EA Games And The Ethics of The Computer Games Industry

a reply to: TrueBrit

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, keep an eye on how the Switch evolves. So far it's catalog is full of games that take the best parts of old school gaming and blending it with some of the better parts of modern design philosophy. And looking ahead at what's coming out next year it looks like it will be more of the same.

originally posted by: PainGod
a reply to: Havoc40k
I have been playing MWO since closed beta and play rather regularly. I am on most nights from 2:00 am till about 5 cst.
and on the weekends i am on in the afternoons and evenings.

My name there is S N A K E (with spaces between each letter.)
Look me up some time. My unit has TS and Discord and have alot of members that play on all timezones.

You know why I don't play MWO anymore? Because it's literally the worst version of pay 2 win and the exclusive premium chassis. MWO costs a fortune, plain and simple. You can't even grind it all, because you have limited mech bays and cannot purchase new ones without paying. I played that from the early CBT to basically right after they added faction wars. I'm deeply saddened that Mechwarrior 5 is singleplayer only and I will not be purchasing it because they are trying to funnel you into the P2W game.

I was playing for what, 2.5 years at the point of which they released the Madcat, and I basically had to sell all the mechs I already acquired just to purchase one Timber. I was like -- ya, I'm out. It's a damn shame too, because mechwarrior is great.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
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.

World of Tanks has been pay to win since day 1. They treat ammo like real ammo in that game, if you want to compete, you gotta purchase your ammo or you're doing basically no damage. Been like that since release.

Both of these examples, MWO and WoT are tremendously worse offenders than the Battlefront II lootboxes.

Wow.It looks like I am the only one who liked Star Wars Battlefront for ps4.It is my first multiplayer online game I have ever played,so maybe that's it.I still like it over Battlefront 2.They really rushed this current iteration out.IMO.I remember the vic20.I had a 5k memory expansion cartridge!As well as a cassette tape add-on.Those were the days!

I may be one of the genuine first here in terms of computer gaming, I was involved in the industry when the first EVER home computers started to roll out, I owned the ZX80 and 81 and was employed for technical sales for the Atari Home computers in a company called Maplin Electronics. I was there when pong was rolled out as new etc etc

Having worked in the industry from the beginning until it was established as a new genre of entertainment I've had the pleasure of seeing mere pixels turn into sprites, then custom chips in the Atari that later went in to the Amiga in a much more enhanced form (by the same designer, Jay Miner RIP) and the evolution of home consoles and PC's getting bigger and also being a preferred gaming choice rather than the work horse they had been. But like True Brit I've also see the suits throttle the gamer for cash, EA is a known devil, sort of the Microsoft of Gaming, shake the person for every penny and then some.

Yes they have produced some fantastic games but BF2 is getting battered for its treatment of the players.

I used to be an online gamer until the cheats turned it sour, even with the new software to catch them as well as the servers reporting them its a pretty annoying experience but what also made me stop was the cost, my PC isn't meaty enough for most of the old games let alone the new ones so I have had an Xbox360 and lately a PS4 that me and my daughter share but it COSTS to do these things so the online stuff is beyond my money abilities.

What really annoys is the treatment of the people paying good money for their titles, top prices for bug ridden games that stifle the enjoyment and you don't know when the next freeze will happen, updates that take too long to happen and all that goes with it.

The industry has changed a LOT since my day, back then it was people in bedrooms working on their own after school making these wonderful little games, now its a team of a hundred for the various collective parts of the game, sound, music, CG models, animation and all the others, dev time has gone from a month or so to years but the worst thing, playability, its gone down, too much eye candy and way too little playability, some companies have kept the standards up like Nintendo, the consoles they make don't always do the numbers they would like but you play Zelda or Mario on any of their machines and you get gaming GOLD, super rich entertainment and perfected gameplay. EA, not so much, their catalogue has grade A titles but a lot of grade C ones.

We can only hope the suits in the Dev studio's understand that shovelling # to us won't work, and play times, be logical about it, a game with a HUGE length of time simply causes issues between actual overall game playing time for the player, try and make it enough to enjoy but not so much that the overlap on games causes issues.

But most of all, make it playable!!!

I'm an old school gamer. I got started back in the early 80's on my Commodore 64 (that I still own and use). I went through Amiga, Sega and Xbox. I was never a Nintendo or Sony guy with the notable exception of the Nintendo 64. I still play old school PC games. I have a dedicated old PC rig to play DOS and early Windows games.

I refuse to be part of the current gaming world. It's unrecognizable to me anymore.

I don't like multiplayer games. I prefer single player campaigns. I hate the respawn, get killed immediately aspect of the online games. And good single player games are getting rarer.

I will not, and will never pay a single additional cent inside a game. Ever. I bought the game, that was my purchase, and it should give me the ability to unlock every part of the game eventually. Through merit / skill based progress, not monetarily cheating.

I look back and think, I lived through the "Golden Age" of gaming.

EA just ignited the fire of those who are tired of being fleeced. Hopefully this starts the industry thinking about how they need to change. And possibly look back at what got them here.

a reply to: eriktheawful

Mass Effect was my favorite series. Sadly its been ruined for me and I'll never buy another installment.

Micro transactions are stupid and just shows that making money is more important than creating good games

a reply to: Dr X

I'm playing Battlefront 2 because


1) I don't GAGDF about "heroes" or loot boxes. I came to play an inferno squad trooper.


2) I want to pilot a TIE Fighter. I don't really care how much better another game's flight mechanics are if I can't pilot a TIE Fighter.

A last thing I detest is the in game purchasing aimed at the younger market, how many times must we see stories of kids snatching the family CC and buying huge numbers of stuff simply because the company involved almost brainwashed the kids in to how easy it was.

My daughter like me is a gamer and loves things like Animal Crossing but she's a bright 17yr old and in all the 3DS / DS stuff where there's been in game purchases over the years she simply won't waste the cash, she's more in to the design side as she in these days taking Art in college but still likes to tinker with Animal Crossing or tear up the city in GTAV..

That's my girl

originally posted by: FauxMulder
I thought they removed the micro transactions? Rumor is Disney stepped in and made them do it. This isn't just EA, this whole loot box thing and micro transactions are taking over a lot of games. It'll take a few kids to get a hold of their parents credit card and go nuts before anything really changes. I know there has been talk of classifying it as gambling but they say it's not because you get something every time. Even if you have a 0.0005% chance of getting the rare item you're after.

If I pay 60 bucks for a game, I shouldn't have to pay 1 frickin penny more to get everything in the game.

The legal definition of gambling is that you can get something back that has monetary value. Since an unlock can't be transferred or sold back to the company, it's impossible for it to have monetary value, as such it isn't gambling.

This is a stance I disagree with, and being a game dev myself I'm convinced that at some point in the coming years the predatory behavior of micro transactions will fall under some pretty serious regulation. I think that it will be labeled predatory, and as selling an addictive substance. Mobile games are so far 1000x worse than anything in Star Wars. I've watched people stream playing mobile games where they drop $50,000 at a time, sometimes multiple times a month trying to get extremely rare items.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
The only issue that I can see arising with labeling lootboxes gambling is how far does the gambling definition then extend. I mean there's not much difference between lootboxes and buying a booster pack for a CCG. So if games with lootboxes are then considered gambling does that mean some like Magic: The Gathering also falls under that defintion?

Most likely yes. In fact, in several countries in Europe MTG is already considered gambling and you have to be 18+ to buy packs or play in tournaments.

WotC has fought tooth and nail for MTG to not be labeled gambling, but I think that day is coming. The main reason MTG isn't currently gambing has to do with the prize structure in tournaments. Prizes are locked regardless of how many people play the event, there is no percent of pool awarded. On the pack side of things it's because they've defined the value of a piece of cardboard as equal no matter what is printed on it. So a fixed amount of money, always yields a fixed rather than random amount of 1/20 of 1 cent pieces of cardboard. The secondary market is something outside of Wizards control... and because they're not involved with that, it's not gambling.

a reply to: TrueBrit

The first video game systems appeared in the 1960's, I wasn't around quite that far back but games as we know them have advanced quickly since 1982 when i played my first game of pacman. I remember the thrill of it, being in an arcade it was the absolute best time to be a 13 yr old. lol. The hole was pretty cool back then, kids could buy single ciggies and it was dark. You could play pool, foosball and watch tough bikers hanging out on your lunch break.

It's a lot different now, comparatively. I don't see anything wrong with most games, and people who are affected by them badly had a problem to begin with upstairs. Like the gun issue. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

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 typical game only has a 5% chance of turning a profit. Microtransactions are starting to raise the chance of an investment breaking even. It's leading to worse products but more profits and less risky investments. Remember, in capitalism it's not the best product that survives on the market, it's the most competitive product that does.

originally posted by: Edumakated
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.

It's much less than that, if 2 out of 10 games were successful the industry would be in much better financial shape than it is. People not paying for a service isn't really an issue either because 1% of customers generate something like 90% of revenue on any given game with micro transactions. 99% of customers can stop buying or participating, and there's effectively no measurable hit to the product.

I think that's where the issue comes from. These games get marketed as being for everyone, but are secretly luxury tier only products where only an elite few actually matter to the company. Lots of gamers have trouble coming to grips with that.

a reply to: dothedew

Paradox Interactive has a very good model with DLC and they do just fine as a company. They make great games, have a very loyal customer base, and make a good amount of money.

originally posted by: amazing
That tends to lead credence to my theory that gamergate was never about ethics in gaming but about harrassing women, transwomen and gay people and characters. I think this is a timely statement since we're back around to talking about "actual" ethics in gaming for once and not just a couple of questionable game reviews.

Thats pretty much it, theres a reason most devs hate players.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Its sad ,

that Game Companies are allowing and doing this too go along
getting the Items and leveling you Character up !!

instead of Earning and making the time you can just Purchases it!

its like buying a High School Diploma instead of earning it and having the
experience let alone the Knowledge of education !

why buy the game at all.??

if you cant afford too consent purchases and always the upper class
will have it better in the game then you and have that Head Start!!

One of my Favorite Online Game was Asherons Call ( Dark Majesty ) made by Turbine

played for a few years on the HarvestGain Server Main Characters Wolfenzero X-bow-- WolfenX Sword
Awesome GAME I came into the Game in 2002 I think

Stopped ( well fading out ) of the Game

when People where starting buy Credits Game Money with Real Money on EBAY

as in the Gamer on the Same Server your On
will transfer the Credits Personally too you , within the Game
but Ebay put a stop too that ...

Now EVE Online is doing the Same thing ..

it not even fun nor a challenge anymore .. Miss the old days
it was shut down a while ago ,

Now OLD die hards of the Game Asherons Call got together
and now are Breathing New Life in the Game

PHATAC and ACEmu

I just May play it again


Asheron's Call
en.wikipedia.org...

the Online Game was Played for 17 Years!! AMAZING !

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: TrueBrit

Agree on all points regarding modern gaming.

I have a question for older gamers (over 40) if you would be kind enough to indulge me. This a bracket i occupy (for a while) but lately have been starting to feel a bit guilty actually gaming.....like i'm a bit too old, even though i still really enjoy. So my question is this.....has anyone else experienced this and if so, please reassure me it will soon go away!

I am approaching 60, play Torn, 9+ years, COTLI on Armor Games, and Idle Champions on Steam. Have been a huge fan of the Civ series since it first came out.

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: TrueBrit

Agree on all points regarding modern gaming.

I have a question for older gamers (over 40) if you would be kind enough to indulge me. This a bracket i occupy (for a while) but lately have been starting to feel a bit guilty actually gaming.....like i'm a bit too old, even though i still really enjoy. So my question is this.....has anyone else experienced this and if so, please reassure me it will soon go away!

Guilty about what? Our generation was the first to experience gaming. I'm in my mid 40s.

Uh,, no. I was playing Adventure and FoxRab in the 1970's. Zork was released in 1977. If my math is right, that was before you were born. You represent the second generation to experience gaming. But to the original question--no need for guilt. I believe watching TV is far worse. My grandson got me into SW:TOR and this has enhanced my relationship with he and his friends. They are quick to offer me suggestions for new games, and it's kind of funny to see them tailor their suggestions to my limitations of coordination and vision as an older player. I have to keep telling them to slow down because there is no way I can react that fast. My grandson kept bugging me to fight" him and I refused. Eventually I gave in and unleashed a lightning bolt on his character, which killed him in one blow. He doesn't challenge me any more. Once the kids get over the fact that a granddad plays the same games they do it can lead to some spirited conversations. I'm knowledgeable about the hardware so they often ask me for opinions on various rigs. It's kind of fun, actually, because they would be more or less cut off from me without that connection. I'm 68.

First person I seen to admitting to Zork, for me, was on a TRS 80.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: dothedew

Paradox Interactive has a very good model with DLC and they do just fine as a company. They make great games, have a very loyal customer base, and make a good amount of money.

Codename Entertainment does a pretty good job too. Everything can be unlocked through play, but they offer microtransactions.