Originally posted by greenreen

Originally posted by asmkm22

Originally posted by greenreen

ahahaha the marketers win

well I know one company to avoid now

But you won't, and they know it.  They were recently rated lower than health insurance companies for customer satisfaction, and I'm pretty sure they couldn't care less.  They have a catalogue of popular IP's that they've acquired, and those fans will buy whatever sequal comes out, regardless of EA's involvement.

And as much as I'd like to go off and support the indie developers, they're busy making quirky, but ultimately boring, hipster games.  There seriously seems to be a real vacuum of 3d and animation talent in the indie world...

Nah I have great self control for buying entertainment. I haven't bought any EA games and I don't use consoles since the Dreamcast. They will be easy to avoid. I don't play micro-transaction games anyway. The only one I gave a chance was GW2 because it was going to be cosmetic only, that changed so left that one too. This just means anytime I hear that name I can know instantly not for me.

I applaud you then.  Personally, I know I'll end up buying the next Mass Effect game, even though it's sure to be riddled with zero-day DLC and such crap.  The fact is, for me at least, there aren't many good alternatives.  Any studio that starts to build up a new IP, and has the skill to make it more than yet another indie retro game, just gets bought up by EA.

I actually miss the late 90's and early 00's, where studios meant something.  

Wow... lots of anger here. I wonder how many angry posters will run out to buy their next favorite EA game.

Kind of remind of Facebook and the rampant vitriol there that people get all indignant about, yet still sit on their backsides and do nothing more than type a couple of words on their keyboards/keypads.

EA is not doing this because they can. They are doing it because gamers want it and use cash shops. I cannot fault EA for doing what players support whole-heartely. Looks like I am done buying the Madden NFL franchise and EA/Bioware/LucasArts games. Good thing I like playing the old games I already have as this will not be limited to EA.

I wonder what other players will do. No, I really don't wonder. I have a very good idea what other players will do.

Originally posted by Wighty

 

Just goes to show you that this is all just a business and you will be nickel and dimed to death...  While this may pertain to single player and co-op style games, EA also has a host of MMO's. This is why I support Sub style games and independent developers

 

I dont like EA for all their butchering of formerly good studios and some games too, but if they do the microtransactions like they did in Deadspace 3 then I dont really care. You dont need any of the DS3 micro-purchases to get the full experience of the game, so whatever.

Originally posted by Kuinn

Originally posted by Wighty

 

Just goes to show you that this is all just a business and you will be nickel and dimed to death...  While this may pertain to single player and co-op style games, EA also has a host of MMO's. This is why I support Sub style games and independent developers

 

 

I dont like EA for all their butchering of formerly good studios and some games too, but if they do the microtransactions like they did in Deadspace 3 then I dont really care. You dont need any of the DS3 micro-purchases to get the full experience of the game, so whatever.

You should care. Think about what could happen to cheat codes. Where we enter cheat codes to obtain items might be replaced by where we need to punch in our credit card info.

Originally posted by Justin9820

Originally posted by asmkm22

Everyone wanted F2P, and this is the result.  It's sad, but you reap what you sow.

This is nothing like free to play. this is buying a game and paying more to unlock content that came on a disk you already purchased.

Agreed, $60 for the game and then you get to pay extra to craft nice things. Lame. 

Haven't bought an EA game since Warhammer online though, so it's not really my problem. 

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Dihoru

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by asmkm22

And what you're getting is a game that lacks any sort of depth or immersion, because they're too concnerned with reminding people that there is a cash shop.

League of Legends lacks depth?

Remember Axe.

Depth is a buzzword with no meaning other than I like this particular feature.

Old games have no more depth than new games, or any more reasons to explore than new games.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/depth-vs.-complexity really deals with the subject of depth better than I can at the moment.

I actually agree with a lot of what the video stated, the problem though is that older games, including MMO did not offer more emergent gameplay or choices in gameplay than new games do.  There were exceptions, UO had more than SWTOR.  However EQ did not have more than WoW, I would argue that WoW skill tree at release (simplified further now though) offered more gameplay than EQ at release.

So in terms of depth between old and new... IMO it's a wash.

Yeah that Extra Credit episode is like verbatim of how I've described Depth vs. Complexity for the last decade.  Actually it has me wondering if the author of EC hasn't read some of my forum posts somewhere on the internet, or maybe is some manifestation of my subconscious controlling me and making educational industry-insider videos at night while I sleep.

Although, I actually have recently changed my thoughts on Depth vs. Complexity due to a GDC talk I saw a year or two ago.  Basically he rightly pointed out that Depth is Complexity.

There are basically two types of complexity: actual complexity, and perceived complexity.

Chess as a game is actually complex.  There are 10^120 total possibilities in a chess game.  But it's not perceived to be complex, because the rules are extremely quick to explain (you can fit them on one sheet of paper.)

Personally I usually use Sirlin's definition of game depth, "A game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries."

But anyway, depth is clearly real and exists in new and old games, and essentially measures how long a game can be played before it feels "figured out" (although the EC video rightly points out that if someone only dabbles in a game they can often miss its depth entirely.)

I am sure we will see way more new and radical ways to monetize games as time goes on...

Blizzard certainly turned things upside down with Diablo 3 and their RMAH along with always online game play...

EA Bioware with their game day DLC

We are now seeing MMO's which are listed as F2P that are offering "Founders packs" that are in excess of $200 in some cases.

I just hope many of the newer indy games (Single Player and MMO) don't fall into this trend. 

Ive stopped buying anything related to EA. I really do hope they go bankrupt. We need new blood on the gaming market. Their stale fat corpses of games need to be removed.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Dihoru

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by asmkm22

And what you're getting is a game that lacks any sort of depth or immersion, because they're too concnerned with reminding people that there is a cash shop.

League of Legends lacks depth?

Remember Axe.

Depth is a buzzword with no meaning other than I like this particular feature.

Old games have no more depth than new games, or any more reasons to explore than new games.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/depth-vs.-complexity really deals with the subject of depth better than I can at the moment.

I actually agree with a lot of what the video stated, the problem though is that older games, including MMO did not offer more emergent gameplay or choices in gameplay than new games do.  There were exceptions, UO had more than SWTOR.  However EQ did not have more than WoW, I would argue that WoW skill tree at release (simplified further now though) offered more gameplay than EQ at release.

So in terms of depth between old and new... IMO it's a wash.

Yeah that Extra Credit episode is like verbatim of how I've described Depth vs. Complexity for the last decade.  Actually it has me wondering if the author of EC hasn't read some of my forum posts somewhere on the internet, or maybe is some manifestation of my subconscious controlling me and making educational industry-insider videos at night while I sleep.

Although, I actually have recently changed my thoughts on Depth vs. Complexity due to a GDC talk I saw a year or two ago.  Basically he rightly pointed out that Depth is Complexity.

There are basically two types of complexity: actual complexity, and perceived complexity.

Chess as a game is actually complex.  There are 10^120 total possibilities in a chess game.  But it's not perceived to be complex, because the rules are extremely quick to explain (you can fit them on one sheet of paper.)

Personally I usually use Sirlin's definition of game depth, "A game is deep if it is still strategically interesting to play after expert players have studied and practiced it for years, decades, or centuries."

But anyway, depth is clearly real and exists in new and old games, and essentially measures how long a game can be played before it feels "figured out" (although the EC video rightly points out that if someone only dabbles in a game they can often miss its depth entirely.)

I will gladly retract my statement to say that depth does have meaning.

Just not on these boards, and restate what I stated before.

Older games, including MMOs did not offer more emergent meaningfull choices than new games do. There were exceptions, UO had more than SWTOR., swtor has virtually none.   However EQ did not have more than WoW, I would argue that WoW skill tree at release (simplified further now though) offered more gameplay than EQ at release.  TSW has significantly more than before due to the skill tree and the combinations that can be made.  You will get people saying TSW has no depth, while EQ was the most deep game around.

So while depth does have a meaning, the people here just refer to a feature they like,

So in terms of depth between old and new... IMO it's a wash.

Originally posted by Alber_gamer

Originally posted by Kaerigan
Why the hell are people calling this F2P? I can guarantee that the majority (probably all) the games EA will release in the next few years will have an up-front price AND the whole microtransactions shenanigans. So if anything, it's the WoW model, pay-to-pay (yes, I meant pay-to-pay, that is not a typo), except for singleplayer games.

 Even in single player games you already have to "pay-to-pay" with EA. I'll note again the recent case of Dead Space 3, where after paying 60 bucks for the game, they charge you extra cash for packs with ammo or crafting materials. They even said somwhere that people spending hours to farm materials through respawn points instead of buying them off the shop were basically thieves. It's disgusting, really.

 

Sabotage this crap company, they deserve to burn.

I despise the cash shop in everything crap, but I gotta correct ya on the ammo thing at least. That was some lawyer in the UK that said that, EA said it was intentional.

http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/09/dead-space-3-resource-farming-glitch-wont-be-patched-is-intent/

Now I can't vouce if it was PR but they released the statement shortly after the lawyer said that crap.

Other than that, I'm upset with how they are going to handle C&C in the future. Honestly, there is next to no nope for EA.

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

So in terms of depth between old and new... IMO it's a wash.

On one hand that's a copout, because specific examples of games (new and old) can be said to be shallow or deep.

On the other hand, trying to measure depth in a discussion is inevitably going to prove futile, due to how tricky it is to measure.

Only thing I can say with certainty is WOW's design elegance is part of why it's been so insanely successful, compared with many other MMORPGs over the years.  Certainly all of the early MMORPGs I tried (which notably didn't include EQ or UO) were pretty challenging to see the depth in, either because they were ridiculously (unnecessarily) overcomplicated or because they hid whatever depth they might've had behind enormous timesinks.

But in relation to the comment that started all this, we can say with absolute certainty that a game with microtransactions can be deep.

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

So in terms of depth between old and new... IMO it's a wash.

On one hand that's a copout, because specific examples of games (new and old) can be said to be shallow or deep.

On the other hand, trying to measure depth in a discussion is inevitably going to prove futile, due to how tricky it is to measure.

Only thing I can say with certainty is WOW's design elegance is part of why it's been so insanely successful, compared with many other MMORPGs over the years.  Certainly all of the early MMORPGs I tried (which notably didn't include EQ or UO) were pretty challenging to see the depth in, either because they were ridiculously (unnecessarily) overcomplicated or because they hid whatever depth they might've had behind enormous timesinks.

But in relation to the comment that started all this, we can say with absolute certainty that a game with microtransactions can be deep.

Between individual games yes it may be possible to say that, but between the genre before wow and the genre after wow I don't think so.

But yes, microtransactions really have nothing to do with depth in a game.

Lets remember its a buisness. We may not like it. Especially those of us who don't have alot of disposable income. That said while i don't like the idea ea isn't the only company gonna head this way. 

Free 2 play in a way has ruined console gaming. publishers have seen how easy they can dupe players into buying stuff in free 2 play games that this is what it becomes and turns into. 

I can't blame ea for giving it back to fans. Players wont play mmo's cause of a sub but whine about cash shops when a game is free 2 play. u can't have it both ways. 

so in the end free 2 play has shown publishers how to monetize every thing in a game and this is what happens. 

Read the articles on Deadspace 3. Both good and bad. This is nothing short of a future dealbreaker. Mass Effect 3's ending was a disaster, TOR was the most epic failure in MMO's. ME3 in DLC was beginning to revive itself and i was able to wash the taste of TOR from my mouth especially with the new Sim City title and the short beta i was part of. THIS KILLS ALL OF THAT.

Tomorrow morning I'm cancelling my Sim-City preorder and getting a refund. I am so glad i didnt go through origin on this.  I am back to WAR on EA mode.

#BoycottSimCity Use this in your tweets. Lets show them this is NOT OK.

Originally posted by Gravarg
I'm old fashioned, I like a subscription with my games...there's only one downside to a subscription game, and that's the subscription.  The bonuses of a subscription game more than make up for that though lol.

There's another downside to a sub game.  In that these days, they all go F2P within a year or two,  and then they launch a ludicrous cash shop.  That's what sub games are to me.  A soon to be F2P game. 

Do you like F2P games?  Then why do you like sub games?  They're F2P babies.  They'll just grow up, get all moody in their teenage years, and then become F2P. 

Now Buy to Play?  That's even more old fashioned.  Now that, I'll do. 

Originally posted by Wighty

Just goes to show you that this is all just a business

 

DUH!

It's a publicly trading company. That means it's a company that has to please stockholders. Which means that you and your gamer friends can do one of two things. Buy some stock and go to stockholder meetings where you can nerdrage to your hearts content or just not buy EA games

I would seriously hope a company that is publicly traded does everything they can to keep their investors as happy as possible and increase its value. You may not agree in the way they go about it but guess what. Nobody cares about it unless you and the gaming community sends a clear message that starts with not opening wallets. Something you will never succeed at trying to rally. People love the sim games, the battlefield games and whatnot. Only a small handful really have the conviction to stand by their forum rants and they don't count for much