My Rant Against EA

Professor S · 09-22-2009, 09:29 AM

Well, not JUST Electronic Arts, but any publishers that have taken the availability of seelling content on-line and twisted it into something it never should be.

Here is what I'm talking about:

In some cases I like how they use the expansion packs in consoles, but it's companies like EA that hold back content that would normally be in the game so they can sell it piecemeal that piss me off.

I'm never buying Madden again. Last year I bought the game only to learn I needed the expensive Head Coach option to get create-a-play... a feature that used to be included with the regular game. Now EA has repeated this atrocity by having no less than 4 different content packs that were available the day of release... and STILL not create-a-play feature, a feature that is now somehow inexplicably gone. I'm waiting for the next downloadable content pack with it included... for another unearned $10.

The real culprit in this is not the system of downloading content on-line... many games like Fable do it right by releasing content to extend gameplay. The real culprit is EA's monopoly of the NFL brand. They are the only game in town and they are milking every dollar from that fact. It's no coincidence that EA started these tactics shortly after locking down the brand.

This is nothing less than price gouging, and perhaps one of the best examples of how a lack of comptetition causes the consumer to suffer at the expense of the monopoly.

Angrist · 09-22-2009, 10:13 AM

I totally agree.

Remember the day of patches? You would download a patch which included new stuff. For free.

Now they charge €4 for a new custome in Final Fantasy: My Life as a King.

TheGame · 09-22-2009, 11:41 AM

I agree, purposely leaving content out of a game just so you can charge for it later is lame. Eventually they're probably aiming to turn most of their games into the Sims... just endless charged updates.

It ok sometimes, but for a game that's released once per year.. its not acceptable.

Combine 017 · 09-22-2009, 12:19 PM

Haha, I bet they will make a game that only has one level in it, and nothing else.
Then you have to buy the other levels if you want to keep playing it, and buy the "options" menu if you want to change the options.

But yeah, I hated EA before it was cool.
The only good thing they ever did was publish HL2.

KillerGremlin · 09-22-2009, 12:39 PM

Welcome to free market gaming. EA fucking blows. But then I have passionately been saying that for years. Online console gaming has improved a bit, but even back when Xbox Live first came out I was really perplexed that people were willing to pay for content (well...and a service like Xbox Live...which is like AOL for console gaming). As a long-time PC gamer I am pretty appalled. But this is capitalism at work. Developers have found a market. People who buy console games are willing to spend money on software upgrades or buy a new Madden every year or sink money into a a patch that provides content that should have been available at launch for free.

EA has fucked up in the PC community too. The latest Sims title apparently has a ton of unavailable content that you need to purchase separately. Totally unacceptable, especially when you consider the Sims niche...a bunch of 10-year old girls who will have their parents pay tons of money for content. Therefore I fully support pirating the latest Sims title, and fuck EA.

But I have always said fuck EA. I have a long history of saying that. EA is good as a publisher, but when they develop games 99% of them are shit. They also have implemented some of the lamest DRM as of late.

TheGame · 09-22-2009, 01:20 PM

I'm down to only one game I like from EA, and that's Madden. And even Madden has been suspect as of late. I think on the gameplay side of things it has barely caught up to the Ps2 version now, but on the interface side of things its still worse.. that's pretty sad imo.

Bube · 09-22-2009, 01:51 PM

I totally agree.

And something that really pisses me off is that they're charging console gamers money for expansions and new maps and costumes and stuff, when PC gamers get the game for bit cheaper (if they even pay at all) and get every extra for free.

People liked consoles because they were cheaper overall, with no need for hardware upgrades and stuff, but they're taking it out on us with these "software upgrades".

If, for example, they sold Madden (not that I've bought a Madden game in my life

) for $30 instead of $60, then I'd be ok with paying for the extras.

They could sell a core game for a lower price, and charge us for other components.

Thespis721 · 09-22-2009, 02:32 PM

At least they aren't Activision..........

But seriously, EA sucks.

BreakABone · 09-22-2009, 02:46 PM

Yeah a couple of companies is doing this, Capcom is another offender, who forced you to pay for alternate costumes in Street Fighter IV, the day it came out, and people were able to trace that the content was already on the disc so in essence you were paying only for a key to unlock something that is already there.

Developers enjoy the nickle and diming because sadly people will pay for it.

Vampyr · 09-22-2009, 02:50 PM

I don't mind paying for content if it's released a good amount of time after the initial release of the game, and I know that it has been developed during that time. I point to the same example Prof S. pointed to : I think the extra content for Fable 2 has been really good, and very reasonably priced. And it has been released in stages as they finished it.

I completely agree that with this rant though...purposefully making a game not as good as it could be by withholding features already available just to sell them separately is ridiculous. I feel the same way towards exclusive content that is released on one system and not another, or bonus content only available to people who buy a "special" version of the game, such as the extra costumes and such that were in the Soul Caliber game that cost $10 more.

However, I wouldn't say this completely hurts the customer, since I will just refuse to buy such a game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrist

Remember the day of patches? You would download a patch which included new stuff. For free.

Now they charge €4 for a new custome in Final Fantasy: My Life as a King.

Team Fortress 2. So far we have received 21 new weapons, a ton of new maps, several new game modes, a slew of hats to customize your character with, and tons upon tons of balance fixes and bug fixes. I have never payed anything beyond the initial $20 price tag of the game.

Now, this won't be true for the Xbox version whenever those updates finally come out, but that isn't really Valve's fault. They want to provide the content for free, but Microsoft said no.

Quote:

Online console gaming has improved a bit, but even back when Xbox Live first came out I was really perplexed that people were willing to pay for content (well...and a service like Xbox Live...which is like AOL for console gaming).

I don't really get everything you're saying here. I think Xbox Live is a fantastic system, first of all, and I'm not sure how you can compare it to AOL. Live gives you a very easy way to keep up with friends and interact with them, as well as access to tons of demo's, a central hub for playing games online with other people (instead of having an incoherent server list for every multi-player pc game you have), access to the arcade, and netflix streaming among other things.

And yes, you do have to pay for some of this content, like the arcade games for example. But these games are being developed by separate groups who deserve to earn money for their product, I'm not sure why you think the content should be given away for free (and some of it actually is).

Thespis721 · 09-22-2009, 03:17 PM

Wouldn't bother me so much if it wasn't for the fact that games already cost $60.

Thespis721 · 09-22-2009, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Professor S

Well, not JUST Electronic Arts, but any publishers that have taken the availability of seelling content on-line and twisted it into something it never should be.

Here is what I'm talking about:

In some cases I like how they use the expansion packs in consoles, but it's companies like EA that hold back content that would normally be in the game so they can sell it piecemeal that piss me off.

I'm never buying Madden again. Last year I bought the game only to learn I needed the expensive Head Coach option to get create-a-play... a feature that used to be included with the regular game. Now EA has repeated this atrocity by having no less than 4 different content packs that were available the day of release... and STILL not create-a-play feature, a feature that is now somehow inexplicably gone. I'm waiting for the next downloadable content pack with it included... for another unearned $10.

The real culprit in this is not the system of downloading content on-line... many games like Fable do it right by releasing content to extend gameplay. The real culprit is EA's monopoly of the NFL brand. They are the only game in town and they are milking every dollar from that fact. It's no coincidence that EA started these tactics shortly after locking down the brand.

This is nothing less than price gouging, and perhaps one of the best examples of how a lack of comptetition causes the consumer to suffer at the expense of the monopoly.

What I find very interesting is that you posted this five minutes after you posted how Dr. Strange is probably going to be offered later for $10 in Ultimate Alliance 2.

Coincidence? I think not.

Professor S · 09-22-2009, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thespis721

What I find very interesting is that you posted this five minutes after you posted how Dr. Strange is probably going to be offered later for $10 in Ultimate Alliance 2.

Coincidence? I think not.

LOL! Not a coincidence at all. My reply quickly turned into a rant against EA for even more egregious tactics, and it was to the point it took the thread off topic so I created a new one.

Typhoid · 09-22-2009, 05:05 PM

While I agree that that type of price gouging is pretty weak and ultimately utterly lame, Microsoft (via XBL) does it all the time, and it's no big deal by anyone. Granted, EA bought the rights to the NFL games, however they definitely didn't "start" the price gouging. They just joined in. Take games like Halo (just for example). How many map packs and add-ons go into games like that? While you may sit there and say "But yeah, that changes the game, and adds a new element", I will counter that with "The create-a-play mode also entirely changes the game and adds an element to it."

Marvel Ultimate Alliance had you buying extra characters which should have been in the original game itself, characters who are (as far as I know) in MA2 - yet I wouldn't doubt that they will release more character packs.

Heaven forbid you want new songs for Rock Band or Guitar Hero. You better break out the credit card for that, too.

Let alone paying for online play in itself. You pay for the system, game, add-ons, internet connection and the ability to play via XBL.

Now, I'm not saying that what EA did was super fantastic and not gouging, but they didn't start the trend. They just realized people will pay.

Professor S · 09-22-2009, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid

While I agree that that type of price gouging is pretty weak and ultimately utterly lame, Microsoft (via XBL) does it all the time, and it's no big deal by anyone. Granted, EA bought the rights to the NFL games, however they definitely didn't "start" the price gouging. They just joined in. Take games like Halo (just for example). How many map packs and add-ons go into games like that? While you may sit there and say "But yeah, that changes the game, and adds a new element", I will counter that with "The create-a-play mode also entirely changes the game and adds an element to it." .

I agree in most cases, and overall I like the option of paying for additional content for games I love, but in the case you used as an example that is content that was included in previous games and has been removed to be sold for additional profit at a later date. To me, that's the equivalent of Fable 2 being released, but without any weapons... they're an extra $10.

Also, I think timing is a big thing. If EA just held onto the content for a little while, their gauging wouldn't be quite so... brazen I guess. I suppose part of my issue is with the sheer hubris EA displays.