EA Earns Most Downvoted Comment In Reddit History

[fdswer]

I dont know where you've been but every single game has some form of DLC now, we got lucky with dead space 3 because nothing was worth the price. Microtransactions are the most bening to me because at least they dont deprive you of content and its just a pay to win thing.

 

[xcvbn]

I guess charging people $5-$10 to unlock a single class/vehicle kit in BF4 wasn't profitable enough so EA turned to microtransactions. So fucking glad this blew up in their face.

Now that we successfully defeated the evil Electronic Arts, it's time we go after Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon in the battle to maintain Net Neutrality.

 

[fdswer]

I guess charging people $5-$10 to unlock a single class/vehicle kit in BF4 wasn't profitable enough so EA turned to microtransactions. So fucking glad this blew up in their face.

Now that we successfully defeated the evil Electronic Arts, it's time we go after Time Warner, Comcast, and Verizon in the battle to maintain Net Neutrality.

War is far from over brother, this is one small battle in a much larger conflict.

 

[xcvbn]

War is far from over brother, this is one small battle in a much larger conflict.

I don't know. When market watch is downgrading EA stock and soccer moms are talking about "gambling in star wars video game" you kinda gotta check that box in the win column.

We still must remain vigilant but we should also pat ourselves on the back.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I dont know where you've been but every single game has some form of DLC now, we got lucky with dead space 3 because nothing was worth the price. Microtransactions are the most bening to me because at least they dont deprive you of content and its just a pay to win thing.

Please clarify. I cannot understand your position.

 

[fdswer]

I don't know. When market watch is downgrading EA stock and soccer moms are talking about "gambling in star wars video game" you kinda gotta check that box in the win column.

We still must remain vigilant but we should also pat ourselves on the back.

Just keep posting and emailing, and lay waste to every stupid mother fucker that gets in you're way.

 

[Scerpi]

Just keep posting and emailing, and lay waste to every stupid mother fucker that gets in you're way.

Also... don't buy the game.

I've fucking hated EA since they ruined Madden in 08' or so when they added microtransactions there. Haven't played another one since.

Dice did good with Battlefield 1, making the loot boxes strictly cosmetic items. But leave it to EA to force them to do a pay to win scenario.

 

[fdswer]

Also... don't buy the game.

I've fucking hated EA since they ruined Madden in 08' or so when they added microtransactions there. Haven't played another one since.

Dice did good with Battlefield 1, making the loot boxes strictly cosmetic items. But leave it to EA to force them to do a pay to win scenario.

I am worried about the next Battlefield it might be the only one I dont buy since 1942. But I have felt Battlefield has been getting more stripped out and boring every release.

 

[Scerpi]

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/20/gamers-overreacting-on-ea-star-wars-game-firms-should-raise-prices.html?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|headline|story&par=yahoo&doc=104853358&yptr=yahoo

In a way, he does have a point. The $60 price point barrier must be back breaking to game developers. I think I was paying $40-$50 for a game in the 90's. I paid $30 (on sale) for X-Com (PC) a few years ago and I know I put in around 150+ hours on it. Yeah I was a X-Com junky... loved it. That's about $.20/hour. If you have a couch co-op game then the value is even better.

Add in the price for hosting services for the online games and the cost impact to the developers grows even more.

Movie prices have more than tripled since then and you watch them for 2-3 hours. Say for instance, when I take the family (5 of us) to see a Marvel movie. It's about $25 or more for 2.5 hours or $10-$15 per hour. A far cry from the $1 per hour (or less) that is paid for games.

Plus, you have to pay again to watch the movie or buy the DVD (if you're not a pirate ). Games are a one time purchase... forever reusable.

So what's the answer? Maybe one of them needs to go ahead and break the glass ceiling and charge $70. I doubt it would impact the AAA game sales. If the game is good, great even, people will pay. People just want to know if they are getting value for their money. They aren't going to pay $70-$100 for crap games, not matter the supposed extras getting thrown in.

Sure, there will be people who will decide to wait for the price drop, but that happens anyway. But there will be plenty of people who will want to buy on day 1 for the big games.

However, I think gamers are getting sick and tired of the microtransaction pay model. It's going to eventually implode on the game developers. I think it already has on IOS gaming. I don't know anyone who games much on their phones anymore. The FTP model killed the appeal for me. I'd rather pay money to just play the games up front and know what I'm getting.

Make the extra characters available by DLC if you have to, but fuck unlocking them through loot boxes, especially having to grind excessive hours just to get to them. From what I've read, it seems Destiny found a good balance between the two. I haven't played it yet.

 

[fdswer]

In a way, he does have a point. The $60 price point barrier must be back breaking to game developers. I think I was paying $40-$50 for a game in the 90's. I paid $30 (on sale) for X-Com (PC) a few years ago and I know I put in around 150+ hours on it. Yeah I was a X-Com junky... loved it. That's about $.20/hour. If you have a couch co-op game then the value is even better.

Add in the price for hosting services for the online games and the cost impact to the developers grows even more.

Movie prices have more than tripled since then and you watch them for 2-3 hours. Say for instance, when I take the family (5 of us) to see a Marvel movie. It's about $25 or more for 2.5 hours or $10-$15 per hour. A far cry from the $1 per hour (or less) that is paid for games.

Plus, you have to pay again to watch the movie or buy the DVD (if you're not a pirate ). Games are a one time purchase... forever reusable.

So what's the answer? Maybe one of them needs to go ahead and break the glass ceiling and charge $70. I doubt it would impact the AAA game sales. If the game is good, great even, people will pay. People just want to know if they are getting value for their money. They aren't going to pay $70-$100 for crap games, not matter the supposed extras getting thrown in.

Sure, there will be people who will decide to wait for the price drop, but that happens anyway. But there will be plenty of people who will want to buy on day 1 for the big games.

However, I think gamers are getting sick and tired of the microtransaction pay model. It's going to eventually implode on the game developers. I think it already has on IOS gaming. I don't know anyone who games much on their phones anymore. The FTP model killed the appeal for me. I'd rather pay money to just play the games up front and know what I'm getting.

Make the extra characters available by DLC if you have to, but fuck unlocking them through loot boxes, especially having to grind excessive hours just to get to them. From what I've read, it seems Destiny found a good balance between the two. I haven't played it yet.

The guy made the easiest most open ended hypocritical argument you could make, you can apply that thinking to literally anything. If they are so worried about how cheap the base price is maybe they should do something about the bloated marketing and development costs. They keep using the excuse of adding all this paid stuff to the games to recoup loses but I doubt much of it actually goes back into the games.

 

[Scerpi]

The guy made the easiest most open ended hypocritical argument you could make, you can apply that thinking to literally anything. If they are so worried about how cheap the base price is maybe they should do something about the bloated marketing and development costs. They keep using the excuse of adding all this paid stuff to the games to recoup loses but I doubt much of it actually goes back into the games.

Agreed... They fucked it up Walter on this game. No one wants the Free to Play (win) model in an online multiplayer full price game. I don't fucking care their reasoning. Especially when it's literally impossible to unlock all the playable characters and performance upgrades through playing the game by itself without paying money. Which is essentially what they did.

If you've play 40+ hours of the game and haven't been able to at least unlock all the characters, that's fucked up and gross.

I was just referring to his point that for your dollar spent, video games are the best entertainment value available. Which is tru

 

[fdswer]

Agreed... They fucked it up Walter on this game. No one wants the Free to Play (win) model in an online multiplayer full price game. I don't fucking care their reasoning. Especially when it's literally impossible to unlock all the playable characters and performance upgrades through playing the game by itself without paying money. Which is essentially what they did.

If you've play 40+ hours of the game and haven't been able to at least unlock all the characters, that's fucked up and gross.

I was just referring to his point that for your dollar spent, video games are the best entertainment value available. Which is tru

Yeah its true in a sense.

But does anyone actually think with how little content and how average some of these big AAA games are that the supposed massive budgets they have is actually being used properly. Some games that the small publishers or even independent studios make have much more gameplay and free content as well with a cheaper base price.

 

[Scerpi]

Yeah its true in a sense.

But does anyone actually think with how little content and how average some of these big AAA games are that the supposed massive budgets they have is actually being used properly. Some games that the small publishers or even independent studios make have much more gameplay and free content as well with a cheaper base price.

You're right, especially with online mulitplayer focused games.

 

[bosox32]

We need a stick that says boycott EA. I mean cmon they suck.

 

[Bob Gray]

Interesting development. Belgium has officially ruled loot boxes as gambling, assuming rewards arent specified.

http://www.pcgamer.com/belgium-says-loot-boxes-are-gambling-wants-them-banned-in-europe/

 

[Hogey]

We need a stick that says boycott EA. I mean cmon they suck.

EA is cancer for gaming.

They know it and have no desire to change.

 

[fdswer]

But but EA isnt trying to take advantage of people

 

[Winston Wolf]

What an EMBARRASSMENT. Congratulations, EA.

 

[hillelslovak87]

I am worried about the next Battlefield it might be the only one I dont buy since 1942. But I have felt Battlefield has been getting more stripped out and boring every release.

Dude, I got BF1 like 2 1/2 months ago. Played maybe 25 hours the first week. Maybe 3 since. It's stale as hell when the destruction means less. I loved the little building to building skirmishes in Bad company 2, where a tank shell could radically alter the battlefield, and that little skirmish itself.

The last 3 games have not even approached the feeling of getting the upper hand in a window to window firefight, then having a tank round or underslung grenade hit your building, hearing the building shudder and creak, and have to rush the hell out.

 

[Madmick]

In a way, he does have a point. The $60 price point barrier must be back breaking to game developers. I think I was paying $40-$50 for a game in the 90's. I paid $30 (on sale) for X-Com (PC) a few years ago and I know I put in around 150+ hours on it. Yeah I was a X-Com junky... loved it. That's about $.20/hour. If you have a couch co-op game then the value is even better.

Add in the price for hosting services for the online games and the cost impact to the developers grows even more.

Movie prices have more than tripled since then and you watch them for 2-3 hours. Say for instance, when I take the family (5 of us) to see a Marvel movie. It's about $25 or more for 2.5 hours or $10-$15 per hour. A far cry from the $1 per hour (or less) that is paid for games.

Plus, you have to pay again to watch the movie or buy the DVD (if you're not a pirate ). Games are a one time purchase... forever reusable.

So what's the answer? Maybe one of them needs to go ahead and break the glass ceiling and charge $70. I doubt it would impact the AAA game sales. If the game is good, great even, people will pay. People just want to know if they are getting value for their money. They aren't going to pay $70-$100 for crap games, not matter the supposed extras getting thrown in.

Sure, there will be people who will decide to wait for the price drop, but that happens anyway. But there will be plenty of people who will want to buy on day 1 for the big games.

However, I think gamers are getting sick and tired of the microtransaction pay model. It's going to eventually implode on the game developers. I think it already has on IOS gaming. I don't know anyone who games much on their phones anymore. The FTP model killed the appeal for me. I'd rather pay money to just play the games up front and know what I'm getting.

Make the extra characters available by DLC if you have to, but fuck unlocking them through loot boxes, especially having to grind excessive hours just to get to them. From what I've read, it seems Destiny found a good balance between the two. I haven't played it yet.

This has absolutely ZERO relevance to the cost model of videogames. VG prices relative to inflation is one thing; how much any other form of entertainment costs is 100% irrelevant.