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

# 81 Three Seed @ 05/26/11 06:48 PM

I didn't read through all 8 pages but the only reason any of this bothers me is that we don't hear it from EA. When EA is telling us about these features they should mention that you have to pay for it. They're very reasonably price this time (in my opinion), but I still have a problem with the deception. If no price is mentioned, we're going to assume it's free. Just be honest with us.

# 82 jeremym480 @ 05/26/11 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Three Seed


	I didn't read through all 8 pages but the only reason any of this bothers me is that we don't hear it from EA. When EA is telling us about these features they should mention that you have to pay for it. They're very reasonably price this time (in my opinion), but I still have a problem with the deception. If no price is mentioned, we're going to assume it's free. Just be honest with us.

To be fair, I believe that it was originally accidentally revealed during one of their showings with IGN. Once they came out and officially announced it we were told the price. But, like I've said before this shouldn't have been touted as a "new feature" to the game but, rather PDLC. Sort of how The Show 11 did with "Advanced Stats". That was their only mistake, IMO.

# 83 UniversityofArizona @ 05/26/11 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cardot


	People love to whine. Every company looks to maximize profits. That is Capitalism which many like to tout....until it is actually at work. If you think the cost of the game plus the add-ons that you "need" aren't worth it, then don't buy it. If enough people feel the same, then EA will have to change. Economics at work. But you aren't as entitled as you think you are, and EA doesn't owe you Jack.

True point about capitalism. On the flip side though as you pointed out consumers are given the right in a capitalist society to try and pressure changes from businesses through boycott's, investing less frequently, or by offering a willingness to pay more if the changes are made. Business has to provide a product people want after all though I freely admit few if any people will not find cause enough in this not to buy the game when they had been intending to buy it before. Neither side is entitled, but generally the better business model is pleasing the consumer.

Also, the issue of this being capitalism at work is currently being debated in court. Charging more because you have a monopoly in the market is not part of the investment and competition driven capitalist way of doing things that we supposedly pride ourselves on.

Personally, I think they have every right to charge more for DLC or for the game in general. I would like to see more competition in the NCAA football market though that would keep some of these charges in line, or from getting out of hand, but that is for the courts to decide along with the NCAA.

# 84 ODogg @ 05/26/11 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	Good to see kotaku speak out against this. Someone has to, because apparently a lot of people enjoy being charged more. Hopefully more gaming sites do so in the future.

No, some people enjoy being given a CHOICE whether or not to pay more. The alternative is to simply raise the cost of the game for everyone, then you have no choice..

# 85 poopoop @ 05/26/11 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ODogg


	No, some people enjoy being given a CHOICE whether or not to pay more. The alternative is to simply raise the cost of the game for everyone, then yo haven choice..

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.

# 86 KSUowls @ 05/26/11 09:27 PM

I don't accept the "that is the norm now" mentality. It's becoming the norm because people are allowing it.

I probably won't end up using either tool as I tend to play mostly offline, and I don't have a problem with them charging a $3 fee to access all the internet tools. Like many others though, I have a problem with them basically charging an additional fee to use it.

I actually like DLC in many cases as they tend to re-fresh a game that has been out for a while. I despise this current trend of releasing DLC the day/week of release though. If worked on it, it seemed like a good feature, and had time to install it onto the game at release then it better be included in the $60 price tag you are charging people to buy it. Paid DLC should come at a later date as something that is something that is an extra service the developers provided to you.

I also tend to agree with the quote in the article about listening to your fanbase and then when you implement that feature you charge them for it.

# 87 Bullet Sponge @ 05/26/11 09:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevj349


	EA doesn't own NCAA football rights, only Madden. There are other football games. Backbreaker, Blitz, not all are new but they are there and could be made. Don't blame EA for making a good game that no one else can compete with. The market is too small for someone to make another NCAA game. I'm not saying you can swap NCAA out for just any game, but you can look for an alternative. I like the Beatles, it is too expensive so I look for something similar, or just try to find something else I like.

Wrong. EA has an exclusivity deal with the NCAA and is the only company that can produce a college football game using the actual teams.

# 88 BlackBetty15 @ 05/26/11 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Giants4Natic


	People do not realize this day in age that DLC is going to be prominent in most games going forward. Why? Because companies are tired of people trading in games and having most people get it cheaper used then paying retail price. This will put a hamper on buying used games if you want to get the full affect of what the game offers. Those buying it used will have to pay $10 for online pass and extra to get the perks which then comes out to companies not losing money to those buying it used.

thing is with the track record of EA and their football games, while it is getting better, they havent really earned the right to charge customers for features that should have been in long ago anyways. NBA2K series canafford stunts like this simply because we know the product will deliver. We dont know what and if the features will work as advertised and really how in depth the feature is as to whether it will be worth paying extra for. If EA is gonna start doing this then they need to put their money where their mouth is and charge what NFL2K5 did for their game which was $20, then do all their micro trans actions...seems like a rip off to pay extra on top of $60 for basically unknowns

# 89 ODogg @ 05/26/11 10:50 PM

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?

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	Trying to frame it as if DLC saves us money is lol, that's not the point of DLC at all.

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.

# 90 Senator Stone @ 05/26/11 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBetty15


	thing is with the track record of EA and their football games, while it is getting better, they havent really earned the right to charge customers for features that should have been in long ago anyways. NBA2K series canafford stunts like this simply because we know the product will deliver. We dont know what and if the features will work as advertised and really how in depth the feature is as to whether it will be worth paying extra for. If EA is gonna start doing this then they need to put their money where their mouth is and charge what NFL2K5 did for their game which was $20, then do all their micro trans actions...seems like a rip off to pay extra on top of $60 for basically unknowns

Really? The ability to super sim from the internet should have been put in a long time ago? Give me a freakin' break. Once you pay your $60, you can still do an online dynasty for exactly $0. You can still sim those games for exactly $0. And you can still advance weeks for exactly $0.

Charging extra for the ability to do some of this stuff from your PC is more than fine in my book. To me, it's like buying a PC game and expecting to be able to access certain extras on your PS3 or 360 for free.

# 91 BlackBetty15 @ 05/26/11 11:45 PM

Wasnt really talking about the supersim feature as to I dont use that. i am talking about any features that have been announced thusfar. I mena I havent really been following the list of stuff that could be micro trans, but the stuff with dynasty and rosters are my main worries. All the online ammenities that please the fantasy leagues I understand, as long as offline features arent charged extra for.

# 92 Senator Stone @ 05/27/11 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackBetty15


	Wasnt really talking about the supersim feature as to I dont use that. i am talking about any features that have been announced thusfar. I mena I havent really been following the list of stuff that could be micro trans, but the stuff with dynasty and rosters are my main worries. All the online ammenities that please the fantasy leagues I understand, as long as offline features arent charged extra for.

I guess I don't see your point. They'll never charge for rosters, because that's simply not feasible, and dynasty is part of the meat and potatoes of the game.

# 93 poopoop @ 05/27/11 12:04 AM

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.

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.

# 94 kevj349 @ 05/27/11 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scooby803


	And how is it irrelevant? It's almost the exact same situation but with different features...

The features you were talking about are in game. The features I'm talking about are on a computer. If I'm missing a comanality please direct me.

# 95 kevj349 @ 05/27/11 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bullet Sponge


	Wrong. EA has an exclusivity deal with the NCAA and is the only company that can produce a college football game using the actual teams.

I thought it ran out last year? Anyone have a source to say if they renewed it?

# 96 roadman @ 05/27/11 12:28 AM

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?

# 97 kevj349 @ 05/27/11 12:40 AM

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.

# 98 Senator Stone @ 05/27/11 12:42 AM

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.

# 99 kevj349 @ 05/27/11 12:52 AM

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?

# 100 Senator Stone @ 05/27/11 01:00 AM

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

« Previous 1 2 3 456 7 8 9…21 22 Next »

More Links

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12