60 réponses à ce sujet

[Kopikatsu]

I would like to point out that the SOLE purpose of a company is to make money. A company cannot be considered 'greedy' for fulfilling it's purpose. If you pay for whatever they're selling, then congrats. They were successful. If you don't buy whatever they're selling, then they failed. If you don't like something, don't contribute to it. What's the point in whining about it?

[nssBoB]

its quite simple if they kept the single player system the credit prices would have to be so ridicously high (i am talking bilions of credits) so everyone dont have everything they want on day 1 that you would come here complaining about the exactly same thing anyway. current system is fine could just use some tweaks in the RNG calculations.

[Sabbatine]

  

Spectre-00N7 wrote...

I thought they would have allow players to use real money to buy specific items, not random packs. That would "force" people who are having bad luck with packs to buy the item they wanted. The only reason you would buy a random pack is if you would save money by not taking the time to get the pack, or if you are filthy rich... which I'm not.

It doesn't force people to do anything.  It would give players the option to purchase something if they so chose to do so. 

golyoscsapagy wrote...

Yes, how dare they. They even hired goons so they stand over me every time I play and they point a gun at my head to purchase packages... oh wait. And shops? How dare they charge me EVERY time I buy something, I paid to them once, isn't it enough? And other people, don't get me started on them, they DARE to purchase stuff when I don't. How uncool is that?

OMG they sent goons to your house too?!

RichieGroinstab wrote...

I'm worried this becomes a successful business model for future gaming. If so it could potentionally ruin gaming as we know it.

Could you please explain how giving players the option to buy packs of completely random items would change your gameplay experience?  Or did they send goons to your house too?

[Spaceguy5]

Brownfinger wrote...

Welcome to basic principles of business.

Well, not all businesses are full of greedy bastards. Some get more customers by actually giving their customers what they want, and treating them like human beings instead of cash cows.

[HaesoME3]

wirelesstkd wrote...

First of all, a business making a profit does not equal greed. That's how our system works. Profit is not a dirty word. Secondly, I think the random system is a lock more about making multiplayer addicting (thus extending its shelf life) than it is about making money. Frankly, they'd probably make more if they sold actual items. People would probably spend less money, but I think more people would spend.

They would have turned a profit without charging for packs and making farming credits traditionally inarguably slow. It takes an average team 30~ minutes to clear gold, but lets go ahead and say you can do it in 20. 150k an hour give or take. That's 2.5 spectre packs an hour for the best players. It will take several thousand spectre packs to have every weapon at X, and 500+ to have every consumable at 10. The reason? Character card percentage and the fact that character cards are the fallback, when you have every silver/gold weapon at X, and the RNG decides "Gold Weapon" it defaults to "Gold Character" Not up to "N7 Weapon"


If the rate at which you could earn credits was proportional to the cost of spectre packs, or there was a way to buy the things you actually want rather than playing the lottery, which is designed to make people spend more money, I wouldn't have an issue here.

But the fact of the matter is they're trying to milk the game for all they're worth - they'll sell 4+ milion copies and earn around 40-50 each depending on retailers, lets say 50 for the sake of the argument. That is to say, they'll make 200 million dollars give or take. They spent nowhere near that. They don't need to milk us for cash with bioware points to turn a solid profit, but here they are, trying to push people into spending more money by making the only in game way to farm credits grossly inefficient.

Kopikatsu wrote...

I would like to point out that the SOLE
purpose of a company is to make money. A company cannot be considered
'greedy' for fulfilling it's purpose. If you pay for whatever they're
selling, then congrats. They were successful. If you don't buy whatever
they're selling, then they failed. If you don't like something, don't
contribute to it. What's the point in whining about it?

The only reason "Greed is good" is acceptable, is because of sheep like you. They turned a massive profit on pre-orders alone - they didn't need to make credit farming painfully slow in an attempt to push people into buying bioware points in order to make a return on investment. I wouldn't mind the option to buy spectre packs for cash if we could buy the things we actually want with credits instead of being forced to play a lottery that as I explained above will take hundreds of hours to ensure we actually get what we want. If people stopped accepting businesses that treat their customers like as someone else put it "Cash Cows", we'd get more businesses who treat us like people.

Modifié par HaesoME3, 15 mars 2012 - 02:30 .

[Xtreme-Tiramisu]

Well at least I'm VERY THANKFUL for that we could buy packs/equipment with in-game currency and not with our credit card. At least gamers who worked hard in game can still obtain everything using in-game credits only without spending real life money. Unlike some other MMORPG, the concept of micro-transaction in game is similar but the implementation here in ME3 is different. You don't need to spend real life money on something like a special appearance for $$ or this weapon or armor for $$. There are and will be DLCs for sure but nothing game breaking or causing unbalance issue for players to be concern of

[RichieGroinstab]

I dont think the problem is the micro-transaction model but the lottery based on micro-transactions.
It's essentially gambling money for a non-monetary reward, now as I recall you're required to show transparency in the odds of return for such a system, unless it transcends to something completely different.

I believe thats where a lot of the problem lies, governments can't pass legislation based on concepts that they don't yet fully understand. In essence it's a licence to print money, any system that features micro-transactions like that. Normally an item you purchase should be prices based on the worth of that item. This is where the watchdogs will have trouble as how can you possibly put guidelines on digital items in a £40 computer game?

I know i'm not the only one that feel this way but if this is the direction that gaming is to take and the next gen consoles are flooded with games you have to spend real world cash in to remain competitive, the industry will collapse as customer's interest wanes. People play games for escapism and people will lose interest when the playing field becomes unbalanced.

It's a business model that has a limited lifespan.

[canadianvandal]

golyoscsapagy wrote...

canadianvandal wrote...
But why would they make up a whole new "random" system for multiplayer? Why not keep the same system they originally designed in single player? Your can't spend MS points in single player, but you can in multiplayer. Mo' money Mo' Problems.

Because otherwise a lot of people would grind out Carnifex X (substitute your favourite gun) and after 3 more matches when they can't set a higher aim for themselves would move on leaving the MP empty.

Because you don't get 4 asari adepts/quarian infiltrators running around with paladin Xs each and every match.

Because if you pull a Claymore VI because of random you suddenly try it out and make a krogan soldier which you wouldn't do otherwise.

Because if you don't have a krogan soldier for said claymore you use it on some other class and make it work.

So I guess more playtime, added variety, irregular (and fun) combinations of classes and weapons. All benefit a MP game.

RichieGroinstab wrote...

I'm worried this becomes a
successful business model for future gaming. If so it could
potentionally ruin gaming as we know it.

As we know it? You mean old-school games had a subscription fee. Games based on microtransactions are usually free. So, I'm not really the person who buys anything in a microtransaction model so in my end all I see a lot of games will be free for which I would have to pay otherwise. Terrible.

Remember the good old days with Mario on Nintendo? They never charged me for a mushroom.

The world has become so complicated, i just want to play.

Modifié par canadianvandal, 15 mars 2012 - 02:51 .

[Kopikatsu]

Kopikatsu wrote...

I would like to point out that the SOLE
purpose of a company is to make money. A company cannot be considered
'greedy' for fulfilling it's purpose. If you pay for whatever they're
selling, then congrats. They were successful. If you don't buy whatever
they're selling, then they failed. If you don't like something, don't
contribute to it. What's the point in whining about it?

The only reason "Greed is good" is acceptable, is because of sheep like you. They turned a massive profit on pre-orders alone - they didn't need to make credit farming painfully slow in an attempt to push people into buying bioware points in order to make a return on investment. I wouldn't mind the option to buy spectre packs for cash if we could buy the things we actually want with credits instead of being forced to play a lottery that as I explained above will take hundreds of hours to ensure we actually get what we want. If people stopped accepting businesses that treat their customers like as someone else put it "Cash Cows", we'd get more businesses who treat us like people.

http://imgs.xkcd.com...ics/sheeple.png Stay classy.

Anyway, my point still stands. If this system is really so horrible, then nobody would spend money on it. If nobody spent money on it, then they'd be forced to rethink the system since, again, the only purpose of a company is to make money. If they aren't making money, then they change policy/tactics/whathaveyou.

So again, if such practices were really unacceptable, then EA/Bioware would either go out of business or change. But they're doing better than ever without any change. See how that works?

Modifié par Kopikatsu, 15 mars 2012 - 02:52 .

[RichieGroinstab]

Remember the good old days with Mario on Nintendo? They never charged me for a mushroom.

Theres a Sig if ever i've seen one.

[canadianvandal]

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Remember the good old days with Mario on Nintendo? They never charged me for a mushroom.

Theres a Sig if ever i've seen one.

EA choose the Renegade option.

[RichieGroinstab]

Kopikatsu wrote...

If this system is really so horrible, then nobody would spend money on it.

Eh... you didnt really think that one through, did you?

[Kopikatsu]

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

If this system is really so horrible, then nobody would spend money on it.

Eh... you didnt really think that one through, did you?

What do you mean? If such a system was really unconscionable, then nobody would buy into it. If people do buy into it, then that means that whatever is being sold was more attractive than going without due to X practice.

If people buy Spectre/Vet packs, then they're saying that they want new weapons/characters more than they want the system changed.

[A Wild Snorlax]

Pretty lame that its practically impossible to unlock the top gear in a game I've allready spent 80$ on, the current system just reeks of exploiting the customers.

[RichieGroinstab]

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

[canadianvandal]

A Wild Snorlax wrote...

Pretty lame that its practically impossible to unlock the top gear in a game I've allready spent 80$ on, the current system just reeks of exploiting the customers.

EA is laughing all the way to the bank. They have probably made more money on the packs than game sales. 

Modifié par canadianvandal, 15 mars 2012 - 03:04 .

[Kopikatsu]

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

No; it isn't a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it. By spending money to feed his gambling addiction, he's placing more value on a potential payout than on actual, physical money. If anyone is greedy in this scenario, it's him. Throwing ridiculous amounts of money away in the off chance that it ends up paying off in the end.

Modifié par Kopikatsu, 15 mars 2012 - 03:05 .

[The Ocean Man]

kojomon wrote...

Do they charge you for every MP match you participate in or something?

Yes it is called the online pass.

[canadianvandal]

Kopikatsu wrote...

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

No; it isn't a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it. By spending money to feed his gambling addiction, he's placing more value on a potential payout than on actual, physical money. If anyone is greedy in this scenario, it's him. Throwing ridiculous amounts of money away in the off chance that it ends up paying off in the end.

So your saying a drug dealer selling an addict is not greedy?

[Kopikatsu]

canadianvandal wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

No; it isn't a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it. By spending money to feed his gambling addiction, he's placing more value on a potential payout than on actual, physical money. If anyone is greedy in this scenario, it's him. Throwing ridiculous amounts of money away in the off chance that it ends up paying off in the end.

So your saying a drug dealer selling an addict is not greedy?

It's not really the same, since an addict isn't expecting money. But if I had to choose one of the two, the addict is worse than the dealer. The dealer only sells because s/he can make money doing it. The addict enables them.

This can apply to the EA/Bioware situation as well. Buying packs enables them and will cause this behavior to continue and/or worsen. If you disagree with it, then don't buy packs.

Modifié par Kopikatsu, 15 mars 2012 - 03:11 .

[canadianvandal]

Kopikatsu wrote...

canadianvandal wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

No; it isn't a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it. By spending money to feed his gambling addiction, he's placing more value on a potential payout than on actual, physical money. If anyone is greedy in this scenario, it's him. Throwing ridiculous amounts of money away in the off chance that it ends up paying off in the end.

So your saying a drug dealer selling an addict is not greedy?

It's not really the same, since an addict isn't expecting money. But if I had to choose one of the two, the addict is worse than the dealer. The dealer only sells because s/he can make money doing it. The addict enables them.

This can apply to the EA/Bioware situation as well. Buying packs enables them and will cause this behavior to continue. If you disagree with it, then don't buy packs.

Your right. But shouldn't our intial 60$ fulfill our fix? Or are we just being strung out for more? 

We just want the best. The system purposely targets addictive personalitys with extra chash.

Mass Effect Citadel Stores Would Never Do This.

Modifié par canadianvandal, 15 mars 2012 - 03:16 .

[Kopikatsu]

canadianvandal wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

canadianvandal wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Sorry to double post but to elaborate;

A few years back I was working for a company and one of the Managers at the time 'borrowed' around £40k from the safe to feed his gambling habit.

But thats all good right? It can't be a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it, right?

No; it isn't a horrible system if he's willing to spend money on it. By spending money to feed his gambling addiction, he's placing more value on a potential payout than on actual, physical money. If anyone is greedy in this scenario, it's him. Throwing ridiculous amounts of money away in the off chance that it ends up paying off in the end.

So your saying a drug dealer selling an addict is not greedy?

It's not really the same, since an addict isn't expecting money. But if I had to choose one of the two, the addict is worse than the dealer. The dealer only sells because s/he can make money doing it. The addict enables them.

This can apply to the EA/Bioware situation as well. Buying packs enables them and will cause this behavior to continue. If you disagree with it, then don't buy packs.

Your right. But shouldn't our intial 60$ fulfill our fix? Or are we just being strung out for more? 

We just want the best.

You can still get everything without paying an additional cent. However, like I said, if nobody (or very few) people actually bought the packs, then they'd have to rethink their marketing strategy. If everyone buys it and just says 'Well, it won't matter if I do it because everyone else will' then it causes a paradox where everyone is buying it because they think that everyone else will buy it...

Like voting! It's like voting.

[RichieGroinstab]

Do you understand the concept of temptation?

[Kopikatsu]

RichieGroinstab wrote...

Do you understand the concept of temptation?

That's what I've been saying this entire time...

If the potential payout (Getting new weapons/characters faster) is more appealing than keeping your money, then it's a good system. If people refuse to pay, then they'll be forced to change the system.

You aren't forced to buy anything. If people have weak wills, then so be it; the situation will worsen considerably until people learn to overcome tempation. Don't blame companies; blame the people who enable them. It is the job of a company to make the most money possible...it is not the job of the consumer to fork over money for a product that they are not satisfied with.

Anywho, I have work early tomorrow, so I have to sign off for now. Goodnight, all you happy people.

Modifié par Kopikatsu, 15 mars 2012 - 03:27 .

[Mystical_Gaming]

Kastrenzo wrote...

When I saw the title of this I thought it was going to be about how experienced players run around whoring all the kills from level 1 Newbies.

But anyway, what you've said is pretty much how a lot of people feel dude.

I thought this too lol