Yes they’re really doing this.
In a recent announcement in the Morgan Stanley Technology
Media & Telecom Conference, Electronic Arts CFO Blake Jorgensen has stated
plans for all future titles to include micro-transaction markets and options.
Jorgensen claims that “consumers are
enjoying and embracing that way of the business” and wholeheartedly
supporting the idea of micro-transactions within video games. He specified that
“we’re building into all of our games the
ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level, to
buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun; whatever it may be.” all of
which strongly suggests a pay-to-win mentality on the part of EA in their
decision to include these within the title.
This was something I didn’t get into in the review of Dead Space 3. In fact I omitted the
sections I wrote on it because it nearly doubled the length of the review and
quickly devolved into an unprofessional foaming rant. Also I tried to
completely ignore it while playing through the game. Apparently the reaction to
its inclusion in that title was similarly negative with reports in Eurogamer and GamesIndustry commenting upon the company racking up criticism for their
inclusion and its unpopularity. As such allow me to talk for a moment as to why
such a feature in these games is a bad idea using Dead Space 3 as an example.
The first big problem is this is exactly the same thing as
Day One DLC. This is content in which development time has been taken out of
creating the initial title to make. It will have been developed alongside it,
using the game’s budget but it’s been set aside to have you pay more for it.
You are effectively paying for something you have rightfully already paid for
with buying the initial game.
The second issue is balance. A game’s developers will now be
trying to have trouble to account for this inclusion on EA’s part and create
difficulty within the title. Dead Space 3
had this issue as you were capable of purchasing things which would allow you
to effectively stroll through the game without any difficulty. An infamous one
which was repeatedly brought up involved Dead
Space’s scavenger drones. Giving options to purchase what were effectively
cheats to decrease the time in which they spent searching for usable resources
and doubling their carrying capacity, allowing for you to advance far faster
than you normally should.
In this case it made things easier by offering you greater
resources you would otherwise not have, but trying to compensate for this
problem could cause other major problems. For example, keeping with the drones
what if developers started to increase the amount of time drones would take and
halved their carrying capacity prior to purchase in anticipation of everyone
buying the micro-transaction. Now take this further. What if future titles had
them turning enemies into bullet sponges because a micro-transaction allowed
for permanent increased damage with all weapons. What if the game came with
extremely ineffective medikits and health items because a micro-transaction
could boost their effectiveness by 30%. It would make the games far harder and with
the developers creating arbitrary difficulty enhancers just to account for
their presence, without even considering the possibility of EA intentionally enforcing
a higher difficulty to get more cash out of their customers. And this is just
considering single player, imagine what could end up being included with games
with a heavy multiplayer community such as the Call of Duty series.
And finally, this is something we used to get for free a
couple of console generations ago. You might remember them back with games like
Goldeneye and Medal of Honor: Frontline where things which made the game broken
and funny bits were included. They were called cheats. Where you had to either
beat levels on a certain difficulty and unlocked them or tapped in some hidden
code. Dead Space 3 has these, both
amusing additions and corner cutting bonuses, the only difference is you have
to give more cash for them now.
Moving away from Dead
Space examples and back to the news, what makes this especially interesting
is the game Jorgensen references as an example of how successful micro-transactions
can be. One with the title of The
Simpsons: Tapped Out which is a IOS and Android game, which is quite simply
a Cow Clicker game and is by no means
any valid basis for introducing them to a AAA FPS title. For one thing Tapped Out lacks any ongoing plotline or
competitive difficulty and there is really little which can actually be changed
by their inclusion. No long term plotlines or even many actual video game
aspects which would usually be found in most genres. What’s more is there’s no
real challenge or mechanics which can be ruined by their inclusion, unlike the
vast majority of licences which are currently under EA’s control.
Some which in game’s industry have come to the defence of
early criticism of this decision such as former Gears of War developer Cliff Bleszinski. Arguing how Valve has been
doing exactly the same thing in games such as Team Fortress 2 with hats and criticise Electronic Arts for its
inclusion: “It blows my mind that somehow
gamers don’t seem to get that Valve is a business, just like any other, ans
when Valve charges $100 for an engagement ring in Team Fortress 2, it’s somehow
‘cool’[…] Yet when EA want to sell
something similar, it’s seen as ‘evil.’”
This unfortunately ignores that these work in largely
different ways. The transactions in Team
Fortress 2, the aforementioned hats, are superficial additions to skins and
customisations, and are unique offerings per purchase. They will not affect the
gameplay experience. Much of what was found offered up in Dead Space 3 consisted of things you would get later on in the game
but you would get instantly, or easier, without the grinding involved. Further contrasts
could be made such as pointing out how Valve is privately owned by long time
gamers and developers whereas Electronic Arts has shareholders to answer to, the
fact EA has driven a large number of franchises into the ground by directly interfering
with their development such as with Command
and Conquer 4, but that would require a small essay to cover properly.
Only time will tell if EA will back off on its decision to
include this, but given its apparent lack of concern for positive PR amongst
gamers it seems very unlikely.
No comments:
Post a Comment