EA: We aren’t trying to be a greedy ‘corporate beast’

Replies

  • CPMP
    974 posts Member
    edited February 2016
    Reddplague wrote: »

    From the same article :

    "First, let’s tackle the obvious: EA Access isn’t going to make a business model out of selling every $60 to $90 title that EA ships as a $5 all-you-can-play game. Given that game budgets have ballooned to the point that titles need to ship 3-5 million copies just to break even, EA Access would need a huge chunk of US households to subscribe to make up the difference.

    EA has shown no inclination to raise game prices, so we won’t be seeing $70 – $80 titles anytime soon. "


    BAM!! Galaxy of heroes pack 100euro! And it't not even a full game.
    EA please....
  • Ring
    559 posts Member
    CPMP wrote: »
    BAM!! Galaxy of heroes pack 100euro! And it't not even a full game.
    EA please....

    You're confusing two completely different things - the price of the game vs the cost of IGP. The only question is: are you doing it on purpose? Because if so, you're simply manipulating "facts" to suit your theory.

    You can buy a game for 5, 10 or 50$ and then spend another 500$ on in-game purchases. Does that mean the game cost you the original amount or a sum of both? You didn't have to buy the pack, it was an optional extra. But if we count both, then why not also count the electricity used to recharge your phone? You need that waaaay more than you need a character pack or something.

    I'm not saying EA are blameless in all this, but let's at least try to be a little bit objective here.
  • CPMP
    974 posts Member
    Ring wrote: »
    CPMP wrote: »
    BAM!! Galaxy of heroes pack 100euro! And it't not even a full game.
    EA please....

    You're confusing two completely different things - the price of the game vs the cost of IGP. The only question is: are you doing it on purpose? Because if so, you're simply manipulating "facts" to suit your theory.

    You can buy a game for 5, 10 or 50$ and then spend another 500$ on in-game purchases. Does that mean the game cost you the original amount or a sum of both? You didn't have to buy the pack, it was an optional extra. But if we count both, then why not also count the electricity used to recharge your phone? You need that waaaay more than you need a character pack or something.

    I'm not saying EA are blameless in all this, but let's at least try to be a little bit objective here.

    Once again you derailed from the OP's subject just to troll my post. It's becoming tiresome already.
  • Ring
    559 posts Member
    CPMP wrote: »
    Once again you derailed from the OP's subject just to troll my post. It's becoming tiresome already.

    I replied to your post. Keeping on-topic and being civil. Trying to exchange arguments, not insults. Can you please point out the "trolling" part of my post?
  • CPMP wrote: »
    Ring wrote: »
    CPMP wrote: »
    BAM!! Galaxy of heroes pack 100euro! And it't not even a full game.
    EA please....

    You're confusing two completely different things - the price of the game vs the cost of IGP. The only question is: are you doing it on purpose? Because if so, you're simply manipulating "facts" to suit your theory.

    You can buy a game for 5, 10 or 50$ and then spend another 500$ on in-game purchases. Does that mean the game cost you the original amount or a sum of both? You didn't have to buy the pack, it was an optional extra. But if we count both, then why not also count the electricity used to recharge your phone? You need that waaaay more than you need a character pack or something.

    I'm not saying EA are blameless in all this, but let's at least try to be a little bit objective here.

    Once again you derailed from the OP's subject just to troll my post. It's becoming tiresome already.

    Nothing Ring said was remotely trolling. You're pulling out Ad Hominems in lieu of an actual counter argument. The only tiresome thing here is the constant disingenuous pseudo-logic on these forums.
  • CPMP
    974 posts Member
    edited February 2016
    CPMP wrote: »
    Ring wrote: »
    CPMP wrote: »
    BAM!! Galaxy of heroes pack 100euro! And it't not even a full game.
    EA please....

    You're confusing two completely different things - the price of the game vs the cost of IGP. The only question is: are you doing it on purpose? Because if so, you're simply manipulating "facts" to suit your theory.

    You can buy a game for 5, 10 or 50$ and then spend another 500$ on in-game purchases. Does that mean the game cost you the original amount or a sum of both? You didn't have to buy the pack, it was an optional extra. But if we count both, then why not also count the electricity used to recharge your phone? You need that waaaay more than you need a character pack or something.

    I'm not saying EA are blameless in all this, but let's at least try to be a little bit objective here.

    Once again you derailed from the OP's subject just to troll my post. It's becoming tiresome already.

    Nothing Ring said was remotely trolling. You're pulling out Ad Hominems in lieu of an actual counter argument. The only tiresome thing here is the constant disingenuous pseudo-logic on these forums.

    What actual counter arguement? Have you both read the OP's post? There is a pic in the end of the post that shows Battlefield 4 and DLC costs. Battlefield 4 price doesn't get above 50$ like EA said, but with DLC's and maps the price gets way above 200$. So by releasing an "unfinished" game so it's price can be under 50$ and completing it later with DLC to increase the cost above 200$ is "EA tries to be good"?

    Same goes for mobiles. Why you thing every mobile game has energy/lives, that requires time to pass by in order to refill? And energy refills are offered at a shop for real money. And why every app that does that is marketed as "free"? How would you feel if they made the Battlefield 4 game "free" and then add energy/lives so you could only play 5 games and then you had to wait to play again or be forced to pay for live/energy refill?

    And don't get me started about the development resources that required on battlefield DLC's which are highly detailed maps and weapons and vehicles and Data about those stats, with an "allready existing hero that has been added to a pack and labeled it's cost 100$. A hero that the only thing it does is jump forward and do 1 animation. Are you seriously comparing the development resources between a game console game and a GoH pack?? The bf new map pack and vehicle pack are 15$ and a pack with 2 heroes is 100$! And after you buy it, you are still restricted by the energy "mechanic".

    And talking about "electricity" spent to charge your phone, isn't that trolling? I'm spending electricity to talk to forum from my PC so forums aren't free either? Is that what you say? And what this has anything to do about EA?

    It appears you don't understand how gaming industry works. They don't give mobile games for "free" out of their goodness of their heart. There are a bunch of marketing techniques involved on those. Are you familiar with Star Wars The old republic? After they droped their subscription model for the f2p they had x4 times more income. But that's insane right? How they made x4 times more since its free??? Or is it? The game still has a subscription and NOT f2p, Its more like a "demo". Like most f2p games are. And to lift restrictions you have again to pay subscription. But now because it's F2P, the game is full of cosmetics, unlocks, microtransactions and everything your mind can imagine, sold by real money from their in game shop. EA has been voted as the worst company because when it comes to money, they ll do everything for it.

    To sum it up, the real cost of the game is calculated by the developer resources wasted on it. Not by the "microtransactions" and neither by the time you spent to recharge your phone. If developers made GoH in 2 months, they'll get paid for 2 months. The rest money will go directly in EA's mouth.

    PS. Everything on this subject is explained on OP's link about EA and the user comments bellow. But why bother reading those. Let's make silly statements such as "the game cost depends on how many times you decide to buy the extra pack or how many times you charge your phone". Because these are forums afterall...and the purpose of them is not to reply to OP, but to start flamewars with other posters you hate...
  • Ring wrote: »
    CPMP wrote: »
    Once again you derailed from the OP's subject just to troll my post. It's becoming tiresome already.

    I replied to your post. Keeping on-topic and being civil. Trying to exchange arguments, not insults. Can you please point out the "trolling" part of my post?

    And that's where the problem starts. You replied to my post...
    OP posted a whole article which didn't even make you blink and you decided to commend on my 1 line reply that i posted for the OP.
    And why you have to exchange arguments with me and not the OP other than to start flamewars on forums? I do not wish to start arguments with anyone. If you have something to say about the OP's post, say it to the OP or reply to the commends on the link. By not even mentioning what OP posted and sticking to my 1 line reply, what does this have to say?
  • CPMP wrote: »
    What actual counter arguement? Have you both read the OP's post? There is a pic in the end of the post that shows Battlefield 4 and DLC costs.

    See, and this is where you're making the first mistake. You're confusing DLC with "shortcut packs". Let me explain. Take Assassin's Creed IV as an example. UbiSoft have released both DLC (Freedom Cry) and shortcut packs ("pay us 5$ and we'll show you thenlocation of all treasure on the map"). The same takes place in the case of Battlefield - you get DLC (new maps, new weapons) and "shortcuts" (immediate unlocks of "end-game" weapons and gadgets). While I can agree that you could count the price of the DLC towards the total price of the game, adding the cost of shortcuts is just wrong. And this is exactly what you did - you took the price of a SHORTCUT PACK and presented it as the price of the game. Hence my comment about manipulating facts. You don't need a shortcut pack to get this content. It's available for free. Yes, it may take a long time to unlock, but it IS possible to get Leia or Darth Maul without paying a dime. It is NOT possible to get content that is a part of a paid DLC for free.
    CPMP wrote: »
    So by releasing an "unfinished" game so it's price can be under 50$ and completing it later with DLC to increase the cost above 200$ is "EA tries to be good"?

    Nope. They're not. I'm not particularly happy (I'd use a different term here, but the forum would just censor it out) about what they did with Battlefront. But it is NOT the same thing as selling character packs for 100$.

    CPMP wrote: »
    Why you thing every mobile game has energy/lives, that requires time to pass by in order to refill? And energy refills are offered at a shop for real money.

    For the same reason they're offering shortcuts - because there are players out there who can afford to pay for it (and WILL pay for it). However, this, again, is NOT the price of the game.
    CPMP wrote: »
    And why every app that does that is marketed as "free"?

    Because it is free? I've been playing GoH for just under 2 months now. Haven't spent a dime on it. I'm top 100 on my server (or, sometimes, I drop down to top 200 if I don't have time to play the arena battles just before the refresh). This game does not require any payments to be made in order to be able to play. Thus, counting optional IAPs as the "price" of this game is just wrong.
    CPMP wrote: »
    And talking about "electricity" spent to charge your phone, isn't that trolling?

    No, it's not. It's pretty much the same thing you're doing - manipulating facts to prove that something costs more than it actually does.
    CPMP wrote: »
    It appears you don't understand how gaming industry works. They don't give mobile games for "free" out of their goodness of their heart.

    Of course. And yet you're the one who started complaining about the fact that EA charges money for character packs. So what exactly IS the point you're trying to make?

    CPMP wrote: »
    Everything on this subject is explained on OP's link about EA and the user comments bellow. But why bother reading those. Let's make silly statements such as "the game cost depends on how many times you decide to buy the extra pack or how many times you charge your phone".

    Let me just point out, once again, that it was YOU who made a comment that had very little to do with the OP. And it was that comment that I replied to. You confused two completely different things, claiming that they are one and the same, which resulted in my reply. It's that simple. If you don't like people responding to what you say, perhaps you shouldn't visit any forums? ;)
  • CPMP
    974 posts Member
    edited February 2016
    Ring wrote: »
    CPMP wrote: »
    What actual counter arguement? Have you both read the OP's post? There is a pic in the end of the post that shows Battlefield 4 and DLC costs.

    See, and this is where you're making the first mistake. You're confusing DLC with "shortcut packs". Let me explain. Take Assassin's Creed IV as an example. UbiSoft have released both DLC (Freedom Cry) and shortcut packs ("pay us 5$ and we'll show you thenlocation of all treasure on the map"). The same takes place in the case of Battlefield - you get DLC (new maps, new weapons) and "shortcuts" (immediate unlocks of "end-game" weapons and gadgets). While I can agree that you could count the price of the DLC towards the total price of the game, adding the cost of shortcuts is just wrong. And this is exactly what you did - you took the price of a SHORTCUT PACK and presented it as the price of the game. Hence my comment about manipulating facts. You don't need a shortcut pack to get this content. It's available for free. Yes, it may take a long time to unlock, but it IS possible to get Leia or Darth Maul without paying a dime. It is NOT possible to get content that is a part of a paid DLC for free.
    CPMP wrote: »
    So by releasing an "unfinished" game so it's price can be under 50$ and completing it later with DLC to increase the cost above 200$ is "EA tries to be good"?

    Nope. They're not. I'm not particularly happy (I'd use a different term here, but the forum would just censor it out) about what they did with Battlefront. But it is NOT the same thing as selling character packs for 100$.

    CPMP wrote: »
    Why you thing every mobile game has energy/lives, that requires time to pass by in order to refill? And energy refills are offered at a shop for real money.

    For the same reason they're offering shortcuts - because there are players out there who can afford to pay for it (and WILL pay for it). However, this, again, is NOT the price of the game.
    CPMP wrote: »
    And why every app that does that is marketed as "free"?

    Because it is free? I've been playing GoH for just under 2 months now. Haven't spent a dime on it. I'm top 100 on my server (or, sometimes, I drop down to top 200 if I don't have time to play the arena battles just before the refresh). This game does not require any payments to be made in order to be able to play. Thus, counting optional IAPs as the "price" of this game is just wrong.
    CPMP wrote: »
    And talking about "electricity" spent to charge your phone, isn't that trolling?

    No, it's not. It's pretty much the same thing you're doing - manipulating facts to prove that something costs more than it actually does.
    CPMP wrote: »
    It appears you don't understand how gaming industry works. They don't give mobile games for "free" out of their goodness of their heart.

    Of course. And yet you're the one who started complaining about the fact that EA charges money for character packs. So what exactly IS the point you're trying to make?

    CPMP wrote: »
    Everything on this subject is explained on OP's link about EA and the user comments bellow. But why bother reading those. Let's make silly statements such as "the game cost depends on how many times you decide to buy the extra pack or how many times you charge your phone".

    Let me just point out, once again, that it was YOU who made a comment that had very little to do with the OP. And it was that comment that I replied to. You confused two completely different things, claiming that they are one and the same, which resulted in my reply. It's that simple. If you don't like people responding to what you say, perhaps you shouldn't visit any forums? ;)

    You replied to all of these and you didn't bother to reply to the main thing you started arguing about. The game cost is calculated by the developer sources that's been spent to create it. Did they spent at least 5 times more resources to create extra battlefront maps and heroes than a GoH pack? Then why they are charging 5 times more for the pack? Let us hear your answer.

    Also you keep sticking on the word "Free game". Most developers though use another word : "Free trial". SWTOR is labeled F2P, but the same developers that made it call it "free trial". It's still pay to play.
    You say you haven't spend anything on this game. Well i haven't spent anything too and for multiple reasons. But lets stay on subject. Imagine this : Star Wars galaxy of hearoes. Original cost 200$ (no energy mechanic here). But has free trial also for people to try it, that can play a limited amount of games and can progress x100 times slower than those who pay. See what i did there? Same game, different label.
    The fact is when they drop a game price, they seek to earn that back by other means, DLCs, microtransactions etc. When they drop game's price to free, they're gonna add bigger drawbacks to game. Mobile App market is easy accessible by indie developers and 99% of their apps are free. Big companies like EA are "forced" to label their mobile apps as free (would you immage GoH price to be 60$ on app store? None would buy it) and nuke them them restrictions and microtransactions. And yes, energy/live mechanic is the biggest restriction there is. Don't call a game free because you didn't pay for it. Those kind of games are top grossing and for a reason. If they are free how they managed that?
    SWTOR is called f2p game, yet you have restrictions everywhere (money, exp, quest rewards, professions, literally on everything) and cant progress above 50 lvl. WoW calls it PaytoPlay and has free trial and will full access to character races but limited to lvl 20.
    Stick to the substance and not the labels.
  • Because i sense another big post by you coming, i shall end it here.

    OP posted a link that mentioned how EA is trying not to be greedy.

    I posted that by 100euro cost packs, they are.
    The proof in that, lies in other similar games by other companies.

    I don't get why Ring had to mention all these stuff about game cost which are completely irrelevant to the topic.

    Activision Blizzard's Hearhstone : F2P
    Not only their expansions (new content) are priced at 25$ but also the ability to buy extra card packs (which can be obtained by every f2p, yes i'm saying this to you Ring, pay attention) to progress faster, cost a lot less money.

    Activision Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm : F2P
    Same goes here. New heroes, with emphasis on NEW, cost 10euro each. Microtransactions that doesn't give you anything new but an assist to help you progress faster, (Ring pay attention to this too) cost severely less than EA's.

    I mentioned the other biggest company (activision) that people claim has become a moneygrab too and still its clearly obvious they aren't EA kind of greedy.

    Have a nice day.
Sign In or Register to comment.