Fun with EA: "Micro"-Transactions, Online DRM, CEO Fired

[Ruldra]

And it begins: $15 for a single building.

[Udderdude]

Bwahahahaha.

[Ed Oscuro]

I didn't know lorem ipsums cost $15.

[Udderdude]

It looks like they're poking around the internal files.

[Ed Oscuro]

Dear EA, do sort out the client/server separation before you release an always-online game

[BareKnuckleRoo]

I don't actively play any MMOs anymore, but at least with a decent one you'd be getting a good game at the cost of a monthly/yearly fee to help support the game and pay for server upkeep. I'm not fond of having to buy items with real money to get a boost over the players that can't be attained realistically in-game without money, but at least most F2P MMOs are still decent enough and have player-run shops that it doesn't feel too unfair. I imagine the market likes F2P more than monthly fees more because people don't notice how all those micropayments add up and easily part with their money moreso than with a monthly fee...

I wonder if EA would have had less backlash over this if they did more to ensure their developers had actually consistently high quality games, instead of this rushed bullshit (rushing their developer's games out the door to fail is something they seem to do a lot of). The last EA published game I bought was Mirror's Edge, and I did buy the DLC Time Trials maps for that, but that was more because I liked the game, the publisher, DICE, and I loved the abstract cubic aesthetic the maps have...

[BryanM]

I imagine the market likes F2P more than monthly fees more because people don't notice how all those micropayments add up and easily part with their money moreso than with a monthly fee...

More that it has to do with expectations. World of Warcraft is not a special snowflake. It isn't worth $15 a month for the privilege of getting to play a Dragon Warrior remake. Or the privilege of subsidizing end-game raid content for the sperglords.

Pay for what you want is the opposite of sperg welfare; it's welfare the way we've known to understand it. A small minority able and willing to pay covers the rest (that's the Path of Exile style, not Diablo 3's "yeah, we think this thing is still worth paying for"). A happy bonus is the developers are incentized to actually make things people want; what % of the WoWarcraft playerbase would have been overjoyed to pay only $5 a month if it meant no new raids being added?

It's the opposite of this EA crap - it's a fair deal to the players, best by test. The ones who aren't actively funding things like EA's terrorism.

Blood diamonds~

[Ed Oscuro]

Or the privilege of subsidizing end-game raid content for the sperglords.

This is probably the #1 thing I hate most about modern games.

Although it applies to shmups as well in theory, in principle it at least feels different. All the same variables are there (money, dedication, skill even) but the feel is different in games where you spend your time trying to ape what somebody else is doing while flaunting about easily with their hard-won (or bought) warchest of skills and items, whereas in an arcade game you're just looking to get some skill and a score. I would say that the people who get discouraged from playing F2P games in the long haul because they see how difficult they are - those must be the wise ones.

Still, it's a small leap from having content anybody can use (i.e. Diablo 2) being paid for by everybody, to this latest idea where by the baked-in attrition curve against time and interest, in practice most people haven't got a chance of making it.

[Ruldra]

Well, the shitstorm finally got to him.

EA CEO resigns.

[BryanM]

Business Guy. "Led".

Argh.

[Friendly]

Well, the shitstorm finally got to him.

EA CEO resigns.

As nice as it would be to think that his resignation is a result of customer outrage, I very much doubt it. It's all about money, and Riccitiello made some bad investments (two recent examples: $200 million USD for the Star Wars MMORPG Knights of the Old Republic, which bombed, and the purchase of PopCap Games (makers of Bejewelled) for $650 million USD + $100 million in stock options). EA's financials are pretty awful.
Unfortunately, I don't expect the next CEO of EA to be any better for us gamers.

Anyway, good riddance

EDIT: Guess I was right; John Riccitiello supposedly didn't step down but was fired.

[BryanM]

"Biggest budget and license in the world; if they can't make it work no one can."

Alternatively:

"The first one was so bad it had to close down so let's make another one."

[Udderdude]

Holy fuck, I'm almost out of popcorn. I don't know how much more of this hilarious shit I can take.

[brokenhalo]

poor ceo. lets see what kind of golden parachute the guy walks away with.

[Friendly]

Will EA manage to win again? Vote now:
http://consumerist.com/2013/03/18/here- ... ournament/

poor ceo. lets see what kind of golden parachute the guy walks away with.

TWENTY FOUR MONTHS of salary.

[Friendly]

The Best John Riccitiello Jokes Twitter Has To Offer

[Ed Oscuro]

Wee-Bey?

Looks like I was wrong - EA was in decline long before he ascended to the lofty pinnacle of EAness. Seven years but a lot of the rot was in place before then.

[BIL]

Haha, nice pick. Bey a rock, muhfucka. He ain't gon' snitch.

[Ruldra]

The Best John Riccitiello Jokes Twitter Has To Offer

Will EA manage to win again? Vote now:
http://consumerist.com/2013/03/18/here- ... ournament/

As much as people hate EA, it'd be really stupid if they won against BoA again.

[BulletMagnet]

As much as people hate EA, it'd be really stupid if they won against BoA again.

Seconded. As ripe a target as EA is since its operations have little to no effect on "non-optional" aspects of our lives, the world really needs to hate on more hate-worthy companies.

That being said, so long as the gravy train's rolling...

[Friendly]

As much as people hate EA, it'd be really stupid if they won against BoA again.

Seconded. As ripe a target as EA is since its operations have little to no effect on "non-optional" aspects of our lives, the world really needs to hate on more hate-worthy companies.

There certainly are. BoA certainly is a worse company, though it doesn't really have any bearing on the lives of most of us. On the other hand, EA's money-grubbing anti-consumer tactics have a direct and negative influence on our hobby, because they rub off on the rest of the industry. Don't fuck with my hobby!

[Udderdude]

I don't think the "Worst company in America" thing is anything to take seriously anyway. It's mostly humorous.

[Ed Oscuro]

What I'm worried about is who he will be replaced with. At least this is a guy who understood games - it's always been a struggle, even today, against the old-fashioned CEO who had to have the developers hook the machine up for demos, who just has a business degree and views the product as totally interchangeable. The guy's tenure also represents the ongoing tension between providing service and value, and "providing service and value" i.e. the nickel-and-dime approach. I did not like the author of the piece I linked saying that it was totally OK to spend multiples of the initial buy-in price just to have the game keep working for a few years down the line on current hardware and to get new content. I'm sure that latter content should continue to be expensive because of attrition of the install base, if you're not banking on new people buying into the game, which is what they should be doing.

EA seems caught between this old model, where the initial push is for early adopters to buy the game at full retail, and the new model, where you want to bring in new people. I think the visceral reaction against being nickel-and-dimed for buying early is really important - one of the reasons I have not bought EA games. Valve is a good example against this - the early adopters aren't a cash cow; the cost of production and profits are spread out amongst everybody who buys the game, and they even knock the price down a bit for people whose value proposition or money outlook isn't as good (i.e. those on the fence and the relatively poor).

[BulletMagnet]

BoA certainly is a worse company, though it doesn't really have any bearing on the lives of most of us.

There's a huge, HUGE argument against that to be had, though this thread isn't the place for it.

[Ed Oscuro]

Speaking of which, couldn't Congress be on that list? If not, then at least certain ratings agencies, who continue to get the official Seal of Approval most undeserved.

[Friendly]

I don't think the "Worst company in America" thing is anything to take seriously anyway. It's mostly humorous.

Yes, I think that's the point. Which is why it's fine to nominate EA.

[BulletMagnet]

Speaking of which, couldn't Congress be on that list?

They're not a private business though...just owned by them.

[Ruldra]

EA Makes Worst Company In America History, Wins Title For Second Year In A Row!

I like the final paragraph in the article:

When we live in an era marked by massive oil spills, faulty foreclosures by bad banks, and rampant consolidation in the airline and telecom industry, what does it say about EA’s business practices that so many people have — for the second year in a row — come out to hand it the title of Worst Company In America?

lolz

[Udderdude]

And everyone laughed happily ever after, except the people dumb enough to buy their games :3

[BulletMagnet]

what does it say about EA’s business practices that so many people have — for the second year in a row — come out to hand it the title of Worst Company In America?

That the video gamers it caters to (or, as the case may be, doesn't) are a particularly vengeful and bile-loaded consumer base?