New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Let's be realistic here, EA has a history with microtransactions and they don't have any direct competition (partially because of their own actions). They have no motivation to give us the most for our money. Especially if they know they can sell people DLC on top of the price of the regular game. We'd be a lot better off if we had companies competing to give the consumer the best value. Instead of one company dictating everything.

What about companies that have competition that sell DLC?

[kevj349]

I wish I didn't have to pay anything for this stuff, but why do people resort to bashing the makers of the game? NHL is pretty damn amazing. You mean to tell me that EA does their best for NHL but not the other games? I just don't know where the idea comes from that EA doesn't care. People on these forums fail to understand that people just like them are the ones making the games.

[JerseySuave4]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

According to who exactly? Prove it. You keep creating this false choice, "it's either DLC or raise the price." Says who? Trying to frame it as if DLC saves us money is lol, that's not the point of DLC at all.

because they are adding features beyond just the PS3. Video Games haven't gone up in price in a while so DLC is a way for them to in a way go up in price but allow those who don't use or think the DLC is necessary the option of saving the money by not buying those features while those that do use them pay a small fee. So people like me who don't play the game online aren't spending $65 or $70 on games now. Instead companies charge prices for those that want and do use those extra features.

[Senator Stone]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

So then basically, according to no one. And you're just arbitrarily making up numbers llike $64.99. Let's be realistic here, EA has a history with microtransactions and they don't have any direct competition (partially because of their own actions). They have no motivation to give us the most for our money. Especially if they know they can sell people DLC on top of the price of the regular game. We'd be a lot better off if we had companies competing to give the consumer the best value. Instead of one company dictating everything.

Granted, the only EA games I play are NCAA and occasionally Tiger Woods, but it doesn't seem that EA has a "history" of microtransactions...and I completely understand charging extra for additional golf courses released on Tiger Woods.

To my knowledge the only "microtransactions" ever incorporated into NCAA came in the form of extra recruiting points last year (essentially cheat-codes in my mind) and charging to access extras from a PS3/360 game on the PC....in no way, shape or form game-making features (that's why they're extras).

I completely agree that competition would do wonders for the NCAA series, but that would come in the form of a better and more innovative game and doesn't necessarily eliminate the potential of DLC.

[It Must Be The Shoes]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

According to...well everyone if you read magazines and websites, LOL. The cost of game development is to the point where DLC is going to be what (possibly, if it works) prevents the prices of games going up to $64.99 or $69.99. As has been stated, the price of games has generally stayed about the same for the last 30 years or so (around the $50 mark) whereas the game industry has changed from being a couple hundred thousand dollars and 3 programmers working in a converted garage making a game to a virtual city of hundreds working on a game with a budget in the millions. Anyone that follows the industry and how games are developed knows that something is going to have to change in order to continue to give the public the games they have come to expect. Right now the publishers are experimenting with DLC. It's a rational decision since there are a lot of gamers out there who would rather the price of the game stay the same and just enjoy the game without all the frills, for those who want more features that the general public probably will not ever use, they are being asked to pay more. Hopefully the DLC works, but if the DLC doesn't work then you can expect game prices to go up, probably to $69.99 starting with the next generation of games. So for all you folks out there who find this sort of thing repugnant and hope it fails, well be prepared if it does that everyone will simply be paying more and the choice of whether you think $2.99 for web services for a college football game is worth it or not won't be a choice at all anymore, you will pay more even if you don't use all the extra features such as this. That is exactly the point of it, to create additional revenue stream to offset the crazy budget of these titles. And to create profit in perhaps otherwise unprofitable games. The wonderful thing about the way capitalism works though is if the public really doesn't want DLC then it will fail. However companies are going to do what they can to stay profitable. So if DLC fails, then expect game prices to rise slightly. If people also reject that then they'll figure out another way. When all ways to make a profit have been exhausted then the game will not be made in the future. It's really just that simple.

The gaming industry is going down (or has gone down) the toilet quick. It used to be an industry full of talented developers making games they thought people would love to play. When the timing was right, or the game was amazing (or both), they would make millions of dollars in profit. The consumer got a great, full-featured game, and the developer/publisher earned enough money to live comfortably for the rest of their lives without working another day.

Now, the industry is owned by less than a handful of publishers, all of which have bought up many development studios, and IPs, while strong arming virtually any competition out of the industry. Gaming publishers are now billion dollar companies, who make billions in revenue. The barrier of entry is higher than it has ever been. There used to be a lot of innovation in the industry, because 3 man teams in a garage used to be financially viable. That isn't the case anymore, but not by accident.

The people running game development studios aren't leading a team of gaming-nerds to code a fantastic gaming experience, with great new ideas, coding games they themselves would love to play; the people at the top now, are people with the same skills/background used to run a fortune 500 billion-dollar company, like Proctor & Gamble. It's all about investing the least amount of money, to the least common denominator in terms of demographic, for the greatest return in profit.

People like us, gaming enthusiasts/hardcores, should be educating people and boycotting the industry, not sitting idle and watching it go to crap. Instead, we have shills (like the many on this site, including the people who run it), lubing up their own backsides so that these monopolistic-game-publishers can more easily pack their fudge.

[kevj349]

Quote: Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes

The gaming industry is going down (or has gone down) the toilet quick. It used to be an industry full of talented developers making games they thought people would love to play. When the timing was right, or the game was amazing (or both), they would make millions of dollars in profit. The consumer got a great, full-featured game, and the developer/publisher earned enough money to live comfortably for the rest of their lives without working another day. Now, the industry is owned by less than a handful of publishers, all of which have bought up many development studios, and IPs, while strong arming virtually any competition out of the industry. Gaming publishers are now billion dollar companies, who make billions in revenue. The barrier of entry is higher than it has ever been. There used to be a lot of innovation in the industry, because 3 man teams in a garage used to be financially viable. That isn't the case anymore, but not by accident. The people running game development studios aren't leading a team of gaming-nerds to code a fantastic gaming experience, with great new ideas, coding games they themselves would love to play; the people at the top now, are people with the same skills/background used to run a fortune 500 billion-dollar company, like Proctor & Gamble. It's all about investing the least amount of money, to the least common denominator in terms of demographic, for the greatest return in profit. People like us, gaming enthusiasts/hardcores, should be educating people and boycotting the industry, not sitting idle and watching it go to crap. Instead, we have shills (like the many on this site, including the people who run it), lubing up their own backsides so that these monopolistic-game-publishers can more easily pack their fudge.

You have to be kidding me? Mass Effect? Oblivion? The Witcher 2? GTA IV? Red Dead? Fall Out 3? Pretty solid if you ask the millions of people who bought them. What games of the past are better?

[Senator Stone]

Quote: Originally Posted by kevj349

You have to be kidding me? Mass Effect? Oblivion? The Witcher 2? GTA IV? Red Dead? Fall Out 3? Pretty solid if you ask the millions of people who bought them. What games of the past are better?

I swear, sometimes it seems like people think that the developers are charities and should release games for free. Nevermind the fact that games take longer to develop and require more resources (money and people)....

THEY'RE OUT TO SCREW US!!!

/sarcasm font

[It Must Be The Shoes]

Quote: Originally Posted by kevj349

You have to be kidding me? Mass Effect? Oblivion? The Witcher 2? GTA IV? Red Dead? Fall Out 3? Pretty solid if you ask the millions of people who bought them. What games of the past are better?

Games now are all graphics (expensive, but not risky to develop).

Give me ep.ic 100+ hour *open* gameplay experiences like Fallout (1 & 2), Planescape, Doom, Deus Ex, X-Com, Jagged Alliance, etc. over the no-risk taking development culture now, which is: flashy cut scenes and graphics (that cost millions alone), with the same regurgitated "on rails" gameplay -- that feels more like watching an action moving than actually playing a game.