Yes, keep saying that this is what F2P players want. 'cuz F2P players want games that have an up-front cost and then also microtransactions, right? That's what F2P is, right?

Thanks F2P supporters....can't wait to play Mirror's Edge 2 and having to pay $10 for every jump.

Can't believe people still support microtransactions, it sucks, sucks, sucks, sucks, it unbalances games, it nickle and dimes you and it gets worse and worse.

It's even worse on forums of cash-shop games, half the threads are about complaints about microtransactions instead of talking about the game.

P2P were great the way they were until you people ruined it by taking out your credit card every 2 minutes to buy your potions / coins, whatever.

Originally posted by Squeak69

Originally posted by Sukiyaki

Because paying EA  or certain other publisher 15$ extra a month for nothing but mere access to your game, certainly stops them trying to milk your money anyways in the bluntest ways possible.

/sarcasm off

not to mention the vast increase in standard quality of MMOs since F2P became the norm, with both AAA and lesser titles

/sarcasm off

Because these title asking for monthly fees sure all speak for a higher quality standard of P2P MMOs.

/sarcasm off

But nice strawman you got there anyways. Tough its kinda wet and squishy.

Originally posted by Slampig

Originally posted by Btk306
EA can burn in hell.

I know, all trying to make money and stuff... Those stinkers, lets go pout in the corner!

Oh yes, poor EA just trying to make a living.....

.......must be so hard as a CEO living on 6 million dollar a year. How does the poor thing survive.

Obviously 6 million dollar a year is not enough, you simply can't live on a wage that buys you a new car every week, obviously the only solution is nickle and dime your userbase to shake some more money out of them.

Now the CEO's salary is used as an argument? Wow.

Way to completely overdo yourselves in your EA hate. Get a life already.

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Now the CEO's salary is used as an argument? Wow.

When someone uses the argument that they are just "trying to make money", yes it is, ESPECIALLY when developers using microtransations always said that F2P was needed for games to survive, when it obviously has only one reason, make as much money as humanly possible disregarding your consumers who are completely against this idea EA put forth.

When a company said:

"adding microtransactions is the only way for our games to survive and we can only compete by adding microtransactions"

I might have said...."ok, I guess you have to do what you have to do".......but when a CEO is making 6 million a year, then no, I don't respect this decision at all, it is nickle and diming your consumer, completely against the interest of the playerbase.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Now the CEO's salary is used as an argument? Wow.

When someone uses the argument that they are just "trying to make money", yes it is, ESPECIALLY when developers using microtransations always said that F2P was needed for games to survive, when it obviously has only one reason, make as much money as humanly possible disregarding your consumers who are completely against this idea EA put forth.

When a company said:

"adding microtransactions is the only way for our games to survive and we can only compete by adding microtransactions"

I might have said...."ok, I guess you have to do what you have to do".......but when a CEO is making 6 million a year, then no, I don't respect this decision at all, it is nickle and diming your consumer, completely against the interest of the playerbase.

Once again

This is a publicly tradining company. EAs responsibility is to its shareholders and not you. You may have grand illusions on  knowing how to run a big coorporation but fact is you don't so just leave it at that

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Now the CEO's salary is used as an argument? Wow.

When someone uses the argument that they are just "trying to make money", yes it is, ESPECIALLY when developers using microtransations always said that F2P was needed for games to survive, when it obviously has only one reason, make as much money as humanly possible disregarding your consumers who are completely against this idea EA put forth.

When a company said:

"adding microtransactions is the only way for our games to survive and we can only compete by adding microtransactions"

I might have said...."ok, I guess you have to do what you have to do".......but when a CEO is making 6 million a year, then no, I don't respect this decision at all, it is nickle and diming your consumer, completely against the interest of the playerbase.

Once again

 

This is a publicly tradining company. EAs responsibility is to its shareholders and not you. You may have grand illusions on  knowing how to run a big coorporation but fact is you don't so just leave it at that

where have I said anywhere that EA has any responsability to me, it's my right to say their decisions are against consumer interest, regardless if they are traded or not

EA can do what they want, and I can say what I want about EA

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by Starpower

Originally posted by CalmOceans

Originally posted by BizkitNL

Now the CEO's salary is used as an argument? Wow.

When someone uses the argument that they are just "trying to make money", yes it is, ESPECIALLY when developers using microtransations always said that F2P was needed for games to survive, when it obviously has only one reason, make as much money as humanly possible disregarding your consumers who are completely against this idea EA put forth.

When a company said:

"adding microtransactions is the only way for our games to survive and we can only compete by adding microtransactions"

I might have said...."ok, I guess you have to do what you have to do".......but when a CEO is making 6 million a year, then no, I don't respect this decision at all, it is nickle and diming your consumer, completely against the interest of the playerbase.

Once again

 

This is a publicly tradining company. EAs responsibility is to its shareholders and not you. You may have grand illusions on  knowing how to run a big coorporation but fact is you don't so just leave it at that

where have I said anywhere that EA has any responsability to me, it's my right to say their decisions are against consumer interest, regardless if they are traded or not

EA can do what they want, and I can say what I want about EA

Of course you can but you may want to think a little about the things you say if you want to make sense

And you might want to throw in some facts about these "consumers" you are refering to like links etc. just so we know at the very least a guesstimate on how many are against these microtransactions

Why don't you try and sell me on why microtransactions is an unfeasable way to make a lot of money. Because for a company that has to appease stockholders that's what it's all about like it or not

LOL, EA really wants the "Biggest D-Bag of Gaming" crown back from Activision.  Badly!

This little scheme by EA is just another in a long line of putting screws to gamers.  Honestly guys, is this news shocking?  Really?  In another words, it's their S.O.P.  And I find it hilariously amusing that there are gamers out there that find it perfectly fine for companies to screw the playerbase over like this.

On the flipside of that coin, are the fools that will willingly throw and bend themselves over a table for a couple more turns by EA.  Better yet, those that complain about it, but still bend over for EA after all these years.

Glorious entertainment, really.

Originally posted by Dihoru

Originally posted by MindTrigger

Originally posted by asmkm22

Originally posted by Wighty

Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse!

 

Electronic Arts during a Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference stating that the company is so pleased with its forays into the world of microtransactions, that they are bringing the support for these in-house, and that "all" their future games will feature microtransactions.

"We are building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way; to get to a higher level," said EA CFO Blake Jorgensen. "And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

 

http://www.develop-online.net/news/43388/EA-taking-microtransactions-in-house

 

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

 

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

I agree completely with this comment.  I've been around here for a long time, and I've heard the whining for F2P from most of you for the last few years.  

YES, this is a business.  What did you think, OP, that these game developers are making games out of the kindness of their hearts for you to play for free?  Time to join reality.  You guys couldn't be arsed to pay a measly $15 per month for a sub fee, now you've got microtransactions.  These companies have to make money one way or another.  You asked for it, you got it.

So you're defending EA by blaming us F2Pers? Cool story bro now go cry somewhere else that what was gonna happen anyway happened on F2P's time in the spotlight ( are you seriously gonna say the sympthoms of corporate greed haven't been visible for at least 8 years with the rush of devs to convert their MMOs into WoW clones, the end results of which are well known and include the likes of Star Wars Galaxies New Game Experience and that god awful expansion that neutered Ultima Online).

'Cool story bro'. How cute. What I'm saying is that there's a huge number of idiots out there who think MMO games should be completely and utterly free.  No sub fee, no cash shop, nothing. They believe these games should justr be handed to them gratis.  I'm not sure who they expect to pay for the creation, support and hosting of these games.

Perhaps kids around here should grow up and get a job. Maybe they will realize that things cost money, and nothing is for free.  I run my own business and I run into entitled people like this all the time.  When they try to talk my consulting fees down, I tell them no thanks and move on to the next client.

How do you define corporate greed for an MMO?  What model do you propose they use to make a business out of MMO games if you won't pay for a subscription fee and you don't want microtransactions?  Subscription fees have been about $15 dollars a long as MMOs have been around and have not increased like most other services have.  If you ask me they should be about $30 per month, and for a good game, I would pay it.  You mentioned SWG.  I was once paying SOE $45 per month for three accounts in SWG, and I didn't even blink. I did so for two years.  

If the games you are choosing hold no value to you, then too bad for you. If a game sucks, don't buy it.  You don't get games for free just because *you* don't think they are worth paying for.

They are out  doing  everybody they can ...

Originally posted by Bladestrom
I believe it costs just under $3 to cover costs of 1 person on a server. I would guess that's why gw2 is making good profits. For $15 dollars I get unlimited broadband and 200 + channels, and here we have publishers trying to get $15 for a single game, greeeeeedy.

Please show me the math / breakdown / business plan for how you came to "just under 3$" per person as a number that can be generically applied to all MMORPG games.  I need a good laugh today.

I'm not "defenfing EA" either.  In fact part of the reason people don't put any value on these games is because the game largely suck and are copies of each other.  It hardly matters which one you pick right now because they are so much alike.  As a consumer, you have only one decision to make.  Is the game worth the cost or not?  Is the cost of a new car worth it?  How about a new home entertainment center, or a new home?  You don't get to dictate how much these things cost.  You only decide whether you are going to pay the asking price.  I'm getting the impression most of these comments are coming from kids who are still living at home.

While you are at it, tell me what provider you are paying $15 a month for unlimted bandwidth and TV service.  I'll also point out that the two services aren't even remotely comparible.

Let's imagine playing Tennis P2P vs F2P in real-life

P2P Tennis:

-your field is number 17, you're able to play on it for 4 hours non-stop, flat fee

F2P Tennis:

-you can play for "free"

-each tennis ball you use will cost you $10

-the tennis balls need to be inflated and the pump will cost you another $10 per use

-if you want the air pressure pump instead of the handpump it will cost you another $10

-you don't get to use your own rackets, we provide you with rackets for only $10

-if you want strings for your racket it will cost you $10

-...........

-BUT IT'S "FREE" 111111!!!!!! and no one said you HAVE to have rackets or balls to play the game, you can just play without, it's a FREE game, what are you complaining about??11111111111

idiots, I get tired of people defending this F2P garbage

Originally posted by Bladestrom
It was published a while back for a mmorg, and was discussed here. Asside from that where exactly do you think blizzards massive profits come from?

It's called volume.  Go look it up.  Pick up a personal finance class and a business management class while you are at it.

Originally posted by CalmOceans

I might have said...."ok, I guess you have to do what you have to do".......but when a CEO is making 6 million a year, then no, I don't respect this decision at all, it is nickle and diming your consumer, completely against the interest of the playerbase.

Feel free not to play any EA games, it is a free world.

And i just finished Dead Space 3, without using microtransaction. Pretty fun time i had, i may add. Let's all vote with our wallets.