212 réponses à ce sujet

[Well]

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

[Zubi Fett]

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

[Woffen5]

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

[Zubi Fett]

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment.

[Well]

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

No frelling way.It is not your money.What part of that do people not understand.You think you have some right to control others?To harass them?Who made you dictator for life?I have another suggestion for those that for some reason think they have a inherent right to control others but I don't think the mods would like it.

[Zubi Fett]

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment. What use to be free will likely become for payment.

EDIT:

@Well

Lets put a much more "extreme" example.

Lets say i use my money to buy a tank i plan to use to run over your house...who are to say what i do with my tank.

Even if when you buy one of thoose packs are not trying to hurt me you doing it indirectly. I didnt say i "control" you, but if what you DO it affect me, i do have the right to do something about it, and since that something is not trying to hurt you or do anything unright, its okey.

Modifié par Zubi Fett, 01 avril 2012 - 11:51 .

[Woffen5]

Zubi Fett wrote...

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment. What use to be free will likely become for payment.

Did you even read the second thing I wrote?

[Zubi Fett]

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment. What use to be free will likely become for payment.

Did you even read the second thing I wrote?

Yeas.

[Woffen5]

Zubi Fett wrote...

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment. What use to be free will likely become for payment.

Did you even read the second thing I wrote?

Yeas.

Then you see why they will most likely not remove the option to buy packs for credits. I understood you the first time.

[wolfstanus]

A lot of you seem to forget. I know add is bad these days.

It's a choice it's an option. You can pay credits that you earn as a by product of playing. Or spend real money. They ate not forcing you to buy them. They don't offer better deals or chances. It's a option. If you complain about it then you are dumb because read that it's random in the description of the item and chose to ignore what it said.

[Zubi Fett]

I know they won't, but i didn't say they will.

My point was that buying them will likely make the company think like this:

If they pay for that, they will pay for anything "above his value".

And those thing "above his value" that may was going to be for free or always been for free become for payment.

Sorry i did not quote the post, but it was going to be too long.

Modifié par Zubi Fett, 01 avril 2012 - 11:59 .

[Legato 0021]

I think you forget a hard point here.
Epic games wanted to make Gears of War DLC free.... Mircosoft has final say over ANY and ALL DLC put onto their marketplace.
Mircosoft puts a price on the DLCs and the only time free DLC comes out its either to celeberate something or to make up for a huge PR ****storm.

This whole post was centered on the whole idea of DLC being 'free' if people spend money on those packs.

[Arkley]

Legato 0021 wrote...

I think you forget a hard point here.
Epic games wanted to make Gears of War DLC free.... Mircosoft has final say over ANY and ALL DLC put onto their marketplace.
Mircosoft puts a price on the DLCs and the only time free DLC comes out its either to celeberate something or to make up for a huge PR ****storm.

This whole post was centered on the whole idea of DLC being 'free' if people spend money on those packs.

No. The entire post was centred on the idea of free DLC being made possible, supported by the microtransaction model, which doesn't segregate the playerbase upon release, extending the life of the game for everyone and keeping people purchasing those packs for longer, therefor making greater profit for EA/Bioware in the long run.

And this is why Microsoft's ability to demand that DLC on XBL be paid content isn't a huge issue;

Microsoft does that because they make a lot of money from the purchase of MSP and the use of MSP.

You know that microtransaction model I just explained? About how keeping large numbers of players playing longer with free content, and implementing optional convenience purchases, is proving to be a greater source of profit than the old model in every other microtransaction game?

Those microtransactions use MSP.

[Sublyminal]

Atheosis wrote...

Sorry, but they deserve to be mocked. They might as well just burn their money.

For those of us with money, why the **** should you care? Now I'm not one to brag about how much money I have but if I want to spend my goddamn money on points, I can do whatever the **** I want. It's ****es like you that make others not want to play this game. In short, get a job or curse your parents for not having the sense to teach you how to manage money. 


/rant

Modifié par Sublyminal, 02 avril 2012 - 12:15 .

[Genesis Notch]

I spend my petty cash on this game, because I do not have time to play all day just to get credits. I have priorities too, but still want to enjoy the game like others. So how to catch up? Spend these cash.

I mean, seriously, some people do earn much more money than what they spent. While typing this post, and browsing the forum, I still earn money myself. As long as it is responsibly done, I do not see why other should care too much. Thanks, but no thanks.

[Kuraiken]

Arkley wrote...
You should read the rest of the thread and my posts beyond the first, they address and offer counterpoints to your assertions, including your fallacious assumptions about profit and the acquisition thereof, your missunderstanding of the appropriation of funds to DLC and the reasons behind this, and the comparisons to other games using the same, profitable system, and why the comparison is accurate and relevant.

I did just now, and found nothing that provides a further valid argument.
You speak of Free-to-Play games, but that works entirely different.
DLCs don't consist of enhancing items, or optional abilities, things that may provide an advantage or easier access to something. DLCs are entirely different, they offer game modes and new content for the entire base engaged in multiplayer.
Should a player in free-to-play not chose to buy something, the gaming experience itself does not lack for it. You lose an advantage, an edge, and maybe a bit of an easier life, because, for example, you have less inventory space.

If you create content DLC, that ensure that there are new gamemodes and maps, that naturally will be used by many players. So if your friends decide to play on those maps - you won't be able to, unless you buy the DLC. If you get sick of the old content, you won't get any new one - because you'd have to buy the DLC. If you're unhappy with longer waitingtime and less players in general playing old game-types, it's because you don't have the DLC.

What's the main reason morons pay 15 euro for a few new maps in CoD? Because they have to, if they want to be able to play with their friends, because friends who bought them in the search of freshness will persuade other players to buy that content. DLC content in multiplayer is much less optional, because it integrates itself into the entirety of the game system and the multiplayer community, and not having it will result in a lack of ability to participate in the community. Content DLCs in multiplayer-communties that profit from persuasion from friends and a lack of variation without them are much less "optional" then one would think, and as a result, visible in CoD and Battlefield 3, are bought even at high prices because of this system.

So why should EA through Bioware offer free Multiplayer content because of profit they get from earnings by people who use the buy-function, when they can have both? It makes no sense for them to offer content for free, when one of the groups that they are so interested in (CoD players and their willingsness to pay for low-reward high-price content) would buy it anyway? Mark my words, aside from perhaps an initital free-MP DLC to make things tasty, there will *never* be any free DLC, not even if you were to spend a billion of euro for spectre packs. Because if they can make more profit, why shouldn't they?

Barneyk wrote...
That is an extreme exegeration.
The greed of EA and putting money so far and above quality is just ridicilous.
But your argument is really lacking.

If you claim that we get fack all if we give them money,
What do you argue that we get if we dont give them our money?
Highter quality and more content?

I don't see that side of your argument.
What do you claim one accomplishes by not paying for this kind of stuff?

Is it? Bless you and your sheltered naivety. I wish I had retained mine.

You call it greed, a company would call it effectivness, or productivness. What matters for the shareholders are numbers. Profit numbers. How much profit does something bring, how much can you improve the profit by investing in it?
EA is a publisher, everything is about profit. They invest in Bioware, pay for expenses and give the budget, and in return, have certain expectations.
So Bioware might say: Hey we'd like to do this and that and have a studio make awesome cinematics for it.
EA would reply: But the situation is not one of the most crucial of the product, and the decline in quality that you have if you instead use less expensive means is far more cost-efficient. Sure, doing it ingame my be more limited, but get it done anyway.
It's all about finding the balance between cost and quality. And as long as reducing the quality does not affect the income, there is no problem. Quality is only important for profit-driven companies if the quality would ensure better sales. But if there is a cost-efficient way to provide similar or close quality, (at least in the eyes of the publisher) that road will surely be taken.

How else do you think companies work? Happyness for everyone, and colored rainbows and unicorns? It's all about profit, what else? It's called captialism for a reason. And if you'd bother to read up on PMC's in Iraq, hey, you might see how far this profit-driven atttitude drives people in their pursuit of bling bling.

Why else do you think support often ceases after a certain time, games are hastily finished, and sometimes seem to lack more refined usage of the medium? It's not because the developer is too stupid to realize that doing it differently would make it better, but the simply fact that there is no money to use better means. That's why things get cut, half-finished games published and then patched like patchwork, and so on.

Modifié par Kuraiken, 02 avril 2012 - 12:51 .

[niko20]

I'm playing the game for entertainment, not to make a social / moral statement. If I want to buy credits to enjoy myself more, why not? It's my money I can do what I want with it. I think maybe just some people that don't have the money just get jealous because they feel like it's the easy way to get equipment or it's not fair or something.

I completely understand the feeling that a company is capitalizing on people the will pay for this stuff, but that's business, if I agree to the terms, that's my ability as a consumer. I'm not an idiot, I'm not spending thousands of dollars or letting my family go hungry. I am simply paying for more entertainment.

And it's not "the same" as gambling either. When you gamble you give up money and get nothing back if you don't win. In points you still get something, even if it's not what you wanted.

-niko

[Arkley]

Kuraiken wrote...
I did just now, and found nothing that provides a further valid argument.

Alright, then let's see what you have.

You speak of Free-to-Play games, but that works entirely different.
DLCs don't consist of enhancing items, or optional abilities, things that may provide an advantage or easier access to something. DLCs are entirely different, they offer game modes and new content for the entire base engaged in multiplayer.
Should a player in free-to-play not chose to buy something, the gaming experience itself does not lack for it. You lose an advantage, an edge, and maybe a bit of an easier life, because, for example, you have less inventory space.

If you create content DLC, that ensure that there are new gamemodes and maps, that naturally will be used by many players. So if your friends decide to play on those maps - you won't be able to, unless you buy the DLC. If you get sick of the old content, you won't get any new one - because you'd have to buy the DLC. If you're unhappy with longer waitingtime and less players in general playing old game-types, it's because you don't have the DLC.

Oh, so you didn't, then. I'm tired of these circular arguments. Let's get this over with.

The comparison between microtransaction supported games and ME3's multiplayer is not that future DLC will resemble microtransactions, as you seem to imply with the fire paragraph of the quote above.

The comparison lies in the fact that they are both free to play as much as you like (ME3's MP requiring an initial purchase, of course) and can/will be expanded upon with future content. F2P games create this content/DLC/expansions and then release it to all players for free, because the game draws profit from convenience-based microtransactions rather than paid additional content releases. This keeps the game fresh and new for everyone, as the playerbase isn't segregated, and thus keeps players playing, and in turn, keeps them paying for the conveniences via microtransactions.

In ME3's case, the expansions/new content are future MP DLC. It's the option to purchase packs that is the (already existing) microtransaction.

You point out that the incentive to purchase map packs and the like is to play with friends who've already done so, but it's fallacious assumption. Players who would and will not purchase that DLC will not be persuaded to do so by the sudden absence of players on the old maps; they'll simply tire of the existing maps and stop playing, shrinking the existing playerbase. This, of course, means less and less people buying those packs.

This is why existing games based on microtransactions release additional content for free.

What's the main reason morons pay 15 euro for a few new maps in CoD? Because they have to, if they want to be able to play with their friends, because friends who bought them in the search of freshness will persuade other players to buy that content. DLC content in multiplayer is much less optional, because it integrates itself into the entirety of the game system and the multiplayer community, and not having it will result in a lack of ability to participate in the community. Content DLCs in multiplayer-communties that profit from persuasion from friends and a lack of variation without them are much less "optional" then one would think, and as a result, visible in CoD and Battlefield 3, are bought even at high prices because of this system.

Again, it's clear you either didn't read my posts or simply ignored the bits you didn't like, because this is answered too. CoD map packs are not an accurate comparison. CoD does not have a microtransaction system, and thus cannot be supported by one. You're trying to argue that the presence of a microtransaction system in ME3 doesn't mean Bioware might not charge for MP DLC. Why would you attempt to prove this by comparing ME3 MP to a game without microtransactions?

Don't bother to answer, I already know why; it's because games that DO support microtransactions DON'T charge for new content. Which kind of puts a bit of a dent in your argument.

So why should EA through Bioware offer free Multiplayer content because of profit they get from earnings by people who use the buy-function, when they can have both? It makes no sense for them to offer content for free, when one of the groups that they are so interested in (CoD players and their willingsness to pay for low-reward high-price content) would buy it anyway? Mark my words, aside from perhaps an initital free-MP DLC to make things tasty, there will *never* be any free DLC, not even if you were to spend a billion of euro for spectre packs. Because if they can make more profit, why shouldn't they?

Once again, I already explained this to the LAST two people who asked the question. Your entire argument here hinges on charging for both content and microtransactions being the most profitable option, and questioning why they wouldn't take the most profitable action.

And, like I did for the others who asked, I'll explain again; because charging for both doesn't necessarily make for the most profitable option. Long term viability of a multiplayer game with microtransactions hinges on keeping a large playerbase who keep paying and playing, without segregating them, which shortens the lifespan of the game and viability of the microtransaction model. I'll explain again; this is why other games with microtransactions don't charge for new content.

Modifié par Arkley, 02 avril 2012 - 01:31 .

[Well]

Zubi Fett wrote...

Woffen5 wrote...

Zubi Fett wrote...

Well wrote...

I use credits myself but what others do with their money is their business.No one else earned it.

lets say you get free food on your home from your governament...then i convence a tone of people to pay for that food instead having it for free.

The governament see the business on it and make it for payment, well then it become your business.

Except food is real and the stuff ingame is virtual. You need to eat or you'll starve. You dont need the ingame stuff. You want it, but you dont need it.

I very much doubt they would take away the possibility of using credits for packs. If they did, they would find that nobody would play MP anymore.

Man it was an example, can be food can be free music.

What i mean, show them you willing to pay for anything, and everythign will be for payment. What use to be free will likely become for payment.

EDIT:

@Well

Lets put a much more "extreme" example.

Lets say i use my money to buy a tank i plan to use to run over your house...who are to say what i do with my tank.

Even if when you buy one of thoose packs are not trying to hurt me you doing it indirectly. I didnt say i "control" you, but if what you DO it affect me, i do have the right to do something about it, and since that something is not trying to hurt you or do anything unright, its okey.

lol good luck with that.If you had a couple of million to buy a tank you would be buying gear for the game so your butler could play it for you.Your talking about virtual items that are no different than you can get with credits.Just a note:Since I was on tanks in the Army.You might want to look at Sheridans..much cheaper than M1 series or 60s series.Also if you throw a track your on your own.

[LoboFH]

Mocking?, they deserve tar & feather. BioWare has learnt people will pay for all kind of stupid stuff, we will regret it in the future, mark my words.

[Detroitsoldier]

I'll go ahead and sum up the general consensus of ideas against BW points for packs:

If you pay for a pack with real money, you are telling BioWare that you are willing to pay more for an in-game advantage or shortcut. To them, this means that they can implement more of these, charge more, and provide less, all the while raking in more money.

You're not encouraging BW to release free DLC or more "content-rich" expansions. You're encouraging them to release less and charge more, just like Activision has done with Call of Duty.

[GodlessPaladin]

I'm sorry, but there is no way that I can view people who spend real money on skinner box style operant conditioning schemes with anything other than a sort of incredulous shame on behalf of all gamers.

As to the argument of developers providing more content if players buy into skinner box game design setups... this is simply not true.  The entire PURPOSE of skinner box game design is to inflate profits and game time investment with LESS content.  The entire philosophy of skinner box game design stems from that goal:  More player investment for less content.

The more people buy into skinner box game design, the more skinner box game design will be used as a substitute for stronger content.  This is a trend that has been going on for quite a few years now, since Skinner's theories about operant conditioning were first popularized amongst game designers.

In short, I feel that the OP's statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the game design philosophy he is dealing with.

Here is a decent layman's explanation:  http://penny-arcade....the-skinner-box
And another:  http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 02 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[RunaKun]

Love it or hate it, it is a person's choice.

It's just a waste of breath to insult someone for what they choose to do.

[GodlessPaladin]

RunaKun wrote...

Love it or hate it, it is a person's choice.

It's just a waste of breath to insult someone for what they choose to do.

Actually, the game design structure being used here is designed to cause *operant conditioning* and actually addict people via abuse of the psychology surrounding reward schedules.  One could say that your argument is like wasting your breath for being concerned about an alcoholic's self-destructive habits.  Also, like with alcoholism, the bad habit of the addicts is directly harmful to the interests of others... for example, the more the suckers buy into skinner box game design, the more it will replace better (but harder to do) avenues of game design.  This trend has already begun and has been going on (with gradually increasing severity) for many years.  If gamers (and game designers!  Many of them that I know oppose skinner box game design) don't push back, it will only get worse.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 02 avril 2012 - 02:53 .

[Deltron 3O3O]

 lol