EA boss proudly refuses to publish single-player only games

RolandofGilead wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
Malor wrote:
Better yet, can someone actually provide an example of an established AAA single player game ruined by micro transactions?

I mentioned this in the other thread, but while it wasn't precisely microtransactions, I felt Sleeping Dogs was badly damaged by its DLC. The base game was very good, but I got it, plus most of the DLC, because the whole thing was like 85% off, and I strongly wish I hadn't. With that DLC came super outfits, which weren't available any other way, and which made my character much stronger. I got some very strong weapons far before I should have had access to them, and a super-hot car that was faster than almost anything else on the road, which completely short-circuited the whole process of saving up money and making reputation levels so that you could have good cars. There pretty much wasn't anything you could buy that was better than the DLC car.

I didn't know any of that ahead of time, I just took it straight, and eventually got really frustrated that all the cars I was buying were terrible. It took what should have been a reward loop, and made it into a frustration loop. And it was much easier to finish missions, with the better weapons and outfit, than it really should have been.

In retrospect, I feel very cheated by the DLC. I thought it badly damaged the game, and I wish I hadn't bought it. But going in blind, there was absolutely no way for me to know. It wasn't until, geeze, maybe 75% of the way through that I'd fully pieced together how much I'd missed of the underlying game design.

The publisher got more money from me than they otherwise would have, but I got a much sh*ttier game.

So it's the developer's/publisher's fault that you didn't research the DLC before buying/using it? How did the publisher get more money from you when you got the whole thing for 85% off? Sounds like it was a bargain compared to the 50% off I payed for only the base game.

Seems a bit in poor taste to buy a game at an extreme discount and then complain that you got too much for your money.

I think I agree with nel e nel. If "research" requires spoilers, then no, I shouldn't have to do research and it is the dev/pub's fault for mismanaging the release and enjoyment mechanism. I really really wish I was one of those people that could beat Dracula with a Paper Airplane, but I just cannot do anything other than equip the best sh*t I got. I prefer to just take my hard-earned high-level equipment and play on hard thank you.

I'm confused, you agree with me and then make an argument against my point? The case with Sleeping Dogs ALL of those DLC were pretty clearly marked as "boost your game with these powered up suits/weapons/cars", so frankly if you didn't figure out you were going to unbalance the game, you either didn't read it, or you haven't been playing games for that long.

These types of DLC packs have been generally coming in two varieties for a long time now: a short stat boost at the start of the game that quickly loses relevance; an overpowered unbalancer for people who want to just play in God mode.

nel e nel wrote:

I'm confused, you agree with me and then make an argument against my point? The case with Sleeping Dogs ALL of those DLC were pretty clearly marked as "boost your game with these powered up suits/weapons/cars", so frankly if you didn't figure out you were going to unbalance the game, you either didn't read it, or you haven't been playing games for that long.

These types of DLC packs have been generally coming in two varieties for a long time now: a short stat boost at the start of the game that quickly loses relevance; an overpowered unbalancer for people who want to just play in God mode.

Nope, I just can't read apparently. As always, I agree with Malor. I came back to this thread for a great example of the psychology I was talking about,
http://penny-arcade.com/report/edito...

I'm confused, you agree with me and then make an argument against my point? The case with Sleeping Dogs ALL of those DLC were pretty clearly marked as "boost your game with these powered up suits/weapons/cars", so frankly if you didn't figure out you were going to unbalance the game, you either didn't read it, or you haven't been playing games for that long.

Okay, so assume both things are true. I'm a total noob that hasn't yet figured out how to remove my finger from my rectum, and I don't read anything.

How does this excuse or justify making the game worse for people that pay more money?

Now, in my actual case, I absolutely didn't do any reading, because everything was on a big sale, and it wasn't going to be on sale for very long. So I grabbed the base game plus all the DLC on sale, which was everything except the most recent two things. And I ended up with a game that was much worse than if I'd just bought the base issue, with no DLC at all.

This is wrong. I was taken advantage of. I shouldn't have to research game DLC, I should just be able to trust that spending the extra $5 will make the game better. There were like twenty goddamn things! How the f*ck am I supposed to read each and every one?

I ended up with a much worse experience, and I am now very wary of Eidos.

Pay to win SUCKS. And it sucks whether you research it or not. But the whole idea of playing a game is to have fun, and if a game lasts twenty hours, how the f*ck can you expect anyone to spend an hour puzzling out what options to buy for it? It's not a goddamn car, it's a video game!

Sorry malor, I can't sympathize with someone who openly admits they didn't read the description of what they were buying and then tries to claim they were taken advantage of.

For someone who has a history of crying foul at game developers/publishers at every opportunity, I'm very surprised you didn't read the descriptions of what you were getting. If I'm going to spend 20 hours of my free time with something, I would want to make sure it's worth that time.

Caveat emptor and all that.

Malor, how on Earth could you possibly consider they took advantage of you? You purchased a game at extreme discount and were given all the DLC along with base game, giving very little royalty to the publisher. If anything, you took advantage of the system - not the other way around. It is in EXTREMELY poor taste to go on about you were victimized when you are in no way a victim. Eidos should be wary of you! You give them next to no money, 15% of retail, and then tell everyone on the internet that the ruined the game for you? How does that even make sense? Also, wouldn't it have been steam that ruined the game for you? Or yourself by purchasing a product you hadn't researched? Take some responsibility for your actions.

MoonDragon wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Forbes and the economist, largely from NPR Planet Money too. Down 15 - 25 percent each year, the last three. In fact 2011 and 2012 say mirrored 22 percent declines for December.

This is extra troubling because retail in general has grown the past 3 years.

Yes, and the original point was discussing games sales in 1997!!

Huh? There was a brief talk about last generation, and the explosion the PS2 had.

I agree with Malor that the DLC should have been marked better, particularly in Steam bundles, where you're less likely to notice that sort of thing. But I see that more as a failure of marketing, rather than some kind of scam.

Hyperbole theather is still in full effect on both sides of the issue, I see. This thread delivers.

Something I'm trying to bounce around in my head is whether this block EA from doing anything, besides, you know, selling a complete game at one price. Crap examples follow.

For instance, if they want to make a game with an xp system, does this mandate that there must be a way for those with more money than time to accelerate their progress, and the design must account for this (the game doesn't break if you're higher than level 5 at the end of the first chapter), and that the more time than money crowd's experience must be distinct by a certain percentage. Or that when designing a range of weapons that a certain proportion should be held back for a separate pack, or visual style variations.

Sure, they're already doing some of these things in various studios/games so obviously they've figured it out, but I wonder if there's consolidated official EA guidelines on it. The depressing thing is that there's probably industry-wide best practises on it.

SixteenBlue wrote:

Better yet, can someone actually provide an example of an established AAA single player game ruined by micro transactions? Diablo 3 should be it's own discussion since a real money auction house is it's own other beast and definitely not micro transactions.

I wonder how much thought was given to DLC when Bethesda was crafting the ending to Fallout 3. Arguably the Broken Steel DLC is not a "micro" transaction, but you did have to pay extra to get the non-retarded ending.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Better yet, can someone actually provide an example of an established AAA single player game ruined by micro transactions? Diablo 3 should be it's own discussion since a real money auction house is it's own other beast and definitely not micro transactions.

I wonder how much thought was given to DLC when Bethesda was crafting the ending to Fallout 3. Arguably the Broken Steel DLC is not a "micro" transaction, but you did have to pay extra to get the non-retarded ending.

I'd give Fallout3 the benefit of the doubt. I think that's in the style of how FO1/FO2 ended. Even so, it would have been better to for them to predict that because they're known for open world games, that people would want to roam after the end.

It wasn't the roaming that bothered me. After all, New Vegas ends at the end. It was being told by my close friend to go kill myself.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It wasn't the roaming that bothered me. After all, New Vegas ends at the end. It was being told by my close friend to go kill myself.

See? Even video game characters don't like Quintin.

You'd think I'd be used to it by now!

*nel e nel slaps Q-Stone around with a large fishbot

nel e nel wrote:

*nel e nel slaps Q-Stone around with a large fishbot

Well look, when you get to the end with Fawkes as your companion, it's a bit of a kick to the teeth. Really soured me on the game. I own all the DLC for New Vegas, and none of the DLC for Fallout 3.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

*nel e nel slaps Q-Stone around with a large fishbot

Well look, when you get to the end with Fawkes as your companion, it's a bit of a kick to the teeth. Really soured me on the game. I own all the DLC for New Vegas, and none of the DLC for Fallout 3.

That was crazy. It wasn't a lot better in the 'fixed' ending: "Well we CAN send the guy who is impervious to radiation into the radiation chamber but you really are a crappy human being for not going in there yourself and dying unnecessarily. Your father would be disappointed."

Malor, how on Earth could you possibly consider they took advantage of you?

Because they screwed up my experience to make more money. It doesn't matter how much the money was, what matters is that they f*cked the game up to get more dollars out of my pocket.

Because I trusted them to know what they were doing, I got screwed. And I paid more to get screwed.

Malor wrote:
Malor, how on Earth could you possibly consider they took advantage of you?

Because they screwed up my experience to make more money. It doesn't matter how much the money was, what matters is that they f*cked the game up to get more dollars out of my pocket.

Because I trusted them to know what they were doing, I got screwed. And I paid more to get screwed.

Are you mad at Steam for selling you the entire package at a discout of 85% off retail? You didn't pay more, and furthermore you are being hyperbolic and not discussing in good faith.

That's our Malor!

Insert sitcom laugh track.

Double post a rama

Malor wrote:
Malor, how on Earth could you possibly consider they took advantage of you?

Because they screwed up my experience to make more money. It doesn't matter how much the money was, what matters is that they f*cked the game up to get more dollars out of my pocket.

Because I trusted them to know what they were doing, I got screwed. And I paid more to get screwed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

oh, sh*t, you're serious.

Let me get this straight:

You paid less for the game and DLC, didn't read what was in the package, and YOU got screwed? HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

AND: What does a game published by NAMCO BANDAI and SQUARE ENIX have to do with a thread about ELECTRONIC ARTS?

cube wrote:
Malor wrote:
Malor, how on Earth could you possibly consider they took advantage of you?

Because they screwed up my experience to make more money. It doesn't matter how much the money was, what matters is that they f*cked the game up to get more dollars out of my pocket.

Because I trusted them to know what they were doing, I got screwed. And I paid more to get screwed.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

oh, sh*t, you're serious.

Let me get this straight:

You paid less for the game and DLC, didn't read what was in the package, and YOU got screwed? HOW DOES THIS MAKE SENSE?

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

That's at least the first step to figuring out if anyone got screwed. I don't think GOG wasn't kidding when it talked about 'experiments'. I sometimes wonder if things like Steam are real-world equivalents Joss Whedon's Dollhouse: where its business is not necessarily the full extent of its purpose. Kinda like Netflix and House of Cards.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

CheezePavilion wrote:

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

That's at least the first step to figuring out if anyone got screwed. I don't think GOG wasn't kidding when it talked about 'experiments'. I sometimes wonder if things like Steam are real-world equivalents Joss Whedon's Dollhouse: where its business is not necessarily the full extent of its purpose. Kinda like Netflix and House of Cards.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

The second step would be figuring out if the customer read the contract before signing it. In this case they didn't.

Caveat emptor.

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

You're serious? What reality is this true? Steam DLC packs list all the included DLC, and you can read what's in them by clicking on them. But hey, that's work, and basic reading comprehension is apparently too much to expect for buying things.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

Bullsh*t. If the price that I pay is less than the price someone else pays, I paid less.

nel e nel wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

That's at least the first step to figuring out if anyone got screwed. I don't think GOG wasn't kidding when it talked about 'experiments'. I sometimes wonder if things like Steam are real-world equivalents Joss Whedon's Dollhouse: where its business is not necessarily the full extent of its purpose. Kinda like Netflix and House of Cards.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

The second step would be figuring out if the customer read the contract before signing it. In this case they didn't.

Caveat emptor.

The subprime mortgage industry appreciates your support ; D

CheezePavilion wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

That's at least the first step to figuring out if anyone got screwed. I don't think GOG wasn't kidding when it talked about 'experiments'. I sometimes wonder if things like Steam are real-world equivalents Joss Whedon's Dollhouse: where its business is not necessarily the full extent of its purpose. Kinda like Netflix and House of Cards.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

The second step would be figuring out if the customer read the contract before signing it. In this case they didn't.

Caveat emptor.

The subprime mortgage industry appreciates your support ; D

And yours. Because I'm not the one saying that the game companies decide what I buy for me.

But hey, since I think about my purchases and do due diligence, that makes me part of the problem.

CheezePavilion wrote:
nel e nel wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:

They crunched the numbers, figured out based on sales when and by how much to drop the price to maximize revenue, and didn't make the nature of the DLC clear as not to dissuade anyone from buying it.

That's at least the first step to figuring out if anyone got screwed. I don't think GOG wasn't kidding when it talked about 'experiments'. I sometimes wonder if things like Steam are real-world equivalents Joss Whedon's Dollhouse: where its business is not necessarily the full extent of its purpose. Kinda like Netflix and House of Cards.

No one pays *less* for the game and DLC. If the actuarial department is doing its job, everyone pays exactly what the businesspeople projected they would pay.

The second step would be figuring out if the customer read the contract before signing it. In this case they didn't.

Caveat emptor.

The subprime mortgage industry appreciates your support ; D

Knowingly giving out home loans to people who were unqualified in the first place is not the same as impulse buying a video game and then trying to hold the publisher responsible for it.

Malor is responsible for his actions, not Squeenix.

Penny Arcade did it again.

IMAGE(http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/i-9cXZC54/0/950x10000/i-9cXZC54-950x10000.jpg)

Are you mad at Steam for selling you the entire package at a discout of 85% off retail? You didn't pay more, and furthermore you are being hyperbolic and not discussing in good faith.

Look. I could have bought the game itself for like five dollars. Or I could buy with all the DLC for like 18.50 or so. I'm not sure what the exact total was, but whatever it was, it was more if I added DLC than if I just bought the game itself.

So I bought the DLC, because it was on sale. It made the game a much poorer experience. I spent more money than I had to, and the quality of my gaming experience was much poorer as a result.

They're happier, because they made more money. But that DLC should never have existed at all, or at least it should have come with a big flashing warning when you started a new playthrough that it would make about half the progression mechanics in the game redundant and useless.