The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
Please vote in the Forum Structure Poll. Polling will close at 2PM EST on January 21, 2025.
This EA Achievement is brought to you by Old Spice..
I'm sure someone had to have brought this up by now, but this is not the first EA game to do it.
Shit, in Fight Night Round 3 all the achievements are fights sponsored by ESPN, Burger King, or Dodge. I have no idea why this story is getting attention. It's a sports game, do you people bitch about the banners lining the stadium when you go to a game or watch one on TV?
To me, I feel EA are saying "You gamers are complete idiots! Drink our shit and enjoy it!"
And for the record EA have put ads in games and not dropped the price of games. They're basically seeing how much they can get out of it, not the gamers.
Since things like "they should lower the price if they want to put in ads!" always, always, always comes up, really, when was the last time you bought something with ads in it that cost less than what it did before? You most likely haven't because that may be how things work in your magical fairy land of happiness and glitter dust, but that's not the way it goes in reality.
Production costs have been rising for a while and, yes, they could make cheaper games (omg the wii is awesome and cool and it's the best thing ever hey third parties come here and develop for the wii i hear you can make a game for $10 for it), but a cheaper game that doesn't really utilize the newer hardware isn't going to be very impressive and is most likely not going to sell as well as it should (that is not to say that a game has to be on the cutting edge graphically to do well).
What the ads are there for is not just to increase profits (though, that can, of course, be a side effect), but to subsidize costs on the part of the developer. Sure, they could keep giving you games completely ad free for $60 (And the price increase honestly was a long time coming as well. We're lucky we went so long without one.) or they could put in ads and lower the price. But when they can keep up around the same amount of cash flow with the rising costs of development by using ads, why the fuck would they?
I don't like seeing ads either, but you really shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. Go watch some TV or go see a movie or go buy a magazine or a newspaper. Are any of them cheaper than they used to be? No.
Why do we expect games to break that mold? Why do we hold developers to this unrealistic standard that has been shown to exist nowhere?
And for the record EA have put ads in games and not dropped the price of games. They're basically seeing how much they can get out of it, not the gamers.
Since things like "they should lower the price if they want to put in ads!" always, always, always comes up, really, when was the last time you bought something with ads in it that cost less than what it did before? You most likely haven't because that may be how things work in your magical fairy land of happiness and glitter dust, but that's not the way it goes in reality.
Production costs have been rising for a while and, yes, they could make cheaper games (omg the wii is awesome and cool and it's the best thing ever hey third parties come here and develop for the wii i hear you can make a game for $10 for it), but a cheaper game that doesn't really utilize the newer hardware isn't going to be very impressive and is most likely not going to sell as well as it should (that is not to say that a game has to be on the cutting edge graphically to do well).
What the ads are there for is not just to increase profits (though, that can, of course, be a side effect), but to subsidize costs on the part of the developer. Sure, they could keep giving you games completely ad free for $60 (And the price increase honestly was a long time coming as well. We're lucky we went so long without one.) or they could put in ads and lower the price. But when they can keep up around the same amount of cash flow with the rising costs of development by using ads, why the fuck would they?
I don't like seeing ads either, but you really shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. Go watch some TV or go see a movie or go buy a magazine or a newspaper. Are any of them cheaper than they used to be? No.
Why do we expect games to break that mold? Why do we hold developers to this unrealistic standard that has been shown to exist nowhere?
Ubisoft have some ads in their games, and they were able to keep the price down. Now EA do something similar which is to be expected, but they go much FURTHER than Ubisoft, without actually updating their game engines or putting more effort in making a better experiance. Ubisoft do. EA Roll around in sacks of cash money and still retain the same tools and the same amount of effort in making their games. Now recently they also went lazy and signed up to Unreal Engine which cuts the costs EVEN MORE than starting an engine from scratch, and they still insist on extra game ads.
The point of the matter is, most game developers are subtle with ads, EA are all out with no particular benefit to the customer - the gamers.
It's a sports game. Ads everywhere makes sense and is something sports fans are already used to.
Exactly. This is Madden. The Old Spice End Zone is a part of the game.
What you're REALLY gonna hate are the new NASCAR games. Did you know that if you pick a random household item, there's an Official NASCAR version of it?
Try always. You know what else has been growing? The market.
Glal on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited July 2007
I didn't read the whole thread, but I have a sure fire way to solve your problems about EA and their shoddy products and their stupid advertising:
Keep your wallets in your damned pockets. Nothing else will have any impact what-so-ever.
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
0
Raijin QuickfootI'm your Huckleberry YOU'RE NO DAISYRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited July 2007
Why would companies lower the prices of games? We've all shown we are willing to pay $60 a game, probably more. So as a company explain to me the benefit of lowering the price of the game. Why should I sell a game at $40 when I can sell just as many copies at $60 and why should I not make more money throwing in advertisements when all it is going to do is annoy a few people who are probably sill going to buy the game anyway.
The only people here I've seen that aren't going to buy the new Madden game weren't going to buy it before they found out there was advertising in it anyway.
Why would companies lower the prices of games? We've all shown we are willing to pay $60 a game, probably more. So as a company explain to me the benefit of lowering the price of the game. Why should I sell a game at $40 when I can sell just as many copies at $60 and why should I not make more money throwing in advertisements when all it is going to do is annoy a few people who are probably sill going to buy the game anyway.
The only people here I've seen that aren't going to buy the new Madden game weren't going to buy it before they found out there was advertising in it anyway.
Basic economics 101: More people buy things if things are cheaper.
100,000 games * $60/game = $6,000,000.
1,000,000 games * $40/game = $40,000,000.
Which of these numbers is larger?
Sadly, many business people have degrees in business and not economics, and as with many other things, tend to go with what's "obvious" instead of what's possibly the best course of action. (Also see: "hey let's fire all these people to save money... oh fuck, you mean those people did something? Well, let's hire some people back that do the same thing as they did..." that happens in many companies.)
cfgauss on
The hero and protagonist, whose story the book follows, is the aptly-named Hiro Protagonist: "Last of the freelance hackers and Greatest sword fighter in the world." When Hiro loses his job as a pizza delivery driver for the Mafia, he meets a streetwise young girl nicknamed Y.T. (short for Yours Truly), who works as a skateboard "Kourier", and they decide to become partners in the intelligence business.
Advertisements in video games aren't a bad thing. Advertisements means a bigger budget for games. EA does take it well beyond the norm though, but I don't understand getting upset over a line of text above a little message saying that you got 5 touch downs in one game.
Because giving an ad as a reward for doing something is pretty fucking shitty. They're called achievements for a reason. You do not achieve Mountain Dew.
According to the Mountain Dew commercials you do. You are still getting your video game points with a description of what you did.
No one is getting mad overone little line; they are getting mad at a continuing trend that EA is following.
If EA is getting extra money to use for developing from these ads, then why aren't game prices going down? Why aren't this year's sports games any different from last year's? Why does EA still need us to pay for fucking Cheat Codes and Game Trailers?
No, the money from this isn't going to improve game budgets. It seems to be going straight to the bottom line.
I'm talking to the people that are talking about achievement points, not your morals or how you feel about EA.
I'mnot talking aboutmy morals. I'm talking about standard business ethics.
There ARE certain acceptable ethical principles in business. EA does not follow them. That is reason enough to criticize them.
Do the companies that sell out to EA also follow unethical business principles?
You know, that is a GREAT question for some serious contemplation over. On the one hand the companies are doing nothing wrong themselves, on the other hand, they are enabling actions which are not guarteed to be unethical, but will be undertaken by an entity with a history of behavior of a ethically questionable nature.
I can't say I have an answer right now, but I will definitely think about it. It is an interesting case, especially when you are looking at a company which might not have the means to publish its games on its own, without the help of EA.
If you like, once I arrive at a conclussion, I can PM you my thoughts. Let me know if you want me to.
He said high quality. High quality requires at least some innovation.
New Super Mario Brothers was the height of innovation then was it?
Each new mario game has actually added new things to the genera, you know. There's a much bigger difference between NES mario and N64 mario than there is between NES Madden and any other version of Madden that will ever be made.
Oh hey, I'm guessing you don't fucking play sports games.
Because each new iteration adds tons of shit. But thanks for ragging on games you've never tried.
List the "TON" of achievements between Madden 04 and Madden 05, please.
Because I can only think of 1, MAYBE 2
And I used to sell the damn things.
Madden 04 to madden 05?
Biggest change was the addition of the hit stick. It wasn't present in madden 04, but it's been present in madden 05. Press the right analog stick after contact to shuffle your arms around. It enables you to manually break tackles or wrap up people.
That's also the madden where I believe they added QB field of vision, where you can use the right stick to manually adjust the quarterback's field of vision to increase accuracy. And it was either 04 or 05 which added the ability for the QB to shed tackles.
This is in addition to playbook changes, roster updates, stadium updates, and more.
Which isn't a "TON" of stuff.
Pick any other two years. Hell, pick any three year span. It still won't amount to a "TON" of stuff.
Your just mad equals and run on series in general. Mario games don't add a "TON" of stuff with new edition, as well as Xeno games, Tekkan games, and so on. But to the people that like those games, it is a "TON" of new stuff.
Which of those series you mentioned shoves a brand new fifty dollar version out the door every year?
I think you missed the point. Hell, I don't even understand your point. Madden is one of the top selling games, every year. People wouldn't buy it if they didn't feel like it was worth it.
Except you have to look at the reasons WHY people buy it, not just at overall sales.
Many people buy it because they enjoy playing a game with an up-to-date NFL roster of all of the players each year. If EA were to give a choice between buying a new full priced game, or downloading a much cheaper set of roster updates, it would be pretty interesting to see which one consumer prefference leaned towards.
Also, Madden 05 was not as high selling as other years because of NFL 2k5. The game released at 20 dollars, and was critically acclaimed (as well as judged by many consumers) to be a superior experience to that of Madden. The reason that the game hadn't sold as well a it did that year previously was because of the fact that Madden had much more brand recognition within the market, but the cheaper price point finally got consumers to take notice. EA's response, rather than allowing competition to breed excellence, and improving their product, was to secure an exclusive contract with the NFL, thereby shutting down the competition. While being a technically illegal move, it is a move that does not embody the spirit of the free market at all, and instead directly betrays it.
For the record, the 2k sports lines were just as guilty of shoving the same game out the door every year for full price, with mostly just roster up dates, but the fact that they were experimenting with pricing in their final year showed hope that, with the success of the cheaper game, maybe starting with the 2k7 edition, they might decide to permanently move to a cheaper price point (they had made clear their intentions to return to a fifty dollar price point for 2k6, but it is entirely possible that, should 2k6 recieve lack luster sales, due to the fact that it no longer had the price point to rely on, they might, with 2k7, decide to drop to a permanent 40, or even 30 dollar price point, higher than the 20 dollars of 2k5, but still cheaper than full price, in order to assist their sales while still turning a decent profit.)
Regardless of pricing issues, the fact that EA is more inclined to reduce competition, rather than improving their product, is a pretty big issue when looking at how the future of the industry will grow. EA is one of the biggest players out there, which means that their behavior has a direct effect on the industry as a whole.
He said high quality. High quality requires at least some innovation.
New Super Mario Brothers was the height of innovation then was it?
Each new mario game has actually added new things to the genera, you know. There's a much bigger difference between NES mario and N64 mario than there is between NES Madden and any other version of Madden that will ever be made.
Oh hey, I'm guessing you don't fucking play sports games.
Because each new iteration adds tons of shit. But thanks for ragging on games you've never tried.
List the "TON" of achievements between Madden 04 and Madden 05, please.
Because I can only think of 1, MAYBE 2
And I used to sell the damn things.
Madden 04 to madden 05?
Biggest change was the addition of the hit stick. It wasn't present in madden 04, but it's been present in madden 05. Press the right analog stick after contact to shuffle your arms around. It enables you to manually break tackles or wrap up people.
That's also the madden where I believe they added QB field of vision, where you can use the right stick to manually adjust the quarterback's field of vision to increase accuracy. And it was either 04 or 05 which added the ability for the QB to shed tackles.
This is in addition to playbook changes, roster updates, stadium updates, and more.
Which isn't a "TON" of stuff.
Pick any other two years. Hell, pick any three year span. It still won't amount to a "TON" of stuff.
Your just mad equals and run on series in general. Mario games don't add a "TON" of stuff with new edition, as well as Xeno games, Tekkan games, and so on. But to the people that like those games, it is a "TON" of new stuff.
Which of those series you mentioned shoves a brand new fifty dollar version out the door every year?
Evander, dear, we're in the "next" generation of games now. New versions cost sixty dollars a year now.
I'm being generous, because of the Wii and PS2 versions.
The funny thing is that some one stated that New Super Mario Bros. had no changes from previous games. NSMB was also 15-25 bucks cheaper than the versions of madden that we are talking about
No one said that NSMB had no changes.
And NSMB was released at the average MSRP for the DS. It was $15 cheaper because DS games in general are $15 cheaper.
Yes, but they COULD have instead decided to release NSMB as a console release, and charged fifty dollars for it. You and I both know that it would still have sold, even EXACTLY as it was, if it was a console release, and Nintendo knows it too. The fact is, they decided that it was better, both for the consumer and themselves, to release it as a cheaper DS game, and acted accordingly.
Depending on the balance of supply and demand, sometimes reducing price actually gives you a larger profit, because as price decreases, demand increases. The issue with EA is that, rather than reducing price, or improving product quality, they depend on other ways of increasing demand, which are more detrimental to the market, such as reducing competition, or attempt to ride one product on the coat tails of another, so as to feed off the demand of the other.
An example of a good way: Sam Fisher accessing mission-critical data on his Nokia PDA while avoiding the light given off by a Coke machine. The game takes place in modern times; it makes sense for these objects to be in the game. Making them an actual part of the experience without beating you in the head with it is also a big plus. This is even better for the companies that buy Ad-space, because their ad isn't damaging the experience, and therefore will be held in a more positive light by gamers.
Exactly. You are walking down the street and feel like a cola, you walk up to a spot with both a pepsi machine and a coke machine (not all that uncommon) and the fact that you associate coke with the fun that you have playing as Sam Fischer influences you decision, maybe not on a concious level, but it achieves its advertising goal without being a detriment to the game play, since they needed something there to provide the lighting anyway.
An example of a good way: Sam Fisher accessing mission-critical data on his Nokia PDA while avoiding the light given off by a Coke machine. The game takes place in modern times; it makes sense for these objects to be in the game. Making them an actual part of the experience without beating you in the head with it is also a big plus. This is even better for the companies that buy Ad-space, because their ad isn't damaging the experience, and therefore will be held in a more positive light by gamers.
True enough. However, a part of the problem is for companies or games that cannot have that kind of advertisements. Games like Mario or Zelda cannot do this sort of thing. At least avoiding the BF2142 problem. Count me in the group that is unconcerned about in-game ads. Acheivements, however, is different. That's pretty retarded.
Ads during load screens, while not my favorite thing, are preferable to ads that make no sense in the continuity of the game.
Also, look at what discover channel did, by sponsoring map packs for Gears of War. They did not plaster their logo into the game itself, but associated themselves with the product. Some one who enjoys Gears of Wars might see that the map packs are sponsored by the show "Future Weapons", and decide to check the show out, because they enjoy the futuristic weapons in the game that they are playing.
There are good ways of doing this stuff without ruining the experience. That is one of the points being made here.
I agree with that last part, and I hold corporations to the same standards that I hold people to. Coincidently, I don't think there should be laws policing decency. If a person is a dick to me, I don't expect them to change to fit my idea of what is moral, ethical and nice. I just stop hanging around said person. So, as you can probably guess, I don't think there should be any laws forcing companies to play nice. If I don't like how a company is handling their business, I just stop throwing money their way.
I never brought up law, I just reffered to industry standards, both implicit and explicit. You don't bring laws into the equation until lack of adherence to industry standards RESULTS in the breaking of laws (such as monopolies violating anti-trust laws, or to use a recent example, Arthur Anderson's persistance in ignoring the GAAP, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, resulting in the ENRON situation, which created the necessity of the Sarbaines-Oxley legislation, which mostly just turned things that had once been industry standards into laws, because of the issues of companies ignoring industry standards.) I will always favor industry standards over laws, as long as those standards are followed.
Personally, I boycott EA products. In a discussion like this one, I give the reasons why I boycott, to encourage other people to boycott as well, until EA changes their behavior. I'm not writing to my congress man, or anything.
We're not talking about the price after a drop or two, a few months after release. We're talking about the price at the time of it's release. The standard XBox release price was $50, same as the other consoles of that generation.
All of EA's Wii offerings have been quite good and some of the best stuff theyve put out in years for their established franchises.
Madden for Wii was a huge step forward for that franchise in my opinion and this years version has so many new features Im tempted to buy it again this year. Multiplayer, more mini-games for the Wii version, downloadable roster updates for 2 years (they put a reason in the game to not buy the next version, give them some credit for that one), the writing on teh screen during replays (useless but gonna be so awesome when you make that last minute TD and want to rub it in) and so on.
Tiger Woods was another incredible update to a stale franchise and looks to be better with a years worth of polish to Wii controls / online added, etc. For how quick they got it and Madden out last year, they did incredible jobs of not just tacking on waggle.
Same goes for SSX Blur and then they have several original Wii franchises with that Schoolyard one (dodgeball/etc) and the My Sims (the cute Mii like sims game).
For a company like EA to not just bolt on token jesture motion controls and stamp a new number on the Wii versions each year is a very huge step forward for the company (maybe the lower cost / easier development allowing it?).
So ya, ads suck, etc, but EA has been a much better company the last year or two, at least with relation to the Wii.
Despite my staunch anti-EA stance, I will agree with you entirely. If EA would take the same sort of approach with the rest of the industry as they are taking with the Wii, I would have no issues with them.
Also, while I do not condone EA's practices as I am not a business minded individual and never will be, I cannot ever fault them. They are a business and they are doing damn good at being that considering that 99% of all companies base their success of profits and they are bringing in some damn fine profits. They are a big corporation. How many big corporations actually care about people?
I work for a decent sized corporation, not the lrgest out there, but by no means small. My company is not affraid to spend money on its employees, and while we do not work directly with consumers (we are an architecture and engineering firm, primarily, although I work in the economics office, where we sometimes contract out directly to another firm) the concept of not ripping off our customers, and making sure that we only bill them for the work we do, and only do the work that needs to be done (rather than doing extra work just to bill them for it) is constantly stated within the company.
The issue is that some corporations are begining to look on people not as people, but rther, only as consumer bases and labor pools. This is a definite issue in terms of equity.
You know, typically we make just one post in a row instead of ten.
cfgauss on
The hero and protagonist, whose story the book follows, is the aptly-named Hiro Protagonist: "Last of the freelance hackers and Greatest sword fighter in the world." When Hiro loses his job as a pizza delivery driver for the Mafia, he meets a streetwise young girl nicknamed Y.T. (short for Yours Truly), who works as a skateboard "Kourier", and they decide to become partners in the intelligence business.
when was the last time you bought something with ads in it that cost less than what it did before?
Actually, right here at Penny Arcade, they used to offer a service whereby, if you paid a monthly fee, you could view the Penny Arcade site without advertisements. They did away with this feature after the comic started turning a larger profit, and the ammount that they were bringing in otherwise meant that the ammount that was brought in through this was unnecessary. Plenty of other websites still offer services like this, though.
For the record, the reason that network television is free is because it is advertisement funded. This trend was started by public radio.
You can also get various magazine subscriptions at their "wholesale
price, that is to say, the price that secondhand subscription companies offer them at, before profit is added to them. Some magazines (Maxim is the first one that comes to mind) are actually entirely free at that level (and some even pay the company for each individual who subscribes!) because the magazines themselves are entirely funded by advertisements.
Heck, ever use Google? How do you think that they afford to stay in opperation? Did you think that there was some benevolent Trillionaire, no scratch that, Thrillionaire funding it all? Nope, it is free for consumers thanks to ad funding.
You know, typically we make just one post in a row instead of ten.
This happens every time I catch up on a thread. I'm sorry. In the choice between ten postson different topics in a row, versus a gigantic post covering ten different topics, I find that the former, while potentially more annoying to think about, is practically an easier thing to read.
I was worried when I saw you posted this that I wasn't done, since I was in the middle of page seven, and saw that there was another page and a half for me to read.
It turned out that the page and a half was all posts from me.
An example of a good way: Sam Fisher accessing mission-critical data on his Nokia PDA while avoiding the light given off by a Coke machine. The game takes place in modern times; it makes sense for these objects to be in the game. Making them an actual part of the experience without beating you in the head with it is also a big plus. This is even better for the companies that buy Ad-space, because their ad isn't damaging the experience, and therefore will be held in a more positive light by gamers.
Exactly. You are walking down the street and feel like a cola, you walk up to a spot with both a pepsi machine and a coke machine (not all that uncommon) and the fact that you associate coke with the fun that you have playing as Sam Fischer influences you decision, maybe not on a concious level, but it achieves its advertising goal without being a detriment to the game play, since they needed something there to provide the lighting anyway.
I don't even like football, but it seems that the real thing is plastered to death with advertising. If there's going to be a "Pontiac MVP" named in real life, why shouldn't you earn the "Pontiac MVP" Achievement in the game?
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
Again, I'm not too savvy on football, but NCAA is college-level and unpaid, isn't it?
I'm surprised you guys didn't blow up much earlier than this.
Didn't bother me and I suspect the majority really wouldn't care at all.
I will be twice as angry just for you, then.
cfgauss on
The hero and protagonist, whose story the book follows, is the aptly-named Hiro Protagonist: "Last of the freelance hackers and Greatest sword fighter in the world." When Hiro loses his job as a pizza delivery driver for the Mafia, he meets a streetwise young girl nicknamed Y.T. (short for Yours Truly), who works as a skateboard "Kourier", and they decide to become partners in the intelligence business.
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
edited July 2007
I love how my comments from page 1 are still getting thrown around. Again, as this is a sports title, I really don't see how this is "OMFG DOOM". Hell, I almost expect to be bombarded with ads whenever sports are involved.
And I know that the savings will never get passed on to us. It's a pipe dream. If it does happen, I will of course loudly state "About fucking time" reguardless of who's in the room but I've pretty much accepted that its never going to happen.
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
Again, I'm not too savvy on football, but NCAA is college-level and unpaid, isn't it?
I'm pretty sure it's against the rules to pay them in any way.
Goomba on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
NocrenLt Futz, Back in ActionNorth CarolinaRegistered Userregular
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
Again, I'm not too savvy on football, but NCAA is college-level and unpaid, isn't it?
Kinda, a lot of the more serious players are hoping to get drafted to the NFL so there's the competition and those prospects might be receiving compensation (not cash) if they're doing well (if Arli$$ has taught me anything).
There's also every Bowl game during the championship series. Tositido's Fiesta Bowl, etc etc...
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
You have to pay to watch Monday Night Football. They still have sponsors for stuff. Old Spice Red Zones are the equivalent of coke machines in SC. They fit the atmosphere. It's the Old Spice Red Zone in real life. It brings authenticity to the game.
If you want to be pissed at EA, be pissed for Ghost Rider ads in BF2142. Ads in games aren't going to go anywhere, better to pick your battles where they actually matter.
Backlash on
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
I'm surprised you guys didn't blow up much earlier than this.
Didn't bother me and I suspect the majority really wouldn't care at all.
New EA slogan!
"EA, We are all about the advertising!!"
Seriously though. It doesn't matter that much. I've always felt achievements were just sort of tacked on and don't feel that important. Oh! I beat X game and recieved X achievement! Wooptie freaking do, How exciting....
The battlefield 2142 in game advertising was enough for me not to ever care to buy it.
Because I'm not being paid to play? I'm PAYING to play. That should be enough.
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
You have to pay to watch Monday Night Football. They still have sponsors for stuff. Old Spice Red Zones are the equivalent of coke machines in SC. They fit the atmosphere. It's the Old Spice Red Zone in real life. It brings authenticity to the game.
If you want to be pissed at EA, be pissed for Ghost Rider ads in BF2142. Ads in games aren't going to go anywhere, better to pick your battles where they actually matter.
I suppose. You learn to tune out that shit anyway, especially when deluged with it.
I think it's pretty clear that EA does this simply because they can, and they'll continue to worm advertising and microtransactions and other such money-sucking features into games in ever more egregious ways until consumers stop buying it. They'll push us as far as we let them; and have no doubt that other companies will follow their lead. We've already surrendured to the inevitability of $60 console games and paying extra for content that had always been free--and if you think this won't lead to companies deliberately releasing feature-incomplete games, you're kidding yourself--so who knows where the line will eventually be drawn.
I might not feel so bitter about all of this if I actually had the sense that this additional revenue was somehow moving the game industry in a positive direction. For all that I'm supposed to be blown away by the wonder of the HD generation, though, the games seem more and more homogenized, and beneath the shiny exteriors are less interesting to me than they've ever been. The most entertaining gaming experience I've had in the last year was replaying X-Com, a game over a dozen years old, which is pretty sad. Meanwhile, the industry devotes its attention to gamer points and dreaming up new microtransactions and devising new ways to shove ads into thousand-and-first dumbed-down Rainbow Six clone or licensed movie game.
An example of a good way: Sam Fisher accessing mission-critical data on his Nokia PDA while avoiding the light given off by a Coke machine. The game takes place in modern times; it makes sense for these objects to be in the game. Making them an actual part of the experience without beating you in the head with it is also a big plus. This is even better for the companies that buy Ad-space, because their ad isn't damaging the experience, and therefore will be held in a more positive light by gamers.
Exactly. You are walking down the street and feel like a cola, you walk up to a spot with both a pepsi machine and a coke machine (not all that uncommon) and the fact that you associate coke with the fun that you have playing as Sam Fischer influences you decision, maybe not on a concious level, but it achieves its advertising goal without being a detriment to the game play, since they needed something there to provide the lighting anyway.
I don't even like football, but it seems that the real thing is plastered to death with advertising. If there's going to be a "Pontiac MVP" named in real life, why shouldn't you earn the "Pontiac MVP" Achievement in the game?
I'm angry about too things here, a big theoretical one, and a tiny practical one.
The big theoretical one is that this isn't the end, but rather, it is just another point on a growing trend of inundating games with advertisements everywhere, and that if it's here right now, knowing EA's past behavior, itcould easily show up in non-sports games as well. And if it end up in EA games of all genres without hurting sales, what is stopping other companies from doing it too? It's a slippery slope argument, I know, but I'm not drawing any conclusions from it, just basing opinion on it, so it's okay.)
The tiny practical one is simply that it bothers me thatthey use company logos for acheivment icons. In game advertising is kind of whatever to me. I don't like it, but for a good enough game I'll put up with it, because I can always move on the the next game that doesn't have it. But if my acheivment icons on my 360 itself become company logos, then now I am being forced to advertise these companies, and not only are they not paying me to advertise, but I actually had to pay for the "priveledge".
I don't even wear shirts that print their own brand across them, why do I want to pay to advertise for a company that had nothing to do with the game anyway?
Posts
To me, I feel EA are saying "You gamers are complete idiots! Drink our shit and enjoy it!"
Tumblr
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Since things like "they should lower the price if they want to put in ads!" always, always, always comes up, really, when was the last time you bought something with ads in it that cost less than what it did before? You most likely haven't because that may be how things work in your magical fairy land of happiness and glitter dust, but that's not the way it goes in reality.
Production costs have been rising for a while and, yes, they could make cheaper games (omg the wii is awesome and cool and it's the best thing ever hey third parties come here and develop for the wii i hear you can make a game for $10 for it), but a cheaper game that doesn't really utilize the newer hardware isn't going to be very impressive and is most likely not going to sell as well as it should (that is not to say that a game has to be on the cutting edge graphically to do well).
What the ads are there for is not just to increase profits (though, that can, of course, be a side effect), but to subsidize costs on the part of the developer. Sure, they could keep giving you games completely ad free for $60 (And the price increase honestly was a long time coming as well. We're lucky we went so long without one.) or they could put in ads and lower the price. But when they can keep up around the same amount of cash flow with the rising costs of development by using ads, why the fuck would they?
I don't like seeing ads either, but you really shouldn't have unrealistic expectations. Go watch some TV or go see a movie or go buy a magazine or a newspaper. Are any of them cheaper than they used to be? No.
Why do we expect games to break that mold? Why do we hold developers to this unrealistic standard that has been shown to exist nowhere?
Ubisoft have some ads in their games, and they were able to keep the price down. Now EA do something similar which is to be expected, but they go much FURTHER than Ubisoft, without actually updating their game engines or putting more effort in making a better experiance. Ubisoft do. EA Roll around in sacks of cash money and still retain the same tools and the same amount of effort in making their games. Now recently they also went lazy and signed up to Unreal Engine which cuts the costs EVEN MORE than starting an engine from scratch, and they still insist on extra game ads.
The point of the matter is, most game developers are subtle with ads, EA are all out with no particular benefit to the customer - the gamers.
Tumblr
Exactly. This is Madden. The Old Spice End Zone is a part of the game.
What you're REALLY gonna hate are the new NASCAR games. Did you know that if you pick a random household item, there's an Official NASCAR version of it?
KRAFT! The Official Cheese of Nascar.
And I'm actually NOT joking about that.
Keep your wallets in your damned pockets. Nothing else will have any impact what-so-ever.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
The only people here I've seen that aren't going to buy the new Madden game weren't going to buy it before they found out there was advertising in it anyway.
Basic economics 101: More people buy things if things are cheaper.
100,000 games * $60/game = $6,000,000.
1,000,000 games * $40/game = $40,000,000.
Which of these numbers is larger?
Sadly, many business people have degrees in business and not economics, and as with many other things, tend to go with what's "obvious" instead of what's possibly the best course of action. (Also see: "hey let's fire all these people to save money... oh fuck, you mean those people did something? Well, let's hire some people back that do the same thing as they did..." that happens in many companies.)
You know, that is a GREAT question for some serious contemplation over. On the one hand the companies are doing nothing wrong themselves, on the other hand, they are enabling actions which are not guarteed to be unethical, but will be undertaken by an entity with a history of behavior of a ethically questionable nature.
I can't say I have an answer right now, but I will definitely think about it. It is an interesting case, especially when you are looking at a company which might not have the means to publish its games on its own, without the help of EA.
If you like, once I arrive at a conclussion, I can PM you my thoughts. Let me know if you want me to.
No, you're thinking of Ambrosia.
Mountain Due wasn't invented yet during the Greek and Roman eras
Except you have to look at the reasons WHY people buy it, not just at overall sales.
Many people buy it because they enjoy playing a game with an up-to-date NFL roster of all of the players each year. If EA were to give a choice between buying a new full priced game, or downloading a much cheaper set of roster updates, it would be pretty interesting to see which one consumer prefference leaned towards.
Also, Madden 05 was not as high selling as other years because of NFL 2k5. The game released at 20 dollars, and was critically acclaimed (as well as judged by many consumers) to be a superior experience to that of Madden. The reason that the game hadn't sold as well a it did that year previously was because of the fact that Madden had much more brand recognition within the market, but the cheaper price point finally got consumers to take notice. EA's response, rather than allowing competition to breed excellence, and improving their product, was to secure an exclusive contract with the NFL, thereby shutting down the competition. While being a technically illegal move, it is a move that does not embody the spirit of the free market at all, and instead directly betrays it.
For the record, the 2k sports lines were just as guilty of shoving the same game out the door every year for full price, with mostly just roster up dates, but the fact that they were experimenting with pricing in their final year showed hope that, with the success of the cheaper game, maybe starting with the 2k7 edition, they might decide to permanently move to a cheaper price point (they had made clear their intentions to return to a fifty dollar price point for 2k6, but it is entirely possible that, should 2k6 recieve lack luster sales, due to the fact that it no longer had the price point to rely on, they might, with 2k7, decide to drop to a permanent 40, or even 30 dollar price point, higher than the 20 dollars of 2k5, but still cheaper than full price, in order to assist their sales while still turning a decent profit.)
Regardless of pricing issues, the fact that EA is more inclined to reduce competition, rather than improving their product, is a pretty big issue when looking at how the future of the industry will grow. EA is one of the biggest players out there, which means that their behavior has a direct effect on the industry as a whole.
Yes, but they COULD have instead decided to release NSMB as a console release, and charged fifty dollars for it. You and I both know that it would still have sold, even EXACTLY as it was, if it was a console release, and Nintendo knows it too. The fact is, they decided that it was better, both for the consumer and themselves, to release it as a cheaper DS game, and acted accordingly.
Depending on the balance of supply and demand, sometimes reducing price actually gives you a larger profit, because as price decreases, demand increases. The issue with EA is that, rather than reducing price, or improving product quality, they depend on other ways of increasing demand, which are more detrimental to the market, such as reducing competition, or attempt to ride one product on the coat tails of another, so as to feed off the demand of the other.
Exactly. You are walking down the street and feel like a cola, you walk up to a spot with both a pepsi machine and a coke machine (not all that uncommon) and the fact that you associate coke with the fun that you have playing as Sam Fischer influences you decision, maybe not on a concious level, but it achieves its advertising goal without being a detriment to the game play, since they needed something there to provide the lighting anyway.
Ads during load screens, while not my favorite thing, are preferable to ads that make no sense in the continuity of the game.
Also, look at what discover channel did, by sponsoring map packs for Gears of War. They did not plaster their logo into the game itself, but associated themselves with the product. Some one who enjoys Gears of Wars might see that the map packs are sponsored by the show "Future Weapons", and decide to check the show out, because they enjoy the futuristic weapons in the game that they are playing.
There are good ways of doing this stuff without ruining the experience. That is one of the points being made here.
I never brought up law, I just reffered to industry standards, both implicit and explicit. You don't bring laws into the equation until lack of adherence to industry standards RESULTS in the breaking of laws (such as monopolies violating anti-trust laws, or to use a recent example, Arthur Anderson's persistance in ignoring the GAAP, or Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, resulting in the ENRON situation, which created the necessity of the Sarbaines-Oxley legislation, which mostly just turned things that had once been industry standards into laws, because of the issues of companies ignoring industry standards.) I will always favor industry standards over laws, as long as those standards are followed.
Personally, I boycott EA products. In a discussion like this one, I give the reasons why I boycott, to encourage other people to boycott as well, until EA changes their behavior. I'm not writing to my congress man, or anything.
Where the hell did you shop?
We're not talking about the price after a drop or two, a few months after release. We're talking about the price at the time of it's release. The standard XBox release price was $50, same as the other consoles of that generation.
Despite my staunch anti-EA stance, I will agree with you entirely. If EA would take the same sort of approach with the rest of the industry as they are taking with the Wii, I would have no issues with them.
I work for a decent sized corporation, not the lrgest out there, but by no means small. My company is not affraid to spend money on its employees, and while we do not work directly with consumers (we are an architecture and engineering firm, primarily, although I work in the economics office, where we sometimes contract out directly to another firm) the concept of not ripping off our customers, and making sure that we only bill them for the work we do, and only do the work that needs to be done (rather than doing extra work just to bill them for it) is constantly stated within the company.
The issue is that some corporations are begining to look on people not as people, but rther, only as consumer bases and labor pools. This is a definite issue in terms of equity.
You know, typically we make just one post in a row instead of ten.
Actually, right here at Penny Arcade, they used to offer a service whereby, if you paid a monthly fee, you could view the Penny Arcade site without advertisements. They did away with this feature after the comic started turning a larger profit, and the ammount that they were bringing in otherwise meant that the ammount that was brought in through this was unnecessary. Plenty of other websites still offer services like this, though.
For the record, the reason that network television is free is because it is advertisement funded. This trend was started by public radio.
You can also get various magazine subscriptions at their "wholesale
price, that is to say, the price that secondhand subscription companies offer them at, before profit is added to them. Some magazines (Maxim is the first one that comes to mind) are actually entirely free at that level (and some even pay the company for each individual who subscribes!) because the magazines themselves are entirely funded by advertisements.
Heck, ever use Google? How do you think that they afford to stay in opperation? Did you think that there was some benevolent Trillionaire, no scratch that, Thrillionaire funding it all? Nope, it is free for consumers thanks to ad funding.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
This happens every time I catch up on a thread. I'm sorry. In the choice between ten postson different topics in a row, versus a gigantic post covering ten different topics, I find that the former, while potentially more annoying to think about, is practically an easier thing to read.
I was worried when I saw you posted this that I wasn't done, since I was in the middle of page seven, and saw that there was another page and a half for me to read.
It turned out that the page and a half was all posts from me.
I am kind of embarassed.
I don't even like football, but it seems that the real thing is plastered to death with advertising. If there's going to be a "Pontiac MVP" named in real life, why shouldn't you earn the "Pontiac MVP" Achievement in the game?
I don't mind the coke machines in SC or any of that. If they fit the atmosphere, more power to you. It's the being "hit over the head" with ads and shit (Such as achievements) that gets to me.
If they were paying me to win the game and get the achievement, they could lavish me with all sorts of Old Spice supported shit. Until then, I really wish they wouldn't. Of course they will anyway, but I just won't buy EA's shit. That's all I can really do.
I'm surprised you guys didn't blow up much earlier than this.
Didn't bother me and I suspect the majority really wouldn't care at all.
I will be twice as angry just for you, then.
And I know that the savings will never get passed on to us. It's a pipe dream. If it does happen, I will of course loudly state "About fucking time" reguardless of who's in the room but I've pretty much accepted that its never going to happen.
Kinda, a lot of the more serious players are hoping to get drafted to the NFL so there's the competition and those prospects might be receiving compensation (not cash) if they're doing well (if Arli$$ has taught me anything).
There's also every Bowl game during the championship series. Tositido's Fiesta Bowl, etc etc...
You have to pay to watch Monday Night Football. They still have sponsors for stuff. Old Spice Red Zones are the equivalent of coke machines in SC. They fit the atmosphere. It's the Old Spice Red Zone in real life. It brings authenticity to the game.
If you want to be pissed at EA, be pissed for Ghost Rider ads in BF2142. Ads in games aren't going to go anywhere, better to pick your battles where they actually matter.
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086
New EA slogan!
"EA, We are all about the advertising!!"
Seriously though. It doesn't matter that much. I've always felt achievements were just sort of tacked on and don't feel that important. Oh! I beat X game and recieved X achievement! Wooptie freaking do, How exciting....
The battlefield 2142 in game advertising was enough for me not to ever care to buy it.
I suppose. You learn to tune out that shit anyway, especially when deluged with it.
I might not feel so bitter about all of this if I actually had the sense that this additional revenue was somehow moving the game industry in a positive direction. For all that I'm supposed to be blown away by the wonder of the HD generation, though, the games seem more and more homogenized, and beneath the shiny exteriors are less interesting to me than they've ever been. The most entertaining gaming experience I've had in the last year was replaying X-Com, a game over a dozen years old, which is pretty sad. Meanwhile, the industry devotes its attention to gamer points and dreaming up new microtransactions and devising new ways to shove ads into thousand-and-first dumbed-down Rainbow Six clone or licensed movie game.
I'm angry about too things here, a big theoretical one, and a tiny practical one.
The big theoretical one is that this isn't the end, but rather, it is just another point on a growing trend of inundating games with advertisements everywhere, and that if it's here right now, knowing EA's past behavior, itcould easily show up in non-sports games as well. And if it end up in EA games of all genres without hurting sales, what is stopping other companies from doing it too? It's a slippery slope argument, I know, but I'm not drawing any conclusions from it, just basing opinion on it, so it's okay.)
The tiny practical one is simply that it bothers me thatthey use company logos for acheivment icons. In game advertising is kind of whatever to me. I don't like it, but for a good enough game I'll put up with it, because I can always move on the the next game that doesn't have it. But if my acheivment icons on my 360 itself become company logos, then now I am being forced to advertise these companies, and not only are they not paying me to advertise, but I actually had to pay for the "priveledge".
I don't even wear shirts that print their own brand across them, why do I want to pay to advertise for a company that had nothing to do with the game anyway?
Now that I've been informed of it, it does bother me.
But,m at the very least, they used the game's icon, instead of a company logo.