51 réponses à ce sujet

[PhantomFO]

I'm confused. Spectre packs are 60k credits on the PC. Did that not carry over to XBox?

If it did, then what's the big deal? Run five or six bronze matches or two silvers, get your Krogan, tear stuff up.

[joltmar]

OOPS >.> ignore this

Modifié par joltmar, 06 mars 2012 - 10:32 .

[TheLostGenius]

Its an option for people that don't have the time to get advanced in MP, but want the perks. Seems fair to me.

[Darubian]

Selandros wrote...
Keep in mind that Bioware spent a Hollywood blockbuster sized budget on this and yet the base game sells for the same retail price as a brand new NEs game in its era - $6p?  .

Firstly let me just say that i could care less if they have micro-transactions. I have spent 70 bucks on this game so far and im content with what i have. Ill play to unlock more, not pay to.

But as for that statement. I think it is pretty dumb. A pretty big budgeted movie just released today on DVD, and i have a feeling its DVD is selling somewhere in the ballpark for $20. I am willing to bet that biowares game is going to sell more copies than this movie will and you paid how much for those 2 shiny discs and DLC (lets face it, we all NEED (YES I SAID NEED (WHICH REALLY MEANS YOU NEED)) the Prothean), so to say its a silly argument.

Long story short, dont like it, dont buy it. Duh....

[Piarath]

Funny, I have all the extras imaginable for ME3 and my grand total came to $85.27 after taxes, nowhere near $800. I paid more (though not significantly more) for my SNES carts back in the day and got significantly less. I understand the fear of big business and naturally one should always have consumer wariness, but cries that you've been robbed or that BioWare- and to be fair, if pained- EA are milking you for every cent your worth in the most unfair fashion is just entirely wrong. It'd be a lie to say they're not trying to make money, but nothing they've yet done is beyond reason.

That many of these complaints spawned off the MP 'cash shop' as some sort of last straw is the most ridiculous part. Nothing you can get in the multiplayer store using real cash cannot be obtained freely. If someone chooses to spend their hard earned money from the time they've put into their job, instead of the time they've put into their game, that's entirely their decision. Do they make money on it? Absolutely. So what? A solid week or two of playing and I guarantee you'll have everything John or Jane Doe spent $100 to get too. What's the problem?

[Maj.Pain007]

Aynien wrote...

Really? All those dlc aren't enough and now we have microtransactions on the multiplayer?

No one is forcing you to use real money to buy. Some people don't want to grind out hours upon hours to get stuff. You people **** for the sake of ****ing.

[TrueIceD]

Habi33 wrote...

Just as long they don't pull some 'oohoohoh magic exclusive box buy today, ONLY WITH BIOWARE POINTS' crap I don't mind.

Already did. Battlefield 3 - only character ;]

[TrueIceD]

Maj.Pain007 wrote...

Aynien wrote...

Really? All those dlc aren't enough and now we have microtransactions on the multiplayer?

No one is forcing you to use real money to buy. Some people don't want to grind out hours upon hours to get stuff. You people **** for the sake of ****ing.

Exactly. So we want ot spend some time making in game gold and choose in in game shop what item we want to unlock. What's wrong with that?

[Brownfinger]

I have to admit, I was kind of taken aback when I first saw that you could spend Microsoft points to get stuff in multiplayer.

I was even more shocked to find that my hand, acting independently of my own wishes, was manipulating the controller to purchase a couple Spectre packs with the leftover points that I had. And then, I got the primary class I wanted, with the race that I wanted. And, all was forgiven.

It's not like people are paying to get a leg up in an unfair player versus player scenario, we're all on the same team. If the people in my group are rich and better equipped, I won't complain. I found it a bit odd at first, but really, it won't effect me substantially.

[Moose Invictus]

Darubian wrote...

Selandros wrote...
Keep in mind that Bioware spent a Hollywood blockbuster sized budget on this and yet the base game sells for the same retail price as a brand new NEs game in its era - $60?  .

Firstly let me just say that i could care less if they have micro-transactions. I have spent 70 bucks on this game so far and im content with what i have. Ill play to unlock more, not pay to.

But as for that statement. I think it is pretty dumb. A pretty big budgeted movie just released today on DVD, and i have a feeling its DVD is selling somewhere in the ballpark for $20. I am willing to bet that biowares game is going to sell more copies than this movie will and you paid how much for those 2 shiny discs and DLC (lets face it, we all NEED (YES I SAID NEED (WHICH REALLY MEANS YOU NEED)) the Prothean), so to say its a silly argument.

Long story short, dont like it, dont buy it. Duh....

I think you missed the point.  Game retailers make the same amount of money per copy sold as did Nintendo back in the late eighties, early nineties on games that required a fraction of the time, money, and manpower to finish.  The majority of their profits are game sales, which have not been adjusted for inflation in almost twenty five years (whereas things like movie ticket sales costs have risen). Considering that the cash shop is -entirely optional- (and the prothean is as well.  He's not as crucial as many people are assuming), you can still enjoy an overwhelming majority of the game by paying this same base price.  EA/Bioware still profits, but no more per unit than another company who sells a lesser quality game for the same price at any point in the last two decades.

As for movies, production companies mostly make bank on various factors - cinema theatre profits (they get the lion's share of profit for the first X amount of weeks; most theatres make their profit from later viewings and overpriced food items), DVD sales (they make equal to or better money in most cases with DVD sales.  Some movies - cult classics - can actually make up viewing losses here), and international viewings (typically, international sales well outnumber U.S./Canada sales and easily triple profit for the company).  And that's not touching money for interviews, product licensing (action figures, games, etc.), and so on.  

That is where your point fails, because video game companies don't benefit from the same kind of double exposure (cinema to home movie) and the international market isn't as big, especially for Western game companies (who tend to sell poorly in Japan, a large gaming market).  True, both are profitable industries as a whole, but if exceptionally well made games from top companies want to offer optional purchaseable content, I fully support that. After all, isn't patronage about rewarding well done services and perpetuating them by extension?  The alternative concept of entitlement seems grossly unappreciative and unrealistic.

[Alexraptor1]

wow..... this is bull****.
ME3 is not a F2P game and its not an MMORPG, its a bloody full priced singleplayer game with a multiplayer component.
And adding microtransactions like this is total bull****.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

wow..... this is bull****.
ME3 is not a F2P game and its not an MMORPG, its a bloody full priced singleplayer game with a multiplayer component.
And adding microtransactions like this is total bull****.

Except its optional.

Absolutely nothing forces you to buy it

[Machazareel]

Bioware allowing people to opt to spend their money on something that is basically an MTG booster pack is totally a slap in my face even though it's entirely optional, doesn't give you anything exclusive, and doesn't matter in the slightest since the multiplayer is co-op. SLAP IN THE FACE!

[Itkovian]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Alexraptor1 wrote...

wow..... this is bull****.
ME3 is not a F2P game and its not an MMORPG, its a bloody full priced singleplayer game with a multiplayer component.
And adding microtransactions like this is total bull****.

Except its optional.

Absolutely nothing forces you to buy it

Exactly... so what's the harm?

If the MP was PvP then I might see a problem (pay to win, and so forth)... but it's actually co-op, so I don't see the problem.  And ultimately if you play MP a lot you will get the same benefits, in time. And until then, it just means that there will be some players who are somewhat better equipped than you... who will therefore make it easier for YOU to win matches and therefore get the item packs for free.

So ultimately I don't see how such a negative reaction is reasonable.

Itkovian

[Alexraptor1]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Alexraptor1 wrote...

wow..... this is bull****.
ME3 is not a F2P game and its not an MMORPG, its a bloody full priced singleplayer game with a multiplayer component.
And adding microtransactions like this is total bull****.

Except its optional.

Absolutely nothing forces you to buy it

For now...
Its a very slippery slope, and ive seen far too many games slip and fall.
What starts out as "optional" purchases usually ends up going all the way to offering game altering items that can only be bought with real money.

[Cloaking_Thane]

It's been established they are random packs...

Look if they put all the best weapons exclusively in $ packs I'm with you, but as it stands now there is no problem at all with a company making money this way

[Itkovian]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Alexraptor1 wrote...

wow..... this is bull****.
ME3 is not a F2P game and its not an MMORPG, its a bloody full priced singleplayer game with a multiplayer component.
And adding microtransactions like this is total bull****.

Except its optional.

Absolutely nothing forces you to buy it

For now...
Its a very slippery slope, and ive seen far too many games slip and fall.
What starts out as "optional" purchases usually ends up going all the way to offering game altering items that can only be bought with real money.

There's always a middle ground that could be attained... to assume that it will lead to the worst possible conclusion is fallacious at best.

Especially since these kinds of device do remain bound by good old capitalism. They know perfectly well that adopting a pay-to-win will severely antagonize their fan base, and they do depend on the customers.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this kind of microtransaction is here to stay. It works, and it is successful (LOTRO, for example, became instantly successful when it switched to that model). So long as they don't go Pay to Win (which is not an issue since it's purely COOP, and the rewards are shared equally), there's nothing to worry about... and there's no reason to beleive they would cross that line.

Thank you.

Itkovian

[Alexraptor1]

LOTRO was a subscription based MMORPG, ME3 is not.
Your comparing apples to oranges.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

LOTRO was a subscription based MMORPG, ME3 is not.
Your comparing apples to oranges.

The situation remains that 60K credits or $2 gets you the same exact Random box.

So there is no problem

[Itkovian]

Alexraptor1 wrote...

LOTRO was a subscription based MMORPG, ME3 is not.
Your comparing apples to oranges.

I'm saying that they adopted the microtransaction model, and it worked.

Just because this is a boxed game that has no monthly subscription does not change the fact that the microtransaction model is successful. It is, and that's why they adopted it.

Likewise, your slippery slope argument is unfounded. The inclusion of the successful microtransaction model does not necessarily mean that the worst possible outcome will eventually occur. There is a happy middle that can be reached, and where that happy middle is situated is dictated by market forces.

I for one believe that this middle lies far from the dystopian vision of unavoidable pay-to-win. Indeed, the current state is a very good one: coop-only, rewards are entirely shared, AND the benefits gained through microtransaction can be attained through normal "free" gameplay. All these people paying for Spectre packs will simply make it easier for you to gain the credits to obtain the packs they had to pay to obtain. It's basically win-win.

But regardless, the reality remains that microtransactions are there to stay. They work, and thus far the customers lost (just like I'm sure LOTRO lost its fair share of customers when it adopted Free To Play) due to microtransaction are outweighed by the benefits gained.

Thank you.

Itkovian

[samurai crusade]

I don't have a problem. U want to spend ur money. Go right ahead. Otherwise play the game for credits. It's an option for the impatient and those that don't mind grinding

[Quietness]

I'm sorry all i see from the people complaining about it is.

"WAH I DON'T WANT TO GRIND!!! I BOUGHT THE GAME I SHOULD GET FREE STUFFS!!"

Don't want to spend real money on the boxes, than don't. I personally chose to as i had set aside for the "Uber Collectors Edition" that never came out. Credits however come fast so who cares if they have a cash shop, its not like you have to pay-to-win.

[Xerxes52]

Raxxman wrote...

as long as any additional map packs are included free so we don't split the gaming community I'm fine with pay for unlocks really.

100% agreed.

[xavim]

As long as maps are free then I am okay with money for packs.

[Kastrenzo]

My limit is spending a few bucks to get a better starting kit.

The recruit pack just didn't cut it for me, gave me things I have no use for.
I ended up getting a few things that I could make use for, granted it changed my playstyle completley. I was gunning for a Quarian Engineer to be a defensive support role...

Right now my main Character is a Bullet Magnet and Bullet spamming krogan soldier