Yeah, that is how a business usually runs.

Many businesses are created because the people who founded them are passionate about what they do and being able to make a living doing that is gravy. These people tend to run their businesses according to their own values and NOT according to the MBA Rules of Acquisition. If your only point is that "money has to be made for the business to continue to exist" then that's just a droll flippant and insultingly dismissive response that ignores what Daneel was obviously trying to communicate...

@Michael Joseph - I am not trying to be drool or flippant or dismissive. Business is money. Money is business. One can have all the passion in the world but with no money the passion is not going to help at all. So in a way it is largely about money. Passion fuels the process but money makes it possible. Even for the smallest and humble of Indie game devs.

@Michael,

I think the point that Alan is trying to make, and what I also believe to be true, is that it is EA's prerogative to do what they please with the products they own. EA is a massive company, who competes against other massive companies. More money means more resources to do bigger and better things and to pay bigger and better salaries to keep top talent. That is how a business runs, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with a company "doing it for the money". It's their right to do so. If you or anyone else doesn't like it, simply don't buy the product.

actually there is much more , or should be more, to being a company than just making money. It is astounding how many people buy into the flawed and ridiculous theory spewed by Milton Friedman.

Hey TC, you seem pretty passionate, would you mind doing some work for me? free of course. I wouldnt want you whoring yourself for money.

Money is like food. Fools live to eat, wise people eat to live. Companies need money to keep going, but if their only purpose is to make money they are toxic to society.

As a THQ employee said today, that company started going downhill when HQ became obsessed with money and not with fun.

Look up obliquity. If you want to make lots of money in general the best way is to cocentrate on something else.

I think what they mean is simply to reassure players that they won't miss out on any content if they choose not to pay... simply that paying will allow you to get more powerful items/guns more quickly, without having to earn/find them. In a way, paying is the lazy option. That said, they don't want to give payers access to [everything] from the start, or it might risk spoiling the gaming experience. Typically for Dead Space, the whole [survival-horror] aspect would all but disappear if you're almost invincible from the get-go...

There's no way that a developer ran by suits is going to implement truly optional microtransactions. The game is going to suffer because of this.

@Alan

Of course it's always a good idea to believe a company when they tell you, their potential customer, that they absolutely have your own best interests at heart and would never try to take advantage of you.

I mean, what kind of world would we live in if we actually questioned these companies' motives? Wouldn't want to be impolite or anything.

None of you have to pay for the ease of using the pay for resource collection feature. People are over reacting just a bit here. But that could just be me.

@Alan

Or it could be that EA is going to intentionally make in-game resources too difficult and time-consuming to collect for most players, thus giving them ample incentive to pay even more money for a single-player game that they have already dropped $60-plus dollars on. Do you seriously not believe this is a likely possibility?

@Kyle Redd - I guess we shall make that determination once the game is released.

Just vote with your dollar. Don't spend on micro-transactions (or, better yet, avoid the game entirely) if you disagree with their inclusion. Because at the end of the day, how much revenue the micro-transactions have brought in is the only metric the decision makers are looking at. Sadly, the most vocal complainers about micro-transactions are often the ones who spend the most money.

I guess we can see how they did the balancing when the game comes out.

"What's next, they're going to start selling ad space in their games."

http://www.engageadvertising.com/
http://www.reloadedadvertising.com/

That ship has sailed a while ago...

How is any of this relevant to this article? You can get the resources through game play if you want to.

It's relevant because the designer of the game designs how many of those resources can be acquired in the game. If the only way to get the resources is in the game, the game has to provide enough resources for the desired experience. If you also provide resources through microtransactions, you can design the game with access to fewer resources.

The thing is, this system isn't about getting upgrades faster, it's about getting more upgrades. Whereas a closed game like Dead Space 1 and 2 would provide enough upgrades to mostly upgrade most of your arsenal, a microtransaction-driven game like Dead Space 3 only has to provide enough upgrades to partly upgrade part of your arsenal. Just enough to make it seem fair, but only just enough; the bare minimum available for free to reinforce the value of buying more.

So, ultimately, it has severe consequences on the actual game play. Players playing without microtransactions will have a more limited game experience than they would if microtransactions weren't an option. Players playing with microtransactions will get more than they would if microtransactions weren't an option. The game becomes unbalanced; in theory, you'd have to buy just as much resources as would have been present if microtransactions weren't available to have the ideal experience.

Moreover, the very possibility of the interference of microtransactions tarnishes the expectations and experience of the game. Look at how many people criticize Diablo 3's loot drops and how you "need" to buy gear from the RMAH. Whether or not the design of Diablo 3's loot tables were negatively impacted in order to encourage use of the RMAH, players percieve that this is the case. Thus, even if EA claims Dead Space 3 still provides as many resources as it would without microtransactions, players will call foul and claim resources were reduced to drive players to the store.

@Simon Ludgate - I can see your point being relevant IF the game was balanced to favor the idea of buying the resources needed to craft the new weapons instead of collecting them in game. But I guess we will see how that works out.

Ramin, as previous crashes in the market have shown us, the approach to it is way longer then the crash, and it's effects. Remember the big crash in 1983? Same year that the NES came out :)

Lets just hope that when the crash comes, the big corporations will back off, and let the little man innovate and thrive again.

*deleted

@Jeremie

"For example, they could award some achievement for completing the game without spending extra cash on gameplay-affecting features (meaning players could still spend on cosmetic enhancements without penalty)."

I can say with absolute certainty that this achievement will never exist in any game, ever.

I would imagine micro-transactions are great for devs and pubs as they offer a way to make money off of used game sales. I would imagine that they would have little effect on price drops.

Um, Ali... you're missing a pretty massive difference in this case: The purchasable suits and weapons in Dead Space 1 (along with similar items in 100% of all the non-F2P single-player games released by every major publisher up until now) were *not* retrievable in-game at all, so the publisher had no motivation to alter the frequency or difficulty of in-game acquisition in a way that would allow them to make more money. With Dead Space 3, that motivation now exists.

Now considering that EA isn't exactly known for having a generous disposition towards its players, how do you expect they're going to apply this new money-making tool of theirs?

@Kyle:

That is a good point and it is definitely something that I would not condone at all. However, do you really think something like this would fly? If it truly is determined that EA/Visceral alters the difficulty/frequency of loot drops to coerce players into paying real cash, it would cause quite a stir, especially with the vocal users online. The closest game I can think of that could use a similar model would be Diablo 3, but since I haven't touched the RMAH and I haven't played it after about 2 weeks (never beat it to see how frustrating it is to earn new loot on higher difficulties), I don't really have actual experience of this happening before.

I'm a cynic at heart, but I don't think EA is stupid...misguided, for sure, in thinking these kind of tactics will generate more money but I don't think they're stupid enough to truly leave players with no choice but to never buy EA games again.

I could be eating humble pie a few weeks after the game releases, but as of right now, all of this is pure speculation.

@Ali

"If it truly is determined that EA/Visceral alters the difficulty/frequency of loot drops to coerce players into paying real cash, it would cause quite a stir"

But who makes the decision as to whether EA has actually done this or not? The game will come out with a particular balance in place, and it will then be up to reviewers' judgement as to whether or not that balance has been affected by EA's new scheme.

I very much doubt any of the major gaming sites will allow this aspect of DS3 to negatively affect the scores they give out. These are sites that receive tens of thousands of dollars in free games and hardware every year (obviously including Dead Space 3), from the very studios they are supposed to be casting a critical eye towards; they're not exactly in a position to be "fair and balanced." And certainly the editors at Gamasutra, whose very livelihood is dependent on these publishers doing well financially, aren't going to be very motivated either.

Hell, look at Game Informer (http://tinyurl.com/a8g8oho), one of the biggest gaming publications in existence. They didn't even pretend to report today's news with the slightest degree of impartiality; editor Jeff Cork dismissed all criticism of EA's move right in the headline.

@Kyle:

Agreed. I'm conflicted because I really like the Dead Space lore and want to play the new game, but I know a sale also tells EA/Visceral that their actions are totally valid and acceptable. It is definitely another move in a concerted effort by the publishers to nickle-and-dime customers. These are all baby steps and if the publishers don't get their hands smacked, they'll be standard operating procedure by the time the next consoles roll out...if not sooner. It is unfortunate, but I don't put any faith in most professional outlets for criticism of these kinds of moves that take a while to resonate (no disrespect to Gamasutra staff). To me, it makes more sense to get criticism from the paying customers (non-game industry professionals), since this group is directly affected by all these publisher actions.

Game Informer is owned by Gamestop and I stopped viewing them with any journalistic integrity once I learned about the purchase. If I want honest opinions, I watch RazorFist's YouTube videos :)

@Ali

I want to share your faith in the power of the consumers themselves in bringing wide attention to these sorts of exploitative actions by publishers. I guess right now I'm just assuming that even if there is a lot of backlash, it will inevitably be drowned out by the string of 9/10 review scores and all of the fanboys shouting them down.

But I hope you're right.

exactly, I play games in my free time to get away from this always going for my wallet society. I dont need to worry about scams and fine print in my games as well.

Indeed. Think how different Quake or Doom would have been, if it were possible to buy armor and ammo refills (with real money) or a rocket launcher for killing those large demons. The experience wouldn't be the same, and I think that is true of Dead Space 3 as well. Despite the shallow cover-up of "Additional Resources Required", this "feature" detaches the player from the world and makes him pay some more of the green to be able to kill those enemies in 2 hits instead of 3. It really could have been done better (besides the fact that you can get the materials without paying). Sure EA can do what they want with their game, but their reputation has been long ago soiled. I guess they know or don't care anymore? They've probably got bigger fish to fry anyways.

Of course it's going to be full price. Why would they sell it for less than other titles in the past? Money is such a powerful and corrosive force for EA that they are literally pandering for it amidst game-play.

The end goal of the games at EA (if this is truly the plan going forward) is to no longer treat games as an entertainment experience, but a beggar in your living room asking your for change every time you boot up a game. A few dollars here and there really ads up given good market saturation of a title.

If they pee on us all just a little bit we probably won't complain right? Well I for one don't appreciate the assumption that even a little disrespect is OK.