HYRUL3 wrote:If you don't like microtransactions, don't partake in the microtransactions. If you don't like day one DLC, don't buy it. I think depriving yourself of great games like ME2 and 3 is stupid. While you may hurt the PUBLISHER, which is what EA is, simultaneously you hurt the DEVELOPER, who usually are being pushed by the publisher to do things like DLC, online passes, etc.
Well, that is the ideal solution. That would also discourage other game's and companies for pursuing such practices. Of course, the problem is that many people will
be stupid enough to buy ammo in a middle of an online match just to reload. In fact when I first saw that stockholders meeting I laughed because I thought no one would really be that dumb to pay real cash to reload your clip. Of course, I realize the sad truth that people will do it. They will buy Day 1 DLC and Disc-Locked Content, and buy useless alternate colors when they could just wait for the next version that will have it anyway (Blazblue/Street Fighter 4 anyone?).
Why do I personally find this a problem?
Well, to me the problem stems far beyond Greed, but how games in general are made today. Want an alternate ending? $5 to 10 dollars please. Extra accessories that should unlockable? $2 a piece please. Swap costume colors? More money please. Why is it that a 1995 game (I'll just use Chrono Trigger as an example) features up to what, 12 (?) multiple endings but modern games you need to sometimes pay money if even want to see one "correct ending"
. Want a complete game? Pay 60$...plus $20 or more dollars in DLC with half probably already on the disc, and instead of traditionally unlocking it through, ya know, playing
the game you just hand over the Green Paper. It makes games less rewarding for the hours you spend on it, and encourages "incomplete games". "Pay now, patch the game later to finish it" and all that other bullshit.
One could argue "Well, games are getting more expensive, therefore they need the extra money" (lol). Well maybe if they didn't spend so much money on graphics and cinematics and instead focused on, ya know, the gameplay, content and features and actually make the sure the game fucking works
before shipping it (lol at Day-1 Patches) then maybe they wouldn't have such "financial problems." Maybe if they focused on the content of their game a bit more, then they wouldn't find their games practically taking up the "Used Games Aisle" right after the game came out.
And I hate to be the "Retro games are better!!!" guy because I surely don't believe that at all (Nostalgia hardly affects my view on a game's quality). But when it comes to the point where I can find older games longer, more replay value, more rewarding, with more content than some newer games then there is definitely a problem, which is what I want to avoid. But all that bullshit from Publisher and Developers, and supporting said publishers/Developers, just makes that whole industry worst IMO.
Oh, and I feel no sympathy for the developer at all. Bioware knew EXACTLY what they were getting themselves into when they signed up with EA (like seriously, they would really be stupid if they didn't). One could even interpret that they support their practices because they signed up with them (which isn't necessarily true, but can be interpeted that way). Therefore they should have more and less expected themselves to get "bullied" by the publisher and maybe should have re-thought their choices in a publisher if they truly felt that would have been a problem.
Missing out on good, totally worth it games? That's your loss.
Which is fine. I don't need to have the next "totally worth it" games, for their just that, games (and from what I played, its no real loss. Their not bad; in fact their great games, but they're just that). Its not like its crack cocaine or anything; I'll be perfectly fine. There are thousand of games, both retro and new, that can fill that void if I ever need it.