New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

[kevj349]

Quote: Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes

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.

Again have you played Oblivion or the new Fallout?

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Stone

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.

We're talking about a company that once sold AFL jerseys as DLC for Madden. Yeah they don't have a history. I'm gonna laugh if/when they release the gamestop pre-order uniforms as DLC this year. I'm sure there'll be a line of people telling me why that's ok too though.

And no competition wouldn't eliminate DLC, but we'd be much more likely to get the most value for our money. That's the whole point. EA has it made, they don't have to worry about any comp and like the article points out they can charge for DLC with little to no backlash from the consumers. Again props to Kotaku for at least trying to change this.

[boritter]

Quote: Originally Posted by Kotaku

Playing games in the Super Sim mode from the Web is a breakthrough, and the decision to charge for it is more defensible. But slapping a $3 charge to enable the advance-week option over the web is charging users to access an administrative feature. I've never heard of anything like that before.

I agree. It is lame that EA is charging $ to advance the week.

I'll vote with my money and rent NCAA 12 (just like I rented the lackluster NCAA 09, 10, and 11 games).

[TripleD]

I dont mine paying for extra features....cant take my money to the grave with me...#ImJustSayin

[poopoop]

And you guys want to talk about rising dev costs? What about the money EA spent acquiring NCAA exclusivity and ESPN exclusivity. Those costs are the result of actions they took to kill competition. Costs EA ultimately has to recoup somehow.

As 1UP points our in regards to the Madden deal:

Quote:

Third, there's the question of higher game prices. While nothing has been officially announced, industry insiders say the final cost of the NFL deal is somewhere north of $300 million, a whopping sum that consumers will ultimately pay for.

http://www.1up.com/features/killing-the-competition

EA dropped 750-850 million for the ESPN deal (per New York Times). No idea how much they spent for college but it's probably less than the 300-500 million they spent for the NFL deal.

I'm not quick to throw a pity party for them and their need to increase revenue thru DLC when they spent a ton of money that wasn't necessary. More about their own greed.

[It Must Be The Shoes]

Quote: Originally Posted by kevj349

Again have you played Oblivion or the new Fallout?

Oblivion took everything great about Morrowind and made it worse by dumbing it down in order to be more accessible to the average (casual) gamer ... sound familiar?

Fallout New Vegas is a very long game--but it has nowhere near the strategic depth, quality dialogue, and open gameplay that the original Fallouts had (1 & 2).

It's amazing how much content/gameplay/value us gamers can get for our $50ish dollars when development teams (even 3-10 man -- garage operations) are actually spending the large majority of their resources developing/coding/creating. But instead, in todays industry, the majority of resources are spent on things like: buying superfluous licenses (some of which never get used), stifling competing products--putting smaller studios out of business, paying for expensive prime time television ads, and lobbying major gaming publications (ign, gamespot, teamxbox, operationsports, etc.) for good reviews.

Give me the old days of small development teams, an industry with integrity, and games made for gamers by gamers, any day of the week.

[Critical Kills]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

So then basically, according to no one. And you're just arbitrarily making up numbers llike $64.99.

If you think it's no one indicating DLC and pay to play are an alternative to simply raising all game prices then you're not paying attention to the industry. OXM covered micro transactions and the need for them just a few months ago in regards to the Call of Duty games making multiplayer pay to play in the upcoming title (the issue is being explored).

As for $64.99, that's based on my 30 years or so of playing and buying video games. Yes it's not set in stone, maybe it will be $63.99 or $65.99 but what difference does it make as to the exact amount? The point is the price will go up if alternate revenue streams such as DLC are not fruitful for publishers.

And you cite EA as if they are the only company doing this because they have some "monopoly" on the market. Guess what? They are, by far, not the only ones going down this road..a lot of games today have pay for DLC. Again,if you don't realize that then I question how much you really know abot what's going on in this regards..

[Critical Kills]

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.

I completely disagree. I've been gaming since the Atari 2600 and gaming is better now than ever IMO.