EA CEO on gaming microtransactions

[quote=Canoas]I've already explained how this business model does not affect you at all, it only changes how much money the retailers get through games re-sale and lets publishers profit from the re-sale as well. If you can't understand that then I'm sorry but you're just being dumb. If EA chooses to raise the price by 10$ so be it, but it doesn't change anything. If they sold you all the content in the CD for 70$ at the store how would it be any different if it cost 60$ at the store and more 10$ online? The price for the game is exactly the same. As weird as it sounds 60$ + 10$ amounts to a total of 70$, the price remains the same. However, like I've said several times, if what they're doing is claiming the full game costs 60$ while hiding that to get the full game you actually need to pay 10$ extra then I don't agree with it. But then again, that's not really the same business model is it? Also, I actually don't see how gears of war 3 is any different from ME3. If the date gets pushed then they can improve the game. That's what usually is done. They delay the release to finish the game. If they delay the release only to charge you extra for what they worked during that time then how is that fair? Are you expecting Diablo 3 to be released as a full game + DLC right away because they delayed the release by 6 months? The fact that they created a DLC during those 3 months time means that they could have kept working on the game. By that reasoning if MS had announced the launch for the holidays instead of announcing it 3 month before and then delaying it they would be bad? It's exactly the same thing. Sell game at full price + extra DLC on release = BAD Delay the game by 3 months and then sell game at full price + extra DLC on release = GOOD Sure, makes sense perfect sense. I mean, shouldn't that be the opposite? Microsoft forced you to wait and extra 3 months even though the game was already finished just because they wanted to wait for the holidays and then they even charge you more for their own delay. Well, now I know. If I ever have my own company I will always underestimate the release date of my products so I can charge for more after I delay the release.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=caucheka] this is the only case where i can understand day 1 dlc, because the games release was pushed back so they had nothing else to do.[/quote] This I can agree with.[/quote]

[quote=Canoas][quote=Searz] [quote=caucheka] this is the only case where i can understand day 1 dlc, because the games release was pushed back so they had nothing else to do.[/quote] This I can agree with. [/quote] Why? If you push back the date then it means you have time to improve the game. That DLC could have been in the game itself. Microsoft announced the release and then delayed it to add the DLC. EA took into account the time it would take to make that DLC and didn't have to delay the release. Why is EA in the wrong if the only difference was that they correctly announced the launch date? It's stupid to delay a game to do that. I mean, D3 was delayed 6 months, would it make sense for Blizzard to add what they worked for in these 6 months as a DLC? Absolutely not. You can't charge the costumers extra because you delayed a game. It's fucking stupid. Microsoft is definitely worse than EA when it comes to exploiting the players, and it's very very stupid to say that you agree with games being delayed just so they can charge you more. By that reasoning EA should have delayed the launch by 3 months as well and everything would be fine. It wouldn't, it would have been worse.[/quote]

[quote=Searz]If they pushed back the release only due to the DLC then that's no better, but sometimes there's a good reason for pushing back a game. Like how it was for Dungeon Defenders. They finished the game, but Microsoft (I think) has this policy where the game has to be finished 3months before it is released on Xbox live. They didn't have anything to do during that time, so they made a bunch of DLC for the Steam release.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=PotatisFarfar] Day one dlc is fine. So long as it is free to people who buy the game new. But it sucks big time when day one dlc costs money and they sell the game for full price... Other than that i like the idea of dlc. It is like an expansion pack, only you buy small pieces at a time.[/quote] /agree[/quote]

[quote=Canoas]@Searz This was the main reason behind the delay: "However, we've elected to move the launch of Gears of War 3 until Fall 2011 to make it the marquee title for the holiday season." They were the ones who chose to delay the game. There's no reason to charge extra for the DLC if they were the ones delaying it.[/quote]

[quote=Searz]In that case I must say that charging extra for the DLC isn't something I like. I wouldn't mind paying money for something that was made to expand the game after launch, but I don't like when games are sold in pieces from the beginning. I mean; they made all this cool content, but you can't have it just cuz you don't pay them lota moniez. If they reduced the price of the main game I wouldn't bother so much, but that's rarely the case...[/quote]

[quote=caucheka]in related news, bioware said that they're working on a new ending. so to have a complete game now you gotta spend 80 dollars.[/quote]

[quote=Luther3000][quote=caucheka] in related news, bioware said that they're working on a new ending. so to have a complete game now you gotta spend 80 dollars. [/quote] Yeah that's annoying me too. I half think they purposely made the ending bad so that they could justify the DLC as something the fans asked for and get popularity for it.[/quote]

[quote=Temzilla]My irl friend, who was a DIE HARD Mass Effect fan, went to the midnight release, and bought his pre-ordered copy, has determined that he will never buy another bioware game again. He also worshiped DAO and DA2. I feel that Bioware is doing the right thing when they drive themselves into the ground like this by making shitty games.[/quote]