I would have personally been extremely annoyed if the additional courses advertised pre-launch turned out to have to be paid for and I'm confident I would be far from alone in this. I can't recall off the top of my head if this was explicitly stated anywhere but Id certainly got the impression they would be free.
I do see where you're coming from re. your purchasing Points comment though.
@Ultrasonic_77 wrote:I would have personally been extremely annoyed if the additional courses advertised pre-launch turned out to have to be paid for and I'm confident I would be far from alone in this. I can't recall off the top of my head if this was explicitly stated anywhere but Id certainly got the impression they would be free.
I do see where you're coming from re. your purchasing Points comment though.
I can understand you, but I'm being hypothetical, ie - If they had announced that it would be paid for DLC and been open about it. Most games do this with extra content. I suppose what fundementally annoys me is that they are blatently trying to monetise the game whilst pretending to the community that they aren't, and in doing so the targets are beginners, casual players and children.
I feel that the people who should pay the most for the game are those that sink the most hours into it, and with the method of monetisation that EA are using for this the opposite will be true.
@jwgdavis wrote:
I can understand you, but I'm being hypothetical, ie - If they had announced that it would be paid for DLC and been open about it. Most games do this with extra content.
Do you have some particular examples in mind? I'm not used to this with full-price games myself.
Interesting point re. those who play most paying most. Personally I'm broadly happy with the model of entirely optional cosmetic items being what might be paid for with real money, since everyone of all ages then has the option to completely ignore these. I do though take your point that on-average younger players may be less inclined to do so.
@Ultrasonic_77 wrote:
@jwgdavis wrote:I can understand you, but I'm being hypothetical, ie - If they had announced that it would be paid for DLC and been open about it. Most games do this with extra content.
Do you have some particular examples in mind? I'm not used to this with full-price games myself.
Interesting point re. those who play most paying most. Personally I'm broadly happy with the model of entirely optional cosmetic items being what might be paid for with real money, since everyone of all ages then has the option to completely ignore these. I do though take your point that on-average younger players may be less inclined to do so.
Off the top of my head, Snowrunner has a DLC model, Sniper Elite V, The Hunter Call Of the Wild. There are a lot of games that I have played like this. I'm happy to pay for extra content but can understand if they've announced that it will be part of the initial purchase that it's not cool to suddenly foist it upon people. However I do feel fairly strongly that charging for gaming content is actually fairer than charging for cosmetic items or upgrades which is going to mainly appeal to kids.
Which leads to the fact that I also have a problem with tickets being purchased with real money as it's allowing tournament entry for cash ( which is for points - so it ends up being an indirect route to upgrades and all micro-transactions for cash). Upgrading a player in a game for cash is creeping very close to exploitation.
Anyway, I think we largely agree, and hopefully they do as you say and rotate the difficulties - This would actually generate the most positive scenario for kids and beginners as they could on one day win points and on another win tickets. It's been good to talk as I don't think I would have hashed through to this (the most positive outcome) without the conversation. I definitely have my fingers firmly crossed.
