@Felicity I didn't quite fall down that rabbit hole but I've gotten so close with Freeplay's "bundles" and such.
It's so annoying that microtransactions are so popular with developers/publishers (and they're popular because people do spend money on them), especially when it gets to the point where you can't actually do things without paying extra (90% of all mobile games, ever). And it's way too easy to think "hey, this is only 2$, it's fine" until you end up doing it 40 times or more. This is why I'm hoping that kinda system - per item or small bundle of items prices - comes to The Sims. But well, hopes and dreams and all that.
It's funny, for me it was like solving a puzzle. Using daily deals to start the CYS cascades and seeing how much I could get for free while strategically spending simpoints. Between that and ads, many, I wasted a lot of time, but at that point, I had nothing but time anyway. I spent over $300 on the store, but it could have been much, much worse. And I still use it. I'm pretty sure I have spent the same or more on the Sims 4.
I remember when the Sims 4 "beta" came out -- it was CAS. I had no intention of buying Sims 4 at that point as I was still happily playing Sims 3, but once I learned that the beta was actually fairly small, I was curious. The way Maxis handled it made a lot of people angry, but I think it also was very effective at drawing people in. People generally want to feel like they're part of a special group, so as the beta expanded, people were feeling good about getting in. Really, though CAS is pretty good in Sims 4, I think they got a lot more people into it by releasing it the way they did.
Oh definitely. Those taster things are a strategy in so many things nowadays: teasers, behind the scenes, previews, demos etc. Beta versions that allow access to people (this is me looking at Apple's way of pre-release testing of their OS) before the final version is out. EA is far from the only company doing this - not that that's an excuse, it's just a sad reality of everything now.
I kinda wish TS4 would have a more solid Beta program: have players volunteer to test a pack before it's out (two birds with one stone: less expenses on internal testing, more variety of machines that the game runs on with the bonus of more varied gameplay) and get proper feedback, then give them a decent discount on the final version of the pack. TS4 needs a better testing system and similar ones work in other places.
At least with the store you had the option of earning points instead of spending money for everything. The games that I usually end up dropping are the ones with time-limited events/challenges that aren't doable without paying (yes, Freeplay is guilty of this more and more though it definitely wasn't all the start).
Small shiny new things are always going to be an attraction. If there are enough people with no restraint or a big enough budget for fun things, it's gonna keep being profitable for companies. (or, you know, kids being on their parents' accounts with no restrictions on in-game purchases)
(full disclosure though: I've invested way less in TS4 than the full retail value of the game or packs are. sales are my friend.)
I guess I've hit an age where all that marketing plum doesn't affect me...I don't use Twitter. I barely look at Youtube. I have a FB account just to keep in touch with family because we were military for 18 years. I have Snapchat because a friend wanted me to get it and I have all of 4 friends on there (2 of whom are family).
All I'm concerned with is a game that is fun to play and lives up to my expectations (having played all the previous iterations). Sims 4 fills the first requirement for me enough, though often falls short on the second. I've bought everything on sale, and didn't even start buying any of it until a few months ago. I don't even own half of it yet.
All of their various marketing tactics just annoy me, they aren't making me rush to spend money. The last time I was excited about an EP was Sims 3 Supernatural.
But, I haven't been in their current target demographic for 20 years. Get off my lawn! GRR. (I'm only 40, but it makes me feel ancient.)
I guess I've hit an age where all that marketing plum doesn't affect me...I don't use Twitter. I barely look at Youtube. I have a FB account just to keep in touch with family because we were military for 18 years. I have Snapchat because a friend wanted me to get it and I have all of 4 friends on there (2 of whom are family).
All I'm concerned with is a game that is fun to play and lives up to my expectations (having played all the previous iterations). Sims 4 fills the first requirement for me enough, though often falls short on the second. I've bought everything on sale, and didn't even start buying any of it until a few months ago. I don't even own half of it yet.
All of their various marketing tactics just annoy me, they aren't making me rush to spend money. The last time I was excited about an EP was Sims 3 Supernatural.
But, I haven't been in their current target demographic for 20 years. Get off my lawn! GRR. (I'm only 40, but it makes me feel ancient.)
Then you aren't the target audience, and that's fine. It reminds me of the "whales" thing, where many developers right now are targeting people who most likely are predisposed to addiction (it's not just EA, most devs do this now) and using triggers and people end up spending thousands upon thousands on loot boxes. But even if you're not the target, you are affected by this. How? Whales spend a lot more money than everyone else by far, though they make up a small percentage of players. So, guess who gets the most $$ devoted to stuff? The things whales will buy. They're cheap to make and distribute, and make the devs more money than game sales do. Which means substandard games that are designed to sell microtransactions.
The positive to this is I think it's yet another full-market saturation thing -- since people who spend thousands on microtransactions are a small part of the overall market, there's only so much money to go around here, and people who don't like games that are aimed towards selling microtransactions will move on to games which don't. And then whales will lose interest because, well, if you're only on servers with other whales, you no longer really have much that sets you apart.
I guess I've hit an age where all that marketing plum doesn't affect me...I don't use Twitter. I barely look at Youtube. I have a FB account just to keep in touch with family because we were military for 18 years. I have Snapchat because a friend wanted me to get it and I have all of 4 friends on there (2 of whom are family).
All I'm concerned with is a game that is fun to play and lives up to my expectations (having played all the previous iterations). Sims 4 fills the first requirement for me enough, though often falls short on the second. I've bought everything on sale, and didn't even start buying any of it until a few months ago. I don't even own half of it yet.
All of their various marketing tactics just annoy me, they aren't making me rush to spend money. The last time I was excited about an EP was Sims 3 Supernatural.
But, I haven't been in their current target demographic for 20 years. Get off my lawn! GRR. (I'm only 40, but it makes me feel ancient.)
With games companies (Especially EA), it's not a matter of age, but rather cynicism.
I'm just going to say: Telling someone they must have Stockholm Syndrome because they like TS4 is horrifying.
I don't think anyone actually said people who like it must have Stockholm Syndrome. They just equated people who don't like it yet keep buying it to having it, most likely for lack of a better term.
I had actually forgotten sunken cost fallacy had been mentioned before, though it was way after I heard or read comments mentioning Stockholm Syndrome, by a couple of people in another thread (possibly multiple threads now that I think about it) along with other business terms and detailed charts and definitions to go more in depth about just how they (EA) run their business as oppse to a business that actually values their consumers but then again I think they removed the posts talking about that from that thread and it eventually got shut down.
What was shocking to me was the players who equated themselves with having it because they didn't like it but still kept sinking their dollars into it. Again, likely for lack of a better term but still shocking even in the way they likely meant it. I guess because of the awareness they possess yet the impulse they still have to purchase despite that awareness.
In most cases I see it's not like they don't know they're likely going to be disappointed. They acknowledge they likely will be or even defintiely will be, yet instead of waiting to see from reviews and let's play's or something they pre-order or buy the day of release then say how disappointed they are. It's their money, no one can tell them how to spend it or not spend it, but what would give EA more and better incentive to actually change their ways is if they knew most of the unhappy players who agree with that hashtag won't just buy content anyway. Actions speak louder than words.
@ApparentlyAwesome It surprises me actually that people would invoke Stockholm Syndrome in this case but I think that might be because of a lack of understanding of the condition and just reaching for the closest option (it's more generally known than sunken cost fallacy: I knew how it works but not the actual term for it, personally). For me, sunken cost fallacy seems a lot more fitting precisely because of the awareness factor. Kidnapping/hostage situation victims don't usually have that awareness of "this is wrong" (which is a horrifying part of it).
I'm just going to say: Telling someone they must have Stockholm Syndrome because they like TS4 is horrifying.
I don't think anyone actually said people who like it must have Stockholm Syndrome. They just equated people who don't like it yet keep buying it to having it, most likely for lack of a better term.
I had actually forgotten sunken cost fallacy had been mentioned before, though it was way after I heard or read comments mentioning Stockholm Syndrome, by a couple of people in another thread (possibly multiple threads now that I think about it) along with other business terms and detailed charts and definitions to go more in depth about just how they (EA) run their business as oppse to a business that actually values their consumers but then again I think they removed the posts talking about that from that thread and it eventually got shut down.
What was shocking to me was the players who equated themselves with having it because they didn't like it but still kept sinking their dollars into it. Again, likely for lack of a better term but still shocking even in the way they likely meant it. I guess because of the awareness they possess yet the impulse they still have to purchase despite that awareness.
In most cases I see it's not like they don't know they're likely going to be disappointed. They acknowledge they likely will be or even defintiely will be, yet instead of waiting to see from reviews and let's play's or something they pre-order or buy the day of release then say how disappointed they are. It's their money, no one can tell them how to spend it or not spend it, but what would give EA more and better incentive to actually change their ways is if they knew most of the unhappy players who agree with that hashtag won't just buy content anyway. Actions speak louder than words.
For me the use of that term links to the phenomenon that people are more and more expressing extreme gratitude and enthusiasm over things that were simply there in the past. Sims 2 and 3: ah, toddlers, cute. Sims 4: TOOODLEEEERRRS! Sims 2 and 3: terrain tools, nice. Sims 4: TERRAAAAIN TOOOOOLS!!! That is a clear reaction to something and that something is that by not giving it to players for a long time (years) they build up something that apparently causes squeeing and screaming and crying and thank you threads over content we were all just used to getting. That’s not the same thing as continuing buying, hoping things will get better.
(and it’s got absolutely nothing to do with liking or not liking Sims 4)
I was one who did have tears in my eyes over toddlers finally added to TS4. Now why is that? Because Maxis played me like a fiddle. They would not talk about toddlers, they would not promise toddlers, they would not even hint at toddlers. What a childish thing for me to do isn't it? Because being an adult I should have been able to see through the guise of marketing. But I didn't. Isn't it funny that 'law' they said they had to live by where they can't talk about 'free content' because of some sort of tax revenue they would have to pay if they said it (something) would be in a future pack or patch suddenly disappeared concerning this past year, when they announced other free content (parade flags etc.) would be in some future patch, and they were going to release SP, EP and GP (which they always swore they couldn't say stuff like that) suddenly disappeared when they needed to up the anti and get more people back to playing and or to attract new players of particular groups.
I should have seen Maxis was playing the marketing game when it came to not talking about toddlers just to make me grovel in the end and think they were gods of AI and repeat over and over thank you , thank you. And when it comes to bug fixes marketing again is out in full force when it comes to telling players if they can fix or are going to fix something or not. The ploy is to make us hang around just hoping something is repaired, then get down on our knees and thank the AI gods they repaired a broken product they sold us as if money was of no value to us. And we do it, each and every time. Koolaid sometimes goes bad, and time I stopped drinking it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I think the need to make the announcement that you don't intend to buy the game or EPs anymore, using hashtags, is ridiculous. If you don't like the packs coming out, don't buy them. If Sims 4 doesn't have what you want, don't buy the game. If you've got it and don't like it, just don't play. I really don't see the need for a big announcement because at the end of the day, what might be a 'pointless' addition to the game for you, could be exactly what somebody else wants which doesn't make the addition globally pointless.
After all, if fans of Sims 4 started up hash tags saying Thank You to EA for developing Sims 4 and Thank You to the devs for their efforts, we'd be ridiculed by those who don't agree. So isn't it better to just keep that decision to yourself? Why make the global announcement? What do they want, compensation for the money they chose to spend on the game? Nobody ordered them to, it was a choice. Asking EA to stop abusing them just because they're bringing out content they personally don't like seems rather...infantile, I suppose.
I think the need to make the announcement that you don't intend to buy the game or EPs anymore, using hashtags, is ridiculous. If you don't like the packs coming out, don't buy them. If Sims 4 doesn't have what you want, don't buy the game. If you've got it and don't like it, just don't play. I really don't see the need for a big announcement because at the end of the day, what might be a 'pointless' addition to the game for you, could be exactly what somebody else wants which doesn't make the addition globally pointless.
After all, if fans of Sims 4 started up hash tags saying Thank You to EA for developing Sims 4 and Thank You to the devs for their efforts, we'd be ridiculed by those who don't agree. So isn't it better to just keep that decision to yourself? Why make the global announcement? What do they want, compensation for the money they chose to spend on the game? Nobody ordered them to, it was a choice. Asking EA to stop abusing them just because they're bringing out content they personally don't like seems rather...infantile, I suppose.
It's ok not all of us use Twitter. I think hashtags are silly in general and that they have to resort to using them in the Gallery too is just sad.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
It takes a movement to try and convince people if they don't like something they shouldn't buy it?
Unbelievable.
Same with gambling addicts, companies (the bad ones) thrive on exploiting the brain's psychological investment/reward system in order to get people to keep buying stuff, be it games or 'surprise mechanics'.
I think the need to make the announcement that you don't intend to buy the game or EPs anymore, using hashtags, is ridiculous. If you don't like the packs coming out, don't buy them. If Sims 4 doesn't have what you want, don't buy the game. If you've got it and don't like it, just don't play. I really don't see the need for a big announcement because at the end of the day, what might be a 'pointless' addition to the game for you, could be exactly what somebody else wants which doesn't make the addition globally pointless.
After all, if fans of Sims 4 started up hash tags saying Thank You to EA for developing Sims 4 and Thank You to the devs for their efforts, we'd be ridiculed by those who don't agree. So isn't it better to just keep that decision to yourself? Why make the global announcement? What do they want, compensation for the money they chose to spend on the game? Nobody ordered them to, it was a choice. Asking EA to stop abusing them just because they're bringing out content they personally don't like seems rather...infantile, I suppose.
The problem isn’t not liking packs (or Sims 4). The problem is that they seem to have started to milk this iteration. The recent packs suggest they’re actually done, they can’t add much more really new stuff. That’s not only a problem for people who aren’t over the moon about Sims 4 in the first place, but it’s also a problem for those who basically do.
This hashtag isn’t anti Sims 4, it’s anti milking. And everybody has the right to make a hashtag out of that to share the opinion. And if it becomes a popular hashtag, maybe, just maybe, it’s not so ridiculous after all.
ETA: also, a hashtag on Twitter is not a movement.
I think the need to make the announcement that you don't intend to buy the game or EPs anymore, using hashtags, is ridiculous. If you don't like the packs coming out, don't buy them. If Sims 4 doesn't have what you want, don't buy the game. If you've got it and don't like it, just don't play. I really don't see the need for a big announcement because at the end of the day, what might be a 'pointless' addition to the game for you, could be exactly what somebody else wants which doesn't make the addition globally pointless.
After all, if fans of Sims 4 started up hash tags saying Thank You to EA for developing Sims 4 and Thank You to the devs for their efforts, we'd be ridiculed by those who don't agree. So isn't it better to just keep that decision to yourself? Why make the global announcement? What do they want, compensation for the money they chose to spend on the game? Nobody ordered them to, it was a choice. Asking EA to stop abusing them just because they're bringing out content they personally don't like seems rather...infantile, I suppose.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise. Fifa fans who bought FIFA 20 complained bitterly when the game launched broken. The hashtag FixCareerMode was trending and it was picked by many news outlets online. People have the right to feedback. Silencing them or dismissing them with “Don’t like it don’t play it” is not helpful. A senior producer on the Sims told the community to keep shouting for what they want. If you are unhappy with a product - any product - you need to let the company know. They want EA to listen to them. Forum feed back has gone unnoticed and individual feedback is ignored. Strength in numbers is better.
I agree if you made a hash tag thanking EA you would be ridiculed. This is EA who claim loot boxes are a fun surprise mechanic. They shouldn’t be defended. Thank the indie developer(s) for making their games, thank the AAA developers for making a game that doesn’t have monetisation and are filled with passionate devs. But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. Actions speak louder than words, after all. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
I agree if you made a hash tag thanking EA you would be ridiculed.
For expressing my opinion? Because I happen to like the game and enjoy it just as it is? Because I happen to like the changes made because it does suit my gameplay.
I think that pretty much sums it up these days.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have sucked the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. You need to be 18 to buy at EA - Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these things. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..In fact they were not even the first company to come out with them. Then look at mobile games and facebook games have been using that system since they came into being. It's how they make money. Blame the consumers not the company trying to earn a living.
Post edited by Writin_Reg on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these thing. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..
I was talking to a retired corporate lawyer friend recently about children buying lootboxes and the legality of it (I was curious about his thoughts). The arguments are, if the parents put their credit card on the account (think the apple store or google pay), they are responsible for all charges, vs if the owner of the credit card didn't authorize that transaction, they're not responsible. He is strongly in the camp that attaching your credit card to an account doesn't mean blanket authorization but I really would not be doing his arguments justice trying to paraphrase them here. He's an older man (I'm older too) and so he's relying on older norms. It's still being fought in the courts, fwiw.
And you're right, most major developers have loot boxes; however, this discussion is about EA.
I've noticed that my credit card is attached to a lot of my on-line accounts. I'm not too concerned because of my ability to contest and reverse charges that I didn't authorize.
When talking about children, though, my biggest problem right now is the current rating system. I think the ESRB and PEGI are showing that when it comes to making massive money, the gaming industry cannot self-regulate. But that's also not what this hashtag is about.
The psychology behind loot boxes is a huge discussion, and one that really needs to be had. The techniques to rope people into spending are deliberately manipulative.
I'm not disagreeing with you, fwiw. I think we're talking about different things though.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these thing. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..
I was talking to a retired corporate lawyer friend recently about children buying lootboxes and the legality of it (I was curious about his thoughts). The arguments are, if the parents put their credit card on the account (think the apple store or google pay), they are responsible for all charges, vs if the owner of the credit card didn't authorize that transaction, they're not responsible. He is strongly in the camp that attaching your credit card to an account doesn't mean blanket authorization but I really would not be doing his arguments justice trying to paraphrase them here. He's an older man (I'm older too) and so he's relying on older norms. It's still being fought in the courts, fwiw.
And you're right, most major developers have loot boxes; however, this discussion is about EA.
I've noticed that my credit card is attached to a lot of my on-line accounts. I'm not too concerned because of my ability to contest and reverse charges that I didn't authorize.
When talking about children, though, my biggest problem right now is the current rating system. I think the ESRB and PEGI are showing that when it comes to making massive money, the gaming industry cannot self-regulate. But that's also not what this hashtag is about.
The psychology behind loot boxes is a huge discussion, and one that really needs to be had. The techniques to rope people into spending are deliberately manipulative.
I'm not disagreeing with you, fwiw. I think we're talking about different things though.
Well it is my own kid I jump on for giving his son access to the card to start with - no one else. All my son has to do is remove the credit card from the account. I have a number of cards - none attached to any account though as I attach a debit card to each purchase - then remove it from the account after purchase. I told my son he should be supervising what a 15 year old can buy to start with and never give him a card. In my view responsible parenting makes sure kids are not having access to things like that. EA is not our babysitters.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these thing. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..
I was talking to a retired corporate lawyer friend recently about children buying lootboxes and the legality of it (I was curious about his thoughts). The arguments are, if the parents put their credit card on the account (think the apple store or google pay), they are responsible for all charges, vs if the owner of the credit card didn't authorize that transaction, they're not responsible. He is strongly in the camp that attaching your credit card to an account doesn't mean blanket authorization but I really would not be doing his arguments justice trying to paraphrase them here. He's an older man (I'm older too) and so he's relying on older norms. It's still being fought in the courts, fwiw.
And you're right, most major developers have loot boxes; however, this discussion is about EA.
I've noticed that my credit card is attached to a lot of my on-line accounts. I'm not too concerned because of my ability to contest and reverse charges that I didn't authorize.
When talking about children, though, my biggest problem right now is the current rating system. I think the ESRB and PEGI are showing that when it comes to making massive money, the gaming industry cannot self-regulate. But that's also not what this hashtag is about.
The psychology behind loot boxes is a huge discussion, and one that really needs to be had. The techniques to rope people into spending are deliberately manipulative.
I'm not disagreeing with you, fwiw. I think we're talking about different things though.
Well it is my own kid I jump on for giving his son access to the card to start with - no one else. All my son has to do is remove the credit card from the account. I have a number of cards - none attached to any account though as I attach a debit card to each purchase - then remove it from the account after purchase. I told my son he should be supervising what a 15 year old can buy to start with and never give him a card. In my view responsible parenting makes sure kids are not having access to things like that. EA is not our babysitters.
Absolutely. If it happens more than once, the parent absolutely has responsibility as they now know their kid is going to do spending if they can and they need to protect themselves. When it comes to loot boxes, though, I'd make the argument that they are so well-incorporated into the game, and such a dopamine fueled pleasure part, that the game ratings themselves need to be warning about this along with either an M or an AO tag. If a kid were to sneak into a casino and wipe out their parents' credit card, the casino is who would be on the hook, though the kid, depending on age, could be facing legal consequences which would make most parents just pay up anyway rather than press charges.
My thought on loot boxes is that they're gambling and need to be treated as such or at the very least, rated with warnings more than "in game purchases." I also am learning that most games with them are centered around them and not-so-much fun when you don't spend. So it's easy for me now to do a hard pass. I think there needs to be far more awareness.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have plum the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig Sims 4 will continue to run well, and if there's a Sims 5, I'll probably still be fine.
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. You need to be 18 to buy at EA - Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these things. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..In fact they were not even the first company to come out with them. Then look at mobile games and facebook games have been using that system since they came into being. It's how they make money. Blame the consumers not the company trying to earn a living.
Ea put loot boxes in one of their games rated E for everyone. They have been to a hearing with the Government of my country because putting loot boxes in a game target to children is pretty scummy. Yes I agree a parent should not be giving their child the credit card information to store on their console but if you aren’t a gamer I can understand you wouldn’t expect a game with an E for everyone rating to have gambling in it. Two boys under 10 spent £500 in loot boxes for FIFA. The five year old didn’t know it was real money attached and his parents aren’t gamers so didn’t expect micro transactions in a game targeted to children. The worse part was after spending that amount of money, the poor kids didn’t even get the player they wanted. Luckily Nintendo refunded the money as the game was on Switch.
There is no defending that scum bag practice. It’s disgusting.EA can make a living without encouraging kids to gamble. But EA’s rather laughable defence in court was “loot boxes are fun surprise mechanics” also they are “akin to a kinder egg”
No excuse for that. They can make games without trashy practices. They choose not to. And putting loot boxes into kids games is indefensible. It’s greed pure and simple.
Comments
Oh definitely. Those taster things are a strategy in so many things nowadays: teasers, behind the scenes, previews, demos etc. Beta versions that allow access to people (this is me looking at Apple's way of pre-release testing of their OS) before the final version is out. EA is far from the only company doing this - not that that's an excuse, it's just a sad reality of everything now.
I kinda wish TS4 would have a more solid Beta program: have players volunteer to test a pack before it's out (two birds with one stone: less expenses on internal testing, more variety of machines that the game runs on with the bonus of more varied gameplay) and get proper feedback, then give them a decent discount on the final version of the pack. TS4 needs a better testing system and similar ones work in other places.
At least with the store you had the option of earning points instead of spending money for everything. The games that I usually end up dropping are the ones with time-limited events/challenges that aren't doable without paying (yes, Freeplay is guilty of this more and more though it definitely wasn't all the start).
Small shiny new things are always going to be an attraction. If there are enough people with no restraint or a big enough budget for fun things, it's gonna keep being profitable for companies. (or, you know, kids being on their parents' accounts with no restrictions on in-game purchases)
(full disclosure though: I've invested way less in TS4 than the full retail value of the game or packs are. sales are my friend.)
All I'm concerned with is a game that is fun to play and lives up to my expectations (having played all the previous iterations). Sims 4 fills the first requirement for me enough, though often falls short on the second. I've bought everything on sale, and didn't even start buying any of it until a few months ago. I don't even own half of it yet.
All of their various marketing tactics just annoy me, they aren't making me rush to spend money. The last time I was excited about an EP was Sims 3 Supernatural.
But, I haven't been in their current target demographic for 20 years. Get off my lawn! GRR. (I'm only 40, but it makes me feel ancient.)
Then you aren't the target audience, and that's fine. It reminds me of the "whales" thing, where many developers right now are targeting people who most likely are predisposed to addiction (it's not just EA, most devs do this now) and using triggers and people end up spending thousands upon thousands on loot boxes. But even if you're not the target, you are affected by this. How? Whales spend a lot more money than everyone else by far, though they make up a small percentage of players. So, guess who gets the most $$ devoted to stuff? The things whales will buy. They're cheap to make and distribute, and make the devs more money than game sales do. Which means substandard games that are designed to sell microtransactions.
The positive to this is I think it's yet another full-market saturation thing -- since people who spend thousands on microtransactions are a small part of the overall market, there's only so much money to go around here, and people who don't like games that are aimed towards selling microtransactions will move on to games which don't. And then whales will lose interest because, well, if you're only on servers with other whales, you no longer really have much that sets you apart.
Edit: To me you're a young'un.
With games companies (Especially EA), it's not a matter of age, but rather cynicism.
I don't think anyone actually said people who like it must have Stockholm Syndrome. They just equated people who don't like it yet keep buying it to having it, most likely for lack of a better term.
I had actually forgotten sunken cost fallacy had been mentioned before, though it was way after I heard or read comments mentioning Stockholm Syndrome, by a couple of people in another thread (possibly multiple threads now that I think about it) along with other business terms and detailed charts and definitions to go more in depth about just how they (EA) run their business as oppse to a business that actually values their consumers but then again I think they removed the posts talking about that from that thread and it eventually got shut down.
What was shocking to me was the players who equated themselves with having it because they didn't like it but still kept sinking their dollars into it. Again, likely for lack of a better term but still shocking even in the way they likely meant it. I guess because of the awareness they possess yet the impulse they still have to purchase despite that awareness.
In most cases I see it's not like they don't know they're likely going to be disappointed. They acknowledge they likely will be or even defintiely will be, yet instead of waiting to see from reviews and let's play's or something they pre-order or buy the day of release then say how disappointed they are. It's their money, no one can tell them how to spend it or not spend it, but what would give EA more and better incentive to actually change their ways is if they knew most of the unhappy players who agree with that hashtag won't just buy content anyway. Actions speak louder than words.
(and it’s got absolutely nothing to do with liking or not liking Sims 4)
I should have seen Maxis was playing the marketing game when it came to not talking about toddlers just to make me grovel in the end and think they were gods of AI and repeat over and over thank you , thank you. And when it comes to bug fixes marketing again is out in full force when it comes to telling players if they can fix or are going to fix something or not. The ploy is to make us hang around just hoping something is repaired, then get down on our knees and thank the AI gods they repaired a broken product they sold us as if money was of no value to us. And we do it, each and every time. Koolaid sometimes goes bad, and time I stopped drinking it.
After all, if fans of Sims 4 started up hash tags saying Thank You to EA for developing Sims 4 and Thank You to the devs for their efforts, we'd be ridiculed by those who don't agree. So isn't it better to just keep that decision to yourself? Why make the global announcement? What do they want, compensation for the money they chose to spend on the game? Nobody ordered them to, it was a choice. Asking EA to stop abusing them just because they're bringing out content they personally don't like seems rather...infantile, I suppose.
Unbelievable.
Same with gambling addicts, companies (the bad ones) thrive on exploiting the brain's psychological investment/reward system in order to get people to keep buying stuff, be it games or 'surprise mechanics'.
This hashtag isn’t anti Sims 4, it’s anti milking. And everybody has the right to make a hashtag out of that to share the opinion. And if it becomes a popular hashtag, maybe, just maybe, it’s not so ridiculous after all.
ETA: also, a hashtag on Twitter is not a movement.
The hash tag is not about content specific. It’s about how EA treat their customers. It’s about their treatment of a twenty year franchise. Fifa fans who bought FIFA 20 complained bitterly when the game launched broken. The hashtag FixCareerMode was trending and it was picked by many news outlets online. People have the right to feedback. Silencing them or dismissing them with “Don’t like it don’t play it” is not helpful. A senior producer on the Sims told the community to keep shouting for what they want. If you are unhappy with a product - any product - you need to let the company know. They want EA to listen to them. Forum feed back has gone unnoticed and individual feedback is ignored. Strength in numbers is better.
I agree if you made a hash tag thanking EA you would be ridiculed. This is EA who claim loot boxes are a fun surprise mechanic. They shouldn’t be defended. Thank the indie developer(s) for making their games, thank the AAA developers for making a game that doesn’t have monetisation and are filled with passionate devs. But don’t thank EA for ruining this franchise, nor any of the franchises before it, nor any of them after it. They don’t deserve gratification.
I was also referring to the word 'abuse' which is melodramatic when it comes down to a choice of whether you buy games or not. EA aren't bullying or threatening anyone to buy their content, therefore it's not abuse of the customers. Yeah, it's milking them but don't all gaming companies do that, one way or another?
If you don't approve of EA's methods, don't buy their games. It doesn't sound helpful I know but it's still a valid point. Actions speak louder than words, after all. The top bosses at EA are more likely to take notice of mass sales drops (strength in numbers, like you said) than they are of Twitter hashtags, surely? How many senior producers will pay attention to a StopEAAbuse tag? Not many, I wouldn't imagine.
That is an opinion, not a global fact. Some people might feel they do deserve a thank you for certain things. If it's right for people who don't like elements of the content to shout out, then it's also right for those who are happy with content to shout out too. Otherwise, the balance tips the other way again and nobody gets anywhere.
For expressing my opinion? Because I happen to like the game and enjoy it just as it is? Because I happen to like the changes made because it does suit my gameplay.
I think that pretty much sums it up these days.
Tell that to fans of Sim city, dungeon keeper, bullfrog games, dead space and FIFA. All games EA have sucked the souls out of or downright destroyed never to be seen again. My Husband is a game developer for a AAA studio - EA do not have a good reputation among his colleagues and the gaming industry. That is a fact. EA have been in trouble recently for loot boxes and gambling in games aimed at children. Again that is a fact and many people in the industry and gamers think they are disgusting. I don’t know if you remember when EA used the phrase “EA, it’s in the Game” well now it should be “EA, it’s out in the game, in loot boxes”
Their reputation is 100% deserved.
Edit to add as you have added - yes a hashtag thanking Ea most likely would lead to ridicule for the reasons above - I’m not suggesting I personally would ridicule you, I’m not that way inclined. If you want to thank EA and start a hashtag feel free.
I agree a hash tag may not change much in the future for the sims but the Simming community showing discontent for once is not a bad thing. As a community, generally speaking it’s very passive.
I play lots of different game genres, there are ones that try and milk their games with scummy monetisation practices but it’s not fair to say they all do that. Some games I’ve played this year off the top of my head -Kingdom Hearts 3, Resident Evil 2, Layers of fear 2, Days Gone, The Last of Us, Until Dawn, Man of Medan, Detroit Become Human, My Time at Portia all are complete games (or in the case of my time at Portia is still being developed but the devs have gave us so much for free in major updates it would be really unfair to say they are milking fans) None of those games have people complaining the way simmers are behind the hashtag. They aren’t perfect but you can’t accuse those devs of milking fans. So I can’t agree that all devs do it. Some definitely do - Activision and Frontier I’m looking at you! But it shouldn’t be considered okay or normal.
You left out Bioware! Ah, the developer who brought us Baldur's Gate have, under EA's tutelage, evolved to bring us such gems as Anthem and Mass Effect: Andromeda.
Big spenders are a small minority of total gamers, but they make far more for the company than sales do. Which means more and more games will be designed to keeping the whales as addicted as possible to the detriment of the rest of the game. They want all their games on line, to be live services, so whales have a reason to spend to be the best (or prettiest, because cosmetics do matter).
The bonus for me, though, as a consumer is I'm not interested in these substandard games so my laptop should last me a few more years as a gaming rig
The thing is, not all games are falling into this. I don't think Outerworlds is going to and I can pretty much guarantee that CP2077 will not. Publishers can make huge profits without microtransactions, but huge profits apparently are not enough for most.
Children cannot buy - so if they are buying loot boxes their parents gave them the credit card or bought them for the kids. You need to be 18 to buy at EA - Keep that in mind. Also one of my grandsons has spent way more money on things like that using his parents credit cards through Bethesda than EA - I know i hear the complaints all the time - then I tell my kid why do you give him the credit card to start with. The ones that need getting sense knocked in their heads is our grown kids letting their kids do these things. EA is far from the only company with loot boxes too..In fact they were not even the first company to come out with them. Then look at mobile games and facebook games have been using that system since they came into being. It's how they make money. Blame the consumers not the company trying to earn a living.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
I was talking to a retired corporate lawyer friend recently about children buying lootboxes and the legality of it (I was curious about his thoughts). The arguments are, if the parents put their credit card on the account (think the apple store or google pay), they are responsible for all charges, vs if the owner of the credit card didn't authorize that transaction, they're not responsible. He is strongly in the camp that attaching your credit card to an account doesn't mean blanket authorization but I really would not be doing his arguments justice trying to paraphrase them here. He's an older man (I'm older too) and so he's relying on older norms. It's still being fought in the courts, fwiw.
And you're right, most major developers have loot boxes; however, this discussion is about EA.
I've noticed that my credit card is attached to a lot of my on-line accounts. I'm not too concerned because of my ability to contest and reverse charges that I didn't authorize.
When talking about children, though, my biggest problem right now is the current rating system. I think the ESRB and PEGI are showing that when it comes to making massive money, the gaming industry cannot self-regulate. But that's also not what this hashtag is about.
The psychology behind loot boxes is a huge discussion, and one that really needs to be had. The techniques to rope people into spending are deliberately manipulative.
I'm not disagreeing with you, fwiw. I think we're talking about different things though.
Well it is my own kid I jump on for giving his son access to the card to start with - no one else. All my son has to do is remove the credit card from the account. I have a number of cards - none attached to any account though as I attach a debit card to each purchase - then remove it from the account after purchase. I told my son he should be supervising what a 15 year old can buy to start with and never give him a card. In my view responsible parenting makes sure kids are not having access to things like that. EA is not our babysitters.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Absolutely. If it happens more than once, the parent absolutely has responsibility as they now know their kid is going to do spending if they can and they need to protect themselves. When it comes to loot boxes, though, I'd make the argument that they are so well-incorporated into the game, and such a dopamine fueled pleasure part, that the game ratings themselves need to be warning about this along with either an M or an AO tag. If a kid were to sneak into a casino and wipe out their parents' credit card, the casino is who would be on the hook, though the kid, depending on age, could be facing legal consequences which would make most parents just pay up anyway rather than press charges.
My thought on loot boxes is that they're gambling and need to be treated as such or at the very least, rated with warnings more than "in game purchases." I also am learning that most games with them are centered around them and not-so-much fun when you don't spend. So it's easy for me now to do a hard pass. I think there needs to be far more awareness.
Ea put loot boxes in one of their games rated E for everyone. They have been to a hearing with the Government of my country because putting loot boxes in a game target to children is pretty scummy. Yes I agree a parent should not be giving their child the credit card information to store on their console but if you aren’t a gamer I can understand you wouldn’t expect a game with an E for everyone rating to have gambling in it. Two boys under 10 spent £500 in loot boxes for FIFA. The five year old didn’t know it was real money attached and his parents aren’t gamers so didn’t expect micro transactions in a game targeted to children. The worse part was after spending that amount of money, the poor kids didn’t even get the player they wanted. Luckily Nintendo refunded the money as the game was on Switch.
There is no defending that scum bag practice. It’s disgusting.EA can make a living without encouraging kids to gamble. But EA’s rather laughable defence in court was “loot boxes are fun surprise mechanics” also they are “akin to a kinder egg”
No excuse for that. They can make games without trashy practices. They choose not to. And putting loot boxes into kids games is indefensible. It’s greed pure and simple.