chimeran

it works fine for me so i'm not sure how to help

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. 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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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. 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

"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

speak for yourself, i love the challenge of micro managing. not all games have to be fast paced to grab someone's attention and SC4 makes a great diversion and those that complain that SC4 is static try building on a regional level by envisioning the whole map and how it will look unlike the reboot which determines what the map will be. watching your sims run around is a nice touch but it's only eye candy. john carter was disney's attempt to enter the eye candy department and it didn't work out so well for them. some people love SC4 and some will love SC2K13 but just remember when the eye candy wears off unless there's a good plot your fascination will end and you will return to the classic that EA tried to replace

o,O so if you used the beta key, E/A considers that "playing" the game ? i waited 3 minutes to login and gave up after that so how did i "play" the game ? so this is how E/A's marketing team cooks the books, very interesting

say's the server is available but the little text box says you can't login, so which is it ? and exactly what counts as a high load ? i mean it's not call of duty so there can't be millions of players skipping work, just saying