EA Games And The Ethics of The Computer Games Industry

a reply to: Serdgiam

We've been tempted a time or two to buy a console, but we never have. We feel like properly building and keeping our gaming PCs upgraded is the superior choice.

Our son has readily picked up how to game with keyboard and mouse. He's playing LEGO Batman on my husband's comp as I type this.

I am an old gamer from the days of pong, atari, intellivision, Commodore 64, every arcade game in the local arcade you could imagine, Nintendo, Genisys, Turbo Graphics, 3DO, Playstations, IBM 486-33 and up to my current i7 Core with massive video card, solid state and standard drives....etc...

Asking for more money past the base game should only be done when they are actually adding to the base game....added content, more weapons, more missions....and the list goes on and on.

Asking for money on new games out of the gate in order to unlock the unlockable is a money grab. Rich kids and Rich adults end up with everything and those of us who play alot but pay very little....well, we make fun of them and tea bag them when we kill them.

I personally don't like the pay to unlock or pay to play ideas. I think more money lies in extending or adding on content after the initial release.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: TrueBrit

You cannot save people from themselves.

Exactly. Companies are out to make money, and they make money by selling people a product they, the consumer, think they want. This isn't exactly a new thing, and it's not the company's responsibility to ask if you the consumer are sure if you really want to spend money on camo for your character's gun.

My only problems with microtransactions is when either a) you can get everything in the game only by playing literally thousands of hours....or by dropping a few hundred bucks or b) when you pay to gain a competitive advantage in multiplayer but get left in the same matches as those who didn't pay.

Or, more of a concern, when an unfinished game is released and then the "finishing touches" are put behind a paywall.

But simply allowing people to buy extras for their game? Meh, whatever. A fool and his money...etc.

Simply put: the only way I will purchase a game is if i can own the entire game in 1 purchase.

I don't mind there being additional maps and whatnot put out, but chances are, ill not buy them. Those maps usually are just rehashes of prior game maps.

If i have to spend more money to buy weapons and power ups, the game makers can suck it. Especially now that I have moved to central texas and live so close to so many lakes and rivers, and larger cities like Austin and Killeen (and Waco). Games have to compete with nature and the world i live around for my attention any more.

This is the first year in about 10 years that I haven't bought Call of Duty on its release date. In fact, my Xbox Live Gold has been expired for almost 6 months now. I bought the newest PGA Golf on the live marketplace back in June, and only had time to play it for about a month.

originally posted by: dothedew
Who's up for a boycott?

I am boycotting, didn´t buy any games for a year or longer, except Pinball tables for Pinball FX!
And i never bought some of those FIFA or CoD, Battlefield series, because, if you played them once, you played them all. Almost nothing changes, maybe the scenarios(WWII instead of WWI, for example), but that´s it. I loved to play FIFA, but since ten years it is not as funny as it had been before.

Ah, no, i bought Skyrim because it was very cheap sometimes this year, but it isn´t installed anymore, after i upgraded my machine. I had a million mods in the game, but i forgot which ones. So i would need to begin from the beginning again, the third time. The first time was volutary, i don´t play tutorials or read anything, i start games and play them. When i learend enough, i start from scratch. Best way to learn playing games the right way. The second time i had to restart because of my machine, and the third time will not happen, as i guess.

Rather i would play Gothic3 again!

a reply to: TrueBrit

as a kid we had comadore vic 20, had a 64 and a 128. use to buy games for 2 bucks a pop (3$ if you wanted instructions with the game) from some hacker dude. had thousands of games on the 64/128. a lot of fond memories gaming back then.

a reply to: Edumakated

I under the basics of economics, and I don't necessarily have an issue with such a system.

My problem comes in when quality suffers, and the normal route of "talking with my money" is completely negated. Call of Duty is a prime example of this.

If you are mainly a single player campaign type of gamer (as I am, depending on game), then I wouldn't be surprised if you have already run into decreasing quality. Single player is mainly an afterthought, since it is more difficult to motivate spending without having to compete with others that spend large sums.

In my mind, this is a market that intersects a lot of different arenas. I struggle to pigeonhole all of it under standard capitalistic ideologies.

I mean, I don't feel capitalism is flawless and perfect anyway, but if things are monetized correctly I could absolutely see the gaming market split. There would be the large companies that cater only to those who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on a single game, and smaller companies who struggle to make ends meet while catering to the "casual" gamer.

In essence, not necessarily the worst thing, but the software to make the games would likely follow suit. So, there would be graphically astounding games that require something like $1,000 as initial buy in, but that didn't have any quality beyond graphics. And then, there would be the games with rough visuals, but would at least be inventive with enjoyable storylines. To be honest, this is exactly what I expect to happen, eventually.

I'd really rather have the best of both worlds, but I've always been a bit odd. I can see very little good coming from such a split, even if it does have a foundation in basic economics.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Great post.. spot on.

Been gaming since MZ 700 (laughably basic 'games')

I went:

MZ700
ATARI
Commodore 64! (forgot that originally)
AMIGA 500+
SEGA MASTER SYSTEM
SEGA MEGA DRIVE and then (32X)
PLAYSTATION 1
PC
XBOX
XBOX 360
PLAYSTATION 3
PLAYSTATION 4

And BEYOOOOOND!

(Maybe... if they stop trying to take my pants down)

Couldn't agree more man... gaming has really hit a hump with this crap, add in the obsession with multiplayer everything, always online, DLCS and parceling games out, endless remakes and revamps, an aversion to risk taking and a fixation purely on profits (all among other issues) and I feel it's starting to look bleak for the future..

originally posted by: ketsuko
Tabletop RPGs.

They are a little more time intensive, but ultimately, they can be just as fun and they are imminently interactive.

And filled with very memorable moments between players that will never be possible in a computer RPG.

Especially when players stab one another in the back and the victim never finds out why they went from healthy to dead in 1 round.

Or their life saving magical device does not save them from death because a thief in the party just swapped it for a fake.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: DerBeobachter

Nah, you get character sheets, fill them out in pencil, theres a book of rules, and one person at the table is running the game, the others playing it! Dice are rolled to determine the success or failure of combat and other elements of the game.

This was in my mind:

a reply to: ketsuko

If you wait a while to adopt 4k (I didn't want to!), there is no reason to go with a console at this point. In my opinion, of course, with the Switch being a possible exception.

If you have spent the time to build a PC with quality parts, it not only ends up being cheaper than buying from someone like Dell, but you kill two birds with one stone and have a gaming system that far surpasses any modern console. Again, for less cost in the long term than even the most prudent console buyer.

I think everyone should practice building their own PC for cost/quality alone. If you buy a decent case, hard drives, disk drives, power supplies, etc. those things can simply be transplanted into the new build. Something like a Seasonic based PSU will last years and years.

The games can be cheaper (I'm looking at you Steam holiday sale) and, from I have seen, actually smaller than their console counterparts while providing a helluva lot more.

If any gamer has a normal, semi-recent desktop computer.. I can't see any real reason to get an Xbox or PS. A GTX 1050 ti or 1060 would be a very, very reasonable option.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Edumakated

I under the basics of economics, and I don't necessarily have an issue with such a system.

My problem comes in when quality suffers, and the normal route of "talking with my money" is completely negated. Call of Duty is a prime example of this.

If you are mainly a single player campaign type of gamer (as I am, depending on game), then I wouldn't be surprised if you have already run into decreasing quality. Single player is mainly an afterthought, since it is more difficult to motivate spending without having to compete with others that spend large sums.

In my mind, this is a market that intersects a lot of different arenas. I struggle to pigeonhole all of it under standard capitalistic ideologies.

I mean, I don't feel capitalism is flawless and perfect anyway, but if things are monetized correctly I could absolutely see the gaming market split. There would be the large companies that cater only to those who are willing to spend thousands of dollars on a single game, and smaller companies who struggle to make ends meet while catering to the "casual" gamer.

In essence, not necessarily the worst thing, but the software to make the games would likely follow suit. So, there would be graphically astounding games that require something like $1,000 as initial buy in, but that didn't have any quality beyond graphics. And then, there would be the games with rough visuals, but would at least be inventive with enjoyable storylines. To be honest, this is exactly what I expect to happen, eventually.

I'd really rather have the best of both worlds, but I've always been a bit odd. I can see very little good coming from such a split, even if it does have a foundation in basic economics.

Unfortunately, you and I are in the minority preferring single player campaigns. Yes, I've noticed the drop in quality for single player. Nothing I can really do about it though. I could careless about multiplayer or being online. However, the majority of the market disagrees so the developers have to focus on the majority as that is what pays the bills.

The market will figure out a happy medium. It always does when their is not interference (i.e. poorly thoughtout regulations).

a reply to: Edumakated

We most certainly are a minority! I prefer "couch co-op" to all else, but that has become even more rare than SP campaigns. And yet, from what I have seen, the market loves the games that do have it. However, it serves as an even less effective spending motivator than SP campaigns and requires more development resources. So, not a priority even if its desired and loved by the market.

I can't say I have your confidence that a middle ground will be found. I think what middle ground exists will be completely eradicated, but of course, only time will tell. I genuinely hope you are right, and that I am horribly wrong.

a reply to: Serdgiam

That was our thought.

If you know what you are aiming for, you can make a build that only needs a periodic couple hundred invested instead of knowing you will need to drop between $600 and $800 minimum every three years to upgrade your latest console.

The worst parts to buy only need to be upgraded rarely thanks to the gaming industries addiction to the console market.

What I hear you saying, in a very long-winded way, is, "I like gaming, but EA changed the rules and now i don't like EA." Although I don't feel compelled like some of you to list all the game boxes I've had or wax eloquently on all the games I've played, I had a similar issue with EA. I was quite enamored with SW:TOR (Star Wars: The Old Republic) I ran 16 characters through the gamut, one for each class. They've always had micro transactions and always had a Cartel Bank where you could buy stuff rather than "earn" it through game play. Once in awhile I would buy stuff, but mostly I just played. Then came a Big Change. They stripped away my companions, "balanced" classes and stripped away my powers, and forced me into a restrictive story line, and forced me to play with others (I'm a solo player not interested in any kind of group play.) Oh, and BTW it costs $15.00/month to play unrestricted. So I walked. I left $100 in the Cartel Bank unspent and I've never been back. When you don't like "them" any more, quit. Find another game. I spent a lot of time building those characters. In the fantasy land that is SW:TOR they were my friends. None of the changes they made could I see were money-based; they just changed it so much that I could not continue. It happens.

a reply to: schuyler

I regret that I have but one star to give this, for many reasons.

a reply to: TrueBrit


Two things:


1) what's 150 hours over several months to a person who doesn't own or watch TV?


2) Pay 2 win is always bad. They might have avoided this if the only thing behind the paywall was cosmetic.


Sadly, we live in a world where everyone is just waiting for the next cause to jump on. As a guy who just wants to fly TIE Fighters and see where the Iden Versio story goes, I'm sad that Battlefront 2 became the cause du jour for gamers everywhere because EA will likely kill the game before they complete the DLC single player missions and blame the public for not wanting a "Star Wars" game. See also: Mass Effect: Andromeda.

a reply to: ketsuko

You can save even more by planning to buy a second GPU of the same kind, when the single card starts to struggle.

Only issue there is that developers and manufacturers are slowly starting to phase this out while they are phasing in all the issues illustrated in this thread! Some of the decent nvidia cards (like the 1060) don't even have SLI sockets!

The reasoning is that games don't frequently support multi-GPU options anymore. And.. if you want that power, why not just buy a single, higher tier card? Nevermind cost, or upgrades in the future. Those are obviously silly notions held by silly people.



Personally, I don't have an issue speaking with my money. I'm just not even remotely convinced it actually works.

The mechanisms that drove me away from certain games are becoming widespread and standard. At a certain point, the only winning move is not to play. At all. Ill be a gamer without a game, a man without a home.

Some may have no issue with it, but I certainly wouldn't be pleased if video games, in some crazy scenario, became completely unattainable across the board for a lowly pleb like me.

Personally, I think there are other avenues on this topic and many others, but they don't quite fit into the paradigm for better or worse.

a reply to: ketsuko


That's what we do at my house. I saw the writing on the wall when ME3 started selling boxes and bailed. I keep my SWTOR account for giggles and grins and play tabletop with the kids. None of us watch TV much, but we love to read and roll dice.

First off, I'm not a gamer. Some of this jargon that is being tossed around in this thread, I've no clue what's specifically being talked about...

No matter. If I understand the gist of it, EA, and I suppose the many other gaming companies out there seem to be requiring you to spend, after spending God awful amounts in the first place for a game set, to spend even more money to fully enjoy the game?

I've seen the prices they charge for 'em--Sweet Nefertiti!! ...not only are they wanting you to spend money within the game itself, but the quality, in some opinions anyway, seems to have begun lacking?

That hints at a problem that is all too prevalent with any industry that has had such incredible growth. A distinct lack of ethics, and an all too obvious over load of greed.

I know they're monstrous within the industry, but just how big is EA? I'd say stop buying the products--is that a feasible tactic, and still be able to game?

As I said, I know nothing about any facet of this industry. The last console I owned was a Sega--twenty some years ago. When the rule books became novel length, my interest waned, a lot. I'd rather read a real book...