Manveer Heir speaks out against EA

This isn't going to cause a video game crash. That's a complete overreaction and borderline hyperbole. Could this be the beginning of a big shift in video games? Without a doubt. Does it mean the death of single-player games? Not really; it only means the death of single player games as we currently know them.

Frankly, video game budgets are only growing larger and larger, but the price of games has remained the same. This is a problem that needs to be addressed sooner or later. Could EA's plan be a potential solution? Maybe -- I don't know enough about the economics to say with any certainty or confidence -- but something needs to change and people would complain regardless of whatever form it took. Would people really be okay with upping the base price of all games up to $70? What about only raising the price of single-player games? That would likely allow them to continue making games without needing to include multiplayer or microtransactions to turn a profit.

Regardless, Manveer Heir isn't telling us anything that we didn't already know. It really came across as just adding fuel to the fire, instead of telling us anything new. Outrage isn't going to get us anywhere.

Opps, hopefully fixed it now.

Uff... que agradable sujeto.

Se puede ver a 4000 kms de distancia que las muertes son tanto de agentes del estado, como de los extremistas opositores. Tu propaganda estatal no llega a esta parte del mundo (dudo que salga de Venezuela), no he dicho que tu país es un arco iris tampoco. 

PD: anda a votar a la próxima.

I will take his word for what happened during development, he was there, he's a better source in this department than the posters here. But yeah, each to their own.

(dickrider) just tryin' to not be so rudE.

I'm sorry, Sofa :'( I just can't help with these guys. I will try.

The good news is that with the explosion of incredible game development software at ‘relatively’ affordable prices; Independent development teams and individuals will not have to bankrupt themselves creating the next huge SP hit.

Sure we’ll get a LOT of shovelwear, but that’s part and parcel of the growing pains of independent game development in this waning age of AAA developers.

Plus they won’t have to worry about their tyrannical corporate overlords deciding to liquidate their studios because they weren’t able to meet a designated quota.

The problem has already been addressed, people always talk about the rising cost of video games but nobody ever mentions the fact that video games have risen in popularity and more people are buying video games, that alone already offsets the rising costs but if you want to cut costs even more you could always get rid of the middle management bloat who do nothing but make bad decisions that will ultimately tank any studio they are in charge of, pretty sure the CEO does not deserve a $1.2mil bonus for destroying the reputation of studios and franchises.

Oh also as far as Ea being evil corp, they are doing nothing that many companies are doing today. It is all about short term profit, everything is geared towards that. A lot of things re sacriced to keep shareholders happy and bonuses rolling in for top execs.

Independent studios are perfectly capable of making their own bad decisions, of course.

You honestly believe these people are subsidizing your gaming experience? Or are they setting a precedent that actively makes your gaming experience worse only you are too naive to realize?

Like it or not microtransactions whether you buy them or not effect your gameplay experience as well, whether it is an increase in the grind and random chance elements that make getting the items you want more frustrating or a pay to win scenario where you are forced to drop cash on items in order to be competitive. Certain elements (or "most elements" in a lot of cases with games with microtransactions) in games with Microtransactions are designed to make microtransactions more tempting at the cost of player enjoyment, games are no longer designed to be fun but rather to frustrate you to the point that you are willing to fork out the cash to finally make some progress.

Take Mass Effect 3 multiplayer for example, any sense of progress and character improvement was tied directly to RNG, want a new weapon or character, gotta unlock it through a loot box, of course the best characters and weapons are much rarer so the odds of you actually unlocking the items you want or need aren't very good, but ok lets say you finally unlock the weapon you want, now you need to upgrade it because you only have the level 1 version, how do you upgrade it? By buying more lootboxes and hoping you get an upgrade. Now I don't know about you but this seems like a system that is deliberately designed to piss people off, you may say it does not matter because Mass Effect 3 was coop, of course that is forgetting that in order to perform well in higher level raids and get better rewards you kind of need the higher level loot or somebody with higher level loot to run you through it but ok, now they have implemented this system in Star Wars Battlefront 2 where you are playing against other players who will have better gear and star cards.

Of course now you say "but I'm sure the matchmaking system will prioritize setting players with comparable gear against each other right?"? Think again

www.rollingstone.com/glixel/news/how-activision-uses-matchmaking-tricks-to-sell-in-game-items-w509288

The only reason publishers get away with microtransactions is because people buy them and set a bad precedent for the rest of the industry, so yeah I gotta agree with Anarchy in that the people who buy the microtransactions are just as responsible for ruining the industry as the publishers themselves.

Then cut the middle management bloat and slice the salaries of the top executives, part of that increase in costs comes from the people at the top taking a bigger cut of the pie.