NCAA Football 12 News Post

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

08:13 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

# 221 bkrich83 @ 05/27/11 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NDAlum


	BK, you and your sense of reason have no place in this thread sir. Good day!

I know what was I thinking??

Strategy over SKILLZ 4 LIFE!!

# 222 roadman @ 05/27/11 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	Well seeing as EA will measure the success/failure of this based on how many people buy it...Arguing why it's justified and saying that it's worth purchasing might as well be saying you're happy about it. At the very least supporting it.

So, why does it concern you that people support it while they don't buy it.

Who cares? To each their own, right?

I'm fine with people who are against the whole thing and expressing their opinion, but to disagree with people who support the extra feature and have the option of buying it or not shouldn't bother others, either.

# 223 poopoop @ 05/27/11 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadman


	So, why does it concern you that people support it while they don't buy it. Who cares? To each their own, right? I'm fine with people who are against the whole thing and expressing their opinion, but to disagree with people who support the extra feature and have the option of buying it or not shouldn't bother others, either.

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.

# 224 roadman @ 05/28/11 12:18 AM

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.

You did say, at the very least supporting it. I support the cause, but won't buy into the effort. That's what I thought you meant.

I really don't feel that a great percentage of people will purchase the extra commodity, but I could be wrong. This is to only offset the cost of maintaining the servers which EA provides.

I don't really think it's as big as a deal as some people are making it out to be. Hard to predict the future when we don't know anything about the present.

# 225 poopoop @ 05/28/11 12:33 AM

To be fair you don't even know what the cause is.

None of us have access to EA's budget details. We don't know how much these features cost to implement/maintain and how they change EA's ability to make a profit on this game. You can't say with any certainty that this DLC is necessary to offset the costs. You can assume that the costs of implementing these are so great that EA "had" to charge for it, but you don't know.

All I know for certain is EA has no direct competition, largely because of actions they took to make it that way. That leads me 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. That belief is only strengthened when I see them start offering game features as DLC. And I'm not going to give them the benefit of the doubt based on their past history with microtransactions.

We know what happened years ago when another company forced them to lower prices while still giving us the same amount of content.

# 226 jeremym480 @ 05/28/11 03:02 AM

The last thing I have to say about it is that Dynasty Wire, the ability to advance my dynasty and call plays/super sim from a computer are the types of things that I dreamed about when I thought about Next-Gen gaming. It's easily.... EASILY the most innovated feature ever in a video game and it's not even close, IMO.

For someone to say that they don't think that EA hasn't accrued additional cost by adding this and maintaining their servers is pretty ignorant. Those cost cut into their bottom line so you're damn straight that they have every right to charge for them. The funny thing is it's actually going to cost less this year to commish multiple dynasties and have the supersim feature than it did last year. Yet I haven't seen any of the naysayers give EA props for that

Honestly, I have yet to see a single good reason as to why EA shouldn't charge for this commodity... Most of the complaints in this thread are the classic "straw man" comparisons / "the sky is falling" post. Seems to me like people just want services for nothing. Hell, I'd like free texting on my cell phone, free premium channels with my basic cable and all the toppings that I want for the price of a regular frozen yogurt but, that's not how the world works. So like I said, with that I'm out. The agenda's and/or sense of entitlement has been entertaining though.

# 227 poopoop @ 05/28/11 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremym480


	The funny thing is it's actually going to cost less this year to commish multiple dynasties and have the supersim feature than it did last year. Yet I haven't seen any of the naysayers give EA props for that

I have an issue with them charging period. So no I'm not going to give them props for charging less, they are still charging. Even so, had they charged the same amount this year I'm sure you'd still be here defending it anyway.

I honestly don't understand the need to defend it. Don't know if it's people just justifying/rationalizing their eventual purchase. Some sort of loyalty to EA. Or something else. Should be demanding more for your money.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremym480


	Seems to me like people just want services for nothing.

No not for nothing. For the amount we pay when we buy the game.

# 228 roadman @ 05/28/11 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	I honestly don't understand the need to defend it. Don't know if it's people just justifying/rationalizing their eventual purchase. Some sort of loyalty to EA. Or something else. Should be demanding more for your money.

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)

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.

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.

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.

# 229 mattbooty @ 05/28/11 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	No not for nothing. For the amount we pay when we buy the game.

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?

# 230 poopoop @ 05/28/11 11:34 AM

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.

# 231 poopoop @ 05/28/11 11:44 AM

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.

# 232 mattbooty @ 05/28/11 12:14 PM

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.

# 233 mattbooty @ 05/28/11 12:23 PM

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.

# 234 mike24forever @ 05/28/11 12:29 PM

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.

# 235 roadman @ 05/28/11 12:46 PM

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.

# 236 poopoop @ 05/28/11 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	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.

I'm not insinuating anything. The base product used to include the new features they added yearly. Now it no longer does. That's the issue. It'd be one thing if their model was to always charge extra for new features that hadn't been in the game before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ms24forever


	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.

Partially because people are willing to deal with it. Of course companies are gonna charge for DLC when people just shrug their shoulders, say "hey it's like a cellphone!" and buy it.

# 237 roadman @ 05/28/11 12:59 PM

[quote=It Must Be The Shoes;2042439291

We're specifically speaking about licensed football gaming products in this thread (this is a football gaming forum).

Prior to EAs monopoly, there were competing products providing web integration in licensed football gaming products. Not only was this extra server-based feature included in the cost of the purchase of the game, but the game in mention was only $20.00.[/QUOTE]

Please show me where in the thread topic we are discussing about licensed football gaming products.

I only see a few people toss that word around.

# 238 roadman @ 05/28/11 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes


	The fact that there's a monopoly is pertinent, and very directly related to the subject of the thread: "new features aren't all free in ncaa football 12". When there was no monopoly, similar features were all-inclusive. Now that there is a monopoly, we're forced to pay extra for them.

If you say so, go for it.

You evaded point B.

# 239 roadman @ 05/28/11 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes


	It's a term I am using personally to provide context and clarity regarding the subject which is being discussed here: "New features aren't all free in ncaa football 12". I don't entirely see the point of you making special mention of it, though.

I'm just saying when the word is used around here, closings of thread usually happen and banning's begin.

Enter at your own risk.

# 240 bkrich83 @ 05/28/11 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by It Must Be The Shoes


	So I am going to be banned for using the term: licensed football gaming products What is this, a Nazi concentration camp?

Yes comparing rules on a forum to a regime that literally killed tens of millions of people is quite appropriate. Good analogy..

« Previous 1 2…9 10 111213 14 15…21 22 Next »

More Links

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12