New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

[It Must Be The Shoes]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

I'm with everyone else, there really isn't anything new to be said, I just have one last question that I hope you can answer for me. This is not an argument, or me flaming you in any way, I'm honestly curious about this. Do you also rail against cell phone companies for selling a base phone plan then charging extra for texts, data plans, etc? Cable/satellite providors for having a base tv package and charging extra for premium services like hbo, HD video, DVR service? If you do not, what is it about NCAA that makes it different from that to you? In all of these cases (and many more) you pay for a base product and then the company tries to charge you for extras and add-ons. In each example someone could make the case if they wanted that the add-on "should" be included in your base package. Someone could make the argument that they've given verizon/directv/etc their money in the past so they helped "pay for" the add-on service so they should get it for free... Basically every argument against EA charging for this could be applied to any company that charges for an add-on service. Do you rally against them also? and if not why this and NOT them, what makes it different?

The industry (for many years) was very profitable while charging a base $40-$60.00 new game fee, with a full featured product that innovated and grew from year to year. NFL 2k1 to NFL 2K5 on the dreamcast/playstation/xbox, or Madden 2001 to Madden 2005 on the playstation/xbox is a prime example of that growth and innovation (at the standard new game fee, sometimes even 60% less than the standard new game fee). This was during a time where QB Club, Fever, Gameday, Blitz, and several other NFL video game products were on the market. These studios added features, new content, new technology, etc. while reducing prices in order to gain market share (and thus, more sales).

Since EA strong armed those products out of business, there's no longer any reason to aggressively provide new content and features (no market share to gain). EA owns the market, and loyal fans who don't have an alternative are the ones fronting the bill. You think it's an accident/coincidence that we're complaining about the same bugs and shallow game modes for a half a decade now? When they do add something we can get psyched about, it comes packaged with a nickel-and-dime business model.

It's baffling to me, that people on this forum, don't see how much the football gaming genre has eroded single handedly by EAs anti-consumer business moves. Most people who empathize with this point of view have been banned/filtered out from this site over the last half decade (ive been lurking here since the sites inception). If you're pro EA, you're considered "behaving". So it doesn't surprise me to see the people who are upset with this news easily outnumbered by the EA stock owners on this site (if they dont own stock in EA they need counseling for the length they will go to defend the company).

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

My last post in here too. As I said earlier in the thread, difficult to debate w/people that have agendas.(you keep bringing up no competition in a topic that doesn't talk about it)

I don't have an agenda. I just think this is a byproduct of not having any competition. Not me trying to use this as a platform to rail on EA for buying up exclusive contracts. I'd have an issue with them doing it regardless of competition.

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

You mentioned a few post ago you aren't trying to tell people how to spend their $, but here you are trying to rationalize why people are defending it. Why? Again, who cares, it's their money and enjoyment and thoughts on the subject. I don't try to rationalize why people that are against it aren't for it.

Two sets of people, one group buying it, one group defending it. I've made it clear multiple times where my issue lies but you keep ignoring it for whatever reason. The better question is...why do YOU care? What is your agenda?

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

You are worried about something now that you think may happen in the future. Again, way too early to speculate and start jumping off buildings and bridges proclaiming the world is ending with a $3.00 extra charge to a video football game.

Nah. I think this is an exaggeration. All I know is it gets worse every year and shows no sign of slowing down. Will be fun to see if they offer the Pro Combat DLC (that's already been confirmed) for free or not.

Quote: Originally Posted by roadman

As far as your earlier post, you said I don't know what their budget is and neither do you. I'm more inclined to believe someone statement from a company vs someone's opinion on a message board. So, your theory to believe they're less inclined to give us the most for our money, or at least they no longer have comp there to force them to--- is also pure speculation on your part because most companies are now charging for DLC, not just EA, with or w/o competition and you don't know what their budgets are.

Yeah my theory is speculation, which is why I said multiple times that it is a belief. Just tired of people stating as fact that EA "had" to charge for this when they have 0 idea. Example: There were people earlier in the thread stating as fact that EA only had two options, to charge for this or raise the game to $65/$70.

I'd also like to point out, that while a lot of companies do have DLC, not all do it in the same way EA does. I think release-day DLC is bogus.

[poopoop]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

I'm with everyone else, there really isn't anything new to be said, I just have one last question that I hope you can answer for me. This is not an argument, or me flaming you in any way, I'm honestly curious about this. Do you also rail against cell phone companies for selling a base phone plan then charging extra for texts, data plans, etc? Cable/satellite providors for having a base tv package and charging extra for premium services like hbo, HD video, DVR service? If you do not, what is it about NCAA that makes it different from that to you? In all of these cases (and many more) you pay for a base product and then the company tries to charge you for extras and add-ons. In each example someone could make the case if they wanted that the add-on "should" be included in your base package. Someone could make the argument that they've given verizon/directv/etc their money in the past so they helped "pay for" the add-on service so they should get it for free... Basically every argument against EA charging for this could be applied to any company that charges for an add-on service. Do you rally against them also? and if not why this and NOT them, what makes it different?

See this analogy highlights an issue. They switched up the definition of "base product." The base product used to be the game and the full set of features. Now the base product is a partial set. Now some features are "bonus" or "add-ons" If you want the full set you have to pre-order from a certain store or purchase DLC.

If my cell phone company or cable provider ever tried to pull that then yes, absolutely I would have a problem with it. I would probably go buy from someone else and try to get a better deal.

[mattbooty]

Quote: Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes

The industry (for many years) was very profitable while charging a base $40-$60.00 new game fee, with a full featured product that innovated and grew from year to year. NFL 2k1 to NFL 2K5 on the dreamcast/playstation/xbox, or Madden 2001 to Madden 2005 on the playstation/xbox is a prime example of that growth and innovation (at the standard new game fee, sometimes even 60% less than the standard new game fee). This was during a time where QB Club, Fever, Gameday, Blitz, and several other NFL video game products were on the market. These studios added features, new content, new technology, etc. while reducing prices in order to gain market share (and thus, more sales). Since EA strong armed those products out of business, there's no longer any reason to aggressively provide new content and features (no market share to gain). EA owns the market, and loyal fans who don't have an alternative are the ones fronting the bill. You think it's an accident/coincidence that we're complaining about the same bugs and shallow game modes for a half a decade now? When they do add something we can get psyched about, it comes packaged with a nickel-and-dime business model. It's baffling to me, that people on this forum, don't see how much the football gaming genre has eroded single handedly by EAs anti-consumer business moves. Most people who empathize with this point of view have been banned/filtered out from this site over the last half decade (ive been lurking here since the sites inception). If you're pro EA, you're considered "behaving". So it doesn't surprise me to see the people who are upset with this news easily outnumbered by the EA stock owners on this site (if they dont own stock in EA they need counseling for the length they will go to defend the company).

But I'm not arguing that its good that EA has a monopoly, or that the games are better now than they were, actually, I haven't argued against anything you mentioned in this post... I'm arguing that I'm ok with paying for these particular web-enabled features. That's all. And those specifically because I understand what added costs go into running web services.

[mattbooty]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

See this analogy highlights an issue. They switched up the definition of "base product." The base product used to be the game and the full set of features. Now the base product is a partial set. Now some features are "bonus" or "add-ons" If you want the full set you have to pre-order from a certain store or purchase DLC. If my cell phone company or cable provider ever tried to pull that then yes, absolutely I would have a problem with it. I would probably go buy from someone else and try to get a better deal.

But the cell companies and cable providers already "pull this". In the examples I gave. They have a base product and then add-on services on top of that.

These web features are NEW features.... they were never part of the base product. If last year you could sim and advance from the web for free and then THIS year they started charging for it, then I would agree with you 100%. If it is a new feature that has never been part of the base product before then it hasn't been established yet.

Verizon just came out with 4G. If you want it, you pay more than you did for 3G. At one time text messaging was a new feature. When it came out it was decided it would be an add-on (or part of a more expensive package). Same here. This is a new feature. you say you aren't getting a "fully featured" product... if you buy a verizon phone and don't pay for every single add-on they sell then by your definition you are not getting a "fully featured" product there either, or directv, or whatever. So you say you would be against them if they started doing it, but I have news for you, they already are. This is no different. If you buy an new handset at verizon and have the cheapest plan they offer do you feel they are obligated to provide you with every new service that gets released (4g, visual voicemail, texting when it was new, etc) at no charge?

Again, I stress, this is a NEW feature. If, as you are insinuating, they took an EXISTING feature and yanked it out and started charging for it, I would be right there with you. And on top of that this is a new feature that will add ongoing costs to EA, not like any built-in HDR, road to glory, etc feature that only costs development time.

You mention features that you only get if you pre-order from a certain store. I'm not talking about those. I'm specifically talking about these web-enabled features.

[mike24forever]

Quote: Originally Posted by poopoop

Well for starters that's not even what I said. I said people who justify it and say it's worth purchasing (meaning they're probably going to buy it) is for all intents and purposes the same as being happy with it. Second I do take some issue with people going out and buying it because I believe that will make it more likely for EA to introduce more micro transactions in the future. Especially if enough people buy this DLC to make it a "success" in EA's eyes. That being said I'm not going to tell people how to spend their money, do what you want. I have a much bigger issue with the people who want to constantly defend it and in some cases try to argue why it's a good thing.

Just face the fact that this is the direction that video game publishers are going. It's not just EA that does this.

It blows my mind how much people cry over all of this. They take it SO personally. I am not defending EA or saying that I am going to buy their DLC, however stop acting like EA is the only company that does this.

[It Must Be The Shoes]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

But I'm not arguing that its good that EA has a monopoly, or that the games are better now than they were, actually, I haven't argued against anything you mentioned in this post... I'm arguing that I'm ok with paying for these particular web-enabled features. That's all. And those specifically because I understand what added costs go into running web services.

Admittedly, other than maybe the first paragraph, I wasn't speaking directly to you. Either way, why would ANYBODY (in their right mind at least) be "ok" with paying for something that would otherwise be included in the fee of the game if not for a monopoly?

[roadman]

Quote: Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes

Either way, why would ANYBODY (in their right mind at least) be "ok" with paying for something that would otherwise be included in the fee of the game if not for a monopoly?

A. Monopoly was never the subject of the thread, therefore it's taking it off topic, and it usually goes down a slippery slope once it does.(I'm sure you are aware of that with your previous lurking experience and known banning s, which is also off topic.)

B. Other games in this genre don't have a monopoly and they are charging for extra features that are not in the full game.