It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EA Games And The Ethics of The Computer Games Industry

page: 2
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

It might stay in games until people refuse to pay for them. As long as they are making profit from them, there is really no reason for them to remove it. I think this latest fiasco with the SWBFII game might help move people away from it though. I don't really mind it on free to play games, but on a AAA title at full price? Should be unacceptable.




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Exactly. I have no problem with lootboxes if they're attached to gameplay and not money. 2K just did this with the new WWE game. The only way to earn VC is by playing the game and the only way to purchase lootboxes is with VC.

Of course the cynic in me is almost positive that this is them just trying out a lootbox system in the game and next year it will be just like the how they do it in every other 2k sport game.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: FauxMulder

I agree entirely with you on that score FauxMulder.

With regard to EA having removed lootboxes, their statement on the matter stated that they are temporarily removing the pay to win element from the game, but indicated that it would be returning at some future point.

Many people are speculating that they are waiting till after the release of the next Star Wars film, before re-activating it, which would be a very callous move on their part.


The damage is already done, though.

Iirc Battlefront 2 has sold around 20% of Battlefront 1 and BF1 was significantly - significantly - worse than BF2.

EA is also taking heat for the loot boxes (car card system) in the new Need for Speed game.

I don't buy games anymore, I rent them or play them at a friends house to determine whether or not I find it it to be worth the money.

The last game I purchased was Assassins Creed Origins (which by the way is a solid game through and through) and before that was Overwatch.

Jim Sterlings "the year of the lootboxes," is dead on accurate.

Nice thread, man.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:42 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I heard about the Sims 3 controversy, and thought it was disgusting that it would cost hundreds of dollars to unlock all the features they had built for the game.

I am glad that you are vigilant against this sort of nonsense though, and that your child will be protected from it to the best of your ability, but do you think its right that companies should have the option to treat consumers this way, even if all that happens is we abandon them and their products?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: RomeByFire

Assassin's Creed Origins, oddly enough, is the only Assassin's Creed game, that I can actually play worth a damn! It IS a good game though, very good.

Overwatch is also catching some heat at the moment, despite the fact that its lootbox system is entirely cosmetic and has nothing to do with gameplay.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
To those who have pointed me toward the work of Jim Sterling, I am familiar with his videos, and indeed, his videos on this topic. His frustration and time worn cynicism are entirely legitimate in the face of what is happening at the moment.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I'm a casual gamer these days. I just got a X Box Project Scorpio on release day and love it so far. Although back in the day, I ran an extremely popular Commodore 64 BBS for hackers / pirates / phone phreaks. The Amiga was awesome and I recall being blown away by the step up in graphics and the system. I remember getting an Atari 2600 for Christmas and then how cool the 5200 was as well.

The free market is dictating that microtransactions are the next evolution. There are enough people willing to pay to get extra stuff in games and progress without putting in hours, so you can't really blame companies for taking advantage. It costs money to develop games and they are looking for anyway they can to make up for losses on games that don't sell.

With that said, I don't like how some games are made impossibly hard to progress unless you do pay. I've seen this on mobile games. I do have a problem with this as it is kind of shady. However, I don't think government needs to be attempting to regulate this. We have bigger issues in society to worry about.

The simple solution is just not to pay. I don't. If enough people don't pay, the gaming companies won't offer it as it won't be worth the development costs to do so.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:53 AM
link   
Read this list and weep for the lost possible games those companies never produced afterwards:

List of acquisitions by Electronic Arts



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

This is how capitalism works.

If we all stop buying what they are selling, then they lose share and possibly even go out of business. That's how we speak.

I stopped playing The Sims with 3. I got tired of constantly rebuying the same expansions every time they decided to just reboot everything, especially after it become obvious that they never tested all the Sims 3 expansions together but seemed to only test each one with the base game. The only way to make all your expansions run together was to go out online and do some serious modding, and there were some very, very dedicated and hardworking modders who made it all run together for them.

It became a huge process to de-install and re-install everything correctly just to add a new expansion to your game and make sure you weren't going to nuke a nine or ten generation game you had running.

I decided after the third iteration that it wasn't worth going through it all again.

I do think they should be required to add a micro-transaction label warning that addition purchases are required to enhance gameplay experience.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

You say that companies are making losses on games that do not sell, and need to cover them, but I would argue that they do not need to cover those losses at all. Companies making games, including EA, know that even if you were to totally remove any micro transactional earnings they make, they would still be making very good money every year, healthy figures for any company to make, not making a loss because a few games undersell, but making good headway, assuming money earned is a measure of successful manufacture and marketing of games.

The only difference is, if you factor those micro transactions back in, their earnings go from merely very good to "Who are you selling the drugs to, and how much are they paying again?" territory.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Edumakated

You say that companies are making losses on games that do not sell, and need to cover them, but I would argue that they do not need to cover those losses at all. Companies making games, including EA, know that even if you were to totally remove any micro transactional earnings they make, they would still be making very good money every year, healthy figures for any company to make, not making a loss because a few games undersell, but making good headway, assuming money earned is a measure of successful manufacture and marketing of games.

The only difference is, if you factor those micro transactions back in, their earnings go from merely very good to "Who are you selling the drugs to, and how much are they paying again?" territory.


The shareholders ultimately determine what is considered "good money", not you. A couple of years ago, they only made 3 cents a share. That is hardly good money although now it has jumped to $3.00 which is much better. Stock trading around $100 right now. So management apparently is making some good decisions.

EA Financials

I suspect video games are much like movies where 8 out of 10 lose money and one or two games are major winners.

Look, I get your frustration. However, in a free market, the only solution is not to pay. If enough people stop paying, then they will read the tea leaves and decide not to charge. Alternatively, a competitor will use not having microtransactions as a selling point to steal market share from EA.

I almost started a thread complaining about software subscription services. I'm paying like $90/year or something to run Office suite on my computer because I need it even though little changes year to year whereas before you paid $100-$200 for MS Office and were done. It is what it is until another alternative comes out or people decide they don't want to pay.
edit on 22-11-2017 by Edumakated because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
it will comeback corps won't let there cash cow go

micro transactions have literally killed mmorpgs theres 2 left that still have a normal subscription fee and only pay for cosmetic items ... all the rest are pay to win

online gamming is now just a giant who's got the biggest wallet fight

star wars especially ... they made a mediocre mmorpg with cluster f of PvP and when players left can it was garbage they went pay to win

I will never pay for anything star wars related since I know it will be pay to win



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I have to agree that gaming has changed a ton. You can't just usually buy a game and just play it, without, as you said being almost forced to pay more for this little addon or that. I play a lot of free games. One of my all time free games was Battlefield Play4Free. I didn't spend a single dime but I held my own just fine and it was FUN!

I play a lot of free games but most suck because of the "pay to win" aspect. There will always be players with seemingly unlimited funds to buy the best "cheap" gear. I still play Doom once in awhile. If you download Zdaemon, you can play across the net with others. Games like that are untouched but still very fun and competetive.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

I did that game to death, to absolute death. I would play it every time I was at home and with nothing better to do. I sunk one hundred and fifty nine hours into it.


Oh my... whatever, i must be very ill!


I have right now 1313hrs in Arma3 on my steam acoount.
I never played on any other server than my own, that i needed to build and maintain, to have a survival game similiar to these early access fraud "games" like Rust, 7Days to Die, ARK and how they are all called. Without the fraud, bugs, endless waiting for updates, staying forever in alpha, looking like games from the 1990`s, without a lack of crafting recipes, materials, conditions for building, without having to defend from stupid monsters like zombies, cannibals or whatever fantasy stuff.

But i bet the half of time on my account is just from having the arma launcher started while i worked at the server. The other half is from playing and i bet there will be another number of played hours, till i die. Because i don´t play almost anything else anymore, because it is not worth to spend money for unfinished, incomplete games. The good old games i played to death, like you say. And i can´t stand those old school graphics anymore, to be honest.

But from time to time i look through the steam store, see the prices of games nowadays, see how many GB they would eat on my SSD(just for 1080p videosequences en masse, which i click away anyway, as fast as possible, i wannna play and not watch movies), for example CoDWWII. 60 Euros and 66GB. And i have to laugh, because it´s still a simple online multiplayer FPS where you have nothing else to do than to run, shoot, die, rinse and repeat. Through a tunnel that is covered with some nice graphics. It´s not worth the money and the wasted space!

Then that DLC crap and all that ugly behaviour of gaming companies, selling unfinished products, forcing people to be online to play, forcing people to buy stuff that normally should be in the game, if you pay 60 Euro for such a crap. I just don´t give them money anymore!

I play what i have, it´s from better quality than that crap they sell now, and i didn´t have to pay hundreds of euros to have a game complete!

If these companies don´t want me to buy their crap anymore, i have no problem with doing them this favour!
I don´t have to live from the customers money that buy games from me!



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:45 AM
link   
There is always the indie gaming market. Those games don't have the mass market polish, but some of them are just as fun.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

With something like that, its almost worse, because its a vital tool for you to operate your life, I am assuming. You are not going to stop using the service in order to make your voice heard.

That would be as silly as expecting people to stop drinking water in order to force water companies to improve services.

Now, games are of course, not necessary to living, they are a luxury of sorts, a pastime, rather than a staple, so we can expect people to exercise their free will. But you know very well that the marketing tactics being used are stronger than human willpower in many cases, enough that despite the fact that these practices are dead wrong, they will still sell them to enough weak spirits to make their buck. Does that not cause you any concern?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
There is always the indie gaming market. Those games don't have the mass market polish, but some of them are just as fun.


But!

But these indie producers almost all produce crappy 8 or 16bit graphic games or demos that never leave early access.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Amen to that. I've probably put more hours in to Binding of Isaac than any other game I own and have purchased it on every system it's been released on.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Great thread and a well written post that I completely agree with.

Had an Atari, commodore 64 and omega before getting into building PCs. I loved how graphics and story driven gaming came on in leaps and bounds. But in the last 5 years or so, games on console and now PC have become too expensive when you consider how short some single player campaigns are, and often full of glitches, you don't seem to get your moneys worth with most mass marketed games anymore.
Multiplayer is even worse, what with how DLC/maps are released sometimes within a few days of release of a game, which you might have payed even more for with an expensive season pass or a "Deluxe Edition".
In-game purchases are becoming more and more prominent with the pay to win type scenario also becoming a big problem now.
These games companies have been making more money than hollywood for years and they seem to be getting too greedy, and when you consider that a lot of these games are aimed at or played by children, getting them into some sort of gambling sounds crazy and its the parents who will suffer the consequncies.




edit on 22-11-2017 by Kurokage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Heh... Arma III is a very different beast though, isn't it? Its almost like a second life for some players, and its easy to see why. The gameplay I have seen on YouTube, thanks to folks like the ZF clan, FrankieonPCin1080p, Sadaplays and JackFrags, clearly demonstrate that the game you are talking about is something you can sink hundreds of hours into without thinking twice about it.

But I am willing to bet that its features are accessible right from the off, in most circumstances.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join