Kotaku
So EA & DICE have, as you've probably heard, altered their decision to charge users for certain weapons in the upcoming Battlefield: Bad Company. Cue high-fives and slapped backs across the internet. It's a victory! Score one for the little guy! Take that, big business! I'm sure a lot of people feel very proud of themselves! Thing is, how many of you have really sat back and considered what, exactly, just happened?
EA made the initial decision to charge for guns so they could make some money off you. That's what they do, they're a business. No harm in that. The way they went about it, though, well, it wasn't ideal. You can nickel-and-dime the kids for soundtracks CDs and tin boxes and action figures and gamerpics all you want, but when you open up a game's mechanics to the free market, giving those paying for content an advantage over those who don't, well, you're paddling right across the Rubicon.
Yet cross the river EA did, and an outcry followed. Petitions were begun. Boycotts threatened. "Don't you fuck with this game, you heartless corporate bastards" was the gist of mutterings by thousands across their dimly-lit keyboards. And for once, for a single week, the various warring tribes of internet fanboys set aside their differences and united against EA under a single banner. Tear-jerking stuff.
So a few days pass, the unrest grows louder, the petioning and emails continue, then...and then the darndest thing happens. EA announce the guns are coming for free (something I'm sure they were going to announce down the line anyways). Your complaining and crying and petitions worked. They'd seen how angry you, the consumer, had become, and rather than shout "let them eat cake", have instead said "here, cake's on us, sorry for the trouble". In other words, VICTORY.
Except...it isn't. And anyone who thinks it is are kidding themselves. Remember, EA made this decision so they could make some money. No doubt somewhere at Electronic Arts HQ is a ledger, and next to Battlefield Bad Company on that ledger is a projection saying $XX is estimated to be made by selling guns in the game. Now that they're not selling those guns, do you think they're just going to write $XX off the books? Not a chance.
No, they'll replace that "lost" money with the advertising dollars they rake in via the "marketing programs" anyone wanting the game's better guns will need to sit through. Or with other DLC offered later down the line (premium grenades, perhaps?), when this has all died down. They're not giving the money away, then, just shuffling it around a bit so you won't notice it so much. This isn't the end of stuff like this. The next EA game will have silly DLC, and the next one, and the next one.
Which means the boycotts (for a game you weren't going to buy anyways), the anger, the petitions, they're all pointless. This is a hollow victory. Why am I bringing this up, even though it will rain on more than a few people's parades?
Because while your hearts were in the right place, you all went after the wrong guy.
Online petitions aren't worth the bandwidth they're slung along. It's like trying to break down the walls of Helm's Deep by pissing on them. EA, who are a massive global corporation, sell their games to millions of people, and millions of those people don't ever read a messageboard or comment on a blog or sign online petitions. So your opinion doesn't mean as much as you think it does. You should know this. We're years on from stuff horse armour and "key codes" and paying-for-cheats and EA are still lacing their games with extortionate DLC, so it's obvious there are people are out there who are not only buying this content, but buying it in sufficient quantities for EA to keep on doing it.
They're the ones you need to be going after. Not EA. This is a free market. If something sells, EA will keep selling it. If something doesn't sell, they won't. Simple stuff. Clearly, DLC is selling. And you can hate and vent and write and bitch and moan all you like, EA won't stop selling it just because it makes you angry. You weren't buying it anyway. But if the people who are buying it stop buying it, well, that'll get you some results.
And I know, convincing them will be hard. These are your family we're talking about. Your friends, your co-workers, that kid you talk to at the bus stop. It's a lot harder having to explain this to them, and maybe even listen to their counter-points, especially since they're a real person and not some faceless corporation at the other end of an anonymous messageboard post. But hey, you want a real victory, and not a hollow one, you have to expect the fight to be longer and tougher than a few day's worth of words on the internet and some mouse-clicks.
Comments
Damn that asshole kid at the bus stop! First he stops bathing, and now he's pulling THIS on me? RAGE!
lucky for me, i don't buy any EA games anymore.
Wow, thank you for a lesson in basic economics. If only such a thing were taught at a school then it wouldn't take a blog entry to open people's eyes.
Oh wait...
it won't be long until they charged your Sims to take a dump, or use your MS Points to convert into EA Simoleon Dollars so you can buy that huge fridge in the Sim-Kitchen.
In reality with all this product placment shoulnt the games be cheaper now? Burnout has shameless advertising round every corner but we still have to pay full price, its just going to get worse
*slow clap* I have to say Luke that i agree a 100% with you. It's the people who continue to buy this DLC and continue. Let's look at GH3. It's not about being cheap either it's just that some people don't want to pay what should already be in the game. Charge *this much* for guns, clothes, perks, and all that good stuff. I'm glad you put this out Luke. Now we shall unite and fight ourselves (consumers)
Well said, and so true.
Just be content that it's only EA doing this. No good games will be ruined by this kind of DLC.
Bullshit it did make a big difference
I'm reminded of a certain Chris Rock bit... all EA's done here is what they should have done all along. We shouldn't be acting like they're saints for doing what they're supposed to do, ie release a complete product at the agreed-upon price.
Very good read, Luke. Thanks.
I love this article for 2 reason.
Luke is correct when he says i dont give a shit about this game.
And it's made me realise how awsome of a world we live in where we can make an analogy involving LOTR and almost if not all the people that read it will get it.
I ranted similarly back when they made those weapons packs for Battlefield 2 available a long ways back, so this is old hat for me. Weapons were added that were very powerful, and you had to pay / buy expansions to be able to use them.
It's messed up that people with more money to spend on DLC have advantages over those who don't. The same can be said of having a better PC than your opponent(s), but in this case EA is directly creating the problem.
I've been telling this to my friends for months... I hate you people who are accepting DLC prices! Sorry, but I do...
This doesn't make any sense. Games need to make a profit...so? By the argument this article makes I shouldn't buy anything that needs to make a profit because those lousy fat cats are just going to screw me one way or the other.
Games need to make a profit and there are ways that are acceptable and ways that aren't and the internet has shown that paying for a better score is not an acceptable way. That IS a victory.
Downloadable content is still in a stage right now where it's perceived by the end user as paying more money for getting a complete game. For myself, it's hard to see an extra character skin or an extra level as being much else, especially released so shortly after the release of the games. When I was growing up, there was a wait of almost a year for expansions and additional missions, and they typically felt like entire games in and of themselves. These new offerings are certainly cheaper than the expansions of yesteryear, but they offer much less so much more quickly that I can't help but raise my eyebrows.
This business model is definitely going to survive, but I remember a time when additional content was provided to breathe new life into a game I already enjoyed, as opposed to enhancing a game still in its infancy. I just wish that they had the same idea in their head, there's money to be made either way, and with the latter I end up feeling less dirty afterward.
@[KU]Shindokie: Wishes for a Star: i dont mind paying for more songs though and i dont even get mad. I mean, think about it. If all the songs you've downloaded for GH/RB were on the game disk already, would you still be playing it as much today? or would you just rock out for the first few months of release and then get tired of playing the same songs over and over and eventually just play it everyone once in a blue moon?
I think DLC like the kind rock band and guitar hero have are great because they extend the gameplay and increase the amount of time you spend with a game that otherwise you would have traded it by now or stuck it on the shelf to collect dust
In games with item shops, only 5-15% of the users ever buy anything. So, are the other 90% freeloaders who are just bringing down the game? No, they're necessary to make the game world feel like a active, vital place. If you're making a cash shop game, you have to keep those users happy.
If some users can buy their way to victory, the free users will feel like they're being screwed, and they'll quit. Without them the game feels empty and the paying users quit too.
This was a sound business decision, and probably had little to do with the protests. EA had to expect an outcry, westerners just aren't used to cash shop games. But they will be, oh, they will be.
revolt of the indie gamers is coming.....
@Sedarati:
Haha wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrong.
@Dits: Games cost more to make now than before. Advertising costs and DLC are there to offset these increased development costs.
You still want your new shiny hi-def 1080p games don't you? Then deal with it.
Otherwise I'm sure there are thousands of games on MAME that you haven't played yet. Go have a go on those.
@JayD16: No, it means if a large section of people dont like the way one company's doing things, another company will see that market, step in and do it another way.
Amen, brother.
Good article Luke. Your Helm's Deep reference had me rolling. X-D
@Maldron: Exactly! It's just adding something here and there and not adding a bigger item or story. It's not here's a weapon, but a journey for the weapon. Probably worst analogy ever but i'm dumb and i can't come up well with them. I would also feel less dirty. :(
@ArmyofJuan: I wouldn't touch GH3 with a 10ft pole but with Rockband i understand. Yeah i know they can't put a billion songs into the CD but the fact they are able to bring some on a weekly basis makes it awesome. I wish they could make it cheaper but I understand perfectly that it takes time and effort to do it so i'm happy to pay. I guess what i'm saying is how the company of the game presents the DLC and not just throw crap around expecting people to fall all over it.
@Luke: Word.
You know... this column is totally right... but if there is one thing that i've learned over the past... ohh... eight years... is that something that's popular isn't necessarily right.
@Luke Plunkett: Make's me wish that a company that supports in game ads and gets paid for it would make the game some what cheaper. But i think i have a better chance of traveling in space.
@PlayingKarrde: yes, but even some developers opt not to charge people and microsoft is the one tell them they have to put a price on it, which in turns make the company look bad to others because of a priced offering that should have been free.
@Maldron: Totally agree with you there.
And yes, the problem all along is that these games are selling things that have a perceived value, and so long as people are considering this perceived value as valuable enough to buy, we'll all have a problem. I for one, am the guy who will buy a new Halo map pack or Call of Duty map pack no matter if it'll be free in 4 months or not. These are the games I play most, so their perceived value is increased. So if there are a bunch of people playing Battlefield: Bad Company enough to think, "Hey, those guns would be a 'worthwhile' purchase!" then we're going to continue to have this problem.
@Mr.DuckSauce: Yes, we are the lucky few.
so your saying the petition and public outcry to prevent EA from selling content that's already on the disc was as pointless and a waste of time as reading this idiotic article? Yes we all lost today because when we download this 1k unlock key we will be forced to view an Advertisement, oh noooo!!!! how foolish, we could've paid $10 for these guns. I don't want the Discovery channel to front that bill! i want to pay $70 for the complete Bad company experience and i, mister big pockets will have more guns then those snot nose kids that keep sniping me in Call of Duty!
What you should be talking about is how EA won, from all the free publicity because of this, and how they will actually make more money from the Extra copies sold. Instead you insult the people that got us some free shit! shame on you!
imo still a victory. i dont think anyone was out to kill ea, just stop them from charging people for something that should be in the game. and you know what? they succeeded.
I am amused. Most people commenting are the same who are paying MS for Xbox Live...it's worse than DLC. if ppl hadn't paid for Xbox Live, it would be free by now, like any other online platform...pfff...
i 100% agree with what you said Luke, but see before they go after the regular consumers, they should go after themselves first...70 to 80% of the ppl who complained or signed the petition would have probably ended up buying the game...
if "hardcore gamers" (like some like to call themselves) didn't buy 360's because of the red rings, the issue wouldn't have lasted a year...
Kind of disappointing. I expected some hard evidence; this appears to be blatantly obvious assumption.
Yes, but Dlc is fine. I have NO issue buying things extra for games.
On launch content that alters GAMEPLAY, yes I have a problem with taht.
Besides, Mr. High and mighty, I did go to those people. I DID convince my fellow gamers who don't go to the blogs. I did convince my friends who don't really even buy dlc (because not selling the game at all hurts more). I spread the word OFFLINE as well. Just because you didn't and just because you didn't HEAR of anyone else doing it DOESN'T mean it didn't happen.
I would like to say that many of us did more than blog and post angry messages. I know of more than just I that went further. But yes, thankyou for the economy lesson.
Sorry for the rant Kotakuites. I love the site, but I am offended by this.
DLC isn't bad. I'm not sure why people are thinking it is. The problem comes when a company holds back content only to ship it as DLC content for purchase at a later (usually not so distant) future.
For instance, NFS Carbon and Pro Street did this and it was a huge failure. Why they thought they could do this I don't know, but they did it all the same.
However DLC can greatly increase a games life so why look at it as a negative if it doesn't fall into the above category?
@luigilogik:
lol this is what im saying, but funnier.
I don't pay any more money for a game I already bought. No one should.
@luigilogik: Actually, I thought he was going to go into this, which is likely, and I don't doubt it.
I for one was going to buy this game (pre-boycott) and plan to now (post-VICTORY)
@PlayingKarrde: Nobody is. Some DLCs GREAT (Crackdown, for example). It's just silly DLC like this that gets peoples goat up.
Looks like someone didn't properly read the interview, Mr. Plunkett.
The guy from DICE said microtransactions would never try to be introduced in Bad Company again.
And what the fuck do you mean by "sitting through marketing programs"? That was just official talk for "the guns will be free via sponsors" kind of like how one of the Halo 2 map packs was free because it was sponsored by Mountain Dew.
I love Kotaku and everything, but this was a pretty poor piece of writing.
incredibly poignant Luke. i've been saying ever since the first micro transactions that it was a bad idea and would eventually get out of hand. Look at GT5:Prologue, if you want more cars? pay for them. more tracks? pay for them. damage mapping? pay for it, pay, pay, pay, pay. And don't misunderstand me, I am a HARDCORE GT5 fan. It will take every fiber of my being, plus arm and leg restraints, to not purchase it this coming wednesday. I would rather wait a year and pay an extra 30 bucks for a full game than pay 30 now and another 200+ over the year for what will most likely be in the full game
I don't have any hard numbers, but I think a large part of the reason we pay for songs in GH and RB is because of the licensing. The bands/record labels that own the rights to these songs know how popular the games are, and so sell the rights for a relatively large fee. The price we pay to download them is compensation for that cost, plus the salary of the people that implement the notes for each instrument.
@Diamondblade:
Rock Band, dude. Rock Band.
Also the people that are mad at Luke for this article are pretty hilarious
Why not just pay for invincibility, super-speed and x-ray vision? I just purchased the one-hit kill cheat for Halo 3 and I've never had so much fun using my innate skills to play a game! My favorite is the 400 point all-unlocker for the Transformers game where they say in the description that they'll never tell that you bought it.. Won't your friends know you cheated anyways because you don't have all the achievements? If they made a cheat that just made you win at the game matching screen with the all-your-base song playing and no match to fight, stupid people who care about their stats too much would buy it to one-up their friends. Should companies offer it because people will buy it? I say thee nay. Just me though. Why not just offer a cheat to let me look like I have cleared Rock Band on expert? I'll pay 500 points.. All is fair, just tell people not to buy it. Pam Anderson doesn't want you looking at her honeymoon video? Oh well, people will buy it, so tell your friends to just to not watch it, Pam shouldn't be upset.
@PlayingKarrde: I design and teach game design for a living, all this is about is making more an more money has nothing to do with the games themselves or the development.
Good stuff. I can't tell you how often I wish the "blogging gaming community" would realize what a FRACTION of the ACTUAL gaming market they are.
Case and Point: How many times have you been on an online game and actually ENJOYED the presence of the other total strangers? And if you do enjoy the company of teabagging, racist, and sexism dicktwirls, then by all means, enjoy.
We blogging gamers are part of a culturally nerdy elite. Are we better than other gamers? God, no. Just a little dorky enough to be obsessed. And I love you all.
Everything is a business... I laugh at people that say Television is for shows and sitcoms. Television is for advertisement and the shows are to keep you watching. If you want shows and anime, that's what the internet is for...
More In Game Advertisements... they better be destructible.
Heh, I remember the days of calling Nintendo for help with Zelda...don't remember if it cost anything but I thought it did
I'm on a complete EA diet anyway. Anything containing EA has been off my plate for quite some time now and I feel great!
I think the issue here is less that EA was making the content pay, as this has been a standard in the game industry for quite a while, with downloadable content more recently and further back, expansion packs.
Where this situation gets shitty is that your Call of Duty 4 maps and WoW expansions aren't started or are in the very preliminary stages of work when the game ships. In this situation, EA is coming out and saying, "Oh hey, guys. I know you want this content we already have done, but...nah, you'll have to pay for it".
While I understand the victory is somewhat hollow as they'll still dick you further down the line, at least the game includes content they've finished already and have already included on the disk.
Reminds me of arcade games back in the day where no matter how good you were, you needed to put in more money to progress through certain parts of the game.
This article is Bullshit! It was a win because i no longer have to spend $10 buying the 5 guns, they are now available for free!
Oh, please. At least they made an attempt to do something... anything other than lay back and take it. No need to take that away from them.
As far as EA, they're already bloating the retail cost of European RB kits to fatten their coffers. Me thinks they're not pulling in the annual revenue as before since people are tiring of their regurgiated sports franchises and their stockholders are clenching their chubby palms in protest for more money...
This is such a naive outlook its ridiculous. Just because the planned revenue from exploiting their customers using one method has been squashed doesn't necessarily mean another one has to be suddenly devised to keep EA afloat and the share holders at peace.
I'm sure they had other DLC on the drawing board before the reaction but they all may have been rolled out along with the pay-per-weapons. I view this as a victory, they will think twice before pulling this shit again or at least not go as far.