News EA: '$60 games are exploitative'

For me £20-£30 is what I am willing to pay for an AAA newly released game. I'm glad I don't play console games because they are truly getting ripped off.

 

There are so few truly original games that really grab me these days, Metal Gear Solid did back on the original playstation along with Bioshock, Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 & 2. Guildwars has been my staple MMO game for the past 4 years with no subscription.

I rarely buy a game new and often wait for it to hit the bargain sections in Game or on Steam.

 

The idea that a game can't be worth $60 is farcical

 

FIXED

I would like to point out that I think "Free"2Play and subscription-based games are just as exploitative.

 

Anyone who thinks that this man is honestly talking about improving things for consumers is an ignorant fool.

I don't know what it is about the United States of the last 10 years, but it seems like if politicians or corporate figures want the public to believe something, all they have to do is characterize the principal antagonist to the thing they're promoting as the thing they're actually promoting!

Basically they've got the GALL to tell you that paying 60 dollars for a fully developed game is exploitative? And they try to explain this by trying to promote a FREE TO PLAY model which gives you a stripped down game and puts you on the hook to buy the rest of the game at a ridiculously inflated cost?

This is a variation of a very old fashioned swindle: "I'll take your rusty old quarter for a SHINY NEW PENNY!"

Basically in accepting the free to play model, collectively as gamers you're saying that you're willing to pay up the ass for digital content that you would've otherwise gotten for a FAR lower price if you paid in one lump sum for a whole game.

What's disturbing about this trend is the fact that there are so many idiots out there who are okay with it.

They're telling you that forcing them to make a quality game and charge a lump sum for it is somehow more exploitative to the end user than it is for them to slack off and give you a shitty half-a-game and then say: "Well if you want to play the rest of it, you've got to cough up the money".

Or: "If you want to be competitive with the rest of the people who have overpaid for their fancy microtransaction DLC, you've gotta cough up".

Wake up people, you're being set up for fleecing like a bunch of stupid sheep.

Demand quality and content and stop letting developers **** with consumer with this carrot and stick marketing ploy.

 

My girlfriend works in software development, specifically she has her own online RPG and she sells custom digital content for her game, and she balks at the idea that this guy is trying to say that paying a lump sum for a whole game is "exploitative".

She said herself, "The market analytics have shown that people who pay incrementally will be inclined to pay MORE than what they'd inevitably pay for a standalone product, what most free to play games do is cleverly place one consumer's wallet in direct competition with the wallets of every other player".

In other words, this guy is lying.

Now in the context of an online RPG, I personally don't care if you can buy custom items, you're already paying a subscription for the game, and if that isn't exploitative enough I don't know what is.

However what he's advocating will herald the absolute demise of quality gaming, especially on the PC.

Say goodbye to games designed with balance and playability, now it's all about creating petty competition and an atmosphere of peer pressure to get the latest DLC. Which of course will inevitably result in paying FAR more than sixty dollars for a well made product.

This guy is taking you all for a ride, and unfortunately the late entrants into the gaming arena (esp people born on or after 1990) seem to be oblivious to how badly they're getting shafted, quite honestly because they've never known any better.

I don't mind paying for digital content for online games, although just remember free to play, really means "play to win".

I absolutely ABHOR the idea that I will not be able to pay good money for a well made product because "well made" products are not more financially expedient for a company versus basically taking advantage of ignorant morons.

The gaming industry is falling apart, and I just really want to see these DLC, free to play, "sucker people out of money for **** product" - proponents all run over with a truck.

Pretty soon there will be no refuge whatsoever from this kind of marketing, and that's a very bad thing for consumers.

 

The F2P model works. Someone who can't afford $60 games can join in, play the games and make friends etc etc. As with all things like drink, drugs, gambling, food, clothes, etc, you'll get people that get carried away/addicted and spend too much. But mostly people will pay whatever they can afford.

Linking F2P accounts with micro-transactions is the industries idea for combatting piracy and 2nd hand sales.

added:

also F2P subsidises the low paid, students, disadvantaged etc etc - that is a good thing, no?

last add:

I forgot this thread was about EA - **** EA tbfh.

 

Problem with F2P games though is that they tend to, well be very bare bones for the newbies. Of course there are exceptions, but it essentially forces players to buy something at one point. Regardless of what the intentions are, they will get at least some cash.

MY problem with F2P games is that single player experiences are dying like the plauge.

That and Red Dead Redemption STILL has not (and never will) come to the PC.

 

LA Noire is coming to PC. I would put money on Red Dead coming to PC as well sometime soon. I would say the delay is because of temporary exclusivity like with Limbo, although I'm stringing together rumours and probably doing a 2+2 = 22