60 réponses à ce sujet

[Syrus101]

the only extra cash EA is making out of me is from DLC packs.... im NOT about to spend money on another shot on a slot machine.....

gamble anyone?

[RichieGroinstab]

Kopikatsu wrote...

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.

You're misunderstanding the core argument, which is EA playing on temptation.

As a system it's as immoral and corrupt as gambling. I think this is the part you have difficulty with, the understanding that temptation is the driving factor of the entire concept of advertising.

Modifié par RichieGroinstab, 15 mars 2012 - 03:43 .

[Caeltih]

I rather like the system, it is like a scratch card and it has an edge of excitement when opening them.

I do wish there was a way to be more specific with what you get, I have the asari adept with all the customisable options but never use her and some people would kill for just the class, whilst I would kill for the black widow or some extra shotgun levels.

[HaesoME3]

Kopikatsu wrote...

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?

No, your point is meaningless. People spend money on it because it's horrible, you have no idea what goes into game design or how any of the pyschology behind this works. It's clear you don't work in this industry nor have you ever studied it. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ian game theory

You know nothing.

Look no further than basic gambling. It doesn't matter if I choose not to spend money on the microtransactions - they've already made the credit grind worse to facilitate others spending money. Their greed is making my experience worse.

Modifié par HaesoME3, 15 mars 2012 - 03:57 .

[RichieGroinstab]

This guy gets it.

HaesoME3 wrote...

Kopikatsu wrote...

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?

No, your point is meaningless. People spend money on it because it's horrible, you have no idea what goes into game design or how any of the pyschology behind this works. It's clear you don't work in this industry nor have you ever studied it. 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...ian game theory

You know nothing.

Look no further than basic gambling. It doesn't matter if I choose not to spend money on the microtransactions - they've already made the credit grind worse to facilitate others spending money. Their greed is making my experience worse.

[aimlessgun]

Anyone who thinks the MP unlock system is strange has obviously never played a trading card game.

Well, except the part where trading isn't allowed.

[Spaceguy5]

aimlessgun wrote...

Anyone who thinks the MP unlock system is strange has obviously never played a trading card game.

Well, except the part where trading isn't allowed.

A pay-to-play MMO I played implemented a trading card game where, on top of your $15-a-month, you could buy virtual card packs which have an extremely rare chance to unlock in-game items. Sometimes, you had to get 2-5 of the rare "loot cards" and combine them to unlock an item. It split the community apart |= And a lot of people hated it.

It's a terrible system.

[kintaro115]

As long as people are paying the publisher will try everything.
However I am also shocked by the recent trend. It seems to be just a question of time until you also have to pay for a single-player offline campaign or you have to pay that the Galaxy Readiness achieved in multiplayer will only contribute to the single player if daily fees are paid.

I hope I didn't gave someone a future business idea...

[Legendaryred]

I was a little ticked off when i saw that you could buy in game packs with bioware points. I belive they made it extremely hard to obtain rare weapons and N7 weapons so they could get more people to spend money on bioware points. Very few games that offer multiplayer do this type of "business practices" only ones i know of is games you play for free like combat arms and so on. Lets look at Battlefield 3, you paid your 30 or 60 dollars and you can experience MP, the weapons unlock system is not like ME3 system, you unlock weapons as you level up and unlock attachments are you meet a certain criteria.

Now lets look at Battlefield play 4 free. That one is just like ME3, you buy weapons with real money, albeit they only last a couple hours, the difference here is that they do that to keep the game FREE, which is cool because tha tmoney is used to keep server costs, but for a game you paid 60 dollars for (or some cases even 130) i don't see how this is justified. See where I'm going to?

[Zaxares]

Legendaryred wrote...
Now lets look at Battlefield play 4 free. That one is just like ME3, you buy weapons with real money, albeit they only last a couple hours, the difference here is that they do that to keep the game FREE, which is cool because tha tmoney is used to keep server costs, but for a game you paid 60 dollars for (or some cases even 130) i don't see how this is justified. See where I'm going to?

A good point, but eventually interest in buying new copies of ME3 will peter out, but I imagine (depending on the longevity of interest among people who play multiplayer), server running costs could keep on going for a long while yet. The initial price of ME3 almost certainly went towards paying off all of the initial development costs for the game itself. In order for EA to continue maintaining the servers for ME3 once a year or two passes, they're going to need additional sources of revenue.

Don't get me wrong; I've always been against the concept of paying money to leapfrog in-game hurdles (I even dropped Diablo III from my game list over it), but I can see why it was done. At least with ME3 multiplayer, there's really not all that much difference between people with basic gear and people with top-end gear. If you have a good team, you're guaranteed success even if you don't all have top-tier equipment and weapons. Beyond a certain point, all the fancy weapons are really just for show.

[Hyunsai]

The only thing that baffles me is how people can spend dollars for packs that are totally random, especially when there is no trade in this game.

Modifié par Hyunsai, 15 mars 2012 - 08:44 .