Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

EA Will Be Adding Micro-transactions in all Future Games

By - Source: Eurogamer | B 74 comments

You'll be seeing more micro-transactions in EA's games in the future.

At the cusp of the next console generation, major publishers have proven to be a little more open-minded about financial models that deviate from the traditional retail model, or, rather, they're adopting alternative financial models out of necessity. Free-to-play has taken over the MMO market, and appears to be encroaching on the rest of the industry. Recently, Crysis developer Crytek announced its decision to adapt to produce purely free-to-play games within the next five years.

EA CFO Blake Jorgensen, speaking at the Morgan Stanley Technology, Media, and Telecom Conference, announced the publisher's intentions to include micro-transactions in all future titles, despite coming under fire for its controversial addition of micro-transactions in Dead Space 3 that allowed paying users to buy upgrades much more quickly than non-paying users (paying meaning users that spent money on the game in addition to the game's retail price.)

"We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be," said Jorgensen. "Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of the business."

But are they? While EA's micro-transaction model in Dead Space 3 wasn't one that excluded non-paying players from accessing all upgrades, it certainly requires more grinding out of a player that doesn't decide to pay into micro-transactions. It's a fine line that EA is toeing towards pay-to-win. One that's sure to displease more than a few paying customers.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 74 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 32 Hide
    Suzaku , February 28, 2013 3:03 PM
    Yup even more reason to boycott anything EA.
  • 30 Hide
    underpatch , February 28, 2013 3:12 PM
    Well I have not baught a EA game since Origin.

    The tighter your grip the more gamers will slip throught your fingers!
  • 27 Hide
    hardcore_gamer , February 28, 2013 3:13 PM
    I guess BF3 will be my last EA game.
Other Comments
  • 32 Hide
    Suzaku , February 28, 2013 3:03 PM
    Yup even more reason to boycott anything EA.
  • 30 Hide
    underpatch , February 28, 2013 3:12 PM
    Well I have not baught a EA game since Origin.

    The tighter your grip the more gamers will slip throught your fingers!
  • 27 Hide
    hardcore_gamer , February 28, 2013 3:13 PM
    I guess BF3 will be my last EA game.
  • 24 Hide
    kawininjazx , February 28, 2013 3:17 PM
    Well you could say it helps the people who don't have as much time to play, but it's all a scheme to make more money, which is understandable since they are a business. I'm just sick of buying a game and then having to spend even more getting maps and weapons everyone else has.
  • 13 Hide
    brickman , February 28, 2013 3:20 PM
    I bet SimCIty will use micro-transactions.
  • 26 Hide
    wanderer11 , February 28, 2013 3:24 PM
    For everyone comparing it to TF2 keep in mind that is a F2P game. Having microtransactions in a $60 game is just greedy. Looks like I will never buy another EA game.
  • 21 Hide
    jordanjkj , February 28, 2013 3:26 PM
    Free to play doesn't bother me as much as pay to win models. Where someone can pay to have better stuff that you normally don't get in game. Or where you can pay more money to have a better gaming experience. 'cough' dead space 3 'cough'
  • 20 Hide
    wannabepro , February 28, 2013 3:28 PM
    EA, I am dissapoint.

    Althought I expected this from you.
  • 25 Hide
    Anonymous , February 28, 2013 3:35 PM
    The problem with micro transactions is the game then becomes balanced around said transactions. Most games include some forms of grinding from time to time, but if there's a micro transaction to skip the grind then the game developer is incentivized to make that grind longer or less fun than it otherwise would be to persuade more gamers to take the micro transaction route. This ends up ruining the playability for those who have not and will not ever use the micro transaction "feature".
  • 22 Hide
    revered , February 28, 2013 3:40 PM
    magnetiteEA just like any business is in business to make money. I don't see how this is any different than someone like Valve having people buy hats and such for TF2. They did that before the game went F2P.

    I'm tired of reading from people defending game publishers and developers citing that they are 'in the business of making money.' They are in the business of making games for the enjoyment of consumers. Their hope is that they make money from this. Gamers are becoming more unhappy with the the results of such companies because they are producing games with making money in mind, not the enjoyment of the consumer.
    If they stopped trying to stuff features into a game that are so clearly designed towards jumping their profits up and compromising the design of the game then they would a produce a better quality game with the time they saved and most likely end up making more money from satisfied players anyways as players flock to such a rare title.
  • 12 Hide
    JamesSneed , February 28, 2013 3:44 PM
    I only agree with this model when the stuff you can buy gives no or very little in game advantage. Like say different color cloths etc. That way everyone who wants to skip the micro transactions can without being at a disadvantage.

    I really hate this new trend where you pay more for a game either up front premium package or later in microtransactions to have an advantage. To me it just defeats the purpose of it being a fun thing one does after a hard day at work.
  • 9 Hide
    lunix , February 28, 2013 3:44 PM
    magnetiteEA just like any business is in business to make money. I don't see how this is any different than someone like Valve having people buy hats and such for TF2. They did that before the game went F2P.


    When you only have access to certain advantages (not content, but power) through paying, that's called Pay to Win and is ev0l.

    If you can pretty up your character without an advantages over non-paying players, that's fine by me. No one forces me to wear a hat.
  • 15 Hide
    pocketdrummer , February 28, 2013 3:47 PM
    The gaming industry is reaching the point where it's not worth the investment to play. When that happens, I suppose I'll just make my next PC a small form factor. I'm not going to get nickel and dimed by these pricks.
  • 14 Hide
    captainnemojr , February 28, 2013 3:53 PM
    It's going back to the arcade days...Insert Coin to continue
  • 10 Hide
    revered , February 28, 2013 3:55 PM
    bllueIt's true that they are making games for the enjoyment but it's just as much true that they're doing it for the money. Jesus christ, they're a business and if they were solely doing it for the enjoyment they'd release the games for free. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do something you enjoy and charging for it. You can't please every single gamer so it's senseless to argue that the reason people are unhappy is because of the way games are produced. Gamers go on a riot for every little thing.

    You just used a 'solely for' argument to describe my post just like the one I was responding to. I wasn't saying that. As I stated, I believe such companies are beginning to prioritize money-making features over the quality of their games and satisfaction of the customer. To the detriment of their bottom line. See the portion of my post where I suggest they could possibly be making more money focusing on the quality of the game and satisfaction of the player? Yeah. I didn't describe anything remotely like how game developers should becomes NPO's or there being anything 'inherently wrong' with making money. Your post is atypical to what I was describing originally.
  • 1 Hide
    Jdorty , February 28, 2013 3:58 PM
    reveredI'm tired of reading from people defending game publishers and developers citing that they are 'in the business of making money.' They are in the business of making games for the enjoyment of consumers. Their hope is that they make money from this. Gamers are becoming more unhappy with the the results of such companies because they are producing games with making money in mind, not the enjoyment of the consumer.If they stopped trying to stuff features into a game that are so clearly designed towards jumping their profits up and compromising the design of the game then they would a produce a better quality game with the time they saved and most likely end up making more money from satisfied players anyways as players flock to such a rare title.


    More so that the goal to make money should coincide with the goal to make gamers enjoy themselves.

    Not to mention comparing microtransactions that give you advantages, whether they can be earned in-game or not, to buying HATS or SKINS is outright ridiculous.
  • -2 Hide
    magnetite , February 28, 2013 4:07 PM
    TF2 was pay to play up until about a couple years ago. You did have the option to pay for stuff. Not just hats though, you could buy weapons if I recall too.

    On the other hand, with some games, you could put in X number of hours and get said item for free via earning it, or you could pay a company a couple dollars and get said item right now. The choice is yours. No one is forcing you to do anything.

    As for the game publishers in business to make money, you have a choice not to buy their stuff. If you don't like the fact that EA or any company does microtransactions, don't buy their games. Plain and simple. Gamers these days seem to think that signing petitions and complaining to the FTC is the way to do it though. Yet $5 says they'll still buy the game.
Display more comments
Tom’s guide in the world
  • Germany
  • France
  • Italy
  • Ireland
  • UK
Follow Tom’s guide
Subscribe to our newsletter