All future EA games to feature microtransactions

[chimeran 208]

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

EA has made the announcement, in a rather roundabout way, that it will be implementing microtransactions into every single game it makes in the future.

In a speech at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media & Telecom Conference, transcribed by Seeking Alpha, CFO Blake Jorgensen explained the plan.

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

However, Jorgensen also pointed out that it's not quite as simple as letting people buy a gun or costume whenever they feel like it.

"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, 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."

The plan might be a popular move with investors, but much of EA's core audience has yet to be convinced, with fans reacting poorly to the inclusion of microtransactions in EA's recent Dead Space 3. However, as both Jorgensen and Taneja were keen to point out, other major EA franchises such as FIFA, Battlefield and The Simpsons: Tapped Out, already reap huge financial benefits from granulated payment scales.

In questions following the presentation, Jorgensen was quick to quash rumours that EA's non-attendance at Sony's PS4 announcement meant that it wasn't interested in the platform, perhaps because of the machine's download focus.

"At the end of the day, we're very excited about Sony's platform. We think there's a huge opportunity. It's great, as Rajat said, the technical power on the platform is going to allow us to do a substantial amount of things that we've never done before. I've seen the new Battlefield and it is stunning.

"At the end of the day, we do think there's going to be more digital business and digital download business. But a lot of it will depend on when we release titles, when Sony and Microsoft choose to release titles. And in no way do we want to see the retail channel disappear. We think that's an important part of the overall industry and we want to keep that a vibrant channel for us long term as well. So it's balancing all of those. But without a doubt, you're going to see more digital business and particularly more digital components of the gameplay allowed because the ease of it will be much better and the storage capability better.

"

source : http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-02-27-all-future-ea-games-to-feature-microtransactions

so E/A wants you to rent time on their servers to play the new simcity which is a joke IMO and on top of that they want

to nickel and dime me to death as well ? yeah, i'll pass but for the new simcity fanboys this is for you :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WxPyUzWSPA

[PrixFixe 25]

Microtransactions are the future (and present) of gaming. I don't really see the point in acting outraged. If you don't want the extra DLC, don't buy it. 

 

I skipped your three-minute youtube epilogue. 

[AkemiAzula 280]

It's a logical way of progressing a business model, if not an easily digested one for the consumer. But then again this is no different to any non virtual activity. Take cycling, for instance. One doesn't just purchase a bicycle at Halfords and enjoy the use of it forever more. One has to replace tubes and tires, fix punctures, and replace brake pads. Or take motoring, an even more expensive pastime.

 

This is just the logical way business is moving into the virtual world, just like how retailers are taking advantage of online sales. Love it or hate it with a passion, it's here to stay.

[chimeran 208]

Microtransactions are the future (and present) of gaming. I don't really see the point in acting outraged. If you don't want the extra DLC, don't buy it. 

 

I skipped your three-minute youtube epilogue. 

 

i think you're missing the point, if i pay $80 bucks for the game and then have to spend more along the way is quite frankly horse puckey.  if i paid full retail for a game i don't expect to pay more just to get ahead in the game.  in a freemium model this is acceptable and i admit that i spend money on BSGO b/c it's free to play and if you want better stuff you can grind to get the resources to get better guns and equipment or get a boost buy buying the cubits to skip the tedious task of grinding.  and this is an acceptable business model. but to buy a game and then pay more money is not to put too delicately, rape pure and simple.

 

 

 

It's a logical way of progressing a business model, if not an easily digested one for the consumer. But then again this is no different to any non virtual activity. Take cycling, for instance. One doesn't just purchase a bicycle at Halfords and enjoy the use of it forever more. One has to replace tubes and tires, fix punctures, and replace brake pads. Or take motoring, an even more expensive pastime.

 

This is just the logical way business is moving into the virtual world, just like how retailers are taking advantage of online sales. Love it or hate it with a passion, it's here to stay.

 

 

you can't compare buying a bicycle or a motor vehicle to purchasing a video game genius.  of course when you buy a bicycle or car there are attendant costs in their maintenance and these are acceptable costs because they are a necessity of life while a video game is a luxury and diversion and you should not pay extra.  according to you if a major shoe manufacturer who we shall call "likey" charged you $99 for a pair of shoes and then said if you want shoelaces that will be $9.99 please, you want soles for those shoes ? $49.99 please and it's not one-time charges either but constant nickel and diming until the initial cost is overshadowed by "fees"  your argument is invalid and falls short

[rawls 39]

I don't have a problem with microtransactions as long as the shop isn't intrusive and I don't have to buy extra content in order to enjoy an already purchased game. When this two conditions are met, I think it's a great way for a consumer to customize the experience of a game according to his own needs, without letting all pay for it. Microtransactions enable niche content. For instance it doesn't make sense to include a feature in a game that is loved by 5% and hated by 95% of all players. But if the 5% are willing to pay for it, everyone is happy.

[DMFan 37]

It's a logical way of progressing a business model, if not an easily digested one for the consumer. But then again this is no different to any non virtual activity. Take cycling, for instance. One doesn't just purchase a bicycle at Halfords and enjoy the use of it forever more. One has to replace tubes and tires, fix punctures, and replace brake pads. Or take motoring, an even more expensive pastime.

 

This is just the logical way business is moving into the virtual world, just like how retailers are taking advantage of online sales. Love it or hate it with a passion, it's here to stay.

 

We're talking about software, not bicycles... apples and oranges.

 

This new philosophy is a cancer. Pure and simple.

 

I'm afraid of people who can't see how much this is going to destroy videogames.

[bergerrunner 41]

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

I certainly enjoy the idea of buying an unfinished game and then having to pay money for different pieces after release in order to make it a quality game. For the record that was sarcasm. I hope they enjoy not getting this consumer's money.

 

I'm not saying that's a bad business strategy, but for me, thanks but no thanks

[chimeran 208]

I don't have a problem with microtransactions as long as the shop isn't intrusive and I don't have to buy extra content in order to enjoy an already purchased game. When this two conditions are met, I think it's a great way for a consumer to customize the experience of a game according to his own needs, without letting all pay for it. Microtransactions enable niche content. For instance it doesn't make sense to include a feature in a game that is loved by 5% and hated by 95% of all players. But if the 5% are willing to pay for it, everyone is happy.

 

i've bought some dlc for FF-13 but they are bonus content and not needed to advance the game while E/A specifically states that if you want to advance in the games you buy you will have to pay in order to do so and i can't do that.

[nhgriffith 179]

Forgive me for being skeptical, but how come there's no direct link to anything where EA makes an official announcement?

We've already seen ridiculously fake fabricated stories regarding SimCity (like paying real money to remove advertisements, the ability to nuke neighbors, etc), so I'm not buying a word of this until I see something from EA. So far, this looks like nothing more than tabloid stuff. The quotes are almost certainly entirely fictional.

[PrixFixe 25]

but to buy a game and then pay more money is not to put too delicately, rape pure and simple.

 

Well, it's actually a lot different from rape (I can't believe I'm even typing this sentence). For starters, you don't have to buy the game at all. 

 

Also, you quote the price of the game as $80, which is of course not actually what it costs unless you're buying the full Deluxe package. And since you've already referred to SimCity 'fanboys', I'm guessing you're not one, so you're naturally not buying the Deluxe package, right?

And I have yet to see anything that says you'll need to pay more money to 'progress' in SimCity. I'm assuming it'll all be cosmetic stuff (buildings, decor, etc), much like the Sims 3 model, with additional core gameplay functionality only coming with actual traditional expansion packs.

 

(If we also hate expansion packs now, I'm out of responses.)

[Xenocity 343]

Gamers love DLC, that is no big secret.

 

Microtransactions replaced expansion packs.

As long as I can piece meal new content instead of being forced to buy $20 expansion packs, then i won't complain.

 

I hate buying expansion packs for a few new things.

[nhgriffith 179]

The original post is still a complete farce, and unless the original poster can provide a direct link to EA making this statement, this thread should probably simply be removed.

[pyanodon 218]

For me the main problem is pay-to-win like the digital deluxe is doing, since SC13 became a competition game instead of simulation. So, based on the deluxe version we can expect more and more "items" that will "help" you to come out better than others who doesnt paid.

[nats 99]

If I really like a game I will enjoy getting more quality stuff for it to develop, enhance and improve the gameplay experience. For most games I buy I wont bother though unless its very good value. And as I am buying less games every year microtransactions dont mean a lot to me. Thats is the good bit.

 

But if microtransactions are actually bad value for money they can leave an unpleasant taste in your mouth once you have climbed down off the buzz of getting them. People arent stupid, they dont get taken in my rubbish deals more than once. Salesmen think we do but we dont. These kinds of gimmicks actually put people off buying again if they have been burned once.

[Xenocity 343]

For me the main problem is pay-to-win like the digital deluxe is doing, since SC13 became a competition game instead of simulation. So, based on the deluxe version we can expect more and more "items" that will "help" you to come out better than others who doesnt paid.

I fail to see this.

 

You aren't forced to compete with any other city/region in SC13.

This is no different than expansion packs and modded content.

 

I mean was it fair that the users who bought Simcity 3000 didn't get the extra content that was in Simcity 3000U?

Is it fair to users of Simcity 4 who are unable to access modded due to slow  internet(or lack of internet) to have to interact with users who are able to have all the modded content?

 

Is it fair to users who cannot afford Fire Emblem Awakening DLC, to watch their fellow fans buy the EXP growth DLC (it gives you tons of DLC when you kill an enemy) and the golden gaffe packs (they give you tons of money for killing enemies)?

[nhgriffith 179]

For me the main problem is pay-to-win like the digital deluxe is doing, since SC13 became a competition game instead of simulation. So, based on the deluxe version we can expect more and more "items" that will "help" you to come out better than others who doesnt paid.

1) Since when is SC13 a competition game and not a simulation game? It has leaderboard, yea, but the game works perfectly fine and is probably more enjoyable if you simply ignore the leaderboard. No one is forcing the leaderboard on you.

2) What items in the deluxe version give you an advantage in the leaderboards?

[rawls 39]

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

I certainly enjoy the idea of buying an unfinished game and then having to pay money for different pieces after release in order to make it a quality game. For the record that was sarcasm. I hope they enjoy not getting this consumer's money.

 

I'm not saying that's a bad business strategy, but for me, thanks but no thanks

 

Having microtransactions doesn't necessarily mean that you will get an unfinished game. It's a possibility, but not a stringently requirement.

[nhgriffith 179]

Well, that is to say, the game you purchase won't be any more unfinished then a game purchased before the micro-transaction era and before the expansion pack era.

Fact of the matter is, game companies have set budgets and time-tables. Rare is the game that gets released and actually is "finished" in terms of what the producers would have considered "finished" when they started the project. The difference is that wherein the past, what you bought was what you got and never anything added, the Internet allows companies to release the extra content. Some of it sometimes comes in the form of free patches, some of it is cheap DLC, and some of it is full-fledged expansion packs.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think my analogy was misunderstood. I am not saying video games are a similar kind of product, I am saying that before video games people had interests, hobbies, wtvr, which were not entirely necessary (I wasn't referring to a car as a commuting tool but for pleasure, I could have used mode railroading as an analogy and might have been better understood). If you enjoy doing something you will usually end up buying 'add-ons' or improvements or upgrades, and this has been happening for years.

 

Video games are becoming more absorbing and less a luxury these days. The more time we spend online and using computers the more we will take video games seriously as a very real and important hobby and part of our lives, just like people used to fly model aeroplanes or get into photography, and buy lenses or new carriages. Think of Simcity as a hobby. DLC is no different to buying a new steam locomotive for a model railroad

[pyanodon 218]

For me the main problem is pay-to-win like the digital deluxe is doing, since SC13 became a competition game instead of simulation. So, based on the deluxe version we can expect more and more "items" that will "help" you to come out better than others who doesnt paid.

1) Since when is SC13 a competition game and not a simulation game? It has leaderboard, yea, but the game works perfectly fine and is probably more enjoyable if you simply ignore the leaderboard. No one is forcing the leaderboard on you.

2) What items in the deluxe version give you an advantage in the leaderboards?

 

 

1) Really? i though it was clear at this momment.

 

2) More tourists income, more transport options...

[chimeran 208]

The original post is still a complete farce, and unless the original poster can provide a direct link to EA making this statement, this thread should probably simply be removed.

 

if you actually read the post it's the first link if you bothered to look instead of trying to start a flame war

[PrixFixe 25]

SimCity isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, so extrapolating the financial transcript's effect on this game is specious at best. 

[chimeran 208]

I think my analogy was misunderstood. I am not saying video games are a similar kind of product, I am saying that before video games people had interests, hobbies, wtvr, which were not entirely necessary (I wasn't referring to a car as a commuting tool but for pleasure, I could have used mode railroading as an analogy and might have been better understood). If you enjoy doing something you will usually end up buying 'add-ons' or improvements or upgrades, and this has been happening for years.

 

Video games are becoming more absorbing and less a luxury these days. The more time we spend online and using computers the more we will take video games seriously as a very real and important hobby and part of our lives, just like people used to fly model aeroplanes or get into photography, and buy lenses or new carriages. Think of Simcity as a hobby. DLC is no different to buying a new steam locomotive for a model railroad

 

perhaps you misconstrued the post, they are not putting micro transitions to enhance gameplay but to advance gameplay 

 

 

 

"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, .... "

[Evil_One 119]

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

I certainly enjoy the idea of buying an unfinished game and then having to pay money for different pieces after release in order to make it a quality game. For the record that was sarcasm. I hope they enjoy not getting this consumer's money.

 

I'm not saying that's a bad business strategy, but for me, thanks but no thanks

 

Having microtransactions doesn't necessarily mean that you will get an unfinished game. It's a possibility, but not a stringently requirement.

Usually (At least certainly with EA), microtransactions means having a finished but 'barebones' game, IE instead of there being 10 different styles of the same chair in The Sims 3, there'd only be 3 sets and you have to buy the other 7.

[chimeran 208]

SimCity isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, so extrapolating the financial transcript's effect on this game is specious at best. 

 

it's implied by the article, all games produced by E/A including the new simcity.  if you believe you are going to "own" the game, think again.  you are renting server time from E/A for whatever price you pay since the game cannot be played off-line and the actual engine for the simulation to operate is owned and controlled by them and will not reside on your computer.  you are merely the client who is at their mercy and whims and if they feel that the new simcity is not performing to desired goals what is to stop them from shutting down the servers ?  and when that happens the x amount of dollars you paid for the "game" becomes moot and you are left with a useless piece of software.  it's like owning a lamborghini but w/o an engine to power it.  looks nice but unless it can move around it's just an expensive paperweight.  and while maxis, E/A states that we will be allowed to mod the game don't expect it anytime soon if it all since it will cut into their profit margin.  and i will eventually buy this game when it's the bargain bin on steam for $2.99 when their gamble blows up in their faces.

[Herdervriend 46]

For me this seems nothing more then a new way to rip off customers from every penny they have. Greedy basterds.

 

In the beginning, you got a full game, for 40 euro or less. Now it cost 80 euro or more and you do not even get 10% of it.

 

It's just wrong. I do not wanna pay 1000 euro for a game that isn't even worth 10 euro. It's just WRONG! We're in a crises dammit.

[strokesboy21 11]

i dont mind it as long as the costs of the items are not set to stupid levels 

[PrixFixe 25]

SimCity isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, so extrapolating the financial transcript's effect on this game is specious at best. 

 

it's implied by the article, all games produced by E/A including the new simcity.  if you believe you are going to "own" the game, think again.  you are renting server time from E/A for whatever price you pay since the game cannot be played off-line and the actual engine for the simulation to operate is owned and controlled by them and will not reside on your computer.  you are merely the client who is at their mercy and whims and if they feel that the new simcity is not performing to desired goals what is to stop them from shutting down the servers ?  and when that happens the x amount of dollars you paid for the "game" becomes moot and you are left with a useless piece of software.  it's like owning a lamborghini but w/o an engine to power it.  looks nice but unless it can move around it's just an expensive paperweight.  and while maxis, E/A states that we will be allowed to mod the game don't expect it anytime soon if it all since it will cut into their profit margin.  and i will eventually buy this game when it's the bargain bin on steam for $2.99 when their gamble blows up in their faces.

 

Wait, are you mad about microtransactions or are you mad that we now live in a world where internet-based, client/server gaming is the standard? Your original rant was about microtransactions but you seem to have slid over into "standard online gaming rant 101, circa 2009". 

[simlink 1,098]

I don't have a problem with microtransactions as long as the shop isn't intrusive and I don't have to buy extra content in order to enjoy an already purchased game. When this two conditions are met, I think it's a great way for a consumer to customize the experience of a game according to his own needs, without letting all pay for it. Microtransactions enable niche content. For instance it doesn't make sense to include a feature in a game that is loved by 5% and hated by 95% of all players. But if the 5% are willing to pay for it, everyone is happy.

 

Couldn't agree more. Take The Sims 3, for example. The DLC content in the store is new furniture and objects, clothing, and worlds. None of it is essential to enjoy the game, but rather complementary. 

It's not like the base game was shipped without furniture for the houses - the furniture there is just an addition to what was already shipped with the game.

 

That is the way to operate DLC, imo.

[chimeran 208]

 

SimCity isn't mentioned anywhere in that article, so extrapolating the financial transcript's effect on this game is specious at best. 

 

it's implied by the article, all games produced by E/A including the new simcity.  if you believe you are going to "own" the game, think again.  you are renting server time from E/A for whatever price you pay since the game cannot be played off-line and the actual engine for the simulation to operate is owned and controlled by them and will not reside on your computer.  you are merely the client who is at their mercy and whims and if they feel that the new simcity is not performing to desired goals what is to stop them from shutting down the servers ?  and when that happens the x amount of dollars you paid for the "game" becomes moot and you are left with a useless piece of software.  it's like owning a lamborghini but w/o an engine to power it.  looks nice but unless it can move around it's just an expensive paperweight.  and while maxis, E/A states that we will be allowed to mod the game don't expect it anytime soon if it all since it will cut into their profit margin.  and i will eventually buy this game when it's the bargain bin on steam for $2.99 when their gamble blows up in their faces.

 

Wait, are you mad about microtransactions or are you mad that we now live in a world where internet-based, client/server gaming is the standard? Your original rant was about microtransactions but you seem to have slid over into "standard online gaming rant 101, circa 2009". 

 

 

server/client issues aside it's the microtransactions that irk me, if they were used to enhance gameplay and were optional this would not even be posted but they are specifically stating that dlc will be needed to advance gameplay beyond it's original parameters which IMO is an affront to gaming in general.  if it were F2P it would be an acceptable but undigestable part of the game but to pay full price for a game and then pay them more money to get ahead in the game or be left in the cold is unacceptable by anyone's standards.  and i have games that are server/client but most include the AI engine to be used on the client's side to allow offline play, unreal being the most popular and stable, while server AI engines are more powerful due to their horsepower which allows for greater multi-player gaming since that is the only real reason you need a client/server model.