88399 réponses à ce sujet

[PaulSX]

Brockololly wrote...

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

Maybe source?

You can listen to the whole presentation here too.


I think the more worrying take away from that presentation was that they seemed kind of ok with raising the price of games to $70...probably on top of microtransactions and day one DLC! How fun!

the mainstream game companies should drasticly revise their budget plans for next-gen games. The current gen games already cost too much to make. personally, I could accept $80 as standard price but with some acutal physical stuff like steel case, manual, maps and so on. 

[BioFan (Official)]

 Tervinter

[Conduit0]

suntzuxi wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

Maybe source?

You can listen to the whole presentation here too.


I think the more worrying take away from that presentation was that they seemed kind of ok with raising the price of games to $70...probably on top of microtransactions and day one DLC! How fun!

the mainstream game companies should drasticly revise their budget plans for next-gen games. The current gen games already cost too much to make. personally, I could accept $80 as standard price but with some acutal physical stuff like steel case, manual, maps and so on. 

They still have to meet the demands of gamers. With each new generation of consoles gamer expectations increase, they expect better graphics, bigger worlds, and greater interactivity. Trying to live up to those expectations means an ever increasing cost in development. There is just no way around it.

[Steppenwolf]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Eh. I think EA realizes that it would be incredibly stupid to build in microtransations to the level where you need to spend actual cash to make a decent level of in game cash. I think. Because really, that would be sale suicide right thar.

They will take the concept as far as it will go before their products stop selling enough to justify it. Dead Space 3 has micro-transactions out the ass but it's a popular game that's selling well.

suntzuxi wrote...

the mainstream game companies should
drasticly revise their budget plans for next-gen games. The current gen
games already cost too much to make. personally, I could accept $80 as
standard price but with some acutal physical stuff like steel case,
manual, maps and so on. 

That would be sort of dumb, don't you think? Increasing costs of development increasing the cost of units is an unavoidable reality. Increasing the costs to make steel cases and maps and what not is an unnecessary luxury that I would rather forgo if it means a higher cost than otherwise necessary. Spending extra cash on a collector's edition of a game I really like is one thing. Making that type of product the standard to charge more is another altogether. And I guarantee a 33% price increase to $80 would do a hell of a lot of harm to sales. America, Europe and Japan still have sagging economies after all.

[Icinix]

Nefario wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Its like hanging Snickers bars in front of starving obese people and asking them to exercise restraint.

Why don't people ever think of the poor starving obese people?

In all seriousness though, while microtransactions are sort of BS in most cases, the best thing you can do if you disapprove is just not engage with them. I mean, you can not buy on principle, regardless of what relationship the microtransactions have with the game as a whole... but doing so is just as likely to bar you from a game you might enjoy as it is to send a message to publishers/developers. And the former can be accomplished without the latter.

If microtransactions show up in DA3 at all, I'd be surprised if they had any substantial effect on the single player game - and would probably have a minimal effect on the mulitplayer component (which I'm just assuming at this point will exist). Look at Dead Space 3. Whatever your opinion of that game might have been, the microtransactions certainly didn't lock you out of anything (at least as far as the single player campaign goes).

The notion that a non-purchase sends a stronger message to the powers-that-be (namely "I don't like microtransactions") than a purchase with an absence of microtransactions would is absurd. EA is not going to look at the success of microtransactions based on how many people did or did not buy a title. They're going to look at how many of the people that bought in actually made use of microtransactions.

Of course, I'm not stating that you should buy DA3 (or any other game) regardless of microtransactions. I'm just saying, look at the game, and look at what sort of content is offered without further purchase. If it's worth it to you, it's worth it. The availability of horse armor does not negate a title's worth.

I don't disagree - and to be honest - I don't mind microtransactions - or subscriptions if they're handled well and don't provide any exclusive items. I think ME3 multiplayer transaction is good - and I think Star Citizen subscription is good too.

But I think there is certainly a question to be asked if some microtransactions exist to actually provide both revenue to the company AND a better gaming experience - as opposed to becoming a force for revenue at the expense of the gamer.

Truth be told - I haven't seen any BioWare games do the latter - and no EA games I've played do the latter either - and as long as they stay in that zone - then full power to them.

[PaulSX]

BasilKarlo wrote...


That would be sort of dumb, don't you think? Increasing costs of development increasing the cost of units is an unavoidable reality. Increasing the costs to make steel cases and maps and what not is an unnecessary luxury that I would rather forgo if it means a higher cost than otherwise necessary. Spending extra cash on a collector's edition of a game I really like is one thing. Making that type of product the standard to charge more is another altogether. And I guarantee a 33% price increase to $80 would do a hell of a lot of harm to sales. America, Europe and Japan still have sagging economies after all.

what I think is that they should increase the value of the physical copies but decrease the price point for digital copy. They could sell more in this way. for example if they put some fan service physical stuff into the hard copy and raise the price; I am pretty sure most fans will still buy it.  Meanwhile, they could sell digital copy at around $50 which is more accessible for others. 

[ElitePinecone]

Nefario wrote...

Of course, I'm not stating that you should buy DA3 (or any other game) regardless of microtransactions. I'm just saying, look at the game, and look at what sort of content is offered without further purchase. If it's worth it to you, it's worth it. The availability of horse armor does not negate a title's worth.

An excellent way of putting it.

[don-mika]

microtransactions can really hurt SP game balance  

[Maytrows]

Nefario wrote...

Icinix wrote...

Its like hanging Snickers bars in front of starving obese people and asking them to exercise restraint.

Why don't people ever think of the poor starving obese people?

In all seriousness though, while microtransactions are sort of BS in most cases, the best thing you can do if you disapprove is just not engage with them. I mean, you can not buy on principle, regardless of what relationship the microtransactions have with the game as a whole... but doing so is just as likely to bar you from a game you might enjoy as it is to send a message to publishers/developers. And the former can be accomplished without the latter.

If microtransactions show up in DA3 at all, I'd be surprised if they had any substantial effect on the single player game - and would probably have a minimal effect on the mulitplayer component (which I'm just assuming at this point will exist). Look at Dead Space 3. Whatever your opinion of that game might have been, the microtransactions certainly didn't lock you out of anything (at least as far as the single player campaign goes).

The notion that a non-purchase sends a stronger message to the powers-that-be (namely "I don't like microtransactions") than a purchase with an absence of microtransactions would is absurd. EA is not going to look at the success of microtransactions based on how many people did or did not buy a title. They're going to look at how many of the people that bought in actually made use of microtransactions.

Of course, I'm not stating that you should buy DA3 (or any other game) regardless of microtransactions. I'm just saying, look at the game, and look at what sort of content is offered without further purchase. If it's worth it to you, it's worth it. The availability of horse armor does not negate a title's worth.

You are paying for the luxury of having microtransactions when you buy the game, it did not magicly appear but resources was taken from the game development to get microtransactions in the game. So something gets cut to get microtransactions in and you are paying for it, and if you are not going to use it why would you want pay for it?

Would you pay for a fridge with a sunroof? You don't have to use it you know.

This is the same thing.

[ElitePinecone]

You could argue that with any game feature, though. "Resources were maybe taken from making things I like to make things I don't like" is a reality of practically every game ever released. I'll never use half the classes in Mass Effect, but I certainly don't mind them being there.

At the end of the day all that matters is the sum of what's in the game, and whether you feel that's worth justifying your purchase. At this point we certainly can't even begin to judge, and microtransactions aren't a dealbreaker for me by any means.

[Nefario]

Maytrows wrote...

You are paying for the luxury of having microtransactions when you buy the game, it did not magicly appear but resources was taken from the game development to get microtransactions in the game. So something gets cut to get microtransactions in and you are paying for it, and if you are not going to use it why would you want pay for it?

Would you pay for a fridge with a sunroof? You don't have to use it you know.

This is the same thing.

Uh... no. I'm far from an expert on any facet of game development, and certainly not the business side. But I'd imagine that the addition of something like microtransactions would likely be budgeted in taking into consideration projected future earnings. Were microtransactions not a part of the game, I'm guessing the resource pool would be smaller.

Do you really imagine that there's some set-in-stone budget, regardless of what features the game actually has? They can spend more money if they anticipate making more money back. But if they budget in the extra resources, and microtransactions don't make that extra money they spent back, then the appeal of adding that feature to their next project is probably a little less appealing.
Equating a product with a built-in transaction system to an appliance with an arbitrary, purposeless feature is just foolish.

You could argue that, instead of pursuing microtransactions as a way to increase revenue, developers should be championing the notion that other sorts of non-transactional features have the potential to increase revenue based on consumer appeal, and should seek additional budgeting for those features instead. But that's probably not a very easy argument to support.

Anyway, this isn't really the appropriate thread for this conversation. So that's my last piece on the subject here.

[Maytrows]

ElitePinecone wrote...

You could argue that with any game feature, though. "Resources were maybe taken from making things I like to make things I don't like" is a reality of practically every game ever released. I'll never use half the classes in Mass Effect, but I certainly don't mind them being there.

At the end of the day all that matters is the sum of what's in the game, and whether you feel that's worth justifying your purchase. At this point we certainly can't even begin to judge, and microtransactions aren't a dealbreaker for me by any means.

So in one sentence you say we can not judge and then give judgement that microtransactions is not a dealbreaker for you? 

Why do you want to pay for microtransactions to be in the game as a feature? 

[Ilidan_DA]

David Gaider ‏@davidgaider

"A rouge talent tree? Does that mean they get to customize their blush on the fly during combat?" "Shut up. I hate you."

[InfinitePaths]

Modifié par HeriocGreyWarden, 27 février 2013 - 06:32 .

[Biotic Sage]

suntzuxi wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

Maybe source?

You can listen to the whole presentation here too.


I think the more worrying take away from that presentation was that they seemed kind of ok with raising the price of games to $70...probably on top of microtransactions and day one DLC! How fun!

the mainstream game companies should drasticly revise their budget plans for next-gen games. The current gen games already cost too much to make. personally, I could accept $80 as standard price but with some acutal physical stuff like steel case, manual, maps and so on. 

Uh...if I'm paying $80 for a game, then it better meet these standards:
- No Day 1 DLC or any incomplete gaps that are waiting for DLC to fill them
- No Microtransactions of any kind; it better all be included, no a la carte bull ****
- At least 45+ (legit, not padded) hours of single player gameplay
- I better be god ****ed entertained.  Like...tears and/or fist pumping better occur at somepoint

Otherwise it's used games or waiting a long time for discounts.

Modifié par Biotic Sage, 27 février 2013 - 07:28 .

[Commander Kurt]

I actually remember spending more on a videogame as a kid than I do now, so I can understand the need to increase prices. Strange to see people getting upset about this while the cost of going to the movies (and pretty much everything else) has doubled since then.

Ha, rouge talent tree. Perhaps this is the new and improved cc, at level 7 and 14 you get to choose a new nose, ears, haircolor and matching makeup kit.

[Steppenwolf]

don-mika wrote...

microtransactions can really hurt SP game balance  

I will never understand this argument. You are in control of your single-player experience in this regard. If they sell overpowered items via micro-transactions you have the option to not buy them. If there are builds that are so powerful that the game is easy on the highest difficulty, you have the choice not to use those builds. Etc. If your SP experience isn't because you chose to do something that unbalances it then it's your fault.

[Steppenwolf]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I actually remember spending more on a videogame as a kid than I do now, so I can understand the need to increase prices. Strange to see people getting upset about this while the cost of going to the movies (and pretty much everything else) has doubled since then.

I remember spending $70 of my birthday money on Primal Rage for the Sega Genesis, and that game came in a flimsy cardboard slipcase and the cartridge wasn't even screwed together...

[Ilidan_DA]

LolaLei wrote...

Tweet!:

Aaryn Flynn: "Sh!t is getting real on #DA3. Seriously, seriously, real."

Modifié par Wiedzmin182009, 27 février 2013 - 10:09 .

[MilaBanilla]

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Tweet!:

Aaryn Flynn: "Sh!t is getting real on #DA3. Seriously, seriously, real."

Life-like sh*t  is soo over-rated  

[ChandlerL]

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

David Gaider ‏@davidgaider

"A rouge talent tree? Does that mean they get to customize their blush on the fly during combat?" "Shut up. I hate you."

Amen, David Gaider.

[serenai]

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Tweet!:

Aaryn Flynn: "Sh!t is getting real on #DA3. Seriously, seriously, real."

sebastianhanlon:
@AarynFlynn wait, did I pick the wrong week to take vacation? I’d hate to miss **** getting real

John Epler:
@hanlsp @AarynFlynn We all got ponies. I took yours because, well, why waste a pony?

Aaryn Flynn:
@hanlsp Don't worry. I think **** might have gotten real last week and I'm just catching up now

sebastianhanlon:
@eplerjc @AarynFlynn well, don’t use too many monkeys. I’d hate to see you ruin a good pony

Aaryn Flynn:
@hanlsp @eplerjc Between all the monkeys and ponies at the office, **** would be pretty real...

sebastianhanlon:
@AarynFlynn @eplerjc antiquity has brought us a word for that: “Augean"

Jason Barlow:
@hanlsp Okay maybe I used too many monkeys... but isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

[DragonMage95]

serenai wrote...

Wiedzmin182009 wrote...

LolaLei wrote...

Tweet!:

Aaryn Flynn: "Sh!t is getting real on #DA3. Seriously, seriously, real."

sebastianhanlon:
@AarynFlynn wait, did I pick the wrong week to take vacation? I’d hate to miss **** getting real

John Epler:
@hanlsp @AarynFlynn We all got ponies. I took yours because, well, why waste a pony?

Aaryn Flynn:
@hanlsp Don't worry. I think **** might have gotten real last week and I'm just catching up now

sebastianhanlon:
@eplerjc @AarynFlynn well, don’t use too many monkeys. I’d hate to see you ruin a good pony

Aaryn Flynn:
@hanlsp @eplerjc Between all the monkeys and ponies at the office, **** would be pretty real...

sebastianhanlon:
@AarynFlynn @eplerjc antiquity has brought us a word for that: “Augean"

Jason Barlow:
@hanlsp Okay maybe I used too many monkeys... but isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?

This pleases me...

[Biotic Sage]

Commander Kurt wrote...

I actually remember spending more on a videogame as a kid than I do now, so I can understand the need to increase prices. Strange to see people getting upset about this while the cost of going to the movies (and pretty much everything else) has doubled since then.

Ha, rouge talent tree. Perhaps this is the new and improved cc, at level 7 and 14 you get to choose a new nose, ears, haircolor and matching makeup kit.

Well the difference is that wages aren't keeping up with the increasing costs of living like they were back then...