, so it has to make up for it somehow, no? Sure, as a consumer buying an online pass may seem harsh, but that's how businesses work around bumps in the road.

Micro-transactions are absolutely optional and like in Dead Space 3, they don't make or break the game. The option is there to enhance the game and are in no way, necessary for 100% completion.

AltDotNerd

#43

AltDotNerd said:

The major problem I see is people who spend time to rank up in the legit way now have to play against people who just bought their way into the high rankings.

Imagine if Nintendo just allowed you to pay for a level 100 Pokemon instead of actually raising it?

DePapier

#44

DePapier said:

People in here are selling games. If they can't understand this simple fact and start moneying there customers, you can expect them to have those customers lose faith and leave them altogether as those tactics become more and more implemented.
This industry is going the wrong way, I tell you that.

gavn64

#45

gavn64 said:

I hate this crap i thought DLC was originally meant to extend a game's life span long after release not milk a game right after it comes out it is an absolute joke.

Bankai

#46

Bankai said:

This is good news. Give players optional micro transactions, make a little extra money, produce better games.

I don't see how players lose out in any way here.

LDXD

#47

LDXD said:

@Chrono_Cross so much wrong with your statement where do I begin? First off EA is losing money due to poor business practices similar to this one I don't ever remember hearing about used games causing problems back in the day it's been around for a long long time and from what I keep hearing the Wii u is weak remember so how can Nintendo be driving up development cost? And not those AAA titles with all that voice acting and cinematic cut scenes that you guys crave so much? Also yes it isn't mandatory now but mark my words the way this industry is going it will be just a matter of time

Bankai

#50

Bankai said:

@LDXD EA is not losing money by implementing features into its games that make it more money. I can promise you that.

Bankai

#51

Bankai said:

@LDXD For corporations to remain liquid and be able to invest in projects, they need money, yes. The more money a company makes, the more it can invest into innovation, creativity, making its staff happy and so on.

These things benefit the consumer who gets more products and more interesting products to spend money on.

Dinosaurs

#52

Dinosaurs said:

@bankai The in-game player may lose out though. I have no issue with EA getting a back-end from its games whatever they want to charge. I'm not a fan of certain possible implementations where online competition is concerned however.The fact that it may be the haves vs. the have nots where the advantage is concerned due to some not having a bigger budget for a single game.

Bankai

#53

Bankai said:

@Pixelroy I have yet to see an EA-published game where it is necessary to buy micro transactions to enjoy yourself.

That includes all of its mobile games

LDXD

#54

LDXD said:

@Bankai ya don't say and I guess all that money Sega gave to gearbox to make aliens colonial marines a better game paid off ? Hey maybe it would be better with micro transactions. Also yeah you haven't seen them do it yet but what if they do that's what most people I think are concerned about them taking advantage of it because let's face it I'm sure EA is looking out for the customer here so they can make better games for us lol gimme a break

TheXboxHero

#56

TheXboxHero said:

I think EA is relying too much on DLC. They should at least have a few options of DLC new characters, worlds, etc; but otherwise this is a very poor decision.

Rawk_Hawk

#57

Rawk_Hawk said:

EA makes me nauseated. They are not the game company they used to be. I'll pass on anything they make.

Guybrush20X6

#58

Guybrush20X6 said:

All is I can say is EA will continue doing it as long as it works so If you do buy an EA game don't buy any of the in-store stuff.

I've been not buying stuff for the Sims for ages so I've got that going... Wish I had more self control when it came to expansion packs.

Furealz

#59

Furealz said:

Wait...yesterday on GoNintendo there was an article that EA demands games to be $70! For PS4 and NextBox games! (If that's true, power to the almighty Wii U)

Dinosaurs

#60

Dinosaurs said:

@bankai The micro transactions are appealing as they give the player added advantage. If I don't buy I may have to rely on unsummonable added skill with the default options if I want to win or rank. It could be frustration big or small to some if all games feature paid unlockables in the future.

LDXD

#61

LDXD said:

@Furealz they really should be development cost are sky high. I don't know about everyone else but I rather them jack the price up on the games just give me a full game no pointless dlc no micro transactions and I don't want to pay for a game and be forced to be online to play unless I'm playing an mmo

Linkuini

#63

Linkuini said:

Having new stuff in a game is always fun. Ideally, though, shouldn't the challenge of acquiring said new stuff also be fun? Shouldn't it be more than something you muscle through to avoid spending real money?

Think of Pokémon! You don't catch the best ones just by leveling up enough or saving money for weeks. You catch them by talking to NPCs that know about them, looking over your map, bringing the right items, teaching your pokémon the right moves, venturing into treacherous territory, carefully wearing down your mark, and throwing one pokéball after another until the thing admits your superiority! If you would pay actual money – in any amount – to skip all that, then the answer is not micro-transactions: the answer is play something better!

Good games don't make us do this just to draw the whole thing out longer. Good games put us through these challenges to make us assign more value to the rewards we get for overcoming them. If we care so much more about the rewards than the gameplay it takes to get them, then something has gone truly wrong. :(

I don't mean to say that there could not possibly be benefits to micro-transactions, but the future looks pretty murky right now...

gsnap

#64

gsnap said:

These are games. As such, they need to be PLAYED, and accomplishments needs to be EARNED. Not bought. How lame would it be to be playing a game of Clue, and your friend could just pay to get extra cards, putting them ahead of you just because you don't want to pay extra? It's just so stupid that people would rather pay money than just play the game. Why play in the first place then? Read a book, watch a movie. You obviously don't actually want to play the game, or else you wouldn't buy those microtransactions.

I'll admit that there are ways this can be done tastefully, but I don't trust EA to do that.

LDXD

#66

LDXD said:

@Bankai yeah EA implementing features like this into their games will make them more money but also lose a lot of customers I can assure you that

Bankai

#67

Bankai said:

@LDXD Dead Space 3 launched at the top of the charts and is the year's biggest selling game to-date.

So evidently the microtransactions did not lose EA a lot of customers.

hamispink

#68

hamispink said:

These micro-transactions in full priced games are a problem, but they only exist because people buy them. As long as EA keeps making money off things like micro-transactions, DLC, and online passes, they will keep implementing them.

I don't think these practices are inherently bad, but the price is the issue for me. Micro-transactions only belong in free-to-play games, and DLC should bring new experiences, not small enhancements to the game that you paid for. I pay for a game expecting the developers vision and a complete product.

LDXD

#69

LDXD said:

@Bankai no but surely it must be the best one tho right? Because like you said more cash better games And "this year to date" dude were only at the end of February and let me say that they way it's implemented in DS3 not a problem but this type of thing can be very much taken advantage of in the future of the gaming industry like most of dlc nowadays like someone posted before me it's a joke now Just like this will turn out

Dinosaurs

#70

Dinosaurs said:

@hamispink There is a side to now adding micro transactions to full priced games that is dubious. Traditionally, game players have not had to worry about being up sold after buying a console game at full price.

On the other hand there's no problem with people with a bigger budget or easily tempted to spend more than they should willing to pay more for optional content. And those types of customers exist and the company prospers by them.

But I do think publishers need to carefully implement such features so players don't feel cheated but only that they have more options should they like.

Bankai

#71

Bankai said:

There has been some big releases this year already: Ni No Kuni, Crysis 3.

Quality has nothing to do with this discussion. EA put microtransactions in Dead Space 3 and sales were not adversely affected. Therefore it's not the kiss of death to sales volume that you suggested earlier.

Bankai

#72

Bankai said:

The basic reality that a lot of people are losing sight of here is that $50 is not enough for a retail game. Consumers don't want to pay more than that up front though, so publishers are looking for other ways to earn a decent margin from their investments.

So everyone should be glad of microtransactions and DLC. Because they exist, you're still only paying $50 upfront for a game, even as budgets get bigger and margins get squeezed. Without microtransactions and DLC games would cost $70 or thereabouts.

LDXD

#73

LDXD said:

@Bankai i agree that games should be more I rather pay more because let's say I pay $75 for game at least I know what I'm getting into not $60 and some bs micro transactions that charge me to unlock a sprint feature or to level up my character in a rpg,get what I'm saying I know it's not happening now I'm speaking what possibly could. And already I know with that one $75 transaction I get everything there is no room to be taking advantage of. I just see this sorta thing getting way outta hand and I'm not liking it one bit

Bankai

#74

Bankai said:

There is no indication that microtransactions will become a required element in retail games. None whatsoever.

Dinosaurs

#75

Dinosaurs said:

@LDXD you and I may be willing to, yes. But there are more consumers who won't if the competition is cheaper. Many businesses factor in the profit of their premium product purchases when setting competitive prices to attract wider business.

Gamesake

#77

Gamesake said:

So EA isn't selling enough units to justify its own budget and now they've decided it falls on their existing customers to make up the difference? That's some quality service there.

@SilentHunter382 I'm fine with the free to play model too. Seems EA wants it both ways. Maybe they'll start charging a monthly fee on top of their micro transactions after this. Gotta make that money.

Bankai

#78

Bankai said:

@LDXD there is, actually. No one has done mandatory microtransactions in a commercially-successful manner yet.

There's surely been attempts on the iPhone and iPad and the like, but none have worked. That indicates that the bigger businesses are not even going to try.

Dinosaurs

#79

Dinosaurs said:

The price of keeping EA in business. Likely it will soon be the price of keeping all publishers in business. Completionist-gamers need quiver.

AlexSora89

#82

AlexSora89 said:

@Bankai: What Pixelroy pointed out is that the price for each game (in every meaning of the word "price") can only skyrocket if these shenanigans happen with every game. And the ones who will pay it? The same ones who always paid for it - us gamers. Now, how is that a good thing?

Nobody wants publishers to go out of business, but if such draconian business practices are the only way to keep 'em in, then good riddance.

Bankai

#83

Bankai said:

@AlexSora89 The point is that there are only three options here: the price of the actual box on the shelves goes up, the game supports microtransactions to keep the retail price down, or the publisher goes out of business.

The cost to make games is escalating, so publishers need to find ways to make that money back.

So which of those three would you prefer? If it's number 3) then perhaps gaming is no longer for you, and you need to find yourself a cheaper hobby?

Chrono_Cross

#85

Chrono_Cross said:

@LDXD

You do realize that these are optional, right? If you solely buy EA's game(s), you're not supporting its business decisions.

I find it rude that you think so low of EA's fanbase because they support a company they enjoy. Very low.

Jukilum

#86

Jukilum said:

Sim City sounded good when announced, but its prospects just seem to be lowering. I miss the days when EA didn't own Maxis.

LDXD

#87

LDXD said:

@Chrono_Cross I know they are optional for the time being and no I don't think low of anyone my game collection is huge I have a bunch of games that they published but I will never support this kinda thing ever I can't fathom why anyone would and if I did offend anyone my apologies I'm just speaking my mind

LDXD

#88

LDXD said:

@Jukilum wow exactly another mess up I would have got it but well not going to support that type of drm

Chrono_Cross

#89

Chrono_Cross said:

@LDXD

I can't figure out how someone can play video games standing up. EA's supportive fans shouldn't keep you up at night. It's not unreasonable.

Meaty-cheeky

#90

Meaty-cheeky said:

The only games that I like from EA is Command and Conquer and Burnout.
(Wii U needs an RTS game like C&C or Star Craft)

theblackdragonAdmin

#91

theblackdragon said:

Guys, please, if you can't discuss the issues at hand without taking personal shots at each other, don't bother commenting until you can — and that goes for both sides of the discussion. If you've been insulted by another user here, report the comment and move on. If an insult magically disappears from someone's post, it's safe to assume that the comment was reported by someone and we've already taken care of the problem. Thanks in advance!

Bankai

#92

Bankai said:

@ueI Games can't be made cheaper. Not the kind of games EA makes.

EA is a publisher of big blockbuster games. These are getting more expensive to make, not cheaper.

Zombie_Barioth

#94

Zombie_Barioth said:

@Bankai Then wouldn't the next logical step be to make a change of business tactics, rather than nickle and dime consumers to make up the difference until you reach a breaking point that forces you to change plans?

We've already seen an article on someone from Ubisoft talking about how blockbuster budgets are becoming unsustainable, and I'm sure they're not the only ones to notice.

yobucky

#95

yobucky said:

So much rage. Personally I feel that paid DLC should only be for things that do genuinely extend the game, like extra missions or multiplayer maps, or else visual upgrades with no benefits (hats in TF2 comes to mind) not just paying your way to get all the unlocks. I guess some people clearly have more money than sense though, so if they can milk them to pay for things that are already in the game then power to them for exploiting basic human stupidity, I'll be over here holding onto my money thanks and actually playing games that don't need extra money to be enjoyed fully.

Bankai

#96

Bankai said:

@Zombie_Barioth unfortunately, this is a textbook case of escalation. While, logically speaking, it would be smart for the likes of EA or Activision to budget $50 million for the next FIFA or Call of Duty rather than $100 million, the problem is that the mass consumers really don't care about the budgets. They want each year's game to be bigger and better than the last.

So for established franchises budging less is not a good idea. Especially when your competition is spending more.

And because this escalation is meaning that these companies are not making adequate, safe margins, these companies are becoming increasingly risk-adverse, making them unwilling to spend money on new IP development.

It's a nasty cycle that is not doing anyone any favours, but all EA and Activision can do is try and find ways of making more money from these games. That one or two per cent of people who spend money on microtransactions still results in millions of vital dollars for these companies.

Zombie_Barioth

#98

Zombie_Barioth said:

@Bankai Your certainly right, and explained it a lot better than I could to boot. The only solution I see is all sides agreeing to work together to set things back on the right track, and quite frankly I think you'd have better luck finding bigfoot.

SCAR392

#100

SCAR392 said:

I could see this working if they sell you ammo, and other disposable items in the game. There's a difference between holding things back from customers for the sake of extra cash, and actually requiring money to get the said extras because of more effort. If they release a new map that starts being made after the original game is released, that's worthy of a paid extra, as long as it wasn't prepared and held back in the original release. Just like Mass Effect 3 with day one DLC.

SCAR392

#101

SCAR392 said:

I'm honestly pretty sick of EA right now. The last games I liked from them were Mirror's Edge and the first Dead Space.

Zombie_Barioth

#102

Zombie_Barioth said:

@Bankai Yea, I didn't think of it from that side of things. I didn't mean it in the literal sense though, I was thinking more along the lines of an acknowledgement theres a problem and their collective effort as individual companies.

Of course I'm sure theres some kind of technicality that would prevent anything of the sort (along with investors, consumers, ect.).

WindWakerLink

#103

WindWakerLink said:

Its not like I buy EA games anyway, but this is annoying. Paying 60+ dollars thinking you're a getting a full game; then you want more?? "Ur greed knows no limit, huh? Disgusting...." "Hmmph!"

WindWakerLink

#104

WindWakerLink said:

I miss the gaming days of the 90s. None of this DLC nonsense existed... "Good times. Good times." Yea.

Big_L91

#105

Big_L91 said:

yeah i gotta say i think its bullcrap! if ive just payed £50 for a game i dont wanna have to pay more to get the best weapons ect. the whole point of games to me is to spend time leveling up or just putting time in to unlock the best stuff. it feels rewarding! f you EA! very much.

Chunky_Droid

#106

Chunky_Droid said:

Meh, most companies will go this route.

In essence it's not a lot different to going out and buying a guide to help you through a game, this is just a quicker way for people to experience something if they choose not to play the game for hours on end.

SteveW

#107

SteveW said:

I will prepare for a future where there is no EA! they are getting worse every day!

Araknie

#108

Araknie said:

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

1: Not even talking about us as gamers makes it sad.
2: Excatly...those are consumers not gamers.

XCWarrior

#109

XCWarrior said:

Well it's a good thing I rarely buy EA games as is. Won't be too hard to cut them off completely. Maybe it was Nintendo that said, "thanks, but no thanks" when it came to supporting the Wii U. Maybe Nintendo knew it's fans wouldn't stand for this crap. See ya EA, can't say I'll miss ya.

AJWolfTill

#110

AJWolfTill said:

While most Ea games don't interest me in the slightest, Dead Space and Mass Effect are both amazing. If they were actually planning on supporting the Wii U with these titles I would be frustrated if this became game ruining.

RoryLee

#111

RoryLee said:

I enjoyed it alot more when you had to complete a certain task in the game to get that weapon, costume or new character.

DarkKirby

#112

DarkKirby said:

EA cutting out content from the completed game and selling it as DLC is already standard practice for them. I'm pretty sure day 1 DLC is now a requirement for all developers working under EA.

Jukilum

#113

Jukilum said:

There is such a thing as having lower prices to increase sales. If enough extra people buy the game if it's at a lower price then EA would earn more than if they raised prices.

Molotov

#115

Molotov said:

Yeees EA, Its BECAUSE Of The CONSUMER Youre Doing That... Not Cause You Wanna Rip Us Off Every Step Of The Way... No Nooo That Would Not Be Right

Grayjedi13

#117

Grayjedi13 said:

Well, I may have to ban myself from buying anything put out by EA games now, which is a shame since they own Bioware. On the up side I'm really glad Nintendo seems to be strongly against micro DLC (for now). Can you imagine how much, say, Pokemon would suck with micro DLC?

God, I miss expansion packs...

Blue-Thunder

#118

Blue-Thunder said:

Here's the solution, don't buy EA games. This is a total rip off and the only way to let them know, we are not going to put up with their s**t, is by not buying their games. Simples...

Bass_X0

#119

Bass_X0 said:

@#104 - Games in the 90s were smaller and had far worse graphics than games now. Sure 90s console games had no DLC, but you have to take into account other differences too.

I paid £80 for Super Street Fighter II on SNES (imported) and only £35 for Street Fighter X Tekken. Even with DLC characters added to the cost, the modern game still offers much more value for money.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...