NCAA Football 12 News Post

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

09:13 AM - May 26, 2011 by Steve_OS

Kotaku's Owen Good chimes in with some of his thoughts surrounding the latest micro-transactions to make their way into NCAA Football 12.

Quote:


	There may not be any optimal time to tell gamers about all the microtransactions and DLC for which they can expect to pay extra in an upcoming release. But the official reveal of a game's main features -- the stuff folks expect to come with the $59.99 retail price -- would probably be the least optimal.

Game: NCAA Football 12Reader Score: 7/10 - Vote Now
Platform: PS3 / Xbox 360Votes for game: 104 - View All

NCAA Football 12 Videos

Member Comments

# 181 kevj349 @ 05/27/11 04:18 PM

The only thing I have a problem with is this mentality that EA is evil and trying to suck the life out of everyone. It is a good talk aside from the fact that more than half the people come up with unbased claims and are just making things up. For every valid post there are two following just making things up.

# 182 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	I dislike EA Sports nickel and diming us and expanding that to different avenues of the game. I have a problem that the majority are fine with it. Pretty soon it'll be too late and I'll be saying I told ya so.

I see where you are coming from, but I really don't see this happening to that extent. I don't see any "I told you so" moment coming. Will there be more examples of DLC in the future? Absolutely. But I expect it to be more of what we are already seeing, add-ons to the base product. Obviously some people think its already gone too far, I'm not one of those and I don't expect that will happen and if it does, THEN I think you'll see sales drop off and when it proves a failure you'll see it stop.

In the meantime I'm not going to deny my own enjoyment of the game by refusing to buy an add-on I want just in case sometime down the road they start experimenting with more invasive DLC.

# 183 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	As in my previous post, I disagree that any of our money from last year's version went specifically into this year's version... It isn't like EA has a separate bank account and all the NCAA money goes in there and they say "we made $10 million off of NCAA 11 so that's how much we are spending on NCAA 12". Its totally different. They budget $XXX towards development of a game, which could shift somewhat based on the sales of the previous version, but for the most part the budget for NCAA 12 was set before NCAA 11 released. They know approximately how much they are going to make off each version before it ever comes out. I completely disagree with this whole concept that we somehow paid for NCAA 12 to get made and so we are entitled to a specific feature-set. It just doesn't work that way.

If no one in the world bought NCAA 11, I mean 0 people, do you think they'd make an NCAA 12?

If you answered yes, then your logic is fine and we did not have anything to do with NCAA 12.

If you answered no, then YES we pay for NCAA 12, and our proceeds from NCAA 12 will go towards NCAA 13 and so on and so on. The money doesn't just disappear. It pays payroll, and production, and is reinvested in next years version in some way. I figured this was common knowledge.

# 184 roadman @ 05/27/11 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	I don't even know what you are talking about with the bold statement. I went back and reread what you posted and what I posted in response, and then this quoted response and I still have no idea what you mean by it. What do you mean now it's more than just a $3 charge for me? I dislike EA Sports nickel and diming us and expanding that to different avenues of the game. I have a problem that the majority are fine with it. Pretty soon it'll be too late and I'll be saying I told ya so.

No, you mentioned about the license and just buying EA games used but then you need to pay $10.00 for online fee. yada, yada yada

No need to bring that subject into it when it's not on topic.

# 185 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	but they still want a fully featured game that they paid for.

Hehe, this is where you and I really don't see eye to eye. Nowhere on the NCAA 12 box (well... I assume so anyways, I haven't seen the box yet, EA could really screw me over on this one) does it say you are getting these web-enabled features as part of the box product, so they ARE getting the game they paid for. If these hypothetical people think they are getting them with their $60 it is THEY that are mistaken, and that's not EA's fault.

You can disagree with their decision to charge for these features but they aren't tricking anyone into buying one thing and getting another.

# 186 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	Yes they absolutely paid for the development of the web-enabled features, but there is no direct correlation between your NCAA 11 $60 and that getting done. Yes, I understand budgetting 100%. And yes, McDonald's needs to make money to stay in business, but you are not buying development time, you are buying a burger, plain and simple. McDonald's sets a price based on what they need to cover their costs and make a profit, but this isn't like the old "I pay your salary with my tax dollars" argument, you chose to buy a burger, you can't call up McDonalds and demand they change the way it tastes because you have some stake in their company having spent a few bucks there. Same with NCAA, you are entitled to nothing because you bought a previous game. That $60 bought you NCAA 11, there are no future guarantees.

How is money paid for NCAA 11 paying for the development of the NCAA 12 web features NOT a direct correlation? You basically said it yourself that it's a direct correlation, cmon man.

YOU ARE BUYING THE DEVELOPMENT TIME. What do you think happens with that? The companies just eat the costs of development as a loss? No. They price the burger at a price that they can get consumers and cover all of their costs (ALL OF THEIR COSTS) and still make profit. That's the whole point of budgeting, to set costs and create a profit from the end unit.

# 187 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If no one in the world bought NCAA 11, I mean 0 people, do you think they'd make an NCAA 12? If you answered yes, then your logic is fine and we did not have anything to do with NCAA 12. If you answered no, then YES we pay for NCAA 12, and our proceeds from NCAA 12 will go towards NCAA 13 and so on and so on. The money doesn't just disappear. It pays payroll, and production, and is reinvested in next years version in some way. I figured this was common knowledge.

Absolutely, if sales figures drop enough they'll stop making NCAA, absolutely, but you did not pay for NCAA 12. If I buy a 2011 Toyota Camry, I did not pay for the 2012 model also, regardless of where that money went...

Yes, I'm not stupid, I understand that money that is mine, when given to someone else, will then go on to do many wonderful things in the world, that does not mean I-ME-MYSELF paid for them. I pay interest on a mortgage every month, the bank takes my interest money and used that money to fund loans to hundreds/thousands/lots of other loans to a very diverse group who then uses that money to buy/build/develop lots of diverse items, just because someone down the line gets money that in theory once belonged to me does not mean I funded him.

If you give me money for some service/product/whatever, that money becomes mine. You have divorced yourself from it. From that moment on whatever I do with that money has nothing to do with you and you are in no way involved with where that money goes. You can't come to my house a year later and take my coffee maker or tell me what kind of coffee to make in it because some of the money you gave me may have eventually became the money that bought that coffee maker.

You act like we are stupid for not agreeing with your logic which IS making this debate go beyond a healthy discussion.

# 188 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	How is money paid for NCAA 11 paying for the development of the NCAA 12 web features NOT a direct correlation? You basically said it yourself that it's a direct correlation, cmon man. YOU ARE BUYING THE DEVELOPMENT TIME. What do you think happens with that? The companies just eat the costs of development as a loss? No. They price the burger at a price that they can get consumers and cover all of their costs (ALL OF THEIR COSTS) and still make profit. That's the whole point of budgeting, to set costs and create a profit from the end unit.

First of all, to make sure my quote is not taken out of context by someone reading this and not my original post, when I said "Yes they absolutely paid for the development of the web-enabled features, " I was referring to EA, not people who bought the game.

And no it is not a direct correlation because EA has set the budget for NCAA 12 before you even spent that $60. EA knows that the NCAA games are an established franchise... they know that NCAA football (the league, not the games) are a popular franchise... they knew before NCAA 11 dropped approximately how much sales they will see. Those actual numbers will do very little to change their budgeted amount until they see a large drop off in sales because they know market conditions affect the sales of this game more than the actual added features do. A majority of their audience won't even know what the new features are until they pick up the box in the checkout line.

YES EA needs to make a profit, and they cannot spend more MAKING the game than they get SELLING the game, but they were budgeting $XXX on NCAA 12 whether you personally bought the game or not, no one at EA saw you bought it and added another 60 bones to the development budget.

EA prices their game at $60 because that is the current market falue for xbox360 games, they in no way set that price specifically because of how NCAA 11 performed.

# 189 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coogrfan


	The items being offered are enhancements. It is entirely possible to play a fully featured online dynasty without purchasing either of the items in question.

If I can't advance from the web as is being promoted, it is not fully featured. Fully features means includes ALL features. In order to get to that point, I have to pay.

I'm surprised that there are so many on OS that eat this up.

# 190 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	Because unlike some folks here I understand what it takes to create these games, football specifically and I'd rather see them stay around and improve then let a overblown sense of entitlement run them into a no profit zone in which they are no longer made or made as an afterthought. I've seen it happen before with other of my favorite games and don't want to see it happen again. The DLC is a great way to keep the games profitable and give consumers choice. The bottom line here is that most of you who are against it are against it because of some scary distant reality that is highly unlikely to happen as opposed to what it's actually being used for now.

You do know they already charged for AFL uniforms right? How is that not "scary"? It creates a precedent that they can charge extra for some uniforms and that is fine.

They are making plenty of profit, trust me. So much so that they were able to blow over a billion dollars on licenses that have nothing to do with the actual game or more importantly the GAMEPLAY. They will not get into a non profit zone unless they totally screw up because these titles are cash cows every year with marginal improvements year to year.

If you really think these games, specifically, wouldn't be profitable without DLC then I have to chalk it up to EA because you ate it hook line and sinker.

# 191 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If I can't advance from the web as is being promoted, it is not fully featured. Fully features means includes ALL features. In order to get to that point, I have to pay. I'm surprised that there are so many on OS that eat this up.

If they are advertising that this can be done without also stipulating that there may be additional costs to do it, then yes that is wrong (and by advertising I don't mean some guy on IGN wrote an article saying you could do it).

I personally haven't seen that but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

# 192 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	Hehe, this is where you and I really don't see eye to eye. Nowhere on the NCAA 12 box (well... I assume so anyways, I haven't seen the box yet, EA could really screw me over on this one) does it say you are getting these web-enabled features as part of the box product, so they ARE getting the game they paid for. If these hypothetical people think they are getting them with their $60 it is THEY that are mistaken, and that's not EA's fault. You can disagree with their decision to charge for these features but they aren't tricking anyone into buying one thing and getting another.

The fact remains they are offering a new feature, and promoting it, and making you pay extra for it. At what point does that stop? Will we have to pay for new stat overlays? New cameras? What becomes an extra feature and what becomes an extra? The line is blurred at this point and EA will no doubt continue to walk that thin line, obviously.

Anyway,
http://www.ea.com/ncaa-football/blog/web-improvements it's in there and yes it says you'll have to pay for the advance feature because their earlier release on pasta padre's site (he's an EA guy nowadays) was promoting it and didn't mention having to pay. Most likely pasta didn't think you would have to pay so he posted that story and didn't think twice.

# 193 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	You do know they already charged for AFL uniforms right? How is that not "scary"? It creates a precedent that they can charge extra for some uniforms and that is fine. They are making plenty of profit, trust me. So much so that they were able to blow over a billion dollars on licenses that have nothing to do with the actual game or more importantly the GAMEPLAY. They will not get into a non profit zone unless they totally screw up because these titles are cash cows every year with marginal improvements year to year. If you really think these games, specifically, wouldn't be profitable without DLC then I have to chalk it up to EA because you ate it hook line and sinker.

Many, many games do require DLC to stay profitable, although I'm not convinced one way or another that the EA sports titles do (maybe they do maybe they don't, I don't have the proper info to say one way or another), as they are wildly popular games.

But it seems to me they are using a DLC price-tag to justify adding some features that the hardcore set are asking for without actually taking away from standard development. Clearly I have nothing to back this up, its just speculation and I'm not posting this as fact, but there is nothing that says they had to create AFL uniforms for Madden or these new web features for online dynasties, and its likely (especially with the previously mentioned ongoing costs with web content) that if they didn't have the idea to charge for them they just wouldn't have done them. These are features that really aren't selling any extra copies.

# 194 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	Absolutely, if sales figures drop enough they'll stop making NCAA, absolutely, but you did not pay for NCAA 12. If I buy a 2011 Toyota Camry, I did not pay for the 2012 model also, regardless of where that money went... Yes, I'm not stupid, I understand that money that is mine, when given to someone else, will then go on to do many wonderful things in the world, that does not mean I-ME-MYSELF paid for them. I pay interest on a mortgage every month, the bank takes my interest money and used that money to fund loans to hundreds/thousands/lots of other loans to a very diverse group who then uses that money to buy/build/develop lots of diverse items, just because someone down the line gets money that in theory once belonged to me does not mean I funded him. If you give me money for some service/product/whatever, that money becomes mine. You have divorced yourself from it. From that moment on whatever I do with that money has nothing to do with you and you are in no way involved with where that money goes. You can't come to my house a year later and take my coffee maker or tell me what kind of coffee to make in it because some of the money you gave me may have eventually became the money that bought that coffee maker. You act like we are stupid for not agreeing with your logic which IS making this debate go beyond a healthy discussion.

If you buy a 2011 Toyota you ARE paying for the production of the 2012 models. I'm not saying I paid for NCAA 12, I'm saying I, and you, and others who purchased NCAA 11 PAID for the production of NCAA 12, it's not debatable, it's strictly fact. So, if part of that production is this online feature, then yes, WE already paid for it. Now they just want extra profit from it because they apparently can get it.

You are right though, no it does not entitle you to the 2012 model. But I never said I was entitled to a free NCAA 12, that's why I would pay $60. Anyway comparing cars to video games is not the same because they are totally different.

# 195 Cardot @ 05/27/11 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	You do know they already charged for AFL uniforms right? How is that not "scary"? It creates a precedent that they can charge extra for some uniforms and that is fine.

So when you say "scary" your concern is that consumers will demonstrate that they are willing and happy to pay for DLC? And in a few years it will cost $80, $100 or more to play the game with all the features that you want?

# 196 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	The fact remains they are offering a new feature, and promoting it, and making you pay extra for it. At what point does that stop? Will we have to pay for new stat overlays? New cameras? What becomes an extra feature and what becomes an extra? The line is blurred at this point and EA will no doubt continue to walk that thin line, obviously. Anyway, http://www.ea.com/ncaa-football/blog/web-improvements it's in there and yes it says you'll have to pay for the advance feature because their earlier release on pasta padre's site (he's an EA guy nowadays) was promoting it and didn't mention having to pay. Most likely pasta didn't think you would have to pay so he posted that story and didn't think twice.

As long as they are promoting that you have to pay for it I don't see what is shady here (and no I do not count a leaked image on a website that only 1% of their audience saw before it was taken down as an EA promotion).

I think there is a HUGE difference between charging for web content vs stat overlays, which is pretty crucial to the game AND has been a feature in their games for years. This web content is a NEW feature.

And yes, by those lines I don't think it is totally outside of the realm to think they could offer a new camera angle as DLC down the road. But go into one of these broadcast cam threads and ask if given the choice between no broadcast cam and paying $3 and getting it and I bet you'd get a lot of people willing to drop that $3 (just a guess, could be wrong).

# 197 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 05:05 PM

I give up Matt. You are acting like I am saying I should get NCAA 12 for free because I paid for NCAA 11. I am not saying that at all.

You are also acting like I am saying I can pay for things and then come back and ask for my money back. I have no idea how you made such a leap in logic.

Maybe you could clear that up but currently it seems as if we are discussing two totally different things.

# 198 coogrfan @ 05/27/11 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If I can't advance from the web as is being promoted, it is not fully featured. Fully features means includes ALL features. In order to get to that point, I have to pay.

That statement is complete and utter nonsense, but given the shocking sense of entitlement that has oozed from every single post you have made in this thread, it's hardly a surprise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	I'm surprised that there are so many on OS that eat this up.

It's obvious that you are simply arguing for arguments sake at this point. I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge you further.

# 199 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardot


	So when you say "scary" your concern is that consumers will demonstrate that they are willing and happy to pay for DLC? And in a few years it will cost $80, $100 or more to play the game with all the features that you want?

No.

But it makes the developer lazy and greedy. They see they can charge for AFL Unis, so then they start taking out throwbacks that were always in the game and start charging for them. If EA made you pay for these Updated Uniforms/Stadiums that are shown included for NCAA 12, would you have a problem with that?

I don't care if it costs $0.50 or $50, in fact I'd rather it cost $50 since I wouldn't hear "it's only $.50, who cares.

It's not the monetary value, it's the principle of things.

# 200 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If you buy a 2011 Toyota you ARE paying for the production of the 2012 models. I'm not saying I paid for NCAA 12, I'm saying I, and you, and others who purchased NCAA 11 PAID for the production of NCAA 12, it's not debatable, it's strictly fact. So, if part of that production is this online feature, then yes, WE already paid for it. Now they just want extra profit from it because they apparently can get it. You are right though, no it does not entitle you to the 2012 model. But I never said I was entitled to a free NCAA 12, that's why I would pay $60. Anyway comparing cars to video games is not the same because they are totally different.

No you are not saying you are entitled to NCAA 12 for free, but you are making the point that because you "PAID for NCAA 12" you should be entitled to the web-enabled DLC for free... Am I wrong or isn't that part of the basis of your argument?

This is something we will just never agree on. You feel because you bought NCAA 11, you gave EA sports money (actually you gave gamestop/amazon/bestbuy/whatever money, who gave some distributor somewhere money, who gave EA money), and since ea spent money on NCAA 12, and ea SOMEWHERE has some of your money, that you paid for NCAA 12.

I disagree with that, all I did was buy NCAA 11... and actually mastercard bought it FOR me and then I gave them some money later to cover it.... so maybe mastercard should get some free DLC....

I also disagree with you saying something like this is "strict fact" as though by declaring it so it makes you right.

Yes cars and games are different, its just an analogy.

« Previous 1 2…7 8 91011 12 13…21 22 Next »

More Links

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12