EA putting micro-transactions "into all of our games"

We all have anecdotal evidence. The problem is that the real evidence tends to suggest that the majority (not all) want an easier game.

I used to play the original EQ. If you didnt recover your body in time, you lost your gear. When you died, you lost exp and if you didnt get the right rez, it could be severe. You had to camp rare spawns for rare drops. You had to deal with trains, you had to deal with ksing, not everyone got sow, not everyone got port, etc etc etc.

It is now 10 years later. Why are all those difficult parts removed from the majority of MMOs? Why did people back then complain about exp loss to death etc? Why did the MMO's change to easier?

Do you think its because everyone wanted the hardest mmo ever?

Or do you think its because people started complaining so much and going to easier games, that the businesses determined that if they wanted to be successful they would have to pander to customers.

I really have no clue. My experience is the exact opposite of you and I dont think there is a lot of merit in the idea that "pc gamers want to be challenged more" in fact Id guess that most hardcore pc gamers also own a console system.

I don't know either.

What I do know is that games can be hard and challenging AND accessible to casual and solo players at the same time. I also know that many of the casual and solo gamers would love challenging and group-oriented gameplay, but most of them have never seen either done right and base their hate of it purely on anecdotal, worst-case-scenarios of EQ/UO horror stories.

I agree that most PC gamers probably own consoles too. I do. I use the PC for "real" games and the console when I just want to shoot zombies.

I'm not going to troll rather I'm going to post something and I want all of you to read it. This is from our good buddy who gave us games like Unreal Tournament and Gears of War, good old Cliff Bleszinski. Read it here.

Don't worry I'll sit over here and wait for you to get done reading.

Done? Good. And guess what he brings up a few good points. I take that back he brings up a ton of good points. Still the big point he brings up? If you don't like having to pay $5 bucks for a new jacket in an MMO. If you don't want to spend $10 to $20 dollars for DLC in Mass Effect, Skyrim or Fallout. Or spend the same amount of money for a map pack for Battlefield, Call of Duty or Halo. Well in the end don't pay for it.

+1

No microtransaction is forced on a player. It's offered to a player. There is a difference. The player makes the final choice. The player is responsible for said choice.

This is not unexpected. The players have made it this way. Something that is a bit telling is the moble app market. The top 10 earners for 2012 were all FTP apps with micro transactions.

There is a reason that the majority of MMO's are ftp with cash shops and all new ones are following that model.

This is not EA's fault. Consumer are willing to pay this way. They see where the money is so they build it.

If people refused to be nickel and dimed this way, it wouldn't happen.

Hey, me too!! Coincidentally, that will be the 2nd day I'll be playing HotS, though I'm sure not many MMO players find that the least bit interesting.

Yes, but thats not the point. I'm old enough to remember when you bought a game and that was it - you owned it in its entirety.

The way EA are thinking (and other games companies tbh) is that you buy a basic package but anything else is going to cost you. They are holding back content so they can charge you for it later. And that's wrong.

This is where I agree. Micro transactions cheapen the game you buy.

On the other hand, Mass Effect and Swtor are beloved games to me. So, if EA puts out quality games like that, then I don't mind the micro transactions as long as they don't interfere with me enjoying the game. On the other hand, if they make it an absolute grind in the name of microtransactions....

I think it's this statement that really hits home for a lot of veteran gamers. It's the fact that a game is developed, and only a portion of what is developed gets released initially. They plan to leave the rest as a "mini-expansion', or DLC, the label is completely arbitrary.

In most professions, this would cause you to get booted out of said profession. Think about going to the doctor, having him diagnose you with an illness, prescribing some meds, and a month later call you up to say "hey, listen, that medication was only meant to cure 80% of the illness; good news though, for a small extra fee, you can purchase a supplement medication that will cure you 100% (as far as you know).". Imagine having your Investment Advisor tell you that the fees you currently pay him will entitle you to the best returns possible. Two months later he'll reveal that he's actually holding back, and for a small extra fee, you can earn even more with him.

Now, I realize this is an apples and oranges situation as the gaming industry has no equivalent to the Hippocratic Oath or Fiduciary Duty. However, the analogy is still apt. Now, does that not seem completely outrageous? The fact that someone is willing to deceive their own, what is supposed to be, customers this way?