UK Advertising Regulator Nixes EA's Dungeon Keeper Advertisement Due To Microtransactions

from the freedom-isn't-free dept

Electronic Arts, fresh from being upset in the most recent "Worst Company" contest, isn't taking the defeat lying down. In fact, they're in full rebuilding mode, acquiring as much news about pissing people off as possible. Recently, for instance, you may have heard that the next Sims game will be published without the much-loved toddler children sims or the ability to create swimming pools in players' homes. The response from EA essentially states that they don't think that stuff is important, despite the public outcry. With an eerily similar recent history in the form of the SimCity debacle still fresh in everyone's mind, people aren't too happy.

But the real trump card the company has rolled out recently is the Dungeon Keeper mobile game which pissed off roughly everyone. And I don't just mean the critics, who essentially look upon this reboot of a beloved franchise as blasphemy, but even consumer rights groups are getting involved due to the cynical attempt in the game to extract microtransactions out of players through in-app purchases while claiming to be a free game. The UK's Advertising Standards Authority disallowed EA advertising Dungeon Keeper as a free game and describes the ad this way:

A direct e-mail for the mobile app game Dungeon Keeper stated "GET DUNGEON KEEPER ON MOBILE FOR FREE! ... DIG. DEVISE. DOMINATE. Build the most badass dungeon ever! Raise an army of diabolical minions and lay twisted traps to destroy any opponents foolish enough to set foot in your lair. MASTER THE HAND OF EVIL Cast powerful spells, pillage and plunder other players’ dungeons, and slap your imps around to make them work harder. A world of wicked fun is right at your fingertips. What are you waiting for, Keeper? Get it for FREE!" A footnote stated "WIRELESS FEES MAY APPLY". The ad also featured a screenshot of the game which appeared to show a well-developed dungeon, and was accompanied by artwork depicting characters from the game.
The problem? Well, by most objective estimations, you can barely play the game without shelling out for in-app purchases. See, the game uses two kinds of currency in order to construct dungeons, which is the gameplay within the app. There's stone and gold, which replenish and accrue over time, and there are gems which are paid for with real-life money or some very limited in-game actions. EA argued that everything that appeared in their ad, including depictions of a created dungeon, could be achieved without spending any real-world money and just playing the game. And they're technically right, but they forgot to mention that the amount of time we're talking about to do so makes the game unplayable. Also, they forgot to mention how, in a departure from games like Candy Crush, the time players are made to wait gets longer as they progress in the game.
We noted that, although some of these actions could be done simultaneously, there was a limit to how many actions could happen at the same time and that the length of the countdown timers increased according to how far the player had progressed in aspects of the game. We therefore regarded it as extremely likely that players would reach a position where they would be unable to take any further meaningful or progressive action in the game until a timer had finished or been skipped, and that these periods would become longer and more significant, and the cost of skipping increasingly higher, as the player progressed. Although some of the features in the ad did not require waiting for a timer, we noted that these were either incidental or brief (such as ‘slapping’ the imp characters) or were dependent on other actions that were gated by a timer. We acknowledged that the Gem currency, through which the timers could be skipped, could be obtained for free through normal gameplay and that the game could therefore be played without spending currency to bypass the countdown. However, we understood that the rate at which they could be accrued was slow in comparison to the amount needed to play the game at a reasonable rate, where the delays did not significantly impact on the ability to continue playing.
In other words, the ad said the game was free and didn't mention in-app purchases, but the game is essentially unplayable without such purchases. In addition, progress in the game is specifically met with a mechanic designed solely to extract in-app purchases in the form of an increasingly long countdown timer. It's a scummy way to make a game, to advertise a game, and to treat customers, particularly within a game that is universally considered to be garbage.

The end result is the ASA nixed the ads that depicted the game as free and ordered them to make future ads clear about in-app purchases and the limitations on free gameplay. If EA wants to keep on making this money-extracting drivel, they certainly can, but they can't pretend they aren't. Consumer protection done right, in other words.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 8:51pm

    And this is new?

    I tried playing the Simpsons Tapped Out game and ran into the same basic issue. You get to a point where all you can do is a few things before you have to wait forever to do something else unless you pay real cash for donuts.

    It was shortly thereafter that I realized games like that were pointless, unless you planned to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars a month for the privilege of playing it at any sort of pace that is actually fun.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 9:24pm

    I like the game

    I've played the game without having to pay a thing. It's hardly unplayable. It's but another freemium game that is certain easier if you shell out cash, but it's not what its critics claim.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    identicon
    halr9000, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 9:29pm

    Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    I'm sorry but this is really a spoiled kid kind of argument. And this: "but the game is essentially unplayable without such purchases" not only a subjective comment from someone who hasn't played the game, it's actually not true. How do I know? Believe it or not, I like the game, play at a pretty high level, have logged probably 30 hours in it, and for weeks until I literally found a forgotten iTunes gift card in my kitchen with a balance on it, had spent $0 on the game.

    And you know what? I gave EA the damn $10 because I was enjoying the game!

    Ugh, bunch of whiners! What happens if a lawsuit like this wins, anyway, huh? Do you hate the F2P business model so much that you want to kill it for those who actually 1) have a brain and know that marketing isn't the unvarnished truth, and 2) like the evolution of the venerable shareware concept from the early days of the PC?

    LET ME HAVE FREE LIMITED GAMEPLAY WITH FULL CONTROL OVER WHETHER I WANT TO REWARD THE DEVELOPERS OR NOT!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    JCHP (profile), Jul 8th, 2014 @ 9:32pm

    Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    If this comment isn't satire, I'd say EA won the war and will never go out of business. Enough people like this keep EA in business. That and gutting franchises until not even bone marrow is left.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), Jul 8th, 2014 @ 9:57pm

    Heroes of Dragon Age

    I play an EA game on my phone called Heroes of Dragon Age which also features a "freemium" model with a purchasable "gem" currency alongside the more common "gold". You can earn a limited amount of gems in-game or purchase them: the "Best Value" (and highest cost) pack gets you 1600 Gems for $129.99, the "Most Popular" is 275 Gems for $24.99 and the cheapest is 22 Gems for $2.50. You use "Stamina" for pvp battles and "Energy" for pve which slowly renew up to a maximum of 6 each or can be renewed for 3 Gems instantly. You can also use 38 Gems to purchase a random "Rare" hero, with the only use for "Gold" being to purchase a random "Common" or "Uncommon" hero, though all ranks to have a chance of rewarding a higher ranked hero up to "Epic" or "Legendary" and sometimes the higher ranked heros can be bought for several hundred gems - usually just in time for a special event where they will be of most use.

    Now it is possible to play the game without spending real money as I do - I can even get into the top 10,000 in a pvp match (with effort), especially as a few gems are rewarded as you progress in pvp. However it seems certain that the higher ranked players are spending quite a bit of money to get there and the game is definitely designed to keep you spending money as a way to continue playing, rather than as an optional extra to support the developers if you wish to. I would be much happier if the game instead had a limited free mode with the option to pay to unlock pvp say - I would definitely have paid for it as it is fun, it's just that the freemium elements are irritating and detract from the overall enjoyment of the game.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 10:05pm

    Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    You're missing the distinct possibility that this new commenter is an EA shill. It's certainly possible that they're not, since some people will likely hold this opinion out a large enough sample population, but the comment at least reads like a shill - specifically the reference to the game as F2P (Free To Play) instead of the reality that it is a microtransaction progression "game" and the hyperbolic statement that a lawsuit (which isn't even mentioned in the article) might kill business model that is making mobile gaming a bad word.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 10:20pm

    I long ago quit fooling with EA as well as Ubisoft games. Both companies no longer make games I am interested in. They are notorious for franchise games with short play times for the cost.

    They've been doing this a long time and I am continually surprised to hear yet another scheme to bilk money from their fans because I would have figured by now they would be out of business from the amount of fans they've pissed off.

    If you want to continue to be the next pissed off fan be my guest and continue to buy their games. But don't bitch when it hits you. People have had far more than enough time to realize just what these two gaming companies are about.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    CK20XX (profile), Jul 8th, 2014 @ 11:02pm

    Hope you guys remembered to grab Dungeon Keeper Gold from Good Old Games. They made it free for a weekend when news of this game first broke.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    jacek, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 11:06pm

    I firmly believe GOG is the best system as for now.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 8th, 2014 @ 11:27pm

    Friendly reminder that EA does employs people whos job is to post EA friendly things on websites and forums.

    So if you see someone who really loves EA, he most likely gets paid to shitpost

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jul 8th, 2014 @ 11:43pm

    Re:

    Not that I'd doubt such a claim, given just what company is being discussed, but got a link to back that up?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Prisoner 201, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:23am

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Looks like a shill to me.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:36am

    Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Pay to win has been a common headache for this generation of freemium. Now, if a game is "essentially unplayable" without giving money - yes it is so far a subjective call - it should not be advertised as free to play!

    If you are getting what is essentially a demo without paying, how is it any different than normal pay to play, with a free demo like what has happened since the 1980s?

    The only difference is that this model can weasel around and claim that it is free without telling about how the pay part works. This action is not against the type of game: It is against the marketing of it! You will still have your game exactly as the developer wants to give it to you. The only difference is that the developer cannot market the game as "free", which is completely reasonable.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:45am

    Re: Re: Re:

    To be honest the Youtuber paying has become almost a standard and it is really being abused in some contracts. "Talent will only get paid for positive reviews". It is another antitrust waiting to happen.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    icon
    BSD32x (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:51am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Fair enough in regard to the Youtube article, but in regard to the first one I linked, I'd love to know if this new commenter has a Chinese IP or if not is behind TOR or a VPN.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:58am

    Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    "What happens if a lawsuit like this wins, anyway, huh? "

    The story isn't about a lawsuit. Would you like to try the argument again, this time with facts?

    The actual story is that advertising is regulated by an official body, and they found that advertising a game with these kinds of paid components as free was misleading. EA are free to advertise the game all they want, as long as they tell the truth in those ads.

    "Do you hate the F2P business model so much that you want to kill it"

    The F2P model is fine. Misleading consumers and using sneaky tactics such as increasing the amount of time they have to wait in an attempt to force them to pay? Not so much.

    Again, the F2P model is OK, the publishers just need to be honest about it.

    "I gave EA the damn $10 because I was enjoying the game!"

    Cool, I hope you got your money's worth. But, unless I'm missing something, you didn't buy the game with that $10, you only rented some unobstructed access to it. Do you see the problem? I doubt most people would be complaining if there was an option to buy the full game rather than drip feeding it money to keep playing at a reasonable pace.

    "like the evolution of the venerable shareware concept from the early days of the PC? "

    You mean games where you got a set number of levels and got asked to pay more if you wanted to keep playing - and then keep the FULL game forever? Not games where you're asked to pay $X if you don't want to wait 20 mins to several hours after you've played for a few minutes, and then pay again?

    Do you see the different here?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 1:27am

    Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I hope they're at least selling their credibility, reputations and integrity expensively, would be sad indeed if they were selling those parts of themselves for small change.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 1:59am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    I would think that most aren't selling their reputation that cheap, but the possibility of falling into that trap is very real since the linedrawing between playtesting and advertising is paperthin. It is easy to escalate from small dilemmas to large dilemmas. Corruption rarely starts with a large payout. In reality the moral layers get bend one by one untill the endpoint has caught the person.

    It ultimately comes down to how much you trust the particular youtuber to avoid these pitfalls and how open the person is about his/her economic dependencies.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    icon
    Whatever (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 2:31am

    Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    The real issue is that when you want everything for free, someone, somewhere has to "pay the freight" to make it happen. The freemium model is pretty much the answer to the issue. Those who like it pay for it, and those who don't will not.

    CwF+RtB, right?

    The ad regulator is slicing very narrowly on the concept of how much of the game can be played for free, or how far you can go without paying. If there is any free play in the game, then it's hard to say that you cannot play for free. Making a player wait for their next turn (time limiting their play) is a pretty common concept in the freemium model, it provides the RtB incentive.

    EA has done this on a number of games, their Real Racing game is a perfect example of having those time delay features built into the game in a useful way. Yes, it's a freemium, but the free part is entertaining enough. I also understand if nobody actually pays for it at some point, then the game will disappear or no longer be supported.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    PaulT (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 3:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    "The real issue is that when you want everything for free"

    The real issue is that when you start from a false premise, most of what you say is crap. Personally, the biggest complaints about the game I've seen is that people wanted a full price game they were willing to pay for but got this implementation instead. Many of those people have paid GoG for the original versions of the game rather than put up with this one, but would still be willing to pay, say, $5-10 for an unrestricted version.

    "Those who like it pay for it, and those who don't will not."

    The same goes with demos of free "lite" version of games that people try out then pay the full version for. The difference here is that the customer has no choice of merely buying the game, they only have the choice of renting some extra features for a temporary amount of time. Some people, who want to pay for the game, don't like this. It's possible to like the game, but not be willing to pay constant fees just to continue playing.

    Stop lying to yourself and pretending that it's just a case of "those evil freeloaders" vs "paying customers". That's a simplistic half-truth and any pronouncements you make on that assumption will be false.

    "CwF+RtB, right?"

    Indeed. And "we've designed the game in a way that means you have to keep paying us money if you want to keep playing" does not equal RtB.

    "If there is any free play in the game, then it's hard to say that you cannot play for free."

    No, there's a limit. if the game is nigh-on unplayable or not possible to complete without paying cash, then it's not free.

    "Making a player wait for their next turn (time limiting their play) is a pretty common concept in the freemium model, it provides the RtB incentive."

    Once again, instead of making smug pronouncements, you might wish to understand what the arguments you're trying to adopt actually mean. Because you're really missing at least one vital component.

    "EA has done this on a number of games"

    They have, and few of those have had the backlash that this did, from either fans or industry regulators. Similarly, many, many competitors have also done the same without such things. Perhaps you'd like to consider why that is rather than whining about strawmen again.

    "I also understand if nobody actually pays for it at some point, then the game will disappear or no longer be supported."

    ...and if they do, that's the market speaking, and there's plenty of better competitors out there who will take the money instead. Perhaps, because "give us money every 10 turns" isn't a real RtB unless you have something else to offer.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 3:34am

    Doesn't matter, EA will work around it

    And they will make a fortune, because, once again, GAMERS ARE STUPID. They will happily line up to be ripped off by EA just like they've always lined up to be ripped off by EA.

    Now I know some of you are gamers. And I know you're going to tell me I'm wrong. But your arguments will hold no weight until the day when EA is driven out of business -- which would come quite quickly if gamers had any collective intelligence whatsoever. It's clearly in their self-interest to see EA destroyed, not just because EA is a pack of assholes, but because it would be a warning shot across the bow of the rest of the gaming industry. And it would be EASY: just stop giving EA money. Very trivial thing to do, doesn't require anything other than a little bit of self-restraint.

    And yet they're not even capable of that.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 4:29am

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Please. Listen to the actual arguments and stop beating the strawman. They are forced to slice narrowly to avoid inconsistencies. If there is any free part of it, it is still a question of what you call it. It is exactly the same as demos in the 1980s or 1990s, but since the demos weren't advertised as the full game it is not a problem there. In this case the issue is the marketing as a "free" game. Given the history, calling it a demo with ransomware extention seems even more appropriate in some cases.

    If you want real free to play games, look to League of Legends or Path of Exile where only vanity and non-advantageous offers is for sale. Closing down a significant part of the game in ransom is not a free game. It is a demo.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 5:37am

    Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    "Ugh, bunch of whiners! What happens if a lawsuit like this wins, anyway, huh?"

    There is no lawsuit, so not sure what the shit you're talking about....

    "Do you hate the F2P business model so much that you want to kill it"

    This isn't an attack on F2P, it's an attack on EA's bullshit marketing tactics. As noted in the article, EA can make games like this all they want, they just can't pretend the actual gameplay is reasonably free.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Michael, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 6:01am

    Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Tim, I think your writing is too intellectual for some of the readers.

    I recommend you include a "For Dummies!" (but clearly not using that term because there will be trademark issues) section with all of your articles from now on. Just like a three line summary so people with no reading comprehension can follow along with the rest of us.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    icon
    Who Cares (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 7:05am

    But, but, but

    Then they won't be able to play Madden 20XX or FIFA 20XX or {insert sport here}{insert year of reskinning here}.

    And that is also a problem so to say. I can ignore a game like Sim City (or ) since there are alternatives but those sport games, due to licensing, do not have alternatives. And those are the major income source for EA. Any studio/brand under the EA umbrella that doesn't have that kind of exclusivity is under constant reorganization and/or demands to essentially turn out a sequel every year.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 7:34am

    Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    payed shill, nobody else can defend this crap.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 7:34am

    Re: I like the game

    you are either a payed shill or an utter moron. I'm not sure which is the worse alternative.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 8:04am

    Re: And this is new?

    Yup. After too many such experiences, I've reached the point where I won't even try out games that include in-app purchases anymore.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 8:07am

    Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    " how is it any different than normal pay to play, with a free demo like what has happened since the 1980s? "

    Cost, essentially. These types of games are MUCH more expensive altogether. Also, in the old days, you'd just pay once and be done with it. There is no such option with microtransactions, so you're condemned to constantly being harassed for more money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30.  
    icon
    John Fenderson (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 8:10am

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    "The real issue is that when you want everything for free, someone, somewhere has to "pay the freight" to make it happen."

    Not even close. I'm 100% willing to pay for games, but not when the games are so obnoxious about it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31.  
    identicon
    FM Hilton, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 9:36am

    One of a few games

    And they will make a fortune, because, once again, GAMERS ARE STUPID. They will happily line up to be ripped off by EA just like they've always lined up to be ripped off by EA.

    Now I know some of you are gamers. And I know you're going to tell me I'm wrong. But your arguments will hold no weight until the day when EA is driven out of business -- which would come quite quickly if gamers had any collective intelligence whatsoever. It's clearly in their self-interest to see EA destroyed, not just because EA is a pack of assholes, but because it would be a warning shot across the bow of the rest of the gaming industry. And it would be EASY: just stop giving EA money. Very trivial thing to do, doesn't require anything other than a little bit of self-restraint.
    And yet they're not even capable of that.

    So EA is getting a game banned for microtransactions? Well, I can name one game that's coming up that's not going to be free to play but it's gonna have microtransactions up the wahoo: Sims 4, due to be released September 2.

    And guess what? The gamers this time are not just letting EA take them for a ride. There's the official forum, and other forums in the community that are absolutely outraged and upset at all that EA has done to this latest incarnation.

    So when you state that all gamers are stupid, you're generalizing for too many people.

    We eventually got the idea that we're being reamed, and now we're officially pissed off at EA and making a lot more noise than we would in the past. We're signing petitions (for all the good that will do) and verbally sparring with their reps on every occasion possible. EA's no longer is the god of games. We've learned our lesson, over and over again.

    We're tired of being used as walking wallets.

    There's no guarantee this time that their latest iteration of the series will even sell very many copies. It's that bad, because EA has been frantically trying to woo us back with all kinds of cookies and ice cream, only to be laughed at by almost everyone and jeered at by the people who they think will be buying it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32.  
    identicon
    KoD, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 11:02am

    This is how a ton of mobile games work. Wait timers (build/training times) almost always get longer as the level of the building/troops being upgraded progresses. I hate grotesque monstrosity that EA has become, but that is the status quo in MANY games. Pocket Empires, Spartan Wars, Dragons of Atlantis, and almost any other game in related genres are the exact same way. If you upgrade buildings or train troops, expect those timers to get longer and longer.

    Still, fuck EA.



    Seriously, fuck EA.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 11:03am

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Don't feed the troll.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:26pm

    Re: Doesn't matter, EA will work around it

    It's getting old re-stating this, but the problem isn't stupid gamers, it's stupid people.

    Are their masochistic gamers who don't care how a company treats them, and will buy every 'new' 'shiny' game a company throws out, no matter how broken or recycled it is? Absolutely. However, that same idiocy shows itself in every other industry, from movies to electronics, music and more.

    It's not a 'gamer' problem, it's a 'masochistic idiot problem'.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35.  
    icon
    That One Guy (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 12:34pm

    Re: One of a few games

    We're signing petitions (for all the good that will do)

    You know what kind of petition would get EA and similar companies to pay attention? Ones where people state that they will not buy games from a company as long as they continue the same practices that people find so offensive/annoying.

    As long as people had the willpower and self-restraint to follow through with that 'pledge', and each signature meant that EA would be losing out on any future sales from the one signing, something like that, if it got enough signatures, would likely get their attention quite nicely.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36.  
    icon
    John85851 (profile), Jul 9th, 2014 @ 3:21pm

    How about a demo version

    How about going back to the "olden days" of gaming where companies gave a limited version for free (say the first 5 levels) and then charged for the full game.
    If you liked the demo, then you bought the game.

    Personally, I'm also getting tired of games that claim to be free, but then ask players to buy stuff to continue the game. You know what, I would happily pay $15-$20 to play "The Sims: FreePlay" without the need to buy "power-ups" or wait 24 hours for my next chance to get Life Points. Heck, I was going to buy "The Sims 3" until I read the reviews that said it had less features than the "FreePlay" version.

    But like some other posters are saying, game companies will keep making freemium games as long as people play them and they make money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 9th, 2014 @ 7:38pm

    Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    Not unless you're Whatever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38.  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Jul 10th, 2014 @ 4:51am

    UK Advertising Regulator Nixes EA's Dungeon Keeper Advertisement Due To Microtransactions

    And guess who helped bring that about by making a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority? Oh, yeah!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 10th, 2014 @ 7:12am

    Re: But, but, but

    Okay, fine. If you can't live without one or two precious games, then you DESERVE to be ripped off, lied to, and abused.

    And no doubt, thanks to EA and your own inability to show some backbone, you will be.

    No whining. You DESERVE it. All of it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jul 11th, 2014 @ 12:35am

    Re: Re: Re: Sorry, this article and whole premise is crap

    RtB isn't about teasing and nagging and annoying your fans into paying. It's also reason to buy, not reason to pay money to make the game less annoying.

    But you also forgot the sine qua non: connect with fans. Micro transactions (and paying shills to polish turds for you on discussion forums) is not connecting with fans, it's thinking of them only as suckers and treating them like shit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Advertisement
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Support Techdirt - Get Great Stuff!

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.