Welp EA did it with Anthem

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

Full price game, 20$ skins.

View: https://youtu.be/7IKs4d5oj04

Regardless of the options given. I dont support these games with absurd pricing schemes. Its a full price game. What probably going to hapoen is EA is over pricing the skins on purpose to create outrage and then drop the prices to make it seem like they are doing everyone a favor. 5 dollars less than a season pass. I could buy dlc for 20$ i dont know why people still try to defend EA. They have 0 restraint and care, but people keep thinking, oh but this time will be different. They havent been different for 10 years.

 

[Xist]

You don't need skins to play the game...

It's a purely cosmetic item. It literally has zero impact on the game. Why does it matter that they sell skins?

Also, I'm pretty sure that ALL Anthem skins can be earned in game. They just offer it for $20 if you are too lazy to grind for it.

 

[Scape]

Yea, AngryJoe always goes mental when games have microtransactions.

 

[SullyQuindarius]

Ehh, I hate it, but it doesn't matter. I've already got the two VIP demo skins, and the colors on those can be changed, so that's three templates to play with (including the default).

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

Yea, AngryJoe always goes mental when games have microtransactions.

I would go mental to if a full price game is charging the same price of dlc for 1 ok skin.

 

[Joehockey]

Yikes, I hadn't seen that yet. I was already extremely wary of anything that has been touched by EA but this is a major red light for me. Know I 100% won't be buying before the reviews come out and a month or two of live gameplay is out. The last thing I was is to here the release is awesome and prices are pretty good only to have them change or go up a month after release.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

Ehh, I hate it, but it doesn't matter. I've already got the two VIP demo skins, and the colors on those can be changed, so that's three templates to play with (including the default).

To each their own, but EA wont stop pushing greed over making better games until people stop giving them money. Its why their sport franchises are just rehashes and now they are trying to push that monetization to other games.

 

[Wolfy]

Skins don't effect gameplay to any significant degree. People need to get over it.

 

[Printimus]

I gotta agree with @Xist on this one. It isnt hindering any gameplay if you dont purchase this microtransaction. Should you blame the shop keeper for selling his goods, or the idiot who actually pays a pretty penny for them?

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

I gotta agree with @Xist on this one. It isnt hindering any gameplay if you dont purchase this microtransaction. Should you blame the shop keeper for selling his goods, or the idiot who actually pays a pretty penny for them?

It doesnt hinder "your" gameplay, completionist now have to purchase, games use to have challenges, secrets, and bosses unlock these things. Gameplay does change, grinds becone longer etc.

 

[Wolfy]

It doesnt hinder "your" gameplay, completionist now have to purchase, games use to have challenges, secrets, and bosses unlock these things. Gameplay does change, grinds becone longer etc.

Completionists are a very small subset of a games playerbase and in this regard they value the skins at the 20$ price, it's a perfectly valid reason to sell them. There will still be skins to earn ingame as well so that aspect of challenge and bossfights is not gone at all.

 

[Printimus]

It doesnt hinder "your" gameplay, completionist now have to purchase, games use to have challenges, secrets, and bosses unlock these things. Gameplay does change, grinds becone longer etc.

Things change, video games arnt what they used to be. Nobody is forcing anyone to be a completionist, its more of a choice. Games still have challenges and secrets and such, they just give you different rewards now.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

Skins don't effect gameplay to any significant degree. People need to get over it.

Thats a pretty poor argument imo. It offers nothing to this. I could say video games never made you purchase skins and it was involved in actual gameplay through cool challenges and secrets. So stop accepting this new standard and get over it.

 

[Wolfy]

Thats a pretty poor argument imo. It offers nothing to this. I could say video games never made you purchase skins and it was involved in actual gameplay through cool challenges and secrets. So stop accepting this new standard and get over it.

You have yet to offer a convincing argument other than "we used to do it this way". This new standard helps pay for games with relatively large costs and support them over time. If the transaction tells you exactly what you get, I.E. without the use of "loot box mechanics" then it's perfectly valid as a way of funding as it's entirely optional and fair.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

You don't need skins to play the game...

It's a purely cosmetic item. It literally has zero impact on the game. Why does it matter that they sell skins?

Also, I'm pretty sure that ALL Anthem skins can be earned in game. They just offer it for $20 if you are too lazy to grind for it.

There is a lot of things in game you dont need. You dont need to melee in the game, skyrim you dont need potions. Speed runners dont need to play levels, but things are put in there to enhance gameplay. When you remove things that are supposed to be standard in a full price game and make you pay for it, you are altering gameplay to make money.

 

[Wolfy]

There is a lot of things in game you dont need. You dont need to melee in the game, skyrim you dont need potions. Speed runners dont need to play levels, but things are put in there to enhance gameplay. When you remove things that are supposed to be standard in a full price game and make you pay for it, you are altering gameplay to make money.

Who says they are supposed to be standard. I see that as rather entitled, when you purchase a game you are paying for access to a certain amount of set features. It may or may not be the entirety of the available content in the game.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

You have yet to offer a convincing argument other than "we used to do it this way". This new standard helps pay for games with relatively large costs and support them over time. If the transaction tells you exactly what you get, I.E. without the use of "loot box mechanics" then it's perfectly valid as a way of funding as it's entirely optional and fair.

It alters gameplay to make you pay for things that were originally part of the game. I paid 60$ for a complete game. I dont expect content to be ripped out in order to make money. I expect dlc to do that instead. There are many games that do what anthem does without adding microtransactions. Funding a valid argument when there are many games thst do this without microtransactions. They simply just want more money. Which is fine, but they are doing so only because they can and people wont say no. EA doesnt need help paying for games. They have billions of dollars being funneled in from their sports franchises.

 

[DontTouchMyHoHos]

Who says they are supposed to be standard. I see that as rather entitled, when you purchase a game you are paying for access to a certain amount of set features. It may or may not be the entirety of the available content in the game.

Then you havent been playing games for very long. Microtransactions werent really introduced till around the xbox 360 era plus. Thats 30 ish years of a standard of gamers getting complete games. Im also entitled to have expectations and standards when i spend my money. So yes im 100% allowed to be entitled. Its not a privilge that the money i spend on videos games has a standard. Its my right to set that standard for the price i pay.

 

[Wolfy]

It alters gameplay to make you pay for things that were originally part of the game. I paid 60$ for a complete game. I dont expect content to be ripped out in order to make money. I expect dlc to do that instead. There are many games that do what anthem does without adding microtransactions. Funding a valid argument when there are many games thst do this without microtransactions. They simply just want more money. Which is fine, but they are doing so only because they can and people wont say no. EA doesnt need help paying for games. They have billions of dollars being funneled in from their sports franchises.

Just because other games do it a different way is not an argument for that particular product. If you don't agree with their monitization then just don't support their games. At the end of the day you decide the value of where you put your funding. While you can disagree with their monitization policies there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

 

[Hybus]

Are we sure this isn't one of those bullshit test the water things? Oh no, someone leaked crazy prices, we listen so we launched with that skin at 5 bucks, look we listen to our community.