ALL EA games to include microtransactions

[Luk3us 63]

 

Microtransactions will feature in every game EA releases in the future.

 

EA CFO Blake Jorgensen made the announcement at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference.

“The next and much bigger piece [of the business] is microtransactions within games," he said. "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.”

 

In order to make this increased focus on microtransactions possible, Jorgensen said that EA has created a “strong back-end” to manage billing. “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.”

 

EA distressed many core gamers recently with the inclusion of microtransactions in Dead Space 3.

 

 

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/1023601.20130228.All-EA-games-will-include-microtransactions/?utm_source=lsv&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Subscriber%2373610&utm_campaign=GPNZ%20Newsletter%202013-02-28http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/1023601.20130228.All-EA-games-will-include-microtransactions/?utm_source=lsv&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Subscriber%2373610&utm_campaign=GPNZ%20Newsletter%202013-02-28

 

 

What a load of ****ing bull****.

[Plok 327]

They'll never learn.

[PurpleGaga27 40]

This is how EA makes their downfall by making more users to pay to win.

 

Look at Zynga, it never seemed to be working out for some of their games.

Edited February 28, 2013 by zocom7

[AZ-Stalker 88]

...and consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business.

 

[Nmenth 291]

This really isn't surprising. Unless one was completely oblivious, it was already obvious EA felt this way. They are delusional and have been getting worse - not better - for some time now. This is why many C&C fans have no faith that they will do C&CF2P right.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Your objections are pointless and just further prove that gamers are acting like the same ignorant customers that pollute other retail venues. Bravo, guys.

[Plok 327]

Your objections just further prove that you need to counter everything

[Nmenth 291]

Your objections are pointless and just further prove that gamers are acting like the same ignorant customers that pollute other retail venues.

So just to clarify, you are saying you think it is a good thing that microtransactions will feature in every game EA releases in the future?

[Luk3us 63]

Your objections are pointless and just further prove that gamers are acting like the same ignorant customers that pollute other retail venues. Bravo, guys.

 

If you don't say anything, then nothing changes.

[Luk3us 63]

UPDATE

EA CFO Blake Jorgensen has backed away from his claim that microtransactions would be included in all forthcoming EA releases.

Last week the EA executive claimed that consumers were enjoying and embracing the microtransaction payment model, and as such it would feature in every EA release from then on.

 

However, speaking at the Wedbush Securities Transformational Technologies Management Access Conference today, Jorgensen clarified his position on the controversial issue.

"I made a statement in the conference along the lines of, 'we'll have microtransactions in our games and the community read that to be 'all games',” he said. “And that's really not true." It seems what Jorgensen meant to say was all mobile games would contain microtransactions, and he offered Real Racing 3 as an example of what he was talking about.

 

That game, however, has been widely criticised for containing far too many microtransactions, which have been labelled "crippling"; their inclusion "strangling the game". Microtransactions in the title are pushed for everything from car repairs to faster installation of upgrades to vehicle packs, and some game sites have claimed a spend of up to US$500 (NZ$603) is required for a decent gameplay experience.

This is probably not the message Jorgensen had intended either.

 

Regardless, on the core gaming side of things, Jorgensen said his company would actually focusing on "extensions" rather than microtransactions – things like Battlefield Premium, he said. The EA-published Dead Space 3 caused a stir earlier this year when it was discovered the full-price singleplayer game included microtransactions.

 

 

 

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/news/1024161.20130307.EA-exec-backpedals-on-microtransactions-in-all-games-statement/?utm_source=lsv&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Subscriber#73610&utm_campaign=GPNZ Newsletter 2013-03-07

[Doctor Destiny 41]

So just to clarify, you are saying you think it is a good thing that microtransactions will feature in every game EA releases in the future?

If done right, yes. I am completely in favor of it.

 

 

If you don't say anything, then nothing changes.

The problem is that it's already changing and nobody likes it. Rather than let things change, you're already trying to force it to the same stale model that's causing other media avenues to start losing out. Culling profits only drives prices higher and makes the companies further antagonistic towards consumers because they need to maximize their profits. The more they can make off of a game post-new game sale, the better. If they make more profit, they take more chances... eventually.

[Plok 327]

If done right, yes. I am completely in favor of it.

Wasting real money on worthless virtual stuff? Have fun with that.

The problem is that it's already changing and nobody likes it. Rather than let things change, you're already trying to force it to the same stale model that's causing other media avenues to start losing out.

It's the only model that really works for the customers. Unless they're level 87 Basement Dwellers.

Culling profits only drives prices higher and makes the companies further antagonistic towards consumers because they need to maximize their profits. The more they can make off of a game post-new game sale, the better.

Need I remind you that without a more-or-less stable number of consumers, companies begin to rot? Watch your step and you'll do fine.

If they make more profit, they take more chances... eventually.

That's exactly why they get so much hate. They don't know which chances they should take and which ones they should avoid.

[Nmenth 291]

If done right, yes. I am completely in favor of it.

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. I have never approved of microtransactions in any game and have never paid for one.

 

I only pay for the same game one time, I do not pay for monthly subscriptions, I do not buy DLCs*, and I do not pay for microtransactions. So unless they offer 100% of Generals F2P's paid for content within one package with one price tag, I will not be buying it all.

 

(*Individually that is, I do buy games that come with all DLCs included for one price.)

[r34ch 1]

If done right, yes. I am completely in favor of it.

Absolutely agree. If done right.

 

 

Which means;

-No Pay 2 Win

-No shoving micro transactions in your face

 

 

 

World of Tanks got it perfect. You can literally play all aspects of the game for free, if you have the time.

 

If you throw money at it, that's up to you. It saves you time. And if you tire of it, don't give any more money. Never had that option with the dozens of 'AAA' games I tired of quickly. Those games were not worth the value for money. F2P lets me decide what value I place on the product.

Edited March 9, 2013 by r34ch

[Guest Stevie_K]

World of Tanks got it perfect. You can literally play all aspects of the game for free, if you have the time.

 

If you throw money at it, that's up to you. It saves you time. And if you tire of it, don't give any more money. Never had that option with the dozens of 'AAA' games I tired of quickly. Those games were not worth the value for money. F2P lets me decide what value I place on the product.

 

Not perfect in my opinion. The ability to pay money to save time is still too much of an interference in the game.

Not units, not abilities, not weapons, not even the aspect of saving time should be able to be bought for real money if a game is to get it perfect. But that's my opinion.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree with it. I have never approved of microtransactions in any game and have never paid for one.

 

I only pay for the same game one time, I do not pay for monthly subscriptions, I do not buy DLCs*, and I do not pay for microtransactions. So unless they offer 100% of Generals F2P's paid for content within one package with one price tag, I will not be buying it all.

 

(*Individually that is, I do buy games that come with all DLCs included for one price.)

And you're entitled to your angry old man opinion too, since that's what it is and it's actually a very wrong one to continue clinging to. We're in the new age and every industry has to evolve and adapt with technology instead of trying to stand in its way, which is what you're doing. Today, developers and companies have options when it comes to revenue streams. Microtransactions and DLCs are part of those options and they make perfect business sense. It's more product for a small fee and it's not even required for anything if you don't want it. Nobody's forcing you to buy it, but it should be an option for those people who want it. If these things didn't make money, they wouldn't be an issue. Period. But they do make money and, at the end of the day, every game company is still a company so making profit is their bottom line. More money for their coffers means more games and better ones to boot.

 

And I think you're missing the point of FREE TO PLAY. The new C&C will have no upfront cost so you can download and play all you want at no cost to you except some bandwidth. Methinks you need to re-examine just what it is we're talking about.

 

Absolutely agree. If done right.

 

 

Which means;

-No Pay 2 Win

-No shoving micro transactions in your face

 

 

 

World of Tanks got it perfect. You can literally play all aspects of the game for free, if you have the time.

 

If you throw money at it, that's up to you. It saves you time. And if you tire of it, don't give any more money. Never had that option with the dozens of 'AAA' games I tired of quickly. Those games were not worth the value for money. F2P lets me decide what value I place on the product.

I've never played World of Tanks but I like their business model. It's everything done right. If you invest the time, you reap the same benefits as someone who saved themselves time and paid for it. That's the beauty of a free to play and microtransaction based market. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to but you can still have everything the game offers if you invest your time. If you like the game, but don't have the time, you can still enjoy the full game by shelling out of a few bucks, which is probably less than the cost of a retail game. It's win-win for everyone. It just comes down to what you value more.

 

Not perfect in my opinion. The ability to pay money to save time is still too much of an interference in the game.

Not units, not abilities, not weapons, not even the aspect of saving time should be able to be bought for real money if a game is to get it perfect. But that's my opinion.

Then you're in the stone age. It's time to move on. Everyone likes to decry businesses for "not keeping up with the times," but when one does, you decry it anyway. Make up your ****ing minds people. Which is it? Move on or stagnate and fail? Spoiled brats... all I can say anymore.

[Fiesta 0]

Of course we're spoiled, we were spoiled when game makers put a single price tag on their games, released it, and patched them every so often for free. Simple. If the customers, us, deem that additional content is worth paying for, we'll do that. Otherwise we're best left alone. Supporting DlC markets and microtransactions only means you're in favor of companies that would rather not leave the games just open enough for us to mess with ourselves. In case you forgot, the communities we're in started in part due to gaining mod options that weren't sanctioned by the devs, and against the publisher's terms of use, but they didn't really do anything to lock down those games (and they still don't, not worth it anymore) and shouldn't. We aren't entitled to freedom in how we play games but why the blue hell are we taking it in stride when the devs and publishers would rather line their pockets to give us what they THINK we want rather than let us make what we want ourselves and plug it in and probably distribute it?

 

I will agree about the World of Tanks model, but EA !=wargaming.net. They're NOT going to do things as fairly or efficiently no matter what they say, and if we just take it on the chin we're saying it's okay for them to do it. I'm in agreement that done right, DLC/microtransactions can be a good thing, but that's a case by case basis and I'm against it here because I know with EA involved it WON'T be a good thing.

[Nmenth 291]

And I think you're missing the point of FREE TO PLAY. The new C&C will have no upfront cost so you can download and play all you want at no cost to you except some bandwidth. Methinks you need to re-examine just what it is we're talking about.

I know it's free to play, I said I wouldn't buy its paid for content unless they sold it in one package. In other words, if they monetize the campaigns and have one for each faction you have to buy individually, I just won't even bother.

 

As for the rest of what you said, I'm not going to debate it. Although we can argue what economic model is best, ultimately it is still just an opinion and the personal preference of the paying customer. Neither one of us are going to convince the other, and there is little point in even trying. I do find irony in you supporting the business over the gamer in this instance though considering we were once on opposite sides when you said this of me:

From the way you act, you feel more like a businessman, not a gamer.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

 

Of course we're spoiled, we were spoiled when game makers put a single price tag on their games, released it, and patched them every so often for free. Simple. If the customers, us, deem that additional content is worth paying for, we'll do that. Otherwise we're best left alone. Supporting DlC markets and microtransactions only means you're in favor of companies that would rather not leave the games just open enough for us to mess with ourselves. In case you forgot, the communities we're in started in part due to gaining mod options that weren't sanctioned by the devs, and against the publisher's terms of use, but they didn't really do anything to lock down those games (and they still don't, not worth it anymore) and shouldn't. We aren't entitled to freedom in how we play games but why the blue hell are we taking it in stride when the devs and publishers would rather line their pockets to give us what they THINK we want rather than let us make what we want ourselves and plug it in and probably distribute it?

 

I will agree about the World of Tanks model, but EA !=wargaming.net. They're NOT going to do things as fairly or efficiently no matter what they say, and if we just take it on the chin we're saying it's okay for them to do it. I'm in agreement that done right, DLC/microtransactions can be a good thing, but that's a case by case basis and I'm against it here because I know with EA involved it WON'T be a good thing.

DLC and microtransactions don't actually stop mods from being produced. In some cases, it will actually enhance them. Check out some Borderlands user created content that uses the DLCs to their advantage to create some really awesome things, but in any case, mods don't mean as much since the bulk of players don't play them. And these DLCs and microtransactions apply to console ventures as well as PC and console games aren't really easily modded. A few of them can be but it's very rare so this market model is geared towards those players.

 

And supporting DLC and microtransactions is supporting the ****ing people who made the game you're trying to enjoy. When companies don't make money, studios get closed and people lose their jobs. Additional content for a nominal fee is able to prevent this from occurring so we get more games and more good times because the company is making money. The old business models don't work in this environment. DLC and microtransactions are another way to work with what's popular rather than stubbornly stand in its way.

 

If you think it's a bad idea, don't buy into it. It's that simple, but don't stand in the way of moving forward because you're all a bunch of spoiled children.

 

 

As for the rest of what you said, I'm not going to debate it. Although we can argue what economic model is best, ultimately it is still just an opinion and the personal preference of the paying customer. Neither one of us are going to convince the other, and there is little point in even trying. I do find irony in you supporting the business over the gamer in this instance though considering we were once on opposite sides when you said this of me:

Funny how things change, but I'm not supporting the company over the gamer since I support both. I'm for the company making their money, which is a good thing but against their bull**** DRM methods and all that. However, we won't see any change until they get more money, which is why I support DLCs and microtransactions.

[Nmenth 291]

Funny how things change, but I'm not supporting the company over the gamer since I support both.

Naturally you'd say you support both, and I'd say the same thing too. However, you are acting very aggressive towards those who disagree with you, we who all are in fact still gamers.

 

You've already called us "ignorant customers", "spoiled brats", and "a bunch of spoiled children". Our money is as legitimate as yours and if we refuse to bend over and take it quietly for the big companies, then we are playing our role in how economics is supposed to work too. Maybe if less people were willing to throw their money at any game which comes their way, microtransactions would have never caught on.

 

So if you want to support gamers too, then allow the gamers to decide how their money should be spent and don't insist everyone must conform to the most profitable business model. It may be the future, but it may only be the future because the majority of gamers are still willing to conform to whatever their overlords demand.

[Fiesta 0]

Doctor Destiny, on 09 Mar 2013 - 17:23, said:

DLC and microtransactions don't actually stop mods from being produced. In some cases, it will actually enhance them. Check out some Borderlands user created content that uses the DLCs to their advantage to create some really awesome things, but in any case, mods don't mean as much since the bulk of players don't play them. And these DLCs and microtransactions apply to console ventures as well as PC and console games aren't really easily modded. A few of them can be but it's very rare so this market model is geared towards those players.

 

And supporting DLC and microtransactions is supporting the ****ing people who made the game you're trying to enjoy. When companies don't make money, studios get closed and people lose their jobs. Additional content for a nominal fee is able to prevent this from occurring so we get more games and more good times because the company is making money. The old business models don't work in this environment. DLC and microtransactions are another way to work with what's popular rather than stubbornly stand in its way.

It'd be nice to support devs that don't work for EA... just saying. Anyone with real talent and common sense either needs to step up and try to work their way into a position where they can change EA, or find another publisher. That way we know who and what to support. More to the point, EA definitely doesn't seem like the kind of company that likes to allow modding AND DLC in the same games unless there's a tight-knit community that comes to an easy majority regarding the matter. There are exceptions, of course.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

Naturally you'd say you support both, and I'd say the same thing too. However, you are acting very aggressive towards those who disagree with you, we who all are in fact still gamers.

 

You've already called us "ignorant customers", "spoiled brats", and "a bunch of spoiled children". Our money is as legitimate as yours and if we refuse to bend over and take it quietly for the big companies, then we are playing our role in how economics is supposed to work too. Maybe if less people were willing to throw their money at any game which comes their way, microtransactions would have never caught on.

 

So if you want to support gamers too, then allow the gamers to decide how their money should be spent and don't insist everyone must conform to the most profitable business model. It may be the future, but it may only be the future because the majority of gamers are still willing to conform to whatever their overlords demand.

You can still use your money how you see fit. You don't have to buy anything from a microtransaction market, nor do you have to purchase any DLC. There's no sense to forcing that on anyone either, but it's stupid to fight against something that's not going to go anywhere any time soon. There isn't a problem with the model so continuing to tell me that "MICROTRANSACTIONS R EVUL" makes you a spoiled brat because it's not going the way you want. If you don't like it, don't buy into it. You still have that option. If that changes, I'll get on board but until then, I'm in favor of companies being able to do what they're supposed to do and that's make money.

[Guest Stevie_K]

I don't see why there's anything wrong in disliking microtransactions.

 

Microtransaction is like getting a car for free, with the option of buying extra things to make it nice.

Traditional game purchasing is like, well, buying a nice car.

 

And yes you don't have to use the microtransactions, it's merely the fact that such games are usually designed to be the most fun if you do. Disliking microtransactions for that reason does not make you a spoiled brat.

Edited March 10, 2013 by Stevie_K

[Nmenth 291]

Microtransaction is like getting a car for free, with the option of buying extra things to make it nice.

I don't think that is a very accurate comparison, more like the ability to get a chassis for free with the option to buy wheels, an engine, a frame, windows, etc. (ultimately costing you sixteen cars worth).

 

Or in the extremely rare case of when microtransactions are "done right" (according to its supporters), you get the chassis for free and one extra free component a month over the next five years, minus certain premium things you can only get with cash such as a paint job, power steering, power windows, air conditioning, a muffler, etc. (ultimately costing you only four cars worth unless you don't want to wait five years, in which case it'll still be sixteen).

[Doctor Destiny 41]

You're still making an incorrect comparison, Nmenth. If we're going to use a car as a basis, you'd get a small car with just enough to be functional but to have luxuries, you'd pay for things like power steering, power windows, power locks, etc. None of which are required to make the car usable. They're just nice to have, which is what you get with a microtransaction market on an F2P game. What you can buy is in no way required to play the game but buying the extras just adds more fun. Take TF2 for example. It has a microtransaction market where you can buy guns and hats. You still have the entire game if you don't buy anything. Same goes for League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth and World of Tanks... I can list off several games where these markets are successful and are in no way bad.

 

 

I don't see why there's anything wrong in disliking microtransactions.

In this day and age, it's a problem to be against the idea. The idea in itself is fine; it's just the implementation that becomes the problem more than the idea.

 

 

And yes you don't have to use the microtransactions, it's merely the fact that such games are usually designed to be the most fun if you do. Disliking microtransactions for that reason does not make you a spoiled brat.

Unfortunately, it does. If you dislike it for that reason alone, you're basically saying "this isn't good enough. give me what I want or else." It's a little more ham-handed than that usually, but that's really the gist of your argument. If you don't like it, don't spend the money. That is your right. Just quit whining about microtransaction markets existing.