Customer Discussions > video games discussion forum

EA looking for new ways to improve their income,ROFL


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 43 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Mar 2012 17:19:28 BDT
Runeweaver says:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE&feature=youtu.be

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:27:10 BDT
Aren't we all.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:27:48 BDT
Lol, they're having a laugh if they think I'm gonna pay real money to reload my weapon in B3 :):):):):):):)

Besides by refusing to let game stock Mass effect 3 they have effectively helped wipe out a retailer who took profit away from them in the second hand market so they've already boosted profits this year.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:32:59 BDT
Ness says:
Make a new console with BF, MoH, Mass Effect, Dragon Age, Dead Space, Fifa, Madden, Tigger Woods ect as exclusives = profit ? ;).

Seriously tho that guy was on stage for the Wii U unveil last year ... im scared !.

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2012 17:37:01 BDT
Runeweaver says:
Dont give them ideas,though by the sound of it they see a future where we pay per second to play.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:41:05 BDT
I'm thinking of asking my employers to simply take a cut of 20% of my wages and pay it directly to EA, might as well and cuts out the tax man if they take it gross so win win lol.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:48:02 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Mar 2012 18:09:18 BDT
Dela says:
So the yearly updates of FIFA, Madden, BF/MoH, Tiger Woods and a annual Bioware release arn't enough for them?...

EA need to go and die somewhere... Gamers are already getting screwed over with their online passes, release day DLC and over sensitive DRM on PC... It ain't gonna slow down with future releases either... Gone are the days when all you needed was a console and game to enjoy your bit of spare time...

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 17:55:35 BDT
Runeweaver says:
Just wait till cloud gaming starts,ooh they will have full control over what we play and how much we pay.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 18:17:54 BDT
Dela says:
Here's another corker from EA taken from EG:

"EA's forthcoming new SimCity title will require gamers to maintain a persistent internet connection while playing, developer Maxis has revealed.

Lead designer Stone Librande told Joystiq that the game's emphasis on multiplayer, regional impact and use of a player-influenced global economy means that it can only really work if everyone is online.

An EA rep also confirmed that although you'll be able to buy the game from a number of different vendors, you will have to play it through EA's Origin platform.

The follow-up to 2003's SimCity 4 was officially unveiled at GDC earlier this month ahead of its planned 2013 PC launch, though precious little detail was offered on exactly what we can expect from the title."

So we have very little detail about the actual game yet info about 'always on' internet DRM emerges?...

Also I wonder what "player-influenced global economy means that it can only really work if everyone is online." actually means???... More £££'s for gamers to stump up for the full Sim City experience?... Well, it is EA...

In reply to an earlier post on 28 Mar 2012 18:28:00 BDT
Runeweaver says:
With EA you can bank on there being some kind of micro transaction in the game,well they will bank on there being micro transactions in the game.

Posted on 28 Mar 2012 23:09:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 28 Mar 2012 23:17:31 BDT
J-Bear says:
EA have ruined every game I personally cared about. Sims 3 = broken cash cow. Dragon Age. Mass Effect. etc etc.

They have no idea what is going to bite them in the butt in the next several years.

When I used to load up Sims 2 on my laptop and see the EA logo I would think wow, EA must be good, they make this :)

Now I think oh I'll give that game a miss it's by EA that didn't let me join a game with my friend after we both bought Hot Pursuit on PS3, or, oh EA who ask me to sign in with an account I've forgotten my details to and charge extra for dlc ...

Yeh, EA, no thanks.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 00:20:04 BDT
@ J-Bear - totally agree. Name me a decent game that EA has produced in the last year or so ?? Hot Pursuit was ok as was Fifa 12. Personally, I enjoyed both Dantes Inferno and MOH but of the recent crop - Syndicate, Mass Effect 3 - no thanks.
I have no issues with them wanting to wipe out the pre-owned market - but if I am required to be signed in and logged on to their servers just to start a game - thats where I stop purchasing any of their products . Full stop.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 07:17:03 BDT
"Name me a decent game that EA has produced in the last year or so"

Errr, Battlefield 3, Crysis 2, Portal 2, SSX, TOR and Dead Space 2 off the top my head.

Having to maintain a continues connection to a EA server to play is out of order IMO. And I hope it remains limited to this game. For consoles I don't care an awful lot about having to register before starting a game. It's an easy and painless task.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:34:29 BDT
Nick says:
Just checked and portal 2 isn't them (I knew it was valve) they don't even publish it. I'd add ME3 to the list though.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:45:51 BDT
Runeweaver says:
ME3 would probably been perfect without EAs intervention,the day one dlc which they told us had been made after the data on the disc was finalized,but alot of it was already on the disc,adding multiplayer which in itself isnt a bad idea,until they added micro transactions and having to play multiplayer to get the best ending in single player,well unless you own a ipod,ipad or iphone.
And alot of people believe the terrible ending in ME3 was on purpose,get people demanding a new ending and then sell them the true ending later,its pretty much been confirmed the main person who wrote the story,was given a back seat when the ending was put together,from what ive read the end he intended would have still upset alot of people but it did have alot more closure.

In reply to an earlier post on 29 Mar 2012 07:56:01 BDT
Nick says:
I'd agree that EA made the main problems; but it's a very good game nonetheless.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 08:14:31 BDT
Runeweaver says:
Well at least EA might win an award for this,they are in the final eight for the Golden Poo award,just hope they beat Comcast last night.

http://consumerist.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?blog_id=1&tag=wcia%202012&limit=20

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 08:17:21 BDT
Steve says:
Lets be honest greed knows no bounds so as long as their are people out there that will part with their money there are going to be companies looking to take advantage. And furthermore if it does back fire well they will just go back to the old way and some will praise them for having the gamer in mind by reducing their costs.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:03:56 BDT
"Just checked and portal 2 isn't them (I knew it was valve) they don't even publish it. "

Are you sure? Pretty sure remembering seeing a EA sign on a Portal 2 cover. Did Ea just distribute the retail side of things?

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:12:30 BDT
Dentar Notar says:
EA were the Portal 2 publisher

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:22:28 BDT
Yes Portal 2 was a good game.
However, unlike others, I did NOT enjoy BF3 and was happy to part with when I traded it in. Also, Dead Space 2 was also good but lets be honest, did it deviate much from the 1st.

I am not anti-EA...don't get me wrong. But the company is going down the wrong path - prying on what you are doing via Origin, getting you to sign into their servers to boot up a game (forthcoming SIMS game), DLC content done and dusted before the game is even released (MF3), yearly releases of the same game with a few tweaks (FIFA, Tiger Woods, Madden), etc...

They were one of the 1st to introduce DLC codes for online activity as well.
Companies are there to make money and increase profit, but EA IMO are greedy and getting worse.
E

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:29:24 BDT
Dentar Notar says:
I agree that EA are maximising their income revenue stream but they are not forcing you to buy anything - you can buy a standard new game and get the full experience. I don't really think there is any issue with planning (and even developing) DLC for a game, I don't like it when they obviously remove an aspect of the game and sell it for DLC however. I don't even mind online passes, it returns income to the development team in a second hand market.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:36:47 BDT
"And alot of people believe the terrible ending in ME3 was on purpose,get people demanding a new ending and then sell them the true ending later"

Because a load of avid fans believe it it don't make it so.

Runeweaver, have you gone back to that Eurogamer article you posted on here?

And "from what ive read the end he intended would have still upset alot of people but it did have alot more closure." is a bit misleading as its all speculation.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 09:41:20 BDT
Last edited by the author on 29 Mar 2012 09:42:29 BDT
I agree with Sanchez on a few points above. Never understood the big outcry against online passes. If you ran a business and was losing profit each year because your product was being traded on a second hand market would you not try and stop this? Don't use the car market as an example as that's something entirely different. The second hand games market takes a lot of revenue away from publishers and developers. Think about it, you buy 2nd hand then trade it back in and someone else buys it and so on and so on. You could have a popular game change hands 5/6 times with no revenue to the creators. Not on in my book. Besides its not like EA are asking you to buy a game brand new and then buy an online pass on top. Lots of games these days drop by as much as 50% in price within a month or two of release so games are very affordable brand new, unless you absolutely must play every game released on launch.

Dlc is also good but I have played the ME3 dlc and it did leave a bad taste in my mouth as this clearly should have been part of the main game. For anyone who has invested time in this trilogy from the start then what happens in the dlc is pretty important although not game breaking if not included.

As Sanchez said EA are not forcing anyone to do anything. If you feel that strongly vote with your wallet and don't buy so much stuff. I think gamers these days are way to greedy and want to buy every game that's released and think they should only be paying a pittance. A lot of games offer excellent value at £40 compared to other media like films and music when you look at the time spent playing them and if you don't think a particular game is good value at £40 don't buy it. Have some patience and wait for the inevitable sale.

Posted on 29 Mar 2012 10:25:02 BDT
The second hand games market takes a lot of revenue away from publishers and developers. Think about it, you buy 2nd hand then trade it back in and someone else buys it and so on and so on. You could have a popular game change hands 5/6 times with no revenue to the creators. Not on in my book."

If Game aren't bought out or replaced then we may see if there is any affect because Game must have accounted for a large chunk of the second hand market. If what publishers say is true about revenue then they should be expecting a big increase in sales of new copies any time now.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Participants:  19
Total posts:  43
Initial post:  28 Mar 2012
Latest post:  31 Mar 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions