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

# 121 4solo @ 05/27/11 11:09 AM

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

But by the same token, you don't have to buy the dlc or the game. So you keep creating this false entitlement. If you don't buy it won't effect you.

# 122 Colt45 @ 05/27/11 11:12 AM

Why don't you just look at the features of the $60 game and decide whether it is worth the purchase or not?

# 123 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	I'm tired of people talking about how they are getting taking advantage of. You can't be taken advantage of for things that are luxury. To not feel ripped off all you have to do is DON'T BUY THE GAME! No one forcing you to. Now if its something like gas prices, which can almost be consider something essential, then all these arguments would hold true but for something that you are chosing to buy.... C'mon Man.

I'm a big NCAA and NFL fan. I am a huge sports gaming fan as well. I've bought EA games since way back and even though some games were wack or had broken features and half the time the game wouldn't work correctly until 6 months down the line I never complained or wanted a refund.

If I want to play an NCAA or NFL game I HAVE TO BUY an EA Sports product since they bought out the competition with all of your guys' microtransaction profits. I have no other option, so in essense, it is essential.

All I and many others are saying is don't promote new features and then tell me I have to pay for them. Also, don't charge me for options or "features" that should be in the game to begin with, like uniforms and stadiums. And if you ARE going to charge for those, at least make sure they are 100% accurate.

# 124 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	But by the same token, you don't have to buy the dlc or the game. So you keep creating this false entitlement. If you don't buy it won't effect you.

You don't find it ridiculous for the consumer who is buying these games every year for $60 to have to pay extra for a feature that the dev team took time and money out of normal game development to create?

You're telling me that none of the profits or revenue from the $60 anyone pays for the game goes to pay for this online dynasty feature? It's all covered by the DLC that people will pay?

That's another part of the issue, it's not entitlement, it's wanting the best game for $60 that you can get. Rather than spend that extra time refining and testing their game and improving gameplay we'll get the same shlop on day one that we always get and something will be broken for months after we, the $60 consumer, pay for it and test it. I can't believe that people are okay with this.

This is TOTALLY different than map packs and episodes or chapter add ons. We are basically already paying $60 each year for the NCAA/Madden "map pack".

# 125 Dame @ 05/27/11 11:22 AM

Are the people who are mad at this only mad because they feel this is open a pathway to charge for other things in the future(which is understandable) or are y'all mad because y'all want to use this option but don't want to pay for it.

I'm just trying to figure out people arguments. I understand people mad because EA didnt say it was a fee at first I just wonder why the debate is going on for so long

This reminds me of Apps for your Iphone or Droid they usually offer an app for free but if you want to do something extra they charge you for a different version yea they could offer it for free but for whatever reason they charge.

# 126 4solo @ 05/27/11 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	I'm a big NCAA and NFL fan. I am a huge sports gaming fan as well. I've bought EA games since way back and even though some games were wack or had broken features and half the time the game wouldn't work correctly until 6 months down the line I never complained or wanted a refund.

I'm yearly purchaser too (since 95) but if its one I don't like I get mad but at the end of the day I realize I don't have to but it every year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If I want to play an NCAA or NFL game I HAVE TO BUY an EA Sports product since they bought out the competition with all of your guys' microtransaction profits. I have no other option, so in essense, it is essential.

Key words. Still the fact remain you don't have to if you don't want too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	All I and many others are saying is don't promote new features and then tell me I have to pay for them. Also, don't charge me for options or "features" that should be in the game to begin with, like uniforms and stadiums. And if you ARE going to charge for those, at least make sure they are 100% accurate.

See 4 post up.

# 127 4solo @ 05/27/11 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by poopoop


	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.

But to be fair all of EA's DLC with the exception of the $15 for commishs to host multi OD, have be very reasonable comapred to the rest of the industry.

But just cuz they charge for DLC doesn't mean people have to buy it.

# 128 4solo @ 05/27/11 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justblaze09


	Some of you get it and some of you don't. Like the some who do get it (and I'm not talking about people defending why EA is charging for a premium) vote with your money and don't pay for it. Period. If your running one OD, then let your OD know that I don't think it's worth my 3 or 7 dollars to advance from the computer. Then wash your hands with it. Everyone who said something of the "I'll vote with my money" has said that and kept it moving.

I agree 100%

# 129 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 12:15 PM

I'm coming in late to the game on this thread, but I've posted in similar threads over the last week.

The one major point that hasn't really been mentioned yet in this thread is that web-enabled content requires ONGOING server/infrastructure costs to keep running. These are costs that increase proportionally to the number of people who use the feature. It doesn't cost EA any additional money if 1,000 or 1,000,000 people buy NCAA 12... but it is a significant difference if 1% or 50% of those use the web-enabled features and those costs are ongoing, it is not a one time deal.

These are not features they had to add to the game to be competitive (as there is no competition) or sell more copies (as mostly only hardcore fans want this feature and 99% of them are buying the game anyways). They did it because the hardcore fan was clamoring for it (which was noted in the article in OP). The only way they were going to add these features was to find a way to offset the server costs they would need to add to support them (with development costs on top of that but infrastructure costs alone justify this).

I do not believe we are looking at a question of do they offer these web-features as paid DLC or free, I think it is more do they offer them as paid DLC or not at all. A VERY small % of consumers (if any) will buy the game strictly because of these particular features, so considering the additional costs to support them these features are a money pit. Without recouping some money on them, what possible motivation could EA have to add them in?

Yes, EA has to improve the product each year to keep consumers interested, and (taking the "business" part out of it) just as payback to their loyal fanbase. And they have done that with dozens of new features this year that you get right out of the box for your $60. The key is that the costs to develop those features end the day the game goes gold (with the exception of possible future patches, but that is just part of every game's life-cycle these days). HDR isn't going to keep costing them money after the game is gold so there is no added costs for it.

I can understand the argument about alternate uniforms and similar items (although I personally don't use them so have no real care one way or another on those), but the web-enabled features I have no problem with the added charge, and I don't believe we get those features without the charge so if I have to choose between $7 or not having the feature at all I'll pay.

# 130 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrJ2006


	That's fine, you still get to test it yourself before you spend your money, where all other DLC you have to buy it, and if you don't like it, oh well. No refunds.

What exactly am I supposed to be thankful for testing here? To see if the advance from a remote location actually works? I know what the feature is, does, and will do. It's simply a marketing tactic, the fact you think it's to test is a joke.

# 131 4solo @ 05/27/11 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	You don't find it ridiculous for the consumer who is buying these games every year for $60 to have to pay extra for a feature that the dev team took time and money out of normal game development to create? You're telling me that none of the profits or revenue from the $60 anyone pays for the game goes to pay for this online dynasty feature? It's all covered by the DLC that people will pay? That's another part of the issue, it's not entitlement, it's wanting the best game for $60 that you can get. Rather than spend that extra time refining and testing their game and improving gameplay we'll get the same shlop on day one that we always get and something will be broken for months after we, the $60 consumer, pay for it and test it. I can't believe that people are okay with this. This is TOTALLY different than map packs and episodes or chapter add ons. We are basically already paying $60 each year for the NCAA/Madden "map pack".

Once you pay $60 you get your disc. That $60 now belongs to the company to spend how ever they see fit. When you pay $60 you are not paying for future copies of the game you are paying for the current version. So if you don't like that current version then don't buy it. See the problem is that people feel that b/c the buy the game every year they are "investing in EA". But your are not. Your $60 does not make you a share holder. You chose to trade money for the product they currently provide. B/c you spend $60 that doesn't entitle you to determine how they make future products. Again if you don't like what they are doing in the future then as a consumer you respond by not giving them your money.

# 132 NDAlum @ 05/27/11 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattbooty


	I'm coming in late to the game on this thread, but I've posted in similar threads over the last week. The one major point that hasn't really been mentioned yet in this thread is that web-enabled content requires ONGOING server/infrastructure costs to keep running. These are costs that increase proportionally to the number of people who use the feature. It doesn't cost EA any additional money if 1,000 or 1,000,000 people buy NCAA 12... but it is a significant difference if 1% or 50% of those use the web-enabled features and those costs are ongoing, it is not a one time deal. These are not features they had to add to the game to be competitive (as there is no competition) or sell more copies (as mostly only hardcore fans want this feature and 99% of them are buying the game anyways). They did it because the hardcore fan was clamoring for it (which was noted in the article in OP). The only way they were going to add these features was to find a way to offset the server costs they would need to add to support them (with development costs on top of that but infrastructure costs alone justify this). I do not believe we are looking at a question of do they offer these web-features as paid DLC or free, I think it is more do they offer them as paid DLC or not at all. A VERY small % of consumers (if any) will buy the game strictly because of these particular features, so considering the additional costs to support them these features are a money pit. Without recouping some money on them, what possible motivation could EA have to add them in? Yes, EA has to improve the product each year to keep consumers interested, and (taking the "business" part out of it) just as payback to their loyal fanbase. And they have done that with dozens of new features this year that you get right out of the box for your $60. The key is that the costs to develop those features end the day the game goes gold (with the exception of possible future patches, but that is just part of every game's life-cycle these days). HDR isn't going to keep costing them money after the game is gold so there is no added costs for it. I can understand the argument about alternate uniforms and similar items (although I personally don't use them so have no real care one way or another on those), but the web-enabled features I have no problem with the added charge, and I don't believe we get those features without the charge so if I have to choose between $7 or not having the feature at all I'll pay.

Well stated sir

# 133 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 12:38 PM

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.

The price went up to $60 per game from $50 IIRC during this jump to next-gen (360 & PS3). Gameplay quality went down compared to older games, specifically the ones you were talking about on NES, SNES. And you think the budgets went up for no reason? They went up because the gaming industry blew up, what was once for just children or geeks is now marketed and purchased by children, young adults and mature adults as well. If you think the revenue for these games hasn't increased at the same or a better rate than what they are spending on these games then you are insane. That is a LAME excuse. Basically you are saying games should be or will be $64.99 + (without DLC) because magazines and websites say it. They say it because that's what the gaming companies want to perpetuate through the media.

Quote:


	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.

If you don't think next-gen games will be $70 no matter what happens with DLC then I have some land to sell you on Mars.

[quote]

# 134 coogrfan @ 05/27/11 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 4solo


	But to be fair all of EA's DLC with the exception of the $15 for commishs to host multi OD, have be very reasonable compared to the rest of the industry.

Note that the cost for this will drop for NCAA 12 to $6.99 (up to 5 OD's, includes both the advance OD and sim online entitlements).

# 135 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	You don't find it ridiculous for the consumer who is buying these games every year for $60 to have to pay extra for a feature that the dev team took time and money out of normal game development to create?

The web features are a different skillset, its more likely they brought in a separate team to develop those. I find it very unlikely that they (for instance) went to the guy improving cornerback logic and yanked him off of that to develop the web-enabled features. It is very unlikely that the development of these features affected what other features everyone gets in any way. With or without these features you are getting the same game for your $60.

# 136 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Senator Stone


	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.

What if I want to do 2 dynasties because, you know, some of us have 2 or more groups of friends who contribute to the millions in revenue they receive every year for these games?

# 137 coogrfan @ 05/27/11 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	What exactly am I supposed to be thankful for testing here? To see if the advance from a remote location actually works? I know what the feature is, does, and will do. It's simply a marketing tactic, the fact you think it's to test is a joke.

I'm fairly sure he was referring to the sim online entitlement. Being able to test drive it for a week before buying is undeniably a good thing.

# 138 kbmnm247 @ 05/27/11 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevj349


	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.

lol you must be trolling now.

THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT WE ARE TELLING YOU. Yes, NHL 2k started to take from some of their revenue and was a better game than NHL and so EA Sports overhauled their franchise and created what is a GREAT game, I'll admit that now. Using the sticks the way they did was revolutionary and an awesome feature that they only did because 2K was cutting into their market and starting to pass them. It's the same thing they've done with FIFA, since PES was starting to gain on them. Is it coincidence that the games with direct competition who were doing well are now the best EA Sports has to offer and the ones with no competition have game breaking bugs and take 6 months to actually work correctly EVERY SINGLE year?

# 139 coogrfan @ 05/27/11 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	What if I want to do 2 dynasties because, you know, some of us have 2 or more groups of friends who contribute to the millions in revenue they receive every year for these games?

The "advance dynasty" entitlement is included in the $6.99 fee that will be required to commish multiple OD's this time around.

If you don't want to commish more than one dynasty at a time, the $2.99 option is the way to go. Note that this is a one-time fee good for the life of NCAA 12 (so it can apply to multiple dynasties, just not at the same time).

# 140 mattbooty @ 05/27/11 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kbmnm247


	If you think the revenue for these games hasn't increased at the same or a better rate than what they are spending on these games then you are insane. That is a LAME excuse.

Its proven that games actually cost less today based on inflation dollars than they did 10 or 20 years ago, and it is also proven that games cost much more to produce than they did 10 or 20 years ago. Granted, companies are selling much higher quantities so that even at a lower profit margin they are still making money. But as most all other consumer goods are raising in price close to the level of inflation games have actually come down in price (based on inflation). So yes eventually something is going to have to give, whether that is added revenue via DLC or raising the costs of games.

« Previous 1 2…4 5 678 9 10…21 22 Next »

More Links

New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12