EA Needs to F*** off and die
- Thread starter HowDroll
- Start date
The difference is that when I decide to buy a car without addons, the addons are not already sitting in the car. Imagine you went to a dealer, and bought a car with a radio in the dashboard, sitting right there, but you learn you can't use it until you pay another fee, even though the radio is already installed.
Really, I have nothing against Day 1 DLC as long as it's actually new content they developed and wanted to add on to the game. That is the problem with Day 1 DLC these days, it's stuff the developers made for the base game, but didn't even bother to delete it from the disk before shipping it out, making us pay money for a small resource download that also unlocks said character that was already there.
Also, while I was lucky and got From Ashes for free, other people were still paying the full game price and the DLC price. Adding Day 1 DLC does not drop the total price of the game, it never has. It always is the same retail average companies know they can get away with.
Edit: fixed an annoying error in the first paragraph.
I'm glad my wife plays video games as much as I do and I don't have to feel shame or hide anything.
Since I only started buying Bioware games a year ago, it's easy for me to say I'll never buy another (even though I bought 6 of them in that time). I'm not sure whether that'll be the case or not though. We'll see what goes on with the ME3 DLC, if given the extra time they can actually repair any of the damage they've done. I doubt they can considering they're sticking to their BS, plus even if they fix the ending they still won't fix how they rushed and cut corners with the climax (which may have been EA's fault since they had so many pre-order tie-ins spread across the face of the Earth).
But I will wait and see before I swear them off. I just can't see how I can buy Dragon Age 3 in good faith at this point; i.e. how I can trust it won't be Dragon Age 2 again.
Since I only started buying Bioware games a year ago, it's easy for me to say I'll never buy another (even though I bought 6 of them in that time). I'm not sure whether that'll be the case or not though. We'll see what goes on with the ME3 DLC, if given the extra time they can actually repair any of the damage they've done. I doubt they can considering they're sticking to their BS, plus even if they fix the ending they still won't fix how they rushed and cut corners with the climax (which may have been EA's fault since they had so many pre-order tie-ins spread across the face of the Earth).
But I will wait and see before I swear them off. I just can't see how I can buy Dragon Age 3 in good faith at this point; i.e. how I can trust it won't be Dragon Age 2 again.
The same is true for Westwood or Bullfrog. Perhaps even Maxis, though they were sliding downhill before EA came by and helped them along.
On another note, I can get behind Jay's thing with Final Fantasy. There was a time when Square could claim every spare dollar of mine.
Now? Fuck 'em. I have Final Fantasy Tactics--I don't need anything else in that series, especially when the other Tactics games suck. As for the main franchise ... no. And they've even fucked up their other series because of that one dipshit in charge, a big fan of misogyny, vague plots, pathetic character development, and a big fucking wall between player and game.
Now? Fuck 'em. I have Final Fantasy Tactics--I don't need anything else in that series, especially when the other Tactics games suck. As for the main franchise ... no. And they've even fucked up their other series because of that one dipshit in charge, a big fan of misogyny, vague plots, pathetic character development, and a big fucking wall between player and game.
My first EA game was NHL 94... it rocked.
I see sports games much like a lot of other games: fantasy fulfillment. I'm never going to fly a stealth ship through space while fighting off an invasion of Eldritch Abominations, I'm never going to really become the head of the Dark Brotherhood in the land of Tamriel, I'm never going to survive a zombie apocalypse alongside a Vietnam vet, a biker dude and a female college-age horror movie buff, and I'm never going to score the winning slam dunk in game seven of the NBA finals.
But through games, I can do all of those things.
But through games, I can do all of those things.
Most of the problem with Day 1 DLC (on consoles at least) is that there is a massive informational disconnect between a vocal (and high-spending) minority of gaming consumers and publishing companies.
Publisher definition of Day 1 DLC: "Extra content we've either worked on concurrently with a separate team or additional content we've created in between RC certification of the main game and RTM (it can literally be a few months, depending on how many shits are being given at MS and Sony) that we're including on the disk because there's a little space and it's not like we're adding source code, just textures and voices. It's a great free reward for pre-orderers and post-launch people at least won't need to spend their data cap to get it, because fuck Comcast!"
Consumers definition: "Why are you charging me for stuff that's already on the disk! That's bullshit! Fuck you guys!"
Publishers genuinely think (and when I say publishers, I mean folks that I have actually met from various pubs) that they are doing people a favor by including DLC on the disk. They genuinely see anything finished after the RC has been content-locked as being extra, regardless of whether the content itself should really have been "extra" in the first place (like the Prothean squaddie stuff in ME3).
In a software sense, they're quite correct, but they have an incredibly tough time understanding why consumers (understandably) don't like being told to buy extra actual-content on the first day a game comes out.
Publisher definition of Day 1 DLC: "Extra content we've either worked on concurrently with a separate team or additional content we've created in between RC certification of the main game and RTM (it can literally be a few months, depending on how many shits are being given at MS and Sony) that we're including on the disk because there's a little space and it's not like we're adding source code, just textures and voices. It's a great free reward for pre-orderers and post-launch people at least won't need to spend their data cap to get it, because fuck Comcast!"
Consumers definition: "Why are you charging me for stuff that's already on the disk! That's bullshit! Fuck you guys!"
Publishers genuinely think (and when I say publishers, I mean folks that I have actually met from various pubs) that they are doing people a favor by including DLC on the disk. They genuinely see anything finished after the RC has been content-locked as being extra, regardless of whether the content itself should really have been "extra" in the first place (like the Prothean squaddie stuff in ME3).
In a software sense, they're quite correct, but they have an incredibly tough time understanding why consumers (understandably) don't like being told to buy extra actual-content on the first day a game comes out.
The sad thing is the incredible amount of customer goodwill they're squandering by charging for that stuff. They should (and have, in the past) use it as an incentive to get people to buy games new -- since the used console games market is, I imagine, almost as big of a problem for publishers as piracy is for PC gaming. Arguably more, in fact, since a lot of the time people who pirate PC games never would have bought them anyway, but used console gamers are still willing to spend the money -- but it's going to Gamestop instead of the publishers.
Include the unlock code for free in the boxes and make people who buy used pay extra if they want it. You're not going to hear a lot of complains about that. But yeah, after I spend $60 on a game, I expect the full game. I don't really care if they developed the content right after the rest of the game was done; I spent almost an entire day's wages to buy your game, and anything available on the disc I just bought should be available to me. Their development timeline isn't my problem, and anything else is ALWAYS going to feel like greed.
Include the unlock code for free in the boxes and make people who buy used pay extra if they want it. You're not going to hear a lot of complains about that. But yeah, after I spend $60 on a game, I expect the full game. I don't really care if they developed the content right after the rest of the game was done; I spent almost an entire day's wages to buy your game, and anything available on the disc I just bought should be available to me. Their development timeline isn't my problem, and anything else is ALWAYS going to feel like greed.
You'd be surprised. I agree, but some very vocal parts of the gaming community swear as much death on "Project $10" as this thread has on EA.
From their perspective, you have the full game. You feel like if it's on the disk you paid for it, but you actually haven't. You've paid for the license to the original content that was budgeted for and entered under the RC cert. Additional money spent to develop the DLC is covered by people buying the DLC.
Again, their business sense about this is all correct. 100%. It just has no relation whatsoever to the reality as consumers see it, and educating or approaching consumers is entirely the pubs' problem, not the consumers. If they're suffering (sufficiently high) consumer backlash of Day 1 DLC because of developer behavior that has come about as a method of dealing with overly long RC cert-times, then they shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
Added at: 13:22
Unlikely, the Docs seem super happy to be part of EA. Stuff could totally be going on under the surface, but every public appearance or interview they give makes them seem practically jubilant.
Necronic
Staff member
This is where the metaphor falls apart, because in the car the cost of the radio is in the cost of the individual radio, and the cost of putting the individual radio into the car. In game development, the cost is far more ephemeral, and that is where (I think) so much of the anger comes from.
But it's no different from other software/computer things. I buy a copy of microsoft office and the disk may come with Access, but if I don't have the license for that I can't use it. I buy an Xbox 360, and even though the software to take advantage of Xbox gold features is already present (or could be easily), I have to buy the service. I buy a copy of Labview or any other professional programming software, the data is there on the disk, right in front of me. But I can't install it on my computer (or install it on another computer) without the additional license.
Hell even a lot of Freeware/shareware out there is like this. You like our software? Cool, you can have the basic package for free. But if you want to record more than x minutes/seconds (like FRAPS or Pamela) you have to pay. Or if you want to export, or whatever. All data needed to perform this is already there. All they are doing is tweaking one tiny little thing.
This is SOP for so much of the software industry. The price is not in the physical data. It's in the development of said data. And it goes even beyond software. Patents (not software patents, screw them) are similar in this. The knowledge required to do some task or build some item is already known, and widely known. But that doesn't mean its free. Or cable TV. The line is there. The data is already being transmitted. Why should I pay to recieve something that doesn't cost the cable company anything?
And while this is all more or less accepted in every one of the examples I have given that you should pay, when it comes to computer games people immediately assume that the cost of developing that extra material was free, because "hey it's already on the disk." Why is it that that line of reasoning considered remotely acceptable in this one realm when in every other realm it would get you laughed out of a room?
This doesn't mean that day1 DLC is worth the value proposition. That's an entirely different argument. But the argument that "It's already there" is absurd, and everyone knows it.
This isn't about licensing different levels of software, though. This is like a publisher cutting one of the middle chapters out of a book and charging extra for people to read it. For a company that has constantly cried "artistic integrity!" as an excuse for their missteps over the last few months, such practices seem hypocritical at best.
Necronic
Staff member
No, it's exactly like a level of software. Except instead of just being software, it's (also) story. And I'll agree with you that it fails the value proposition to hand you an incomplete story. That's bad, and EA deserves to be spanked for it. But that's different from Day1DLC. If they had just left the story the way it was, with no DLC, or if they had given you the rest of the story in an x-pac, it would still be an issue. So I can remove the DLC from the equation and you still have the same issue.
S
SeraRelm
So when you bought the game, you didn't buy the content of the game? Bullshit. And don't use freeware as an example because you aren't buying ANYTHING with freeware. As for "buying Xbox Live Gold" you're paying for the servers. It is a service. That's like saying "It's ok for them to charge me extra to bring me the food I ordered at a restaurant, because I only paid for the food." By your example, it'd be fine to go to a movie where they completely censor our one character in the story unless you pay extra. It's in the movie, but you don't get to see it unless you shell out another $5. How about if you bought a music CD and they locked out the vocals on each song, unless you paid an extra $10?
What people are saying is that they made a game, a promise of entertainment, and they are withholding aspects of that entertainment to try and greedily boost the overall cost of the product promised. That isn't absurd, that's expecting your moneys worth.
Added at: 14:39
As a side note, if i go to see a movie, I'm not going to bitch if it isn't in 3D when I didn't pay to see it in 3D. But I would be annoyed if the regular version was still shot in 3D and they didn't hand out the glasses.
What people are saying is that they made a game, a promise of entertainment, and they are withholding aspects of that entertainment to try and greedily boost the overall cost of the product promised. That isn't absurd, that's expecting your moneys worth.
Added at: 14:39
As a side note, if i go to see a movie, I'm not going to bitch if it isn't in 3D when I didn't pay to see it in 3D. But I would be annoyed if the regular version was still shot in 3D and they didn't hand out the glasses.
Necronic
Staff member
They failed their value proposition. That I agree with. The product they sold was not worth what you paid for it. But what I do not agree with is this:
What's complex about this?
No. When you bought the content that was included in your purchase you didn't buy the content that was not included in the purchase.
What's complex about this?
There's a HUGE difference between "this is an integral part of the main story that we're going to carve out and re-package for more $$$" and "the main story has a complete beginning/middle/end, but let's develop an expansion pack/additional DLC to give the player more adventures." I don't have a problem with the latter; I don't think a lot of gamers do. But I don't believe for a second that, in the case of ME3, the Day 1 DLC was an afterthought once the game was sent for RC certification. The majority of the development might have been done after, but EA knew exactly what they were doing; they knew that most customers would shell out the extra $10 to get the squadmate, and I really believe that's why it was left off of the vanilla release.
Games -- or the sort of games I like to play, anyway -- aren't just software to me. I pay for Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, but I don't expect them to have a soul; I expect them to be functional. I don't usually game to get the highest score or the best loot; I game to get immersed in a story -- to carve out my own, more often than not -- and my favorite developers are the ones who understand the unwritten contract between creator and gamer. Bioware used to be the sort of developer that would go an extra mile to tell its fans, "Yeah, I give a shit about you, and you're just as important to the process as we are." The video Jay posted on page 1 said it best -- Bioware was the sort of company that said "We need money to create good games," and they consistently created an EXCELLENT product. EA, on the other hand, is all about making games to make fistfuls of money, and guess what? Most of their RPGs that have come out in the last few years have sucked, especially when compared to others in their respective franchises. (But RPGs aren't FPS/sports games where you can make a few tweaks and re-package every year, either.) The soul is gone from these games, and it couldn't be more clear that EA is far more interested in wringing as much money as they can out of their customers instead of developing a good relationship with them. Gamers are a loud, often obnoxious group, but I like to think we're also fiercely loyal when we feel like we're being taken care of.
There's nothing wrong with running a business and trying to make money. As someone who is working on starting a small business herself, I'm quite pro-capitalism -- but one of the supposed core tenants of capitalism is that you don't have to bend over and take it from companies who are mistreating you. I have the right to choose to spend my dollars with developers that still value solid gameplay and good storytelling, and I think a lot of other gamers are getting fed up with the bullshit of the major publishers. EA's stock has been consistently shitty for awhile now, and good fucking riddance. I'll throw my money at Bethesda/Valve/CD Projekt Red/etc. instead.
Games -- or the sort of games I like to play, anyway -- aren't just software to me. I pay for Microsoft Office and Adobe Creative Suite, but I don't expect them to have a soul; I expect them to be functional. I don't usually game to get the highest score or the best loot; I game to get immersed in a story -- to carve out my own, more often than not -- and my favorite developers are the ones who understand the unwritten contract between creator and gamer. Bioware used to be the sort of developer that would go an extra mile to tell its fans, "Yeah, I give a shit about you, and you're just as important to the process as we are." The video Jay posted on page 1 said it best -- Bioware was the sort of company that said "We need money to create good games," and they consistently created an EXCELLENT product. EA, on the other hand, is all about making games to make fistfuls of money, and guess what? Most of their RPGs that have come out in the last few years have sucked, especially when compared to others in their respective franchises. (But RPGs aren't FPS/sports games where you can make a few tweaks and re-package every year, either.) The soul is gone from these games, and it couldn't be more clear that EA is far more interested in wringing as much money as they can out of their customers instead of developing a good relationship with them. Gamers are a loud, often obnoxious group, but I like to think we're also fiercely loyal when we feel like we're being taken care of.
There's nothing wrong with running a business and trying to make money. As someone who is working on starting a small business herself, I'm quite pro-capitalism -- but one of the supposed core tenants of capitalism is that you don't have to bend over and take it from companies who are mistreating you. I have the right to choose to spend my dollars with developers that still value solid gameplay and good storytelling, and I think a lot of other gamers are getting fed up with the bullshit of the major publishers. EA's stock has been consistently shitty for awhile now, and good fucking riddance. I'll throw my money at Bethesda/Valve/CD Projekt Red/etc. instead.
S
SeraRelm
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Most of that "on disk" expansion shit is purposefully withheld as a means to get more money. Another example would be Capcom's shitty method of having fighters on disk but charging you extra to unlock them when they decide to allow it. Not to finish work on them, but to charge you more. There is no argument you could make to change my mind about that.
Necronic
Staff member
Hey, I have no problem with that statement (How Drolls, Sera ninja'd me 
). It's pretty much what I said: They failed the value proposition. The product they sold was bad.
All I've said, and repeated, is that that is a different argument from saying that Day1DLC is inherently bad. Day1 DLC may imply a failed value proposition, but it may not. CE's/preorder bonuses are often a good example of this, and maybe they are the predecessor to D1DLC. You pay extra in the beginning (or pay early) and you get something extra. This isn't usually a problem, because they ensure that the value proposition of the primary product is high. ME3 clearly failed that. But note that the problem is the value of the core game, not the existence of the DLC.
And, just so I'm clear, I GET that ME3 was a bad game. I GET that people don't like EA as a developer. I have no problem with either statement, they both make sense to me because the quality of their games has consistently dropped. But I don't think the DLC is the issue.
There's a number of cases where DLC with added story hasn't been an issue. Oblivion, for instance, had some amazing DLC with amazing stories. But they weren't integral to the story or the gameplay. Richard Berlew's choice to release a couple of OOTS books that aren't online is similar, but yet again they aren't integral to the story.
The mistake EA made with ME3 was that they carved out an integral chunk of the story and sold, as their core product, a crippled mess. I GET THAT.
All I'm saying is that DLC is not the problem. The problem was a terrible product.
). It's pretty much what I said: They failed the value proposition. The product they sold was bad.All I've said, and repeated, is that that is a different argument from saying that Day1DLC is inherently bad. Day1 DLC may imply a failed value proposition, but it may not. CE's/preorder bonuses are often a good example of this, and maybe they are the predecessor to D1DLC. You pay extra in the beginning (or pay early) and you get something extra. This isn't usually a problem, because they ensure that the value proposition of the primary product is high. ME3 clearly failed that. But note that the problem is the value of the core game, not the existence of the DLC.
And, just so I'm clear, I GET that ME3 was a bad game. I GET that people don't like EA as a developer. I have no problem with either statement, they both make sense to me because the quality of their games has consistently dropped. But I don't think the DLC is the issue.
There's a number of cases where DLC with added story hasn't been an issue. Oblivion, for instance, had some amazing DLC with amazing stories. But they weren't integral to the story or the gameplay. Richard Berlew's choice to release a couple of OOTS books that aren't online is similar, but yet again they aren't integral to the story.
The mistake EA made with ME3 was that they carved out an integral chunk of the story and sold, as their core product, a crippled mess. I GET THAT.
All I'm saying is that DLC is not the problem. The problem was a terrible product.
No offense but if someone truly thinks that Day 1 DLC is not part of the original game, then you're either ignorant or stupid. Sorry, that's all I have to say about that.
We're talking principally of EA's history of Day 1 DLCs from Bioware.... so the Golem in DAO, Sebastian in DA2 and Javik ME3 that were Day 1 DLC "extra characters". All were voiced characters, with extra missions and fully interacted with other characters at every level possible. Some came with the standard game in some deals, some requires a collector's edition or enhanced editions. Generally, they required clients to pay extra cash for content that was fully created during the development cycle of the game.
Other additional characters such as Kasumi and the Merc guy who's name I can't bother to remember right now from ME3 felt like "extra characters" with fully voiced actors with their single extra mission and interaction with others was minimal. Their DLC weren't Day 1 and generally well received.
When a game goes gold, there is no more content added to the "official" build between the gold date and the release date thus the decision to put what on the build has been pre-established beforehand of going gold... so when the game already has the DAY 1 DLC character already stored on it, with all references and all that is missing is a tiny little patch, I'm sorry, I'm going to call bullshit on that.
We're talking principally of EA's history of Day 1 DLCs from Bioware.... so the Golem in DAO, Sebastian in DA2 and Javik ME3 that were Day 1 DLC "extra characters". All were voiced characters, with extra missions and fully interacted with other characters at every level possible. Some came with the standard game in some deals, some requires a collector's edition or enhanced editions. Generally, they required clients to pay extra cash for content that was fully created during the development cycle of the game.
Other additional characters such as Kasumi and the Merc guy who's name I can't bother to remember right now from ME3 felt like "extra characters" with fully voiced actors with their single extra mission and interaction with others was minimal. Their DLC weren't Day 1 and generally well received.
When a game goes gold, there is no more content added to the "official" build between the gold date and the release date thus the decision to put what on the build has been pre-established beforehand of going gold... so when the game already has the DAY 1 DLC character already stored on it, with all references and all that is missing is a tiny little patch, I'm sorry, I'm going to call bullshit on that.
Necronic
Staff member
Collectors editions come out BEFORE the game is even released. Same with preorder bonuses like participation in the open beta.
I want you guys to tell me why the early pay for play content is bad, WITHOUT saying that the game is bad without it. Those are two different arguments.
Same goes for the "They are just doing it to squeeze money out of you". First off that is speculation. It could be that the price point of the DLC was entirely justified in the added dev costs (if you think it cost them no money to develop more product....whelp). But even if it were true that they were overcharging, that's still a different argument from "D1DLC is inherently bad", that's saying that EA are crooks who sell bad products.
I want you guys to tell me why the early pay for play content is bad, WITHOUT saying that the game is bad without it. Those are two different arguments.
Same goes for the "They are just doing it to squeeze money out of you". First off that is speculation. It could be that the price point of the DLC was entirely justified in the added dev costs (if you think it cost them no money to develop more product....whelp). But even if it were true that they were overcharging, that's still a different argument from "D1DLC is inherently bad", that's saying that EA are crooks who sell bad products.
You're confusing going gold with release candidate certification.
RC cert = final source code is submitted to MS/Sony/Nintendo for approval to run on respective consoles. Process can take up to several months depending on how long the line is.
"Going gold" = The RC is certified, last minute changes are made to non-source code material (such as minor art changes, music, sound, things that don't require source code adjustments like some DLC), and the "gold master" disk image is sent to plant to print.
You're like a hydra when it comes to debate/discussion - a point of contention is resolved and from it's demise you sprout two or more points to argue about.
Necronic
Staff member
Ok, I just figure out a metaphor/comparison that fits this situation PERFECTLY:
Checked bag fees on an airline. People hate this. I hate this. This is because I consider a checked bag to be an integral part of the service I am buying. It's a "hidden fee".
However, this doesn't mean that I consider paying extra for first class or having to pay for beer on an airplane ridiculous. That makes sense to me.
The problem isn't the Pay to Play model. It was their application of it.
Added at: 20:15
Checked bag fees on an airline. People hate this. I hate this. This is because I consider a checked bag to be an integral part of the service I am buying. It's a "hidden fee".
However, this doesn't mean that I consider paying extra for first class or having to pay for beer on an airplane ridiculous. That makes sense to me.
The problem isn't the Pay to Play model. It was their application of it.
Added at: 20:15
Could you explain what you mean here? I've had this thrown at me before and it's true in some cases, but I think my message has been pretty consistent here. There is nothing inherently wrong with D1DLC. There is something wrong with the product EA put out/how they applied the DLC.
What is this?
You didn't state anything I didn't know of already nor brought a valid point to argue about all the while being told that I'm confused.
I'm not confused.... well actually not entirely because the existence of this quoted post confuses me somewhat.
The content on the release disk "Gold" has been established before the game goes "Gold" so when a DAY 1 DLC has most of the DLC content stored in the release build it is clearly not a DLC... (DOWNLOADABLE CONTENT) it's a privileged pass that you need to pay extra extra to access but was clearly part of the original development cycle and any explanation or elaboration is false to say otherwise. I need to download the extra content for it to be considered a DLC.
FFS, I cannot state this clearer than this without using children blocks.
Necronic
Staff member
How do you know its part of the original development cycle? Or, maybe a better statement than "original" is "main" development cycle. I mean, are you saying that in their business plans they have the entire game paid for with the normal sales and the DLC part of their ledger is only revenue, no cost?
This is not a perfect metaphor.
When you check in your bags with an air plane carrier you take it upon yourself to use this service that is generally already included when you purchase your ticket. Some airplane companies remove this extra charge simply because for certain domestic flights, a lot of people do not bring baggage with them (I'm not talking about children). They only thing they have with them are their carry on and basically feel playing the standard$50 for a service they don't even use, a waste, especially when they use the service many times during the course of the year. The same works for the beer/refreshment model... simply because they don't use it regularly (but this was different back in the day). But you'll get almost anything else along with snacks.
As for first class, basically instead of having 2 seats, they have one, for those willing to pay more to have a more comfortable flight. Most of the time it costs the same where a first class seat will cost the price of about 2 economy class seats but they cater to a different group of people willing to pay the price. This is about the same model for those gamers who pay above and beyond what is needed to have a 12 inch tall dragon resin statue.
Added at: 15:44
???
The sky is blue,
There's no oxygen is space,
And you're giving me a headache with your irrelevant questions.
That DLC is added to the gold master after cert doesn't have the slightest effect on whether it is worth having or not. There is absolutely no reason why they can't add DLC in between RC and Gold. Unless the delivery system actually costs you more, how it is delivered doesn't matter as long as the price remains the same. And I'm not sure how on-disk DLC costs you more.
You seem to be saying that companies can't plan to have DLC before the main game is done, which a little strange since most 200+ person companies are perfectly capable of hiring more people to make DLC.