All future EA games to feature microtransactions

[PrixFixe 25]

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.

 

Exactly. There is nothing in this thread so far that actually proves or even implies that you will have to pay anything beyond the box price to have the full functionality of the game. Most of it is fear-mongering/concern-trolling. The Sims model (shiny objects as optional DLC, *core gameplay* as true expansion packs) has earned them a bazillion dollars, and I have zero doubt they will emulate it with the new SimCity franchise. 

[Bipin 3,402]

Just because the industry want's to generalize this income approach as the future of gaming, it's just that; a generalization. You cannot apply this concept to all games, as ideally single-player, offline games (what SC5 should be) just aren't compatible game mechanics-wise.

[PrixFixe 25]

Just because the industry want's to generalize this income approach as the future of gaming, it's just that; a generalization. You cannot apply this concept to all games, as ideally single-player, offline games (what SC5 should be) just aren't compatible game mechanics-wise.

 

I think 'ideally' is key here. A certain percentage of long-time SimCity players seem to think they have the sole right to decide the 'ideal' format for for the franchise. I've been playing SimCity since the original, and while I do love some sandbox gaming, I'm also looking forward to the ability to run bigger regions with my friends and loved ones.

 

And financially, they'd be absolutely INSANE not to capitalize on social networking at this point in the video-gaming economy.  (One word: Farmville.)

 

It may not be the game a certain demographic of players wants to play, but it's definitely the game that is called for by the current market conditions. I can't imagine the financial powers-that-be would have even LET them develop a new iteration of the franchise that was 'single-player, offline'. 

[Wackee 8]

I like the feeling of having the "complete" eperience while playing video game, but these are getting quite rare nowadays. That's probably the reason why most of the games I purchase today are indie-games or "Gold"-editions that include all additional content. And now here's EA, announcing that I don't even need to bother and check out their new releases for quite a time . Well, more money for me then.

It's quite clear that the big publishers are making good cash with that marketing scheme and I don't  think the situation will change anytime soon. I just wish they'd find a way for types like me to buy stuff from them without feeling like some blokig fanboy sheep that just got shorn.

[Hoipus 292]

I felt that this image was relevant to the thread.

 

I hope they don't all end up as bad as the last two.

[Evil_One 119]

I felt that this image was relevant to the thread.

 

I hope they don't all end up as bad as the last two.

 

So very true of EA.

[Zpike 79]

Which would you rather have, a subscription or microtransactions?

 

Maxis has to have some sort of revenue stream to keep the servers running be it one or the other.  Online games have constant content upgrades that keep the public interested for much longer periods of time than single player games with short shelf lives.  That's just a fact.  If you want games with massive content to play through you have to pay for it.

[xover88 0]

I wouldn't care if they are selling expansions like "change your city into asian theme or european theme". These would be more like Simcity 3 unlimited expansion packs.

I would be more happy to buy these, which wouldn't change much at all.

 

But above all, hopefully they won't sell region slots in the game world through in-game store after getting one slot for free (like extra character slots you can buy for mmorpg like guild wars 2)

That would be truly a turn-off for everyone.

[nats 99]

Which would you rather have, a subscription or microtransactions?

 

Maxis has to have some sort of revenue stream to keep the servers running be it one or the other.  Online games have constant content upgrades that keep the public interested for much longer periods of time than single player games with short shelf lives.  That's just a fact.  If you want games with massive content to play through you have to pay for it.

 

I cant think of any games where content has been stripped out to be replaced by transactions later on, I cant imagine a publisher would last long these days if they did that much.

 

If this game doesnt have enough content in it to make it value for money I wont be buying it. And they will have lost a valuable source of future funding. Seriously either this game has loads in it already to justify its high price or its price will plummet shortly after release day (already you can find places to get it far more cheaply than on Origin).

 

Kickstarter is a real danger to established publishers, EA and their ilk will be getting very very worried now. They will have to move with the tide or become dinosaurs. Microtransactions may be the key to continuing online play but if the initial purchase isnt good value for money that publisher wont last long in the new gaming market. Competition is good. And Kickstarter is ensuring competition.

 

I am sure we are on the edge of another golden age of PC gaming. And it starts next year with Elite Dangerous and Star Citizen (amongst others) - some would say its already begun with FTL.

[Stuart98 98]

As far as I see, there are 3 ways a game should be done:

 

1. A free demo and a $20-$60 base game with everything available if you play the game enough(leveling up). Modern example: Starcraft II.

2. A game that can be bought for a small price( $1-$10)with plenty of IAPs that are mainly to donate to the devs if you like the game. Modern example: Junk Jack(on iOS)

3. A game where you can play the game for free and advance at a medium pace where you can buy IAPs to both advance a bit faster and to use skins and other cosmetics. Modern example: League of Legends or AirMech.

 

It's the people that put their heart and soul into the game and making it as open as possible to all that I feel the most like spending money on. I've spent over $65 on AirMech, a F2P game, because of this.

[nats 99]

As far as I see, there are 3 ways a game should be done:

 

1. A free demo and a $20-$60 base game with everything available if you play the game enough(leveling up). Modern example: Starcraft II.

2. A game that can be bought for a small price( $1-$10)with plenty of IAPs that are mainly to donate to the devs if you like the game. Modern example: Junk Jack(on iOS)

3. A game where you can play the game for free and advance at a medium pace where you can buy IAPs to both advance a bit faster and to use skins and other cosmetics. Modern example: League of Legends or AirMech.

 

It's the people that put their heart and soul into the game and making it as open as possible to all that I feel the most like spending money on. I've spent over $65 on AirMech, a F2P game, because of this.

 

Definitely I dont give publishers my money if I dont believe in them and their passion for their product. But I also think the quality of the initial product goes a heck of a long way in determining whether I will want to throw anymore money into it or give it up as a bad thing.

 

The fact I am undecided about Simcity does not help me with a purchasing decision at the moment. I have a nagging suspicion at the back of my head about Simcity (price being asked, EA, DRM and the addons being released before the game is even out, no extensive public beta, no advanced demo), and usually when I have got those in the past about games it has proved to have been a very good decision not to buy. Sometimes I have bought a few months after release when the price has come down, bugs have been sorted etc and got a good buy out of it. Sometimes (like with XCOM where it was all about hype and nostalgia and no imagination) I have never felt further inclined to buy and its saved me a fair amount of my hardearned cash, it has to be said.

[AndisArt 2,068]

    Exactly. There is nothing in this thread so far that actually proves or even implies that you will have to pay anything beyond the box price to have the full functionality of the game. Most of it is fear-mongering/concern-trolling. The Sims model (shiny objects as optional DLC, *core gameplay* as true expansion packs) has earned them a bazillion dollars, and I have zero doubt they will emulate it with the new SimCity franchise. 

 

We have to see how it plays out. I think generally it is justified to be concerned over this direction, because it is not clear how EA will execute this plan. Yes, if it is just enhancement to an already complete game experience, what can you say against that. However, there is a trend forming where games are being more and more designed with microtransactions or addons in mind from the start, stripping core content of the retail product. Probably the most related example may be the initial Cities XL, where the Bus transport system was designed as an addon content from the start, which you had to pay for on top of the full retail game price. Many players felt that this was an essential feature that they shouldnt be asked to pay for.

Also there's been more and more games that shipped with content already contained on the discs which only later would become unlocked as a paid microtransaction.

Again, it depends on how satisfying the main game is in content, but there is a door that opened and there is the chance that developers, or rather publishers exploit it.

 

 

 

I cant think of any games where content has been stripped out to be replaced by transactions later on, I cant imagine a publisher would last long these days if they did that much.

 

see my Cities XL example above.

[cirugo 1,889]

Which would you rather have, a subscription or microtransactions?

 

Maxis has to have some sort of revenue stream to keep the servers running be it one or the other.  Online games have constant content upgrades that keep the public interested for much longer periods of time than single player games with short shelf lives.  That's just a fact.  If you want games with massive content to play through you have to pay for it.

They could design the game to not require a server.

[Wiimeiser 445]

Now I know why they cancelled the sequel to The Simpsons Game and the Wii port of Mass Effect...

[madhatter106 3,905]

If they add the ability for users to create custom buildings, then the best cash shop for microtransactions will be at places like the STEX and the LEX.  Microtransactions which are free.

[cirugo 1,889]

If they add the ability for users to create custom buildings, then the best cash shop for microtransactions will be at places like the STEX and the LEX.  Microtransactions which are free.

which is why you can bet they won't.

[chimeran 208]

    Exactly. There is nothing in this thread so far that actually proves or even implies that you will have to pay anything beyond the box price to have the full functionality of the game. Most of it is fear-mongering/concern-trolling. The Sims model (shiny objects as optional DLC, *core gameplay* as true expansion packs) has earned them a bazillion dollars, and I have zero doubt they will emulate it with the new SimCity franchise. 

 

We have to see how it plays out. I think generally it is justified to be concerned over this direction, because it is not clear how EA will execute this plan. Yes, if it is just enhancement to an already complete game experience, what can you say against that. However, there is a trend forming where games are being more and more designed with microtransactions or addons in mind from the start, stripping core content of the retail product. Probably the most related example may be the initial Cities XL, where the Bus transport system was designed as an addon content from the start, which you had to pay for on top of the full retail game price. Many players felt that this was an essential feature that they shouldnt be asked to pay for.

Also there's been more and more games that shipped with content already contained on the discs which only later would become unlocked as a paid microtransaction.

Again, it depends on how satisfying the main game is in content, but there is a door that opened and there is the chance that developers, or rather publishers exploit it.

 

 

 

>>I cant think of any games where content has been stripped out to be replaced by transactions later on, I cant imagine a publisher would last long these days if they did that much.

 

see my Cities XL example above.

 

 

 

 

One of the most anticipated games of 2013, Dead Space 3, continues to find itself shrouded in controversy. Some of the dedicated fanbase are still up in arms over the shifted focus towards action in the series and the inclusion of co-op gameplay.

The more recent example if displeasing fans was the unveil earlier this week that, like Mass Effect 3, Electronic Arts and developer Visceral Games have found a way to include microtransactions into the story campaign of Dead Space 3 by charging for additional resources within the game’s weapon crafting system. Rightfully, the reaction from media and gamers was on the negative side.

 

 

 

Visceral’s John Calhoun, producer on Dead Space 3, provided the following reasoning to CVG of the controversial microtransactions introduced with this installment:

“There’s a lot of players out there, especially players coming from mobile games, who are accustomed to micro-transactions. They’re like “I need this now, I want this now”. They need instant gratification. So we included that option in order to attract those players, so that if they’re 5000 Tungsten short of this upgrade, they can have it.”

But Dead Space 3 players are required to pay $60, no? That’s not the case for mobile games which – for the most part – are free, supported by microtransactions. Why is the cost of the video game higher for players who want what’s already in the game they purchased? Why should the developer and publisher get rewarded more financially because in-game items (in a game they already purchased) take time to acquire/earn/unlock? Does this not create a monetary incentive for EA in all of their games to make in-game rewards more difficult to acquire? Forcing players through a grind and slowing down progression equals more reason for gamers to feel forced to purchase “additional resources” to craft better items, right?

Since when does player progression become an acceptable second pay wall? It’s a dangerous precedent, even if at first glance it may not seem a big deal because it’s not entirely “pay to win” and it’s absolutely optional, EA is trying to open the gates to profiting off of player progress, which they control by game design. If the game were free and players could acquire items or customization options via microtransactions then it would be justifiable, but it’s not. It’s an already-expensive $60 game. And charging more on top of that (for non-cosmetic items) for what the game already should (and does include) is anti-consumer and sets a very, very bad precedent.

Horse armor in Oblivion led to companies like Capcom locking out content on disc and charging more for it later. It created an incentive that encouraged developers like Epic Games to hold back content in Gears of War 3 (see: stupidly expensive weapon skins and season’s pass) behind pay walls, from gamers who forked out the money to support that company and play that game. What will this form of microstransactions lead to for the next-generation consoles? When do publishers start charging real-life cash for ammo packs mid-mission?

The Dead Space 3 crafting system upgrades can all be acquired through resources in game so the microtransactions are a way for EA to profit players to unlock them earlier. Calhoun continues, explaining that they’d never let microtransactions become a pay-to-win strategy and that providing options for players to pay more than $60 is somehow expanding their audience.

We would never make a game you have to pay to win. There are genres of games where that is the answer, and you know what? The world has spoken, they suck. We don’t want to make games that suck, we want to make games that people want to hold on to, to keep on their shelves. That is our mark of success.

But we need to make sure we’re expanding our audience as well. There are action game fans, and survival horror game fans, who are 19 and 20, and they’ve only played games on their smartphones, and micro-transactions are to them a standard part of gaming. It’s a different generation. So if we’re going to bring those people into our world, let’s speak their language, but let’s not alienate our fans at the same time.

Yes, the microstransactions are “optional.” That’s not the issue nor was it ever. Options are good. The issue is that another form of content is behind an pay wall and that EA (and the developers under them) have an incentive in their products to intentionally design games that encourage players into feeling they need to pay more real-life money to progress. The real problem, again, is the precedent it sets in how it affects game design in future titles.

The current generation of gamers don’t want more expensive games, John. This isn’t a good thing. I wonder if the next bit of news for the game involves an Online Pass for the co-op gameplay…

 

source : http://gamerant.com/dead-space-3-microtransactions/

 

and for the critics who think the previous is a rant here is a link from Forbes : http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/01/22/pay-to-win-makes-its-way-into-dead-space-3/

 

so basically E/A will find a way to force you to pay more money.  need more resources for your city ?  easy fork over some more money in addition to the price we gouged you already for the game.  sure you can get resources the hard way but it's so much faster to give us money and that should answer the fanboys but of course the truth is lost upon those who proudly wear blinders.

 

regards, chimeran

[Urban Cartographer 601]

I felt that this image was relevant to the thread.

 

I hope they don't all end up as bad as the last two.

The image is missing some blurs/pixelation/incorrect colouring (to represent bugs in the base games for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (since many base games nowadays are extremely buggy at launch and some bugs are only fixed in paid patches)).

[simlink 1,098]

If they add the ability for users to create custom buildings, then the best cash shop for microtransactions will be at places like the STEX and the LEX.  Microtransactions which are free.

 

It certainly adds another option - that is expanding your game with content created by players for free - but micro transactions and DLC will continue regardless. Will some people not bother? Sure. If I can get some content near the quality of the DLC for free, I'd go with that instead. However there still will be DLC - player created content won't kill of that segment. The TS3 community has huge fansites - ModTheSims, The Sims Resource-which both have expansive download selections but DLC continues via The Sims 3 Store. 

So the ability for player created content would be great, but it won't kill downloadable content per se. It will just add another option to the mix.

 

(Note: I'm not assuming you were inferring DLC would go away, but rather I am just pointing out how it has played out in the The Sims 3 community and expanding on your comment. )

[AIX 270]

I don't mind DLC or micro-transactions if done fairly. Two things need to be done:

 

A ) The base price of the game must be low. For example, SC2013 is retailing for $80. If I have to pay $80 at the start, and $5-10 a month on DLC, I likely won't buy into the model. Make the base game $30 and I would be far likely to buy all sorts of DLC - likely exceeding that $50 difference.

 

B ) The price of the DLC itself needs to be reasonable. For example, in The Simpsons Tapped-Out, the DLC is outrageously over-priced. To get a single "extra" building, you must spend about $20 in buying "doughnuts" which are used as game currency. That is right - $20 for a tiny piece of the game. The saving grace for Tapped Out is that the base game is free.

[croxis 150]

We have to be careful here. A game designed for dlc does not mean things were removed from the vanilla game.

 

I recall reading a reddit thread where a number of developers talked about how dlc works. IIRC the main, vanilla game is given a set budget that pays for x developer hours across coding, sound, art, etc. Sometimes things go really well and there is time, and therefor money, to add in additional features. Usually things don't go according to plan and features have to be dropped in order to get core elements done in time and in budget.

 

Expansions and dlc (usually) have their own budgets that pays for y developer hours. This is seperate from the main game budget. Often features and content which would of otherwise been left on the cutting room floor get their own budget and see the light of day as a bundled expansion or as dlc. This is a far cry from the conspiracy theory that developers pull out content just to make more money. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but I doubt it is widespead or I would see developers posting about it on reddit.

 

The image is missing some blurs/pixelation/incorrect colouring (to represent bugs in the base games for 2011, 2012, and 2013 (since many base games nowadays are extremely buggy at launch and some bugs are only fixed in paid patches)).

 

Have you ever played Civilization 2 1.0? Or Outpost 1? Heck, even Super Mario World had slowdowns in some levels! Buggy games are nothing new.

[Wiimeiser 445]

Super Mario World slowdown? Try Yoshi turning into a Chuck. Or the Kaizo Trap and Palette glitch in Chocolate Island 3. Heck, most people wouldn't be able to find Soda Lake, most 3-Up Moons and two of the bonus minigames (Vanilla Dome 3 and Ludwig's Castle) if they didn't have some sort of level viewer(Wink wink)

[DazzaDazza 29]

 

This could be a problem, as long as you can still “win” on the highest difficulty setting with the tools they have provided, then I guess
it’s O.K. people may wont a different experience than other people and if they’re willing to pay for it then I can’t see much wrong it, but on the other hand
when where paying full price for games and it only comes with limited stuff and they leave the good stuff  out to sell
later then that is a problem. In saying that all that, those type of games probably won’t last long anyway once people wake up to the fact that they are
getting ripped off the will be more diligent the next time they see a game with that feature and probably won’t buy it.      

For me I would much rather pay another $30 - $50 for a good expansion with loads off stuff whether it be extra levels or more quality stuff than
$2-$5 for crap   

 

[Duke87 1,070]

Maybe I'm just becoming a fogey, but the shift in philosophy that this exemplifies is what has largely driven me away from new video games. The gaming industry has in general gone in a direction that my traditional interests find objectionable.

 

As I've said before, the key problem is that the industry has matured to the point where it is a major corporate industry. The days of a team of a dozen guys in a small office in some random town throwing together the next hit game are gone. Every hit game today is a major undertaking. In some part this is because it is difficult to create a good game at today's level of technology with that little manpower... and in some part it's because as the medium has become more common there is more money to be made. But whatever the reason, the reality is that something has been lost. Video games are no longer works of love by their creators. They are designed purely for profit. This is why concepts such as microtransactions exist - it adds no value to the gameplay; in some cases it even detracts from it. But it makes money, and that's all the game makers care about.

 

All that said, there are good and bad ways to do DLC. I don't mind some extras being offered for well, extra... but when spending extra money directly affects the main gameplay, you have adulterated the experience. Gamers do not want to compete in a pay-to-win environment. This is fair to no one. Imagine if in a baseball game you had to pay extra if you wanted the privilege of hitting home runs. Who would want to play that game?

 

For now, companies such as EA get away with this sort of thing because gamers lack an alternative. If you liked the Dead Space series, you can't just go and buy the next installment from someone else free of this nonsense - it doesn't exist.

This may yet ultimately prove to be a reality that the next generation of gamers will just accept as normal and never complain about... in which case us "fogeys" will end up shaking our sticks and yelling at kids to get off our video game lawns just like is normal for every other subject. But if some company realizes that customers hate this and eschews it, they could stand to make a lot of money if they can make good games, and that could sway the industry back the other way. But they will also have to ditch other bits of stupidity that are currently commonplace if they want me back.

[Hoipus 292]

Maybe I'm just becoming a fogey, but the shift in philosophy that this exemplifies is what has largely driven me away from new video games. The gaming industry has in general gone in a direction that my traditional interests find objectionable.

 

As I've said before, the key problem is that the industry has matured to the point where it is a major corporate industry. The days of a team of a dozen guys in a small office in some random town throwing together the next hit game are gone. Every hit game today is a major undertaking. In some part this is because it is difficult to create a good game at today's level of technology with that little manpower... and in some part it's because as the medium has become more common there is more money to be made. But whatever the reason, the reality is that something has been lost. Video games are no longer works of love by their creators. They are designed purely for profit. This is why concepts such as microtransactions exist - it adds no value to the gameplay; in some cases it even detracts from it. But it makes money, and that's all the game makers care about.

 

All that said, there are good and bad ways to do DLC. I don't mind some extras being offered for well, extra... but when spending extra money directly affects the main gameplay, you have adulterated the experience. Gamers do not want to compete in a pay-to-win environment. This is fair to no one. Imagine if in a baseball game you had to pay extra if you wanted the privilege of hitting home runs. Who would want to play that game?

 

For now, companies such as EA get away with this sort of thing because gamers lack an alternative. If you liked the Dead Space series, you can't just go and buy the next installment from someone else free of this nonsense - it doesn't exist.

This may yet ultimately prove to be a reality that the next generation of gamers will just accept as normal and never complain about... in which case us "fogeys" will end up shaking our sticks and yelling at kids to get off our video game lawns just like is normal for every other subject. But if some company realizes that customers hate this and eschews it, they could stand to make a lot of money if they can make good games, and that could sway the industry back the other way. But they will also have to ditch other bits of stupidity that are currently commonplace if they want me back.

You might be interested in CDProjekt RED. They release DRM free versions of their games and other games (mostly older games) via GOG. Their flagship series, The Witcher, tends to have expansion packs added for free.

[LexusInfernus 908]

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.

Micro transactions in SimCity likely means paying money so you can get new landmarks or building styles. Big deal. 

 

And what you completely fail to mention is that at the same time, EA is also making a lot of games 'free to play'. Which basically means you get the core game for free, and after that you can pay as much as you want for extra stuff. But hey, if the extra stuff is just cosmetic crap, no one will force you to buy it. I actually think its rather neat, provided that core games either become cheaper or completely free.  

 

SimCity is however, is a full game so you pay the normal price for a full game. Of course, there will be DLC, but then again, so had SimCity 4 and SimCity 3000 only back then they were called expansion packs and you had to buy them on DVD and no one complained about that. 

[Ocram's Razr 964]

This does not bode well for the future of gaming. I would prefer to play Minecraft than spend hundreds of dollars on microtransactions.

--Ocram

[Duke87 1,070]

SimCity is however, is a full game so you pay the normal price for a full game. Of course, there will be DLC, but then again, so had SimCity 4 and SimCity 3000 only back then they were called expansion packs and you had to buy them on DVD and no one complained about that. 

 

There were downloadable extras, too. Both games had a BAT, and SC3000 had extra landmark packs as well. The price you had to pay to download these things? $0.00.

 

But that was 10-15 years ago, before game makers saw dollar signs in their eyes about this sort of thing. Could you imagine such things being released for free today? Not likely.

[LexusInfernus 908]

SimCity is however, is a full game so you pay the normal price for a full game. Of course, there will be DLC, but then again, so had SimCity 4 and SimCity 3000 only back then they were called expansion packs and you had to buy them on DVD and no one complained about that. 

 

There were downloadable extras, too. Both games had a BAT, and SC3000 had extra landmark packs as well. The price you had to pay to download these things? $0.00.

 

But that was 10-15 years ago, before game makers saw dollar signs in their eyes about this sort of thing. Could you imagine such things being released for free today? Not likely.

Oh, I wasn't aware that EA and Maxis are going to sell a BAT to people?

 

Besides that, the major expansion packs did cost money, and if I remember correctly you also had to pay a bit to download certain landmarks for SimCity 4 from the Maxis website. 

 

And even EA does not always charge for their DLC. All the Mass Effect 3 multiplayer expansion DLC's were completely free of charge. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Besides that, the major expansion packs did cost money, and if I remember correctly you also had to pay a bit to download certain landmarks for SimCity 4 from the Maxis website.

 

Both SimCity 4's nor SimCity 3000's spare landmarks were free.