Cliff Bleszinski, design director, might be taking a break after leaving his post at Epic Games last October. But Cliff Bleszinski, unfettered opinionator? Not a chance.
The Gears of War trilogy designer, colloquially known to the gaming public as Cliffy B, has taken strong stances in the past on everything from on-disc DLC to console generation lifespans. Shaped by his experience at the helm of one of the industry’s marquee studios, his perspective often bears a distinct pragmatism, an acceptance for what he sees as the cutthroat realities facing today’s publishers and developers in what’s ultimately, sifting through the Locust viscera and silencing the Lancer chainsaws, a business environment.
It’s a transparent, love-or-hate attitude that was on display again today in a lengthy posting to his blog, Clifford Unchained.
Addressing this week’s controversial announcement by Electronic Arts that microtransactions will be featured in all future EA games, Bleszinski staunchly defended the company as a free-market competitor. He also alleged that a double standard exists among many gamers regarding EA and Valve: The former, he says, has their actions met with instant acrimony while the latter, even when operating in the same way, receives excessive praise.
The video game industry is just that. An industry. Which means that it exists in a capitalistic world. You know, a free market. A place where you’re welcome to spend your money on whatever you please… or to refrain from spending that money.
…
I’ve seen a lot of comments online about microtransactions. They’re a dirty word lately, it seems. Gamers are upset that publishers/developers are “nickel and diming them.” They’re raging at “big and evil corporations who are clueless and trying to steal their money.”
I’m going to come right out and say it. I’m tired of EA being seen as “the bad guy.” I think it’s bull**** that EA has the “scumbag EA” memes on Reddit and that Good Guy Valve can Do No Wrong.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m a huge fan of Gabe and co most everything they do. (Remember, I bought that custom portal turret that took over the internet a while back and I have friends over there.) However, it blows my mind that somehow gamers don’t seem to get that Valve is a business, just like any other, and when Valve charges 100$ for an engagement ring in Team Fortress 2 it’s somehow “cool” yet when EA wants to sell something similar it’s seen as “evil.” Yes, guys, I hate to break it to you, as awesome as Valve is they’re also a company that seeks to make as much money as possible.
They’re just way better at their image control.
Blezinski’s entire argument encompasses much greater depth: comparing microtransactions to the machinations of old arcades; highlighting the exorbitant costs of triple-A game development; claiming that the average gamer — “[the guy who] buys just Madden and GTA every year” — doesn’t mind spending a little more money within the game; and asserting that, adjusted for inflation, games are actually cheaper than ever (though inflation might be catching up soon). His closing statement, however, implores gamers to match their words with (monetary) action: “You vote with your dollars.”
It’s sound advice for gamers on either side of the microtransaction debate, and ultimately the only thing that will determine whether the model is here to stay in the next generation.
Ranters, do you stand with Cliff Bleszinski on microtransactions in games? Do gamers hold a double standard when judging EA and common fan-favorite companies like Valve?
Follow Brian on Twitter @Brian_Sipple.
Source: Clifford Unchained
Xbox One: Watch The Next-Gen Xbox Presentation Here! 
Electronic Arts Engineer Blasts the Wii U 
What You May Not Know About The ‘Xbox One’ [Updated] 
GR Giveaway: Win a Superhero-Sized Trip to San Diego This July! 
Loading ...
The second “it’s just business” is uttered by anyone in the field of art or entertainment is the moment you know to stop supporting them.
If it wasn’t business, it’d be free. You NEED a business mentality to be successful.
I agree with him completely. While I have noticed this before, I haven’t seen it entirely from this perspective. But he’s right.
Same reason everyone HATES Origin and complains about using two programs when all you do is use it to play your games and it takes literally seconds.
I do have to mention one thing, their is a difference between microtransactions that can per say, give you better equipment, etc. than you should at a given point in the game versus micros that are something purely aesthetic and fun. I personally only disagree with it for that reason, because in their case, it can take the game out of the game.
A hat is fun? You only ASSUME EA will be using microtransactions for the purpose of crippling the game and “forcing” you to buy. This is due to the preconceived notion of “EA is evil”.
I think Team Fortress charging for cosmetic in-game crap is dumb as hell, yet people praise it. Never thought that had it been EA instead, the hate-wagon would come pouring in.
go somewhere else now
…Dude, what.
Have you played any of the recent EA Games? They tested it with Dead Space 3. Literally, you pay to cheat the game.
I know Dead Space 3 does it and I have not tried that one yet. Would you rather pay for a new costume? How about buying an in-game pair of space boots? What difference does it make if Dead Space or Team Fortress does it aside from the initial price tag? Cause either way it’s optional. And pay to cheat? What business is it of yours if some sucker actually buys an extra ammo pack to win? Battlefield 3 has a package deal where you can get guns early, no?
I’m not defending EA like it’s the holy grail nor am a fan as much as the next guy, just tired of all the band wagon haters. Can’t blame EA either if they set a trendthen turn around and forgive another company for doing the same thing. Believe me, EA can annoy me too but you have to admit, “worst company in America” sounds a little exaggerated.
The difference between EA and Valve is that Valve puts in microtransactions for fun while EA puts it in to bully you into buying the rest of the broken game you paid for. It’s one thing if you wanna pay for this really cool in game item, but a completely different thing when you have to pay to move on and make real progress in a game. It would be like watching a movie and then in the middle of it you have to pay another $9 to see the end. Absolutely ridiculous.
What games have done this?
Honestly. While Javik was a good character in Mass effect 3. he was not important to the story. he added to the story…but not important to it.
im personally ok with micro transactions as long as its excess bonus stuff (ie: hats, extra resources, exp for kits), im not happy with on disk dlc or dlc at launch. EA (and other companies too to be fair) have pulled that stunt to search for more money and it’s BS.
Telling me that other companies use bastard tactics as well may be true and totally obvious, but it does nothing to defend what will undoubtedly be an obnoxious new trend. Imagine you couldn’t read a book without looking at advertisements. I don’t want to be asked for my credit card while playing Mass Effect. The first time I am tempted to use a micro transaction I will ask myself how I was manipulated into feeling the need. What has the game done to frustrate, hobble and retard my progress and fun, while insinuating an addictive entertainment pattern that will make me cough up more money? When I land on the answer I will probably just turn off the game. May as well put commercials in between levels. I will say that a few years ago they started doing more product placements, like billboards in racing games, and not every case was obnoxious. How about a classic quarter slot on the next Xbox controller? At least there would be a notalgia factor…
What’s this? Cliffy B. being an outspoken douche? Why, I never…
It’s not a double standard. Valve doesn’t treat their customers like ATMs.
I hope people realize that Valve will probably never make games again, or at least not for a very long time. They get all their money from Steam, and other aforementioned microtransactions. Their top priority is the SteamBox right now, and once it’s released, will continue to be so with them providing persistent service. They’ve got no incentive to make games, from a business standpoint. They’re a small company with a blindly devoted fan base, and millions of service subscribers on Steam, from which they get a cut of every sale made. That’s millions of dollars of revenue without much work at all. Don’t get me wrong, I think Valve are a good, ambitious company, an important player in the VG industry. I have the utmost respect for their contribution to the evolution of games. And freaking LOVE Half Life, but I’m not expecting a Half Life 3. The only reason they’ve got this “good guy” attitude about them is because they are 100x more subtle about their business plays than EA, who publishes more than 5 games a year from multiple franchises and can’t really afford to be too subtle. If Valve published that many games, then people would hate them for the same reasons. How would people react if Valve made Half Life a yearly franchise? On another note, it makes plenty of sense for Cliff to defend microtransactions. Anybody taken a look at Gears of War 3? If there wasn’t a season pass, nobody would have bought any of the DLC. The weapon skins were 400 points each! That’s pretty ridiculous, but it doesn’t make Gears a bad game, or Epic Games an evil company. Still, don’t expect him to be a “man of the people” especially on an issue like this. My view on microtransactions? If you don’t want them, don’t buy them. Devout gamers like us don’t like the idea of being handed the game and pressured to buy cheats and stupid accessories, but you always have a choice. Remember, we are just the players. The people who make these games that give us hours and hours of fun and satisfaction, are doing it for money, at the end of the day. We can’t fault anyone for wanting to make a fair living.
@Leonidas
Thank you! Finally someone with a mature and intelligent response that makes sense. It’s all about choice.
Valve a small company? they are so rich they can afford to give their games away for free (dota and TF2)
Cosmetic stuff is all well and good but when games are made shorter to sell more DLC or having microtransactions in future games like say Dead space 4 where they reduce the amount of resources just to get you to buy it off them instead. You won’t always have a choice to just not buy these things and not have it impact your experience if you just sit back and let it happen.
Don’t know about Dota, but TF2 was deigned to be free. That’s why there are micro transactions. And I’m sure they more than make up for that $60.
ill continue to buy DLC as long as its a story that adds to the game and not a story taken out of the game at the last minute just to put it back in. A good example of ripped content is Deus Ex the missing link DLC.
The they can sell you shorter complete games to begin with! Do you see how this encourages game makers to give you less in every way? Games get shorter, but not cheaper, and new content becomes the dlc profit, whether it was on the disc or created years later. This motivates less game, more charges, and as many cheap gimmicks as they can invent to trick you into buying more. Play some “free” games and you will quickly notice how insidiously obnoxious they are about crippling your game and keeping the real fun just out of reach. Nothing about this is good news, or even “alright.”. It is far from being a non issue. It’s a big deal. It’s a new frontier for gouging customers at the expense of entertainment value. Remember the first time a big advertisement took up part of the screen on television during a show? Now it’s everywhere and much worse. You may be recording a high quality drama for future viewing and some dancing jackass walks onto the screen with a huge advertisement for another show… This will go from bad to worse, and it is the antithesis of cultivating artistic quality and integrity of final product. Even if a game maker doesn’t want to do this they will be required to find a way to hold things back from us in any way possible so that we will buy the missing pieces. Now development time is wasted trying to determine what they can remove from the experience they have created, or what they can next create but not include in the game. This sucks.
The difference is, Team Fortress 2 is Free to Play. Anything you can pay for in that game is purely for fun. EA puts transactions in that make the game easier for the player, or they are paying to get better weapons than other people, or they make you pay for content that should have just been in the game to begin with.
Examples you say? Mass Effect 3′s online gameplay. You can either save up in game credits to buy the boxes to get better weapons and better characters, or you can boost yourself with real money and buy all of that stuff earlier than everyone else. Or, again looking at Mass Effect, a bunch of DLC that should have just been in the game to begin with. I understand some DLC, but having DLC release with the game is stupid. That is just saying “Hey, I know we made you pay 60$ for a game, but we forgot to put something in. 5 more dollars please!”
DLC that “should have” been in the game? Some times there isn’t time. The developers have a release date. Additional content that wasn’t complete will have to ship separately. Not saying this is the case with EA though but who are we to decide and make such grand assumptions?
And seriously? Clothes are fun? You’d pay for a freakin hat over something that’ll give you an edge in combat? THAT’S ok but online passes aren’t? Personally, I think if someone pays for a gun they deserve an advantage.
Why even play the game then when you could just bid money to be declared the winner? Pay to win is an ugly practice that ruins games for all but the rich. You are right that DLC isn’t always held back, but often created after the fact, but you must know that it is often the other way around. Furthermore, this new rule and industry trend encourages all possible abuses as well as anti-fun practices. This is a concerted effort to manipulate gamers and make us feel that it’s fair to ask more when it often isn’t. On disc dlc can be less offensive if they just take it off the disc because you will give them the benefit of the doubt, not realizing that content was created and deliberately withheld. Now this sort of worst case scenario is being built into the production. When everyone at EA has to do this, what are the odds that they are putting their resources into drawing every dollar out of you? There are games being made now that have to remove content to accommodate this rule. How little can they give us, how gullible is the public, and how much money can they get us to add to the initial price? This philosophy will dominate over creative decisions and legitimate game extensions. Games will be shorter and loaded with clever restrictions and locked content. I love great DLC, created after the game, that offers new life to an already lengthy game. I will buy Skyrim DLC happily. When Sam Fisher’s already far too brief games get even smaller to get more money from morons I won’t be participating, Sadly a few boycotts won’t alter this misguided design philosophy. Money motivates swindles, and now it a freakin policy. Anti gamer practices suck. This will hurt many games for many years, and you will either participate or not, but with way you are penalized. You can pay more, or get less, but you will never again buy an EA game that doesn’t penalize you one way or the other, and waste development time plotting a way back to your wallet. THIS IS NOT OKAY.
So you support pay2win games? how sad,EA loves idiots like you.
@Vradar
I wouldn’t be calling anyone an idiot if I were you. NO ONE here said anything in support of pay2win.
Well put. Although I strongly disagree with the above statements, I tried to reason with and possibly even educate the person rather than hurl insults and declare no hope for better understanding. ATG says that buying an advantage seems fair, but I hope he or she reads my response above and rethinks that perspective for the sake of informed consumers and cautious buyers. We are meant to be lulled into complacency while new development practices damage this art form and quietly go from 60 dollars for 8 hours up to 80$ for ten hours, forgetting that not that long ago a game so brief would not have been released! Worse yet the pricing structure becomes so vague and drawn out that they no longer see the price as finite. I’ve played free games that are clearly designed to cost several hundred dollars to play thoroughly. The casual or smart player will be denied the game’s offerings while the rich, the stupid, and the OCD will be brutally overcharged for the full experience. This reminds me off when movies got a lot more expensive while the screens got much smaller. Every little bit that helps the bottom line, but never any backing off of charges. Short games are still full price. As the Ferengi say “Once you have their money, you never give it back.”. I guess the game industry has a copy of the Rules of Acquisition.
@Josh
Never said that buying an advantage is fair. Just said if someone does shell out the extra money, they deserve an advantage. If someone buys a new engine then their car deserves to perform better than mine.
I am NOT in support of microtransactions. I don’t care about the option to do so either, because I personally don’t use it and have yet to feel like I received a half baked product.
I promise you it’s all perspective. If microtransactions did not exist along with all the additional content, no one would complain the game is too difficult or lacking. Just KNOWING is enough for some people to feel cheated. And the fact that it’s EA only makes it worse.
@ATG
No, no, no! It is I who can promise you that it is NOT all perspective! You are deeply mistaken! It is fortunate that from your perspective things have worked fine so far and will continue to suit you. It’s a case of ignorant bliss. You weren’t aware that developers spent some of their time devising ways to make the game better, and then determining how to keep those advances and locations and vehicles and weapons AWAY FROM YOU so that you would hopefully pay more for them. So what if the game was fun enough, or worth every penny, or that you never knew anything was missing? That’s not the point here at all, although not getting the bare minimum for your time and money exacerbates the issue. The issue is about a growing culture of deprivation. The best ideas may have been built into the game from the start, but they won’t hesitate to damage the quality of the game if they believe enough suckers will pay a premium for standard elements of content. It’s hard to draw the line, because of course there are legit cases of developers trying to keep working and creating and addressing fan reaction and driving their artistic vision further. So a two dollar gun may have been created with integrity as a cool addition, after the fact, in hopes that fans would appreciate the effort and enjoy the addition. On the other hand, it is more likely and more common, and now practically a job requirement , to be constantly withholding the goods from players, regardless of the effect on game quality or artistic vision. It is an ugly new art form, squeezing a few bucks out of people at every possible turn. Just last night I saw a few dozen different microtransactions for Sleeping Dogs, and althgh some sounded very cool, the likely truth was overwhelmingly negative. These piles of extra goodies that could’ve been included, and years ago would have been an expected unlock from finishing the game or putting in codes, are the best of the best, and they were strategically withheld to be trickled out at high prices to fools. I definitely want the best car and the grenade launcher, but since when is that NOT part of the “complete” 60$ experience I payed for?
If they charged half price for some games and then let gamers augment as they choose a la cart style, I would happily participate in the microtransaction game. As is they are testing the water, as always, to determine how little they can possibly give us before we notice, complain, stop buying, or even show a flicker of understanding. Your current state of game industry naïveté is exactly what they want from you, and it makes you an uninformed customer. Much worse are those who play along and keep paying for “extra” content that is most likely withheld trinkets that should be part of the main game.
I don’t even know how to address your assertion that buying an advantage is appropriate. It tells the real players that they have no special right to the fruits of their labor since others can simply purchase victory. Buying fancy game modifiers and spectacularly fun new gimmicks is one thing, but replacing the need for skill with the need for a credit card is a way to erode game integrity.
And I am not even referring to the multiplayer part, where every purchase of guns, or these days even Slurpees and SlimJims, gets you an advantage. Well I am not a top player, so the urgency of these purchases is strongest for me because I NEED an advantage. But I won’t pay to avoid having to gain skill, even when the little Asian kid and the angry redneck who outmatch me have also made the purchases that gain them unneeded power over me. Thus they ruin multiplayer for anyone who isn’t both skilled and willing to keep on paying to be on top. Multiplayer needs to be more inclusive and help the weaker players be competitive. Someone who has played for months doesn’t need the advantages they have earned to beat the newbies, and certainly doesn’t need the junk food bonuses and micro pay boosts either.
There are great DLC things out there, made with integrity by real artists as a meaningful addition to a standalone experience. They deserve to be bought and played. Shivering Isles comes to mind. You may have spent two thousand hours in Oblivion, and offering tons of new territory long after release isn’t a sime cash in. On the other hand, when you beat an 8 hour game and are immediately solicited with ways to briefly extend it’s short life with more cash, that is a sign that the game was not built with respect for the player. This issue can be complex and have grey areas, but it is largley a very cynical manipulation of gamers that is growing into an artwork of its own which will hurt games in countless ways whether you notice it or not! I really hope you see my point and try to be a wise customer, because I really want us all to get wise to the damage done to art by the strategizing of clever business people. I’m not trying to give you a hard time, just to help you see the ugly side of this issue because it WILL effect you if you buy games, whether you buy dlc and microtransaction junk or just accept that you can’t have those things. The end result is that you pay more and get less at every possible turn. It’s the sort of cheap manipulation that makes me want to buy another copy of the games that are worth MORE than 60 dollars just to support the people who made them. Buy Bethesda games and DLC! They don’t hold out on the hundreds of hours of great gaming just to dole out scraps for starving fans.
@Josh Calkins
I see what you’re saying.
There is NO DOUBT that they purposely hold things back to sell as DLC later. What I’m saying is: Who are we to decide? How could we know? If we say “Oh, this should have been in the game!”, that IS perspective. Because ALL DLC could be in the game, I could argue that ALL DLC SHOULD be in these games (with the exception of a few, like Bethesda, as you mentioned.) The “best” car or gun should be in the game, does that then mean that the DLC is something worse? Then why even buy it? So should we do away with it completely? What’s the point in having DLC if it doesn’t offer a superior weapon/vehicle? It’s a double edged sword, again, perspective.
FOR THE RECORD, I NEVER PURCHASE MICRO TRANSACTIONS AND HARDLY EVER PURCHASE DLC.
“I don’t even know how to address your assertion that buying an advantage is appropriate.”
I NEVER said it was appropriate, you and darn near everyone else here is misreading me. Here’s an analogy: Dave spends $3,000 extra on his car’s engine, he DESERVES to go faster than my car. To be honest, I don’t even believe that buying a gun through micro transactions would give you an advantage. That’s where skill comes into play. Just because player A uses a M8 he purchased through a micro transaction, doesn’t mean he’s going to get more kills than player B using a M16 with a burst shot he unlocked in the beginning. Battlefield 3 offers all kinds of weapons through DLC, NO player has an advantage, skill will always come into play. It’s not what you use, but HOW you use it. And let me clear this up, people would rather pay for gimmicks and weapon skins over a new gun because it’s fun? You’d pay extra money for NOTHING? I fail to see how buying a coat for my gun or a hat for my character is fun. Again, perspective. I could argue that those stupid cosmetics and weapon skins should be included with that $60 package, therefore, WE’RE ALL FOOLS. Don’t be a hypocrite.
“And I am not even referring to the multiplayer part, where every purchase of guns, or these days even Slurpees and SlimJims, gets you an advantage. Well I am not a top player, so the urgency of these purchases is strongest for me because I NEED an advantage.”
Perspective. Know why? Because I disagree. Clearly you and I play different games because I can’t name one of my games where someone can purchase an advantage.
AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD, I DON’T LIKE AND NEVER BUY MICRO TRANSACTIONS AND I HARDLY PURCHASE DLC.
I’m not being fooled into anything. I bought Mortal Kombat, because I love that game. The four additional characters for $5 a piece offer no advantage, just additional characters (either way I wouldn’t have bought them because $5 per character is ridiculous). So it’s another fighter that basically looks different. I was content with the characters it came with, so I never purchased them. Therefore, I wasn’t tricked or fooled.
Batman: Arkham City. I DID purchase the DLC, someone could EASILY argue it should be included in the game. It was WORTH it to me because it means more to me then it would to someone else. WORTH is subjective.
Assassin’s Creed 3, Tyranny of the King? Won’t be purchasing, because I don’t care. Mass Effect 3? You see where I’m going with this?
@Josh
Not disagreeing with you btw, at least not entirely. I see exactly where you’re coming from.
@ATG
Glad you responded. I think we are getting closer to the truth, which is usually healthy if not entirely uplifting… The spectrum of possibilities does cover a lot of possibilities, so I think being informed and aware of the patterns and which companies tend to use certain practices is very important. If dlc of any type is created in good faith as an additional thing that couldn’t be added in a timely way or was not even conceived of during release, or would take another year to build, then I am very pleased to have this happen. I may not want the thing, but I do love that in this day of used games there are companies working extra hard to make a game evolve after release. The first time I got a new Splinter Cell level (free at the time) for a game I bought months ago I was thrilled. It’s like customer support and appreciation and fan feedback had a baby and it was more game content. When used in a more optional, less manipulative way, dlc can be one of the best benefits of modern gaming.
I think you get my point now about how it effects everyone negatively when implemented in ways that reek of sleazy business. Withheld content, diverting of resources, hobbling of game content and corruption of artistic intent are a few ugly things that come to mind when I hear about microtransaction proliferation. Sure it’s just a small version of dlc, but it’s frequent use to make free games profitable has demonstrated just how thoroughly a project can be warped to prioritize cash over quality, profit over product, and all the other nasty stuff. As these practices become more common and huge companies like EA use them, it will be tough to notice all the manipulations, and erring on the side of “no dlc” may deprive you and the creators of a valid continuation of great works. My best advice to myself and everyone is to be careful, try to trust the right people, and avoid being suckered. I have seen dlc I wanted, and felt was worth the cost, but upon researching the game or company discord such sketchy business practices that I chose to deny myself the game content rather than support the people who provided it with my money votes. Boycotting that jive is the least I can do for the cause.
As for multiplayer, I believe there is a push in some games to limit the sorts of advantages that can be bought or even falsely earned. As you mentioned, some would rather reward you with gun skins than any tactical advantage. These are usually not purely successful attempts at evening the playing field, but thebest examples I know of are games I haven’t played. Among games I have though, it is obvious that the resources and upgrades and expanded options and class specialties are all advantages of some sort. They aren’t purely a at to win situation, and I didnt mean to imply that a lousy player beats a good one based solely on purchases. On the other hand good players get a hell of a lot better when they cough up extra money. Even if you restrict upgrades to experience y still get people buying junk food to double their experience, etc, and upgrade their character beyond what they have earned with their effort. The more unplayably difficult or inaccessibly frantic the game becomes, the more desperate the players joining become, and the more they wish they had bought Doritos and the fancy new armor pack, or whatever the heck, so they could finally compete. By making the famously-difficult-to-compete games even more elitist and supcharging people’s advantages, we weaken the whole structure artificially because having the game balanced isn’t as important as selling Slim Jim’s. Advantage is bought on all platforms every day, one way or another, but hopefully, presumably not every game is guilty of such compromises. The point is that it’s corrupt, and the medium will never go back to being unpoluted any more than NASCAR will take ads off their cars. The best we can hope is to find the better examples of pure multiplayer and enjoy them, while hopefully encouraging those developers with our money.
We absolutely CANNOT accept that buying advantage is fair. Yes if you spend more on your car in real life you can expect to get more, but when you go to an online game and before the race starts they ask if anybody wants to spend more money for a better engine before the race starts… Well that’s a race I don’t want to show up for. Let them use that car in single player, and if they only bought it because it was left out of mine, then damn the folks who made that mess. Any time winning can be effected by more purchases, something ugly is happening. Most games have an easy mode, so people can still play games that are too tough for them. This is better than saying you can purchase your way thigh the game. Also it used to be that level select was the sort of thing built into a game, even if you had to beat it first. Nowadays the old code style content is nonexistent, or suddenly premium!
By the way I will probably get the AC3 expansion AFTER I beat the game, because those games tend to be plenty long and involved, so I don’t feel overcharged, and I suspect it really is a large, unique tangent to the primary experience that was created in good faith as an optional expansion for interested fans. I appreciate and support that methodology. I encourage you not to be overly aggressive about Dlc since its not all a vile trick for dumb consumers, but do be vigilant! Good luck to you! There’s a storm comin’…
To be honest, any microtransaction is dumb IMO.
The deal tho is that appearances dictate how well you sell your product. See EA has developed that scumbag mentality because they are okay with publishing mediocre and sub par games that they know will acquire a lot of money. Valve does want to make money, but they would rather produce the best possible product that they can instead of producing a lot of crappy ones. That is the difference. Quality.
True
Vote with your dollar.
/’nuff said
To be honest I am in total disagreement with his article, microtransactionsa re awful, why would you pay more on a game you already paid for IT SHOULD HAVE COME WITH THE GAME now DLCs like Shivering Isles I can honestly say is fair, but not map packs and weapons, suits, ect.
Where and why do you draw the line though? Many of the things you mention are not only fair to sell, but are also often clearly created after the fact. If someone wants to play Halo multiplayer for several years in a row, than allowing them to buy new maps seems more like customer service than the cynical customer manipulations at the extreme end of microtransactions. It’s a fine line, at times. I agree that Shivering Isles, or any Elder Scroll expansion is a perfect example of fair and welcome dlc. Of course, those games really do have a few thousand hours of content in them, so 60$ seems like a bargain. Heck you could buy a ES4: Oblivion disc WITH dlc on it now for 20$ and play it for years! Even if you hate the optional horse armour, those Bethesda people know how to give you value for your money many times over. How many games would you buy again, hundreds of hours later if you lost your disc? Damn few, I’d bet.