Remember KIDS, DO NOT TRY cause even if it looks like you won you HAVE NOT!!!!!!!!

freespeech

It could just be an example of capitalism at work, but I'm continually interested in the opinions of other posters.

Rokaider

To all the "OMG we'll be paying for bullets" you are so out of wack it is funny. Playing Chicken little to draw attention to your point with an example that is as likely as me writing for Kotaku! Try using facts to prove points.

I see nothing wrong with this other than it was on the disc, but locking off items for Gold users to an exclusive time is awesome!

I hope the games industries consumer matures one day.

AntiHiro

No. It's money, they'll try to make money any way they can. Gamers as a group have, well, first of all they've all gone to consoles, and second they've allowed themselves to be nickeled and dimed to death by services like XBL. You guys asked for it, and you got it. If we'd stuck to PCs, or if we'd risen up in protest when the first for-pay content started coming out, there may have been a chance to head it off.

But we didn't. As gamers, we adopted the console, we said "yes! we love closed systems!" and we started shelling out money to play games with our friends (free on a PC), for game hints and cheats (free on a PC), for downloadable content (historically, free on a PC), for goddamn DASHBOARD THEMES.

This isn't the industry's fault, it's the community's fault. You see something shiny and you have to have it. Boycotting? Seriously? The only people who aren't going to buy the game because of this either weren't going to buy it anyway, or they're a handful of hardcore protesters. Everyone else will just buy the Gold version or suck it up and live with a disadvantage.

Go play Battlefield 1942. It was the best of the series anyway.

eblack

rainofwalrus

If it wasnt becasue of Madden and Need for Speed this company would be over a long time ago... Too bad they bought pandemic and bioware... :(

Señor Cagon

Jawajoey

Video

That said, videogames are a business, and a hugely profitable one. I'm preaching to the choir here, but the "two guys in a basement" analogy that fueled PC and even console gaming through most of the 16-bit genre really started dying in the 32-bit era.

Companies are publicly traded now, and although EA's new feudal system may have improved worker morale, it doesn't change the simple fact that the bigwigs at EA, Activision and the like have to answer to beancounters and shareholders for their every move. You can read articles on this very blog that detail how much money it costs to develop the average game these days.

In-game advertising and DLC, which is not inherently an evil empire, not only help pad a specific game's fiscal success, but offsets the company's failures -- aka that crap that hits the bargain bin. Flops are more costly now than ever.

"Horse-armor" was bad enough back in the day, but the very idea that you need to fill out some marketing survey or pony up extra cash for is a new low. I don't support this at all, but it's ludicrous to expect in-game ads to disappear or free content that developers clearly allocated staff to creating after the came was released.
Business models fluctuate, and not every game can be a "Gears of War"-like advertisement for the Unreal engine and get away with free maps.

My two cents, your mileage may vary.

Jonaconda

Beyene

You say the real target is the buyer, not the seller. Okay, I agree. So what is it you miss about petitions and threats being about communicating that you (a buyer) will not buy this?

Yes, the proof is in the pudding, but the concept here is by warning the seller ahead of time that buyers (i.e. me and you) won't purchase this and they could better satisfy their customers (i.e. make money) by taking a different path.

That concept is not at all negated as a logical conclusion of "demand side" thinking.

Second, the arguement you make that petitions and online complaints fall on deaf ears...is basically the arguement that keeps people buying into a broken system in the first place.

It's the kind of thinking that keeps the average buyer from thinking he has a vote with his dollar (as you point out, the only vote) and keeps people buying into things they don't like because they don't feel they have a choice.

That second point there is a bit complicated and I'm not sure I'm getting it across, but saying you have no power doesn't just mean the seller isn't listening to complaints, it means the other buyers don't believe listening and acting as a group for the common benefit of all the buyers is feasible either.

I'll agree with you that profit motive is the key here and that any business relationship is about both parties trying to maximize their benefit in the particular transaction regardless of most other (even related) concerns. Okay.

Your logic as to what ultimate outcomes that leads to though I think are terribly flawed.

dbushik

Tohoya

Thorax

zakky venom

I thought up some long-winded replies to push the argument but I think we're just arguing two sides of the same coin here; neither is really incorrect technically. I think we're disagreeing on how benevolent the game companies really are.

I can see where you're coming from, but the part that bothers me is that there's a fine line between recouping development costs through selling extras , and suddenly witholding what used to be free so they can charge for it because they can. The studios wouldn't go out of business if no one bought DLC, they'd just have to stop relying on it and account for that. However the more we eagerly lap up DLC charges, the more of the game will be sold separately like that. Then, those holding out and not buying it will be at a disadvantage even though they theoretically bought the same game. We're on the edge of that precipice already. (Actually you can't get all the achievements in Beautiful Katamari unless you pay to unlock content already on the game disc.)

Separately, about forgetting the games I really want, they aren't usually the huge budget titles anyway; I find big titles usually have nice graphics, ok gameplay, and lots of interruptions or attempts to force different gameplay in the middle. It's like they're fighting a war against immersion. The cheaper ones are often gameplay with a bit of style on top and I play games to... play games, so I usually spend more time on them. There are exceptions to everything and some are worth the extra cost, but I'd way rather have a 2D top-down shooter that's just really fun to play over an over-the-shoulder shooter with a detailed story, loads of cutscenes, AI teammates, vehicle sections, and 60 hours of gameplay guaranteed. I find the things they add to justify production costs often just get in the way.

fuchikoma

Lemming To The Sea

cujoe

Wookiee1

CardJoker

The analogy still works, because games didn't always have that same level of features. Are you not old enough to remember when games used to tout on the back of the box things like: "5 levels of action and excitement!" or "Over 4 different weapons!" and "Fight 9 evil enemies!" In fact, you've proven another point: that games are way more expensive to develop these days, and aren't cutting things out, but supplementing production costs with added extras.

Don't think for a minute that those extra weapons would make it into the final product if they weren't able to be justified cost-wise. I've worked on games. I know how it works. Anything that doesn't fit into the budget gets cut. If there's a way to compensate for the extra expense, then that extra content stands a chance at releasing.

As for another analogy, and to indulge you, I'll put forth the example of Airlines. Many airlines used to offer snacks and meals on their flights. Now, many of them don't because their operating costs have gone up. They do, however, allow you to buy meals for a price.

The only real alternative is to forget about buying the games you actually want, and buy cheaper to develop ones. If you want big expensive games, then don't complain when companies need to supplement the cost, and don't complain when people buy it.

TheRockingDead

No one can fault them for trying to make a buck, but the current state of things is blatantly exploitative. He's not saying to hate on people who pay for this stuff, just try to illustrate to them what they're doing and get them to stop until the makers get it - or they'll all end up like this.

fuchikoma

JKilla77

Crymorenoob. You're referring to this post:
[kotaku.com]

It basically is a spam/troll/promotion post all rolled up into one. Hey, just like yours!

As I stated to your counterpart, Kotaku doesn't need to hold your hand. Them writing about the issue brings awareness to it all by itself.

I never knew about the petitions and such until today when you guys came in crying about it, but I already knew about the BF:BC gun DLC from KOTAKU of all places! Surprise surprise! I already knew that I wasn't going to buy this game because of the DLC, because of Kotaku, but the difference is that I didn't feel the need to shout it from the rooftops (anywhere but here).

Kotaku accomplished the same thing you were trying to do, minus all the self-congratulation and the fanfare.

Billkwando

+ Watch video

Billkwando

Thanks for nothing. I hope you feel proud of your accomplishments in tearing down a group of individuals who banded together in the hopes of making things just a little bit better in this world. Did we achieve world peace? No, but that was not our intention. As anyone who actually visited the epicenter of the boycott

www.sarcasticgamer.com/boycott

saw that the intention was to have EA alter their decision on this particular DLC issue. I am sure many on the site have not seen sarcasticgamer.com as you have not even reported its existence in this event even though you have hinted at the boycott. Excellent "journalism" Kotaku, right on par with FOX NEWS.

Over a hundred small blogs were united in this effort. Why would you not mention the boycott? This made news on IGN, Destructoid, Joystiq and yet Kotaku remained silent. Why did you not mention the boycott?

Maybe some upskirt flash game seemed more relevant at the time. For shame Kotaku many, many sites came to your aid and sent words of encouragement to you when you were being bullied by Sony. And yet when others stand up for themselves you are content to tear them down and belittle their efforts. How ignoble and arrogant.

-me

PS I don't expect to be back as this will likely find me banned, so be it. If that is your will that none shall speak ill of Kotaku than I accept my fate. It wouldn't be the first time someone was banned for such an "offence" under your tyranny.

kman2686

They wanted to charge us for a whole game and then charge us more for parts of the game we supposedly already paid for, the weapons.

Sure, they will try to make the money back in different ways but if we all take a stand again, they will back down.

Whilst many people do buy DLC, not that many people who play online FPS games ignore forums or have no clue how to use the internet. EA may try this stuff on the next madden game, but if they try to take down the FPS or RTS (both which will see eventual PC ports) then they are messing with the educated crowd.

I think they just realised they should go pick on a dumber kid. Sucks to be him, but if you won't bother to read reviews and media about stuff you buy you are going to get skanked by the costs.

EdwinJ85

This sums it up for me.

nobeaner

LongDarkBlues

Oh great....another Gawker redesign. I can't wait to post from my phone and see what they broke this time.

Billkwando

Both you and your buddy are looking to each buy a new car. You both decide on the same mid-range Honda sedan. You opt for the basic package. He goes in for the fully loaded deal: power everything, navigation system, built in MP3 player dock, leather seats, etc. Clearly some of these things give an obvious advantage, and may gain him more attention - another, social-based advantage. He may find it easier to pick up certain girls. Mutual friends may want to ride in his car rather than yours, etc. Assume for the example that this is true. Would you hate the car company for offering premium parts for more money? Same car, right? Would you hate your buddy for wanting to buy them?

This is why I believe the entire argument is flawed. In a free market economy, premium services are the norm. Why can't that be true for video games? You don't have to buy it. In the case of the Bad Company issue, I've seen the stats for the other guns, and they don't even offer an advantage, just variety. Anyone who's played say, Battlefield 2142, with it's unlockable system can tell you that the guns don't impact the outcome, as much as skill dictates it. In other words, I can do just as well with a gun that deals less damage per shot, but holds more rounds per clip and fires slightly faster than the gun which does more damage per shot, holds less rounds per clip, and fires slightly slower. I may, however, prefer one to the other, and that's what it comes down to: preference.

So, go on hating people for offering and buying premium options, but my guess is that you'll have many problems like this in life.

TheRockingDead

Spiderbait

My bet is that they simply cut the part where they charge the lazy. It makes everybody look good, and Luke is right, we'll be paying for thier profit-loss elsewhere. They'll either increase in-game advertising or charge more for some other form of DLC later...

stranger

JorgieX

The game is awful.

SwordofWhedon

Nickatiah

Games used to be crammed full of extra bonus stuff to make it worthwhile to play longer. Now they're finished to half-finished, and if you want anything else, you buy it too. And it works because people pay for it.

I think MMOs are partly to blame - their items and cash have tangible real world value, but then again, they exist in persistent worlds where they are simply another object in that world. You can hand someone and item and then they'll have it until they lose it or give it up. All the other players will see you with the item and acknowledge that you have it, which sounds like just an ego thing, but it goes a long way to confirm the "reality" of it, so they found real cash value. This must have planted a bug in the heads of the more "traditional" game makers to charge money for game items in general.

Most of this DLC doesn't count for beans in the bigger picture. You're paying real cash to unlock an item in your own instance of the game, or in temporary instances of online matches. To me this is significantly less substantial, not that I'd buy MMO items either.

Games are basically a willful sensory delusion (like most media, and that's not a bad thing.) If you're only changing it for yourself, then to me it's like saying "Boy, I sure love watching this movie, but I wish I could put a green baseball cap on the main character." and then spending $2 to make it happen. WHY? Games should be able to stand on their own without DLC, and if there's an extra little thing that makes it better, IT SHOULD ALREADY BE IN THERE like it always has. Of course if they can make money charging for it, they will, but I don't know why so many people fall for it - maybe they don't remember games 10 years ago when you just had bonus content as a matter of course?

So much of this stuff is the kind of thing that the fan community would churn out in the thousands for free on a PC game, but the restrictive nature of consoles has let them charge money like a toll booth for it. Sorry, we control this gate, pay up or do without! I bet you if we could all do without for a while this kind of thing would dry up... but good luck with that. I think the cat's out of the bag now.

fuchikoma

You know it IS possible to both do the right thing AND make money...

phor11

EA SUXORS. IZ TEH EVIL DEVIL SATAN. DEATH TO CORPORATIONS! MORE EA FLAMEBAIT BLOGPOSTS, PLEASE! MORE! FUEL TEH RAGE. MADDEN HASNT CHANGED IN 20 YEARS!

yes, Kotaku community, I'm making fun of you.

rainofwalrus

rdj

I am with Army on this one. Plus another side that others may not have taken in consideration about DLC. When you have branded content in games (Songs for Gh/Rb), weapons in fps (that are real), profession players in sports games...The makers/publishers have to liscense the rights to use "the likeness" of said product in the game, and get a cut either in a flat fee, or a percentage of total sales of that product.

Now can you imagine playing GH/RB with made up songs, or play madden with John Doe as your QB..those games would never sell.

Now do not get me wrong, EA is the freaking devil and Luke was right about them finding another way of making that "projected" cash somewhere else. But if gamers want name branded weapons/players/songs, you need to consider that for publishers to put those things in games, they have to pay for it, so then we have to pay for it.

Lbsutke

First, though, let me say DLC done right has its place - Maps/levels and Rockband songs are good examples. I'm guilty of that. And let me also say that given higher development costs in this cycle, developers have some valid points when trying to recoup those costs through DLC.

But you fail to take into consideration the revenue that is lost from disgruntled gamers who will now not buy the game due to digust or for spite. Yeah, right, I'm sure the $5 DLC will make that up - and more! whatever!

EA's quality of games has been on the decline over the past couple years as is evidenced by the recent Kotaku article on the topic.

Those who are posting on boards and in forums may, in fact, actually be considering buying this game - and this kind of DLC ass-hattery makes those people take pause.

Do you really think that just because a million people who might buy the game, but don't know about all these forums or boards or maybe don't even know about the issue - do you really think many or most wouldn't have the same reaction as those who made a fuss?

Have you ever heard of the adage about how one disgruntled customer takes much more money and resources to win back than it does to keep a happy one?

Hardcore gamers are a vitally important segment of EA's target market, coupled with the name "Battlefield", makes this a financially important issue from EA's POV - one that that the millions of casual gamers you infer will pick up the slack no matter what, will not solve.

EA has already left a very bad taste in many gamers' mouth, and there will eventually be pushback where the limits of acceptable use of DLC are. That point was reached here, and they listened (Good for EA! Thank you for listening to your customers).

You're right Luke, let's all sit back and not touch the monolith. Let's all just be happily ignorant and not tell EA we have a problem with their business practices. Let's all, instead, take the time to find the people who could possibly think about buying this DLC and then bitch them out and tell them how they are contributing to this sort of thing. Yes... let's all do that. Hey - let's all make a petition for those people instead - 'cause when we get a million signatures, I'm sure they'll all hear about it.
/sarcarm

C'mon! What a load.

dudeman5000

It's the same reason I never bought Katamari, as bad as I wanted it. This "release day DLC" model is bullshit. If it's ready on release day, you already paid for it and should be able to download it for free.

@Luke Plunkett: I disagree about Crackdown. That game was half-baked content wise, with half the content and activities as Saint's Row. ALL of the DLC should've been free to complete the partial product they sold us at retail. I never bought that DLC either, but got the achievements playing with plenty of people who did.

About gamerpics and skins and all that bullshit, I try to discourage my wife from buying that crap with her "left over" points (those points add up if you hold on to them) but you can only say so much without coming off as an overbearing twit.

Billkwando

I for one think DLC is inevitable, just like paying for TV, $10 movie tickets and bottled water we'll all eventually get used to the idea. Frankly, I don't understand where the moral outrage comes from.

rawg

p.s. Still Waiting to get hit with the Banhammer...Thanks.

Gadgetron

People might hate the idea of DLC but people also hated the idea of subscription based games. There's nothing wrong fundamentally with DLC it just needs the correct implementation.

manusdei

Knoxximus (360/PSN)

This was a trial balloon floated by EA to see how people will respond. What your analysis fails to address is the fact that there is a fragile balance here.

You said there are millions of people who don't read message boards and don't care. This is true. But EA was risking pissing off the millions that DO read them to the point where they wouldn't buy the game. They risk losing a chunk of the market that will sit out the WHOLE game versus pushing microtransacted guns onto (probably) a minority.

Now, there is one correct part in your story, and that's the fact that if people would buy shit-dipped popsicle sticks, EA would sell them. Simple as that. So, if people buy whack DLC, they'll keep selling it.

We should always vote with our wallets. But when that's not enough, we should also scream and shout.

DaPress

Unlike this game, the news about DLC typically doesn't come out until after the game is released. We just got lucky that some Beta tester was pissed about this and released the info to the masses.

In all honesty I still can't help but feel that this violates some sort of FTC ruling about purchasing what we thought was a complete product, only to find out it isn't.

rabidkeebler

I get what you are saying but I think you are being too general in your description of DLC. There is a HUGE difference between GOOD DLC (CoD4/Halo 3 maps, Rock Band/Guitar Hero tracks, Shivering Isles, etc) and the shit EA tried to pull with selling guns for an online shooter. The cry to the masses shouldn't be to boycott ALL DLC, just stuff like this that actually gives one player an advantage over another. I'll gladly pay for new maps or sxpansions to a single player games story but there is no fucking way I'm paying for guns or grenades or anything of that sort.

Gray665

rabidkeebler

jkingsowner

Rebelphoenix83

GhaleonUnlimited

[pissedoffgaming.blogspot.com]

Rebelphoenix83

Hylian

Correction: All DLC is there to take your 99 cents and 1.99, regardless of company.

If you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts, even if free you are sorely mistaken.

The purpose for DLC is to create a percieved replay value so you don't go and buy a competitor's product until the next game in the series comes out.

so before you go labelling EA as evil because they want your money, look at any other game developer out there as well.

Jypsy

Dcbronco

dubz

Actually he said he will never give ME up and never let ME down.....

so yeah. He's mine.

Jypsy

nxp3

Rebelphoenix83

Resso

Honestly, they should have released it as is. If that many people were upset by it, EA would take notice at the severe lack of weapon buys or whatever, and likely never do it again.

I still live by the creed: "Don't Like It? Don't Buy It."

What a concept.

Yes yes I get it, EA = evil megacorporation with plans to open nexus portals to the lost city of ry'leh, unleashing nightmarish terror upon us all and take our penny jars....

But seriously, Just don't buy it. Let them do their thing. If people want to buy horse armor let them.
If people want to buy Rick Astley CDs until their broom closet is full, let them. That is thier problem.
Not Yours.

To Luke:
Claiming that gamers should "convert" their friends on this situation is completely ridiculous.
I am sure your friends have some interests you don't and make some decisions you dislike or disagree with. That is what we call "individuality".
Let's say your best friend Jimmy has expendable income from his lemonade stand and wants to buy some horse armor and some guns for Bad company.

You say "I don't think that is a wise investment jimmy."

He says "Thank you for your input, but as it is my hard-earned money from my lemonade venture, I have a right to purchase whatever I choose, regardless of investment value or potential entertainment return."

This is the point where you have two choices:
a) Club him over the head with a case of Cherry Chocolate Diet Dr. Pepper, take his money for ever making a stupid decision that you disagree with...

or

b) Shrug, and go play something that you can both enjoy, like hopscotch or real scotch, or Rock Band.

It is not my job to tell my friends what to do when it is none of my business, but it is my job to stand by them regardless of their decisions.

Jypsy

I like DLC when it doesn't make anyone's 'skill' more advantageous than an 'out-of-the-box' copy. I like the idea of Rock Band's extra tracks, and extra maps, etc. I buy that shit up all day.

kidCasey13

Rebelphoenix83

Yep pretty much true, that's a good perspective I wasn't really thinking about Luke. But either way it's lose lose for anyone who buys this game.

FoxHoundADAM

drifter13

Purguy

There's absolutely no reason at all to piss and moan about what the 'general populace' is going to do. If they want to spend the extra ten dollars on those shiny tin boxes with the OH GOD THE PRETTY PICTURES, let them. Obviously, there's a market for them. What difference can it make with the knowledge such a market exists? Can it honestly be that detrimental to one's own enjoyment? (One of those shockers: people bought Lair. On purpose.)

This article, too, is bizarre. The argument can be made, certainly, that X amount was expected of the title and a source of revenue was instantly shortened. Whatever the consequence, the initial outcry was successful; precedence, too, was established. I'd honestly be surprised to see another company turn the same tricks for the same pennies.

JKPierce

rainofwalrus

rainofwalrus

The people that were up in arms and making a big deal WERE the one's that were going to purchase it. You understand what I'm saying right? If you just stop other people and yourself from buying it, without trying to set the game right, you're just hurting yourself ... because it was a game you wanted to play.

I say bravo to all those that stood up and made a difference so that the base release of the game was pretty much equal.

Will EA try to make more money off of the game? That's a duh comment ... of course, that's what they do, duh. However, I think you're very much slighting the community that did, in fact, make a difference.

jayntampa

nxp3

Slorg

neojam

nxp3

aelfin

DLC != lessened content;

There's always someone willing to pay to have a bigger pee-pee, EA realizes it, and like any smart business they're going to capitalize on it. And they'll slather games with even more advertising to boot.

[isn't a man entitled to the sweat of his brow? "no" says the man in washington "it belongs to the poor", "no" says the man in the vatican "it belongs to god", "no" says the man in moscow "it belongs to everyone"
--andrew ryan]

Slorg

Tei

Personally, I support companies for trying to find ways to keep games from being $100+. Though I'm not enthused about the implications of "have" and "have nots" DLC might bring, but games in general stepped into this realm long ago. For FPSs, it's not money that divides players, it's play time. Someone who can sacrifice 10 hours a day to Team Fortress 2 will always have something that prevents the 1 hour a day gamer from enjoying the same game.

chrisagain

Luke has a good point in his article though, but I don't see any solution to it. People will will always want to get an advantage, whether it's paying for it, hacking, or cheating.

Slorg

Walker

Game companies: If the content is within your hands when you go gold, put it on the fucking disc.

And while Luke can argue that this is a hollow victory, since most of many people will not purchase the game, the fact of the matter is that this is an extremely slippery slope, and many (myself included) would much rather see us go down the In-Game Advertising slope instead of the "Customer Penny" slope.

This article reeks of Neville Chamberlain.

crapsh00t

MC2829

Anyway, I see the point of appealing to the idiots who buy this, but this petition does have a purpose. Way back when, EA justified their ripoff by saying, "DLC is relatively new, and we're just testing the waters." That is just PR speak for "let's see how much shit we can get away with." EA knew from the beginning that they every way they can charge for extra content, and waiting until the backlash reached critical mass.
Of course EA is going to find a different way to sucker us; hopefully they now realize that selling weapons in an FPS won't work. We've managed to get one thing on the black list; we've just gotta work on making that list larger.

Tiber

on topic, too many people of the interwebs talk out of both sides of their faces. EA gets ripped for Weapongate, but many people screaming about the injustice are paying for Live. a service that has features that have been free for over a decade on pc. Nintendo is raping the unwashed masses charging 5 bucks for nes games that are over 15 years old not to mention the other titles. games that go for 2 or 3 bucks (if that) at brick and mortar. i understand the business dynamic of it but we're talking about value for money spent. what happened to releasing a finished, fully developed game? DLC available days after a game launches is suspect at best. it's total bullshit when the content is clearly something that should have been in-game in the first place.

I call victory on this one. deal with battles as they come. EA gets retarded with in-game ads, let em know. But too many of the 'average' gamers aren't going to listen to the logic of it. they're already brainwashed. how else do you explain Madden sales, people on their 5th 360, which just RRoD (again), people that believe Live is worth the money, people that believe EA is a great developer, people that believe hip hop is real music, people that believe in santa claus....

Striderhayasa - Phillyyakk on PSN and Live.

Edairu

bAZZle

TheTime

From my perspective Kotaku dropped th ball on this one, they didn't even mention this whole thing until it was all over.

Cruithne

nxp3

lewdev

*facepalm*

abstracts...if it doesn't exist prior to our bitching, it would have never have been.

sKetcheD

Only a "professional" outsider can have any affect on the dim.
I've tried endlessly to convince friends/family/coworkers of truths just like this one. Be it simple and obvious as hell it won't mean they'll understand despite your best word and idea jockeying.

Worse yet, it's not just the dim doing the naughty. It's regular average peope and sometimes generally bright people.

Why would they do it? Why can't they see the obvious? A quick fix, lazy way out, and having to keep up are seemingly top of the list. Idiot bash all one wants and surely they are for being so daft, but some of it isn't their fault.

Try explaining to a friend that they shouldn't purchase DLC and you'll just get a headache. What they see is, "Oh, I want that. Hmm, dammit it cost money. Well, I suppose." If you explain the company will give it away for free if they don't go succumbing to DLC you'll recieve an 'error, does not compute. Invalid.'

What their mind processes is, "Well if I don't buy it, I can't get it. If it wasn't available for DLC....then it wouldn't exist. If I can't buy it, where could I get it?"

You're actually dealing with abstracts that many or even most probably don't comprehend well.

As much as I'd like to go all cliche with the "well, it mattered to that one."...it doesn't. I couldn't convince one out of 20 co-players to avoid DLC because any who could understand it already knew the same. *hell, it's hard enough to convince people that dogs are NOT human but wild domesticated animals - a story for another day*

So poke and prod these downloaders all you want but the lemmings all eventually jump the cliff.

But, perhaps there's a chance. Yes, "outside professionals" are a possible ray of light amonst the shadows of ignorance.

What's an outside professional? Bloggers, reputable ones with solid backgrounds. Luke took the step to stand above the rest and dish what needed to be heard. Your influnce is so much more so then us common folk because of your outside professionalism. You aren't a close personal friend to those I know and so you're percieved differently. You're also here in the spotlight, on a gaming site...handing you instant credibility! That's infinately more +'s for your knowledge. Us commoners are/or can be dismissed instantly because we have no 'famous' crediblity.

So leaders of the industry...Give'm hell!
I'll have your back all the way.

sKetcheD

In no uncertain terms, the DLC model they were trying to push was wholely unnacceptable. EA pushed the con to its limits and this IS a great victory for common sense.

Letting them go ahead with it would have been a tragedy. I find your suggestion that we've made things worse laughable and contemptible in equal messure.

ErskinPig

You are underestimating what they did. Maybe EA are planning more stupid DLC but that does not mean you should stop trying all together, I am suprised by this article and hope that you, like Lono said, join forces with the smaller blogs if something like this happens again.

yojimbo32

He got canned, We assumed why, and the Gamespot higher ups got hammered up the rear by the internet.

You can't stop the voice of the People! Viva La Revolucion!

MasterSauce

So, uhh, remind me again, why exactly did EA make the DLC free?

If it is just a vocal minority moaning & petitioning, and EA can still potentially sell the DLC to "millions of people" why did they make it free?

Can you explain further for me Luke?

maloney

OkayOctane

Seems people (the vocal minority, but maybe also the silent masses) want a single payment for the rights to enter "heaven".

The backlash against BadC micro is usefull for these people, because push back this system.

It seems people is not against to pay for enterinament, but this vocal minority (and maybe the other people) dont want to pay this way.

- - -

Theres also the thing consoles (XBox 360, I am looking at you) suffer from very litte modability. If you want "Horse armour" and can't be downloaded from Joe Modder, but from the professionals, don't expect these profesionals to work for free (these people need to pay the bills).

This is a problem by-design of consoles. Maybe the future is console guys paying for mods, and PC users creating mods and playing mods for free.

- - -

Poor EA, I hope EA somehow is able to show gamers how micropayments work in a fair way. Maybe If EA stop tryiing to push micro on everything, and build a game from ground up with micro, she will be able to show this idea to gamers. I bet some gamers will like the idea.

Tei

But getting organized and campaigning against the kind of bullshit EA is trying to do, calling companies out for their shenenigans might be the start of such institutions.

But I guess Luke is right. Not doing anything at all and keeping quiet will sure bring those corporate bastards to their knees!

little_dragon

Not only that, but some of us feel a bit of pity when people buy games and content that's essentially worthless and don't know it. We are the educated ones and I feel like we should stand up to the tossers who piss on the people who don't know any better. We've all seen the people in game stores buying crap games and know we should educate them. This is our little way of trying to protect these saps and suckers.

You're completely right about this being a much larger issue than just Bad Company. It is a long, uphill battle. EA will probably win. The free market sucks sometimes.
But good grief, I'm not sure you could be a more wet blanket about this bit of fun.

MasterSauce

F
U
C
K

Y
O
U

SpAM_CAN

Filthy_O_Bedlam

Because we have no rights! We have no unions or organized "gamer protection agencies"! They shove whatever they watn donw our throats and somewhre alogn the line, we lost our way and keep buying whatever they sell.

The 360 is a huge, poorly built machine, with payed online outclassed on every aspect by even my laptop PC. The PS3...hell, im not even gonna go there, the way Sony screwed us over in Europe is just downright criminal. AND STILL those machines sell liek hotcakes over here.

Nintendo is indeed gimmicky as usual, but at least they arent charging my soul for the Wii and new games. I did the only possible chocie I could this current gen, I bought a Wii and even if people say it has weak online (indeed it has), I couldnt care less, really. We are not being forced to buy anything on the VC and being a PC gamer for decades, I find trouble with the concept of "payed dlc" since we always got it for free on the PC.

In fact, I remember a time where we bought an Ace Combat game and it came with all extra and secret skins on the disc, we just had to use our skill to unlock them, not buy them off the Internet... microtransactions make NO SENSE AT ALL when the core game costs us 70€uros over here... shows you just how far we lost our way...

Shiryu

Even with my videogame blogs where I express my many views (like oh so many aroudn the globe) I don't think I get my message across and am always dismissed just because I dont like Sony's way of handling things since the PS3 came out.

It is still very rewarding when you finnaly manage to open someones eyes and they "see" whats comming down the line if they keep on buying sequels of sequels, dlc thats free on the PC, silly gimmick acessories, etc etc, but sadly, that has become quite rare.

You at Kotaku are on a prestige place where you can pass down the line to thousands of uneducated gamers that really need to open their eyes, before it is too late.

Even if the Videogames Apocalypse is comming, I still keep my original GameBoy at hand... just in case.

PS: I'm 29 yold and started on Spectrum 48k.

Shiryu

"This is a free market. If something sells, EA will keep selling it. If something doesn't sell, they won't. Simple stuff."

1. It is a free market, yes...but in business things don't have to sell, they have to generate a sufficient amount of turnover/profit/brand power for it to be worth while.

Although I have no idea how many people paid for useless EA DLC, from EA's point of view, selling psudo-content/cheats/guns that are already coded into the game doesn't require additional expenditure...so per DLC sold gives them a very high contribution margin (read: more profit per DLC unit sold) [en.wikipedia.org] . Basically the craptastic EA DLC doesn't have to sell well, hell as long as EA cover admin costs for publishing DLC, it doesn't even have to sell at all and it's still a bloody good idea from a business perpective because even if it doesn't sell... it adds value.

2. DLC, regardless of quality and whether you buy it or not, adds value to a game (via the option of extending/enhancing gameplay) [en.wikipedia.org] . Now, I haven't played Bad Company, so I have no idea if it actually is value adding or an illusion of value adding by removing guns for Bad Company (not Gold version). But EA managed 2 different price points for Bad Company and Bad Company Gold even though it could be (assuming) the same damn disc. Meaning those who buy Bad Company Gold pay for the supposed extra value, but for those who don't, EA will exchange this supposed extra value for advertising or information about your gaming habits via surveys . WIN WIN for EA.

Personally I'd say we won, this round...only because EA stupidly announced weapons DLC before release so they could ship a Gold version. If they left it a few months after release they would have got away with it. But they will not make the same mistake twice (unless it turns them a nice profit or invaluable info). EA clearly has a long term plan for selling components of a game (guns, magic spells, cars etc) to maximize profit and we automatically lost the game when EA sold cheats (how much did I pay for up,down,left,right,A,Start anyone?). Casual-core market or not, this type of sorta-DLC, for EA at least, is here to stay...the petitions just prolongs the period where we, the gamer, don't have to pay for it.

UntouchableP

Ahh and as a sidenote DICE games aren't really bought by casual "we buy as long as it says 'The Sims' on the front of the box" gamers.

develin

PJK

I'm really torn because blogs are inherently opinionated. That's what makes them interesting. But, this post is different. I wouldn't have a problem with this if this was the first time this story was reported. That would have been the perfect place for the rant. But, the news about DICE's recanting was blogged about hours ago. This is a response to that post. Why isn't this in comment underneath that post? Isn't that what the comments section is for?

Yes, the writers on the site can post whatever they want. But I don't think that the people who come to the site for news should have an opinion forced on them. If the purpose of the site is changing, it should be stated. Again, my suggestion is to have sub-blogs for each writer where they can go to town on whatever they think or believe, like kotaku.com/plunkett/ or something like that. I actually think that would setup some interesting dialog not only between the readers and writers, but also between all of the writers on the site.

Sorry for the long post. This is my first post to the site. I didn't post in the past because brevity is not my friend, as you can see...

DABLAKKNITE

The internet is great for free speech, but its still only the vocal minority that makes the noise. Emphasis on MINORITY.

haracas

cindersphere

ashstampede

You talk about "the sheep" who are willing to pay for their DLC and that we should go after them, because EA will try it again next time.

But if you say that these petitions are pointless, you're a sheep yourself. You're even worse than the other sheep, because you are a 'core gamer, you know about the evils of charging customers in a multiplayer game for content that gives them an edge over other players and still you sit idly by and piss on the people who actually get of their arses.

As for going after the other sheep. What do you think this petition was all about? It was as much about raising awareness about the whole issue (the coverage this petition got was what informed me about the whole issue in the first place) as it was about forcing EA's hand.

Also, have you ever heard about the concepts of "opionion leaders", "core audience" and "multiplier"?

Sure, a game needs a lot more than just the hardcore audience these days to be financially succesfull. But who do you think the non-core gamers turn to advice, when they want to buy a new game?

I have a lot of friends who only buy one or two games a year and they usually ask me for advice. Do you think I don't educate my non gamer friends on these things?

Boycotts and petitions work in other industries, why shouldn't they work in this one? Yeah, EA will try again. Of course they will. And the next time they try it, there will be a new petition.

Really, this whole rant smacks of arrogance of the worst and most dangerous kind. Because you don't believe that you have the power to stop a large corporation, nobody else can. Why can't these fools see, that their struggle is pointless! They are too powerfull, don't even try. Your victory was hollow, they'll find other ways to make money. Don't join the resistance, they'll just kill more innocents!

little_dragon