EA Needs to F*** off and die

[Necronic]

???

The sky is blue,
There's no oxygen is space,
And you're giving me a headache with your irrelevant questions.

I'm sorry, but how do you NOT see what's wrong with this statement. You are making an assumption as a core tennet of your argument: That DLC was never considered an "extra" in the development costs/cycle by the producers up until the point that they realized that they could price gouge you on something they already made. That until the day some executive steepled his fingers and realized he could overcharge you for a product.

The sky is blue may be a fair comparison since it assumes an arbitrary perspective to be objective and universal, which it is not.

And I am still waiting to hear why this is so different from Collectors Editions or Pre-order bonuses that come out before the game is released, other than the fact that in this situation the game was unplayable without it. Those are, imho, worse for the consumer because they transfer risk from the producer to the consumer.

I'm sorry if this is giving you a headache, but I feel my argument has been incredibly straightforward, unemotional, and consistent. D1DLC is not inherently bad. EA's use of it in this case was, because they produced a core product that did not meet it's value proposition.

You guys have said the following:

1) That the DLC cost the company nothing extra to make, and should have been included for free

2) That the core product was inherently flawed without the DLC

3) That D1DLC is inherently bad because of 1&2.

I agree with #2. I need to see evidence of #1, because (regardless of your highly effective "because I said so" argument) and even if I do:

#3 is a non-sequitor. #1 is a matter of the company being dishonest and releasing a low-value product and screwing it's customers. #2 is the same thing just replace dishonest with incompetent. Neither of these imply D1DLC is bad, just that the company is.

 

[Necronic]

And as for the checked baggage argument, I'm not sure I understood you. Were you saying that checked bag fees are diffierent because there are enough people that don't want the service that it makes sense to split it off? I can't say I agree with that, but the thing is that it doesn't matter.

The point is that a company saw part of the cost of their product to be something that not everyone wanted, therefore it could be removed from the main item amd added as an optional part.

For me (and many other passengers) a checked bag isn't optional. For you it is. The company has to decide whether or not the reduction in cost to the people like you out there is worth the loss of good will to people like me.

And in EAs case, with ME3, they screwed up that determination, royally. But in other cases, like a decades worth of preorder and CE bonuses, people got it right. Just because EA doesn't know how to not cross their streams doesn't mean we shouldn't have Ghostbusters.

Those ghosts need busting man.

 

[PatrThom]

I think what is upsetting most people can be explained through the magic of another 80's movie.

Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

When the Movie studios tried it, it died on the first try. How are the Game studios getting away with it?

--Patrick
*for varying degrees of "some"

 

[SpecialKO]

When the Movie studios tried it, it died on the first try they successfully re-sold the film across multiple formats for several times the original ticket price and are now talking about re-making it with Gore Verbinski.

FTFY.

How are the Game studios getting away with it?

Because we've proved over and over and over again that people are more than happy to pay for add-ons of all kinds of they think they are worth it?

The whole core of Necro's argument isn't that EA doesn't jack people over DLC, it's that the screwing-over-the-customer thing is entirely EA's thing, not the mechanism of DLC.

 

[FnordBear]

Here. Hate on EA some more. I bought Spore complete pack last week and am having some issues. Fail chat below is fail.

Spoiler

You are now ready to chat with Ravish.
Ravish:
Thank you for contacting Origin Help. My name is Ravish! How may I assist you today?
you:
Hello. I have recently purchased Spore Complete Pack on Steam. I am having an issue where spore.com does not recognize that I have Galactic Adventures. The game is installed and plays fine, however since spore.com does not recognize that I have galactic adventures I am not able to upload and share my creations using that content. I have researched this issue before contacting you and I have found other users that had this problem required Customer Service to manually activate thier CD key on the Spore website. Before we proceed please make note I do -not- have the origion client installed. Any fixes suggested involving that client will not work for me because this is purchased via Steam. Suggestions involving reinstalling the game will also not work as this is according to research a server side issue requiring manual intervention on Customer Service's part. This is my CD key for Galactic Adventures. (EDITING OUT CD KEY) Please assist.
you:
Further information. According to the offical Spore.com forum's help section a differnt user that had this issue resolved was givien incident number 101119-005703 this may have the information needed to assist you in assisting me.
Ravish:
Could you more specific with the issue, David?
you:
When you install the spore games they link to the Spore.com website and indicate which expansion you have. I have the base game, cute and creepy pack, and galactic adventures.
you:
It does not recognize that I have Galactic Adventures
you:
This prevents me from sharing my user created content with others.
Ravish:
As I understand you have in game issue?
you:
Let me try explainging this again
Ravish:
Okay
you:
Spore has a system in place to share things you create in game with others via the Spore.com website. The website detects which game expansions you have installed. It is not detecting that the Galactic Adventures expansion is installed.
you:
This prevents me from shareing creations I make using that content.
you:
I have researched this issue before contacting you and found other users have this same issue.
you:
Those users report that EA support had to register their game for them on the Spore website.
you:
That is what I am requesting. A manual update to my spore.com profile indicating I have purchased galactic adventures.
Ravish:
Okay.
Ravish:
How long you have been facing this issue, David?
you:
Since I purchased the game last week.
Ravish:
Okay.
Ravish:
I do understand that, let me see what best I can do for you.
Ravish:
I definitely accommodated your request but unfortunately we do not have any access to purchases made at third party retailers.
Ravish:
Please contact your retailer or our warranty department we are not authorized to provide any code regarding this.. I apologize for the disappointment.
Ravish:

you:
I already have a code
you:
The game works.
Ravish:
I have informed you of my limitations regarding this issue and unfortunately, I won't be able to provide code to you.
Ravish:
We are not supposed to provide codes for 3rd party purchases.
Ravish:

you:
I am not asking you to
you:
I have a code. I provided it in my first paragraph
you:
I am asking you to update my online spore.com profile to indicate the purchase.
you:
(CD KEY REMOVED) in case you need it again
Ravish:
Okay, For any such update please keep in touch with the official website.
you:
So you are not going to assist me?
Ravish:
For any such updated please keep in touch with the official website and forum.
you:
You are not helpful. I will pursue other avenues for assistance.
Your chat session has ended.

 

[SeraRelm]

I think I see the problem, you got Spore.


(This isn't me ripping on the game, this is me hating on EA some more)

 

[FnordBear]

 

[Necronic]

"I do understand that, let me see what best I can do for you."
Is it racist that I heard that in an indian voice, or is it just experience?
Man, spore was such an amazing pile of shit.

 

[PatrThom]

FTFY.

Oh good. I hope they don't do something stupid this time. Also, I think the "resold over different formats" speaks more towards marketing and "cult" status than it does the success of the gimmick itself.

--Patrick

 

[@Li3n]

Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

Wait, i was under the impression that individual theatres only got one ending each, so you couldn't go back and there was no guarantee that you'd catch another ending at another theatre either...

 

[Covar]

I think what is upsetting most people can be explained through the magic of another 80's movie.

Some of you* may remember the movie Clue from 1985. It was a movie with a completely original twist. The studio filmed 3 different endings, and the gimmick was that you would go back to the theater to watch the movie all over again 3 times just so you could see all the endings. This did not go over well (at least, not well enough for anyone to try it again). When the home version was released, it had all three endings included. If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II) or forced you to pay to "unlock" the other two endings (ME3/Capcom), well, people would've had the chance to start this argument that much earlier.

When the Movie studios tried it, it died on the first try. How are the Game studios getting away with it?

--Patrick
*for varying degrees of "some"

Fun fact: The DVD allows you to either watch the movie with all three endings or have it select a random ending for you.

 

[ScytheRexx]

If, instead, they had released three separate tapes (Starcraft II)

Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

 

[SpecialKO]

Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

Exactly. Folks are placing far too much emphasis on the delivery mechanism and far too little on the actual value prop.

Throw in some pubs who don't understand their consumers, and you get our current mess.

 

[ScytheRexx]

I should make clear again that I don't have a problem with DLC, as long as it feels like it's actually a bonus. Sometimes they feel more like items left out of the game in order to charge more money (Most of From Ashes was already on the ME3 disk).

A DLC adding more new weapon packs to a game? I don't mind, as long as the weapons don't cause a large imbalance. A DLC adding a character a bit farther in a games life cycle? Don't mind it, gives me more reason to play it again. Again, my issue comes down to having something there that obviously was removed so that you could charge more for it later. The radio being in the car, only you have to pay more before you can use it. I don't care for that method of DLC because it's so obviously not a bonus, it was pre-made and taken out so they would get more cash off them.

 

[CynicismKills]

Never really understood this, as that is kind of what LOTR did, and I don't see anyone screaming that they had to watch three movies to get the whole story. (Plus the Extended Edition, if you wanted the extras, cost a bit more.) SC2 is not doing anything all that odd, and actually I support the idea, since it gives me one more expansion then I was expecting. (Blizzard, outside WoW, is only known to release 1 expansion per game).

The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those. Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.
Added at: 13:19
Also I'll point out I bought LotR: Fellowship right when the first DVD hit, and was really pissed to find a coupon for the Extended Edition inside. If that's not rubbing salt in the "haha thanks for the money asshole" wound, I don't know what is.

 

[Ravenpoe]

The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those. Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.

I think that when the news came out that they were going to be standalone 'episodes,' fan expected them to be released a lot closer together, too.

When I finished Wings of Liberty, I couldn't wait for HotS to see where the story went, and I looked forward to what crazy new stuff would be added and how it would change multiplayer. Now? Eh, I've already stopped playing SC2 and really couldn't care less.

 

[CynicismKills]

I think that when the news came out that they were going to be standalone 'episodes,' fan expected them to be released a lot closer together, too.

When I finished Wings of Liberty, I couldn't wait for HotS to see where the story went, and I looked forward to what crazy new stuff would be added and how it would change multiplayer. Now? Eh, I've already stopped playing SC2 and really couldn't care less.

Yeah, like I mentioned it's already been 2 years since SC2, and on top of that there's not even a release date for HotS yet, which I figure means holiday 2012 or early 2013 at the earliest. I understand what they were going for in terms of a bigger, more robust story for the whole game, but that's a pretty big gap between chapters.

 

[Covar]

Yeah, like I mentioned it's already been 2 years since SC2, and on top of that there's not even a release date for HotS yet, which I figure means holiday 2012 or early 2013 at the earliest. I understand what they were going for in terms of a bigger, more robust story for the whole game, but that's a pretty big gap between chapters.

It is?

 

[CynicismKills]

Half Life 3 is the new Duke Nukem: Forever.

 

[SpecialKO]

Half Life 3 is the new Duke Nukem: Forever.

 

[Necronic]

I should make clear again that I don't have a problem with DLC, as long as it feels like it's actually a bonus. Sometimes they feel more like items left out of the game in order to charge more money (Most of From Ashes was already on the ME3 disk).

A DLC adding more new weapon packs to a game? I don't mind, as long as the weapons don't cause a large imbalance. A DLC adding a character a bit farther in a games life cycle? Don't mind it, gives me more reason to play it again. Again, my issue comes down to having something there that obviously was removed so that you could charge more for it later. The radio being in the car, only you have to pay more before you can use it. I don't care for that method of DLC because it's so obviously not a bonus, it was pre-made and taken out so they would get more cash off them.

I agree with most of what you've said except the wording of the last part, and maybe that's where all this contention comes from.

The problem you guys have is that you believe that the company excised something from it's final product and then deemed it to be an "extra" even though it never was "extra in their development cycle. The method for the to achieve this is through D1DLC.

I agree that this is a major problem and shouldn't happen, although I'm not sure how you can be sure that it was excised for profit after the fact and was never intended to be an "extra". But maybe what you're saying is that it doesn't matter what the intent or the plan was, what matters is that the core game is incomplete with this material removed. Well, I also agree with that.

And (maybe) you're saying that the core game couldn't have been butchered like this without the existence of D1DLC, and that D1DLC is responible for the mistake.

That I take issue with. There are MANY cases of a story being released in an incomplete, crappy manner. Pretty much every bad movie ever made is missing integral parts of the story, character development, etc, that without which the story suffers. This can be caused by many things. Unexpected cost over-runs. Sloppy producers. Evil producers that intentionally hatchet job a project. Simple incompetence.

Not DLC.

 

[SeraRelm]

They're not saying DLC is the problem, they're saying DLC is the tool that the problem uses to get more money.

 

[ScytheRexx]

The issue with SC2, I think, is not only people looking at SC1/WC1/2/3 in terms of progression (complete one story campaign, move to the next until the main story is complete, expansions adding a new storyline for each race) and being upset at having to buy a whole new expansion for each race plus the possibility of an expansion past those.

I can understand an issue of perception, but when put versus other attempts to make "Trilogies" I just don't see the problem. Each game does have a set ending, that ending just forshadows the next expansion. If Zerg and Protoss were not in multiplayer, I would see a concern, as they left out pretty much 2/3rds of the main part of the game, but I don't think having the story focus on certain races and characters was a problem. Actually, I think it gave us a chance to get to know more characters. In SC1 the amount of important human character you got was 4 (Raynor, Kerrigan, Mengsk, Duke), while in SC2 we got to nearly a dozen, not counting the various old and new protoss characters we met in the bonus missions.

Also LotR is not a great comparison, as all three movies were filmed simultaneously and released about a year apart, whereas SC2 itself is already about 2 years old (and there's no set release date on HotS yet, so I figure at least end of this year, if not next year). I understand Blizzard is likely considering HotS and the Protoss storylines to be expansions, but looking back at previous Blizz RTS games the fans were likely expecting the whole story in one $60 package, not three.

Now I do agree the game is taking a lot longer to release then it should, that is a valid concern. It should have come out earlier this year, but I expect they are mostly holding off because they didn't want to compete with the Diablo 3 release (and likely when MoP comes out will be balanced around when HOTS comes out). Hopefully they will improve on that, but from what I see of the story so far, it looks pretty fun.

I just don't think having a story pulled out over multiple games is a concern. I like more story. As long as WOL was a self-contained narrative that lead into future stories, I was happy, and in the end, that was exactly what it was. It was a self-contained story. I think Angry Joe put it best in his review.

 

[Necronic]

They're not saying DLC is the problem, they're saying DLC is the tool that the problem uses to get more money.

I completely agree with that.

DLC doesn't kill games. EA kills games.

 

[SeraRelm]

And people are bitching about the method because it is becoming the norm, or at least far more common to put that locked content on a disk then charge people above and beyond the already massive cost of buying a new console game to get everything that was made for the game before it was released.


TL;DR version.
"Back in my day, when you bought a game, you got the whole thing."

 

[SpecialKO]

Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

 

[SeraRelm]

If they didn't have it done to the best of their satisfaction, they shouldn't have released it yet. Different issue though.

 

[ScytheRexx]

Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

Well then we wouldn't know about whether it was left out or an actual bonus. If I at least felt it was a bonus I wouldn't be so annoyed by it.

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm talking about Day 1 DLC, not the main game.

EDIT: That was to SeraRelm.

 

[SeraRelm]

Right, that's still extended development.

 

[SpecialKO]

Well then we wouldn't know about whether it was left out or an actual bonus.

How so? It would still have been developed in the exact same time period.

I'm just curious why "on disk" specifically makes people as mad as "EA is a bunch of pricks for piece-mealing ME3".
Added at: 14:55

Right, that's still extended development.

We're back to the assumption that those resources would have gone to main game if they weren't being used to for DLC, which is just a guess in general. ME3 certainly seems to have been a case of it being true, but that's one game.

 

[Necronic]

And people are bitching about the method because it is becoming the norm, or at least far more common to put that locked content on a disk then charge people above and beyond the already massive cost of buying a new console game to get everything that was made for the game before it was released.

TL;DR version.
"Back in my day, when you bought a game, you got the whole thing."

Eh, even with the DLC out these days the price per quality ratio of games has done nothing but increase over the last 20 years. 50-60$ has been the price point for a new game for a decade or more, ~40-50$ before that all the way to the 80s. When you consider inflation that means that the price of a game has actually gone down, and that's ignoring playtime.

Don't even get me started on the complete gamble that a computer game was in the 90s. If it didn't work due to bugs then you really had little option other than to just hope and pray that someone decided to make a patch. It took me 3 months to get Diablo 1 to work. 1 year to get my ping down below 999 on Quake TF (yes I played online like that). And Daggerfall, well....we don't talk about Daggerfall.

TL;DR version:
"Back in my day games were mostly terrible and overpriced and/or poorly supported, and most people today are either young whippersnappers that don't remember this or they can't get off those rose-tinted shades all these hipsters like to wear."

Followup (missed this):

If they didn't have it done to the best of their satisfaction, they shouldn't have released it yet. Different issue though.

When did you actually start playing games? Because, well, see what I said above.

PSS: eh the above comment isn't fair and is unnecesarilly snippy. Sorry Sera.

 

[HowDroll]

Question for folks: what if it wasn't on disk? Still available day 1, but not on disk?

Anything that significantly adds to the game, and that is available on day 1 of release, should be included in the cost of the game. Having different "tiers" of the game available for more money is bullshit. If DLC is developed after release and comes out months later, that's entirely different.

 

[Necronic]

Anything that significantly adds to the game, and that is available on day 1 of release, should be included in the cost of the game. Having different "tiers" of the game available for more money is bullshit. If DLC is developed after release and comes out months later, that's entirely different.

That logic disconnects production costs and price point.

According to normal thinking:

X (hours) * Y (cost/hour)/ Expected volume of sales * (1+ROI) = Price point


According to your thinking

X( hours) ??? Y(Cost/hour)???Expect Volume of Sales???ROI

?????

60$

 

[ScytheRexx]

How so? It would still have been developed in the exact same time period.

It's less the DLC for me and more the fact the obviously were building it into the main game. If it was true DLC, it wouldn't have all those resources there, because all those resources would have to be downloaded.

This is how it looks in my mind, and hopefully helps explain the type of DLC I like, and the type of DLC I hate.

I hate:

Developer 1 "We almost got Jarrik done, just need to get some of the sounds done so we can finish him up."
Developer 2 "Don't worry about it, get them done, we will add him in a DLC so we can make some more cash."
Developer 1 "But... we already put him and most of his information in the game, he is already programmed to be there... Do you want me to remove his data?"
Developer 2 "Don't bother, like those players are going to notice."

I don't mind:

Developer 1: "Hey guys, we finished the game, but we have a bit more time to likely program another squadmate."
Developer 2: "I had this idea for a Protheon squad mate, it wouldn't be to hard to add him, but we would need more time to do the sound work."
Developer 1: "That's fine, we can develop him on the side and if we get him done in time, we can add him as DLC either at release or after release. We would just add him entirely through a patch."

Leaving the data on the disk makes me think the first option, leaving it off the disk and doing it fully through a patch makes me think the second. It's not even really about the time period it's developed, and more about the implied reasons behind why it was developed the way it was, and what may have been lost due to it. Again, going back to that whole car comparison, what options are going to make you feel "cheated"?

1) Opening the door and noticing the radio is gone, them saying they can install a nice one for a small fee.
2) Opening the door and noticing the radio is half-way ripped out with missing dials and knobs, them saying they will add those parts back for a fee to make it complete.
3) Opening the door and noticing the radio is already there.

1 and 3 I don't mind, because either I get more, or at the least, they are offering me more for a little extra.

2 makes me feel like they just starting pulling parts out, decided not to bother anymore because I would buy it anyways, then dropped the extra cost on me.