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: 3
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

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

You cannot save people from themselves.




posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

No, that's true, but this is a scenario I cannot save myself from at all.

If people keep buying into this crap, I get to look forward to an entertainment free future, as far as computer entertainment goes. I lose either way.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   
World of tanks has become pay to play, or at least pay to win.
The best tanks are the premiums that you have to buy and then you need to spam gold for ammo or you bounce half your shots.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Microtransactions...

I think the issue comes down to "whales." Plenty of people can decide not to pay, but a single whale can offset literally dozens of "normal" customers.

I don't think some realize just how much these people are willing to lay down on games. Thousands upon thousands of dollars, with some hitting the tens of thousands of dollars.

I got into some phone games for a while. I thought the aforementioned whale was a rarity or an anomaly. However, in every single game, I personally knew and interacted with a dozen or more people that had put in at least $5,000. Keeping in mind that a lot of these were obscure titles.

I don't begrudge them for whatever they choose to spend their money, my issue is how developers leverage whales while screwing over pretty much everyone else. They don't need to care about those 50 "normal" customers, as long as everything is monetized to pull in that one whale.

So, the entire arena is moving towards a platform to manipulate whales, while eschewing actual entertainment value. Its a shame, but hopefully smaller developers will start to fill the gap because I honestly don't see companies like EA changing their overall direction. Why would they change anything when its more profitable to spend minimal time on quality since those customers will buy game after game, and MT after MT, almost out of habit?

All they have to do is use the same engine, mess with the visual assets a little, and they will make significantly more money.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Tabletop RPGs.

They are a little more time intensive, but ultimately, they can be just as fun and they are imminently interactive.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

I played that a little when it first started, on my sisters Xbox.

It was a grand little game, but I quickly rose to the point where unless I spent money, there was no way to defeat the enemy tanks, because my shells were no good for penetrating their thick hulls. Its a shame, because trundling around, hammering the enemy with shells, and sniping from a tank turret was HILARIOUS fun!



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

It's not a whole lot different than collectible CCGs. They are fun, but then you meet the people who buy every expansive and will sink upward of $800 on a card if it helps them build that top notch tourney deck. They'll tool and tool and tool that deck, run the numbers and stats and at that point, you aren't playing a game anymore.

At that point, it's no fun to sit and play because you've pretty much lost right from the start unless you've made it your life and a heavy financial investment like they have. And there are just enough of them that you can't just sit down and play for a hobby.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I play table top pretty often, once every fortnight, and will be adding another game to my weekly roster soon, since a friend of mine outside my RPG group has started playing just recently, and wants to run a game of Black Crusade.

However, as much fun as these can be, I would nearly always rather be playing out the scenario in them, in some sort of simulated environment, rather than in my head. My head is full enough as it is!



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Here's my take on the current.... state of video gaming.

I'm not really that upset about paid DLC and such. if you look at the rate of inflation over the last 30 years, while the sticker price on most video games has remained the same (30-60 USD), inflation means that the old 64/ps1 games that sold for 59.99 in 1998 was actually closer to $90 in todays current exchange rate. If you don't believe me, you can look it up. Even nowadays with 30-50 usd season passes for games, the price today is STILL THE SAME AS IT WAS YEARS AGO.

Another big reason DLC is a thing, is the price. Not everyone can afford 90-110 for a full game (in most cases) yet with DLC, consumers can choose if and what they want to pair with the base games.

Yet another reason is size: today's games are huge, and take lots of time to create. Look at Battlefield 1, that is still coming out with DLC two years after release........ If companies didnt release a game until all details and extras were added as part of the base game, most consoles would be outdated by the release date, and most people would be fed up after waiting 7 years or more for sequels to come out.

On another note, micro transactions, lootcrates, etc, are completely uncalled for. They are nothing but a money grab, along with the time needed to actually acquire said extra items in game. people will, of course, try and grind everything out, but with the ridiculous time needed, will eventually (in most cases) give in and just spend some extra money. It's nothing but a cash grab, and a very disgusting practice that should really be stopped. Unfortunately, a company can do whatever it wants in that respect, so the only way to stop things like that from happening is to stop playing into it.

Who's up for a boycott?



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, it is. You can mod the hell out of it and build whatever game you want it to be, if a military shooter or a survival game like i did. It costs a lot of time, you have to learn "how to Arma", if you build your own server.

And it is kind of realistic, compared to other simple just fps shooter games!

And it never gets boring, that´s why i believe i will reach the 2000hrs mark easily!

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



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Serdgiam

I'll be interested to see how things go with the Switch. With the exception of FIFA and NBA2K I can't think of any games on it that employee microtransactions. If it can continue at the pace it's going it could easily provide an alternative for those gamers sick of modern design philosophy.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
Microtransactions...

I think the issue comes down to "whales." Plenty of people can decide not to pay, but a single whale can offset literally dozens of "normal" customers.

I don't think some realize just how much these people are willing to lay down on games. Thousands upon thousands of dollars, with some hitting the tens of thousands of dollars.

I got into some phone games for a while. I thought the aforementioned whale was a rarity or an anomaly. However, in every single game, I personally knew and interacted with a dozen or more people that had put in at least $5,000. Keeping in mind that a lot of these were obscure titles.

I don't begrudge them for whatever they choose to spend their money, my issue is how developers leverage whales while screwing over pretty much everyone else. They don't need to care about those 50 "normal" customers, as long as everything is monetized to pull in that one whale.

So, the entire arena is moving towards a platform to manipulate whales, while eschewing actual entertainment value. Its a shame, but hopefully smaller developers will start to fill the gap because I honestly don't see companies like EA changing their overall direction. Why would they change anything when its more profitable to spend minimal time on quality since those customers will buy game after game, and MT after MT, almost out of habit?

All they have to do is use the same engine, mess with the visual assets a little, and they will make significantly more money.


Customer segmentation is one of the first things they teach you in marketing. Some customers are far more profitable than others, so you have to spend more of your time on the paying customers versus the nonpaying customers. Some customers wind up costing you money. Probably 20% of the gamers generate 80% of the profit, so that is who they are targeting. Good ole 80/20 rule.

I'm a casual gamer, so I don't really care one way or the other. I buy a game every now and then. I've had Xboxes since the first generation and have NEVER played an online game. I'm just not that into it. I prefer single player campaigns that i can do at my leisure with a good story so those are the games I focus on typically.

Some people simply have no self-control and they fall into the traps laid by the companies. I don't begrudge the companies for exploiting this to make a buck. If enough people rather not pay for DLC or microtransactions, an innovative company will come out with something to target those consumers while the whales will continue to bend over for EA.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   
A lot of on-line games are going to the P2W model...no longer the 15 bucks per month as days of old. I see two differences, some are pure P2W where you get what you want for xxxx dollars and the other way is P2W light were you can pay to help you but at a much smaller percentage that makes zero P2W still viable. Both can cost 1000s

We are talking 1000s of dollars even up to 10,000 for some games. People are now paying large sums of money for in game items that do not actually help you to win. Such things as toon outfits, furniture for a house, pets etc

I'm seeing a lot more RNG type of games too where all equipment gains in the game is pure RNG and this is nothing short of a gambling system that sucks in many people to basically gamble with real money to get more game chances at better loot etc..

One scary one is Archeage where $1000 gets your foot in the door and many spend that much a month...


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



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: ketsuko

I play table top pretty often, once every fortnight, and will be adding another game to my weekly roster soon, since a friend of mine outside my RPG group has started playing just recently, and wants to run a game of Black Crusade.

However, as much fun as these can be, I would nearly always rather be playing out the scenario in them, in some sort of simulated environment, rather than in my head. My head is full enough as it is!


Table top, isn´t that the game where you can throw everything around, if you are effed up, because you just lose in "person does not annoy you"?

It´s on my wishlist since i saw it for the first time, but never bought it. If it´s in a sale for 5 Euro, i maybe will buy it, looks funny if it the game i remember right now xD



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:13 AM
link   
a reply to: dothedew

I will tell you right off the bat, I would rather have a company put a whole game on the shelf and have to save up, than ever buy a game, then find out that three quarters of what I expected for my money is not there, but can be purchased later.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Nah, you get character sheets, fill them out in pencil, theres a book of rules, and one person at the table is running the game, the others playing it! Dice are rolled to determine the success or failure of combat and other elements of the game.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit


I will tell you right off the bat, I would rather have a company put a whole game on the shelf and have to save up, than ever buy a game, then find out that three quarters of what I expected for my money is not there, but can be purchased later.


Stay a year behind and get those games for cheap on steam during sales... You will know the clunkers from the diamonds by then too. I do that with TV shows hehe...



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TrueBrit


I will tell you right off the bat, I would rather have a company put a whole game on the shelf and have to save up, than ever buy a game, then find out that three quarters of what I expected for my money is not there, but can be purchased later.


Stay a year behind and get those games for cheap on steam during sales... You will know the clunkers from the diamonds by then too. I do that with TV shows hehe...


Exactly, or steam key shops!



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

I'm really interested to see that as well.

I recently got an Xbox one S, and have been deeply disappointed for a variety of reasons. The first simply that I have data limits through my ISP (15gb/mo, which is their largest plan!).

I chose it as a 4k player, so for my purposes, it will actually work wonderfully. But, I simply can't imagine being a "console gamer" anymore. I've always felt it was a matter of pros and cons, but I'm changing my mind on that.

I said it in another thread, but I feel they are only relevant (possible exception being the Switch) because of ignorance on building a PC.

Many are under the impression that it costs thousands of dollars and that that investment must be made every year or two, but it just isn't true. I'd say the only valid criticism in those regards are security measures like SGX.



posted on Nov, 22 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   
There is no longer any ethics in any of our country's major businesses.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join