17 réponses à ce sujet

[Ghost]

With news that states Dead Space 3 will feature microtransactions, I believe now would be the perfect time to discuss microtransactions in DA3. I do not want microtransactions in DA3.

[John Epler]

The original Dead Space had microtransactions - you could buy weapons that were, essentially, fully upgraded versions of your basic weapons, as well as of your rig suit.

Or is this something different? I'm not following this news too closely.

[John Epler]

Alright. This is going very much off-topic and becoming a hyperbolic mess. Let's pull it back to DA3.

[John Epler]

Lazengan wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Lazengan wrote...

Crimson Sound wrote...

Over the years, I have gone from a gamer to a person whose prospective career lies in video games and whose friends are already members of the industry.  I will say this, many of the "money-grubbing" practices you despise are all techniques we use to ensure that we get paid and our families stay fed.  There are so many ways to cheat the developers out of the money they deserve such as buying used and borrowing from a friend.  As a gamer, I get it.  Games are expenisve and it's often tempting to find a cheaper way to get your hands on it, but when you do that, there's one more consumer who won't actually buy the game.  One more person whose money won't go towards the cost of making the game and paying the employees who spent countless hours on it.

If you worked at McDonalds and I asked you to spend an entire day making the best food you could for everyone without getting paid, would you?

I would quit. 

I believe that people who create video games should never do it for a living, it's just prone to so much corruption and abuse. 

Those who want to develop video games, should be developping video games for the sake of the game and the culture in general, not as a means to live off. That is when they truly care about the sake of the game, and not focus on anything else but

I'm taking this as an offer on your part to pay me a living wage, then?

Very, -very- few people in the gaming industry do it for any other reason than because they love to do it. The salary, while certainly nothing to sneeze at, isn't spectacular, particularly when you consider the number of hours we work. There are a lot of jobs out there that pay better and require far less of an investment of your personal life. Anyone who isn't passionate about games tends not to last beyond a couple of years because they quickly realize that the biggest thing this career path offers is job satisfaction, and if you don't believe in what you do then that's not something you're going to feel nearly as much.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lazengan wrote...

I believe that people who create video games should never do it for a living, it's just prone to so much corruption and abuse.

Is it prone to any more corruption/abuse than anything else?  You do recognize that by extension, because a "professional" does it for a living, they are able to dedicate much more time to the process than they otherwise would be.

I assume you're a Baldur's Gate fan, which was produced by a company that acquired capital through means of investing it to produce revenue.  In order for the quality talent to come on board, competitive wages and benefits are offered so that when people are here (and in Edmonton, it's typically a relocation) they can focus on doing what they do.

Those who want to develop video games, should be developping video games for the sake of the game and the culture in general, not as a means to live off. That is when they truly care about the sake of the game, and not focus on anything else but

As someone with a BSc in Science with a Computing Science specialization, I make significantly less money than I could do work I wouldn't enjoy as much.  I love video games and it's ****ing awesome to do so.  The people (even John Epler) are typically a lot of fun and enthusiastic.

I don't envy the Darrah's and the Laidlaw's (or the Cameron's or the Blair's or pretty much anyone in production!), because they have to reconcile the passion and enthusiasm with timelines and making sure things go in the places that help make the game as great as it can be.  It can be easy for passion to lead you down a rabbit hole of ever diminishing returns, especially when you get emotionally invested in wanting something to work.

As I work with CinDesign a decent amount, I get to work with John a lot.  I get him to help me out in terms of detailing what CinDesign's immediate and longer term needs are for various tools, so that I can help focus my efforts on testing the programming work that goes into those systems.  He comes to me when he has specific QA requests and detail out his needs and make sure he's getting the coverage and assistance that he needs.  The rest of the guys are pretty sweet, and I even got involved in a d20 Modern campaign last week which was surprisingly fun.

I make a comfortable amount of money, which lets me spend 8+ hours a day doing something I enjoy doing, while also letting me get my own home (I own a condo now, yay), put some aside into an RRSP, and even prepare to buy a new automobile (since my current one is about to explode).  On top of some extra perks, I feel I could certainly be doing a lot worse, but at the same time in terms of pure finances I know I'm not making a maximal income.  The job satisfaction tends to make up for it, however.

I've loved just learning all the nuances about what goes into making a big production title, and how things can all start come together and you can make something that you're proud of.


If I wasn't paid to be a game developer, I'd still want to do it.  It just means that I am going to have to do it my spare time which is more prone to having interruptions than my work life.  Doubly so once I start a family.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 24 janvier 2013 - 05:43 .

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I was afraid to say it myself. But I agree, this is a really bad idea.

Because, Sylvius, EA won't make the base game cheaper. it will still be $50, or whatever. The price for these once-standard features will inCREASE the price of the game, not bring it back to the normal price from a lower a la carte price.

The *only* way a company would try something like that would be if they lowered the price.  In fact, it'd likely end up as a "Buy it piecemeal and if you get everything, it comes out to $70 or $80 but you know what, you pay $60 and we'll toss it all in for you just like the old school days."  (i.e. get a wholesale discount)

The reason: You guys.

I do not believe a pricing model like the one you described would be successful.  It seems to me that you feel the same way.  It means nothing if no one buys it, and it seems like the type thing that would receive a ton of negative attention.

[Allan Schumacher]

Lazengan wrote...

AshenShug4r wrote...

Manipulating buyer sensitivity in videogames just seems immoral and unnecessary. It's only going to get worse. How long until it becomes a part of the game design itself? Instead of focusing on the quality of the gaming experience, half the development will be 'hmm can we implement a micro-transaction here? What about here?'. Making in-game items weaker and less effective than their dlc counterparts. Giving you the option of killing a secret boss with new loot but only if you pay a dollar for the key to the boss room. Instead of improving the experience, it becomes finding the best way to effectively gouge the player.

Current business practice

content is purposely ommited from launch release, or is under-developped on purpose to sell as DLC later on. 

Back in my day, they weren't called DLCs, they were called expansion packs

Compare:

<snip>

Well, I loathe that Mona Lisa picture, and I think it's a pretty sterling example of what is addressed in this thread.

First there's the obvious:

Check out this link and see how much $60 from 1999 is worth today.  (It's worth $82.69)

I suppose we could start charging $80 for our games (although depending on the price elasticity, it may net us less revenue).


Second, there's the less than obvious:

Much of the content in the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion was stuff that was cut from the main release of the Baldur's Gate.  It's not at all uncommon for expansion packs to do this, and it's been done for a long, long, long time.  Especially in RPGs (since they tend to have exceptional amounts of designer made content.  That is, content that is pushed through with volume and less dependent on programming support.  Tools have been made and are being used and we just want to make more content).


Third, there's the paradigm shift:

What'd done differently now is that DLC production scheduling is being shifted and financed sooner, because somewhat paradoxically, the success rate of an expansion pack is highly correlated to how long after release it comes out.  The longer it takes, the less successful an expansion pack is, especially for single player experiences (attach rates are much higher with multiplayer games because more people continue to actively play the game).

The scope is different, for a variety of reasons.  Risk mitigation (making something TOO big would require more manpower, and DLC teams typically don't have much of that, especially if the base game is still in finaling), as well as some technical and systemic restrictions (size restrictions, especially for the consoles).  Although, going back to inflation, $15 today is about $10 in 1999.



The paradox that DLC provides is that the better it integrates into the main game the easier it is for the player to feel that this content should have existed without the DLC.  So because something is interesting and considered highly desirable, some feel they are being nickel and dimed and having their passion and enthusiasm exploited.

The thing I always try to remind people is that they are not slaves.  If someone truly feels that their passion and enthusiasm for the topic is being unfairly exploited to make money, the worst thing you can do is keep buying the products that you feel do this.  Don't even pirate them, because piracy leads to someone somwhere going "How can we get that pirate to buy the game!?" which leads to increasingly restrictive DRM measures (i.e. it's bad for the industry as a whole).  Buying the product just tells the business that you're still okay exchanging money for this service.  It turns into a "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" scenario.  As a game consumer, don't underestimate the power you have as a consumer.

If a product isn't in the spotlight and is ignored because of decisions that have been made regarding the product, the publishers will take notice.  Moreso now that indie development gets stronger and things like crowd funding provide alternatives for the experienced developers to find funding for the games they want to make.

[Allan Schumacher]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The *only* way a company would try something like that would be if they lowered the price.  In fact, it'd likely end up as a "Buy it piecemeal and if you get everything, it comes out to $70 or $80 but you know what, you pay $60 and we'll toss it all in for you just like the old school days."  (i.e. get a wholesale discount)

The reason: You guys.

I do not believe a pricing model like the one you described would be successful.  It seems to me that you feel the same way.  It means nothing if no one buys it, and it seems like the type thing that would receive a ton of negative attention.

I confess I'm a little unsure what you mean by the bolded.

But anyway, I can't really see it happening the way you suggest. However, I'll defer to your judgement here--at the very least so Shorts doesn't come jump on my back for violating his new BSN law:P

By the bolded, I mean "You, the game players, wouldn't stand for it."  We'd be raked across the coals for doing so.  Do you disagree?

(of course, in light of my previous post, if we get raked across the coals verbally, but actually make more money by doing so then was it actually a bad decision to make such a choice?)

At this point it's all speculative.  No one has really attempted this, so we don't really know what the gaming population response would be.  Day One DLC is a mixed bag in terms of reaction.  Some feel it's content that wouldn't otherwise exist, so they are happy to pay for it.  Some feel it should have been in the main game and feel ripped off.  It's kind of an impasse and it'd only get significantly more heated if we did it with full on game systems rather than just additional content.

[Allan Schumacher]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
I was afraid to say it myself. But I agree, this is a really bad idea.

Because, Sylvius, EA won't make the base game cheaper. it will still be $50, or whatever. The price for these once-standard features will inCREASE the price of the game, not bring it back to the normal price from a lower a la carte price.

The *only* way a company would try something like that would be if they lowered the price.  In fact, it'd likely end up as a "Buy it piecemeal and if you get everything, it comes out to $70 or $80 but you know what, you pay $60 and we'll toss it all in for you just like the old school days."  (i.e. get a wholesale discount)

The reason: You guys.

I do not believe a pricing model like the one you described would be successful.  It seems to me that you feel the same way.  It means nothing if no one buys it, and it seems like the type thing that would receive a ton of negative attention.

It could work. The trick to it: Buy-in price is $0. Then you just toss in a lot of items available for microtransactions. A freemium model works very well for many games and is the entire basis for the mobile market. The top grossing iphone apps all use the freemium model.

I just think that it wouldn't work with the crowd here on the BSN. I get the feeling that putting beloved features behind a pay wall would not go over well and cause a horrendous amount of belly-aching.

I agree.  EntropicAngel feels that the buy-in price would still be the $50 or $60.  I don't think that any model that still has the base game being $50 or $60 (on top of the MTX) would work.

[Allan Schumacher]

And, from a business standpoint, it was not a bad decision. I hate ME's MP with my very soul, but it's clear that it was an incredibly, absolutely astonishingly huge success. It has kept the game alive here in a way that SP never could have on its own. it has likely generated increased revenue, through the microtransaction packs, in addition to simply drawing more players and thus buyers by its nature. It was a smart decision, no matter how much I hated and anguished and laguished over it.

Just to be clear, the scope of ME3's Day One DLC and what it is (just "more of the same" in terms of content) allows it to be palatable. If we're stripping out minimaps and core game mechanics, but not dropping the price, the analogy that we are basically selling cars without doors and wheels starts to become much more appropriate.

Speaking as a gamer, it'd make me very uncomfortable if I heard of a game that did that, and I'd be hard pressed to support it, because as was mentioned earlier, there'd be other games that exist that don't do it.

[Allan Schumacher]

Conduit0 wrote...

I've often suspected that part of Australia's higher price is the ACB extorting game publishers. Since its illegal to sell a game in Ausieland without an ACB rating, they can "tax" publishers anything they want to issue a rating.

I didn't realize this.  I could see it.  It's always been baffling as to why Australia gets the shaft.

[John Epler]

Yeah, that's not the kind of post we're going to allow on these forums.

Keep it civil and appropriate or you will be removed.

[John Epler]

Let's bring this back on-topic.

[Allan Schumacher]

(Note, I use the "Royal You" here).

$7 is over 10% the sticker price of the original game. Yet we are not given over 10% of the actual content. Arguably, in a 40+ hour game with dozens upon dozens of mpas, this DLC brought an objective worth of less than a few dollars.

But the DLC sold tens of thousands of copies. Many, many people made the decision that, despite the objective smaller value this brings, I will pay it. And many enjoyed it. Many also expected that this character, a character they had paid premium money for, would be integrated into future installments. When she was not (hardly touched on at all in ME3, like most ME2 companions), many felt that they were misled in their original purchase, that Bioware shouldn't have introduced a character that people paid money for if they weren't planning on giving her the same level of treatment other characters who were in the base game. They felt deceived and that they had bought an implied understanding of how the content they were buying would be integrated into the main game and the main series.

These people have a legitimate complaint that Bioware acted unethically.

Sorry, I'm going to have to adamantly disagree. Especially since we're discussing a luxury game good, of not particularly high value ($7).

Here is where you, the consumer, are now able to make an informed decision: If you did not feel that you are getting full value for your dollar, feel free to wait and purchase it at a dollar point that you feel IS worth your dollar.  Which may mean you just don't buy the product.

If you think we're being unethical, exercise your right as a consumer and don't reward us for out lack of ethics. You didn't get full "value" for your $7, so don't give us $7 in the future.

If you think that the lack of refunds in gaming (as a PC gamer for decades, I haven't been able to return opened PC games for pretty much the entirety of my actually being able to buy games) is unethical, then exercise your consumer right and don't purchase video games.

It's not like we're being nefarious here. You're not stupid, and you can clearly see "Huh, I can't get my money back for this" so it's not like you're being blindsided by something that has caught you by surprise. For a luxury good that is completely unnecessary for you to both live life, and live it comfortably.


At this point, what you're effectively doing by continuing to buy the products is saying "I'm okay still paying this price [since I just did], but I'd really like it cheaper still."  Which is kind of a statement of the obvious. Games are a luxury good, not a necessity, and a relatively inexpensive one at that. It's not like we're slapping down thousands of dollars on an automobile or housing that is essential for our lives or anything like that. (As an aside, banks didn't act unethically by handing out tons of 0% down payment mortgages. They acted irresponsibly. And that's an important distinction. There's plenty of other ways that banks behave unethically, but that's not one of them)


So, as a gamer, here's what you do. If you think we're being unethical: don't buy our games. Yes, this means you won't get to play a game that you probably really want to play. But if you continuously go out and buy a luxury good that you don't feel is worth the money, the only person you can effectively blame is yourself. Change and adapt. Only buy games when they are much cheaper (there's nothing forcing you, aside from your own desires, to play the game at release). If you don't think DLCs are worth it, don't buy them. Yes, this means that you won't get to play content that you may *want* to play, but if you feel that the entire DLC practice is unethical, you owe it to yourself to not buy it. You're compromising your own morals and convictions by doing so.


As a gamer, you aren't fully understanding the power that you have as a consumer. You go "$7 isn't worth Kasumi DLC. I should get more." Despite the fact that you're well within your right to NOT purchase the content, you *really* want to. You just don't want to pay $7 for it. But because you still do pay the $7 because you do want the content, you end up showing that despite your statements, you're actually okay with paying $7 for it. You just did, and you continue to do so. Same goes for our full games.

To everyone I ask: seriously, if the practice is that reprehensible, why do you buy the product? I personally do not buy DLCs for two reasons:

1) I have usually moved on past the game when they come out
2) I don't typically feel they are not worth the money

I have no problems with the DLC content, because if people do want it and do feel it's worth the money, and the DLC project itself is profitable, I don't see what is so bad about it. Vague statements like "We used to get full games" doesn't do much to help illuminate the issue. If you don't feel you are getting a full game at $50 or $60, and this is a common occurrence, then absolutely you should seriously consider waiting for the price of games to drop. I already do it (I'm waiting for Skyrim to be $15-$20 before I pick it up, because at that price point I have a reasonable assurance that it'll be worth my money). Heck, if you get into the routine of only buying games after their prices have dropped, you'll still get to a point where there's no shortage of games to play. You're just playing games some time after they are released (which can have additional benefits like patches and whatnot).


So I ask: if you dislike it so much, why do you keep purchasing it? If you think that games are otherwise incomplete without said content, why do you keep purchasing the games? Lastly, how do we reconcile this perspective with those that feel that value is just fine, and do feel that the games are still complete without DLCs?

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 février 2013 - 12:42 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Cimeas wrote...

That's my big problem with DLC.

Full game = $50 (on PC)
Contains ~50 hours of content (not to mention all the core game systems)

Content/Cost ratio = 1$/hour


DLC = $10
Contains ~4 hours of content

Content/Cost ratio = $2.50/hour


AS SOON AS DLC is actually priced FAIRLY in relation to the main game, I will be more than happy to purchase it.

This is fine, and if that's your measure of value then absolutely go for it.

I don't personally use hours, and as such I'd rather pay $20 for Portal 2 and play it for 17 or so hours, than $50 on Skyrim and persumably play it for hundreds of hours. (since it's 17 hours of OMGBBQ).  But it's still me placing a level of expectation on value on what I'd get from Skyrim, and it hasn't reached an acceptable price for me yet.

For some, DLC is fine and they have no issues with it.

I do think that part of the problem that some people have is that with people that have no qualms with the DLC model, or even embrace it, those that don't like it will ultimately feel like they are left behind.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 10 février 2013 - 02:15 .

[Allan Schumacher]

If you can't make money on a game then find a way to cut costs. Studios like EA keep funding these massive, expensive-to-produce titles like Dragon Age 2 that are essentially the equivalents of Hollywood blockbusters, but when they fail to produce they go around *****ing about development costs. They complain and complain and complain that you can't make money unless you pour millions upon millions of dollars into a game, and all the while the games they're pouring all this money into are flopping.

DA2 cost much less to make than DAO did, and turned a good profit to boot.

Are you suggesting we keep cutting costs like we did with DA2? Or are you (incorrectly) assuming that DA2 was a financial flop?

Furthermore, what about the people that like the armor packs and other vanity pieces?

[Allan Schumacher]

Part of the problem here is that EA doesn't seem to want to do UEs anymore. I'm not quite sure why they don't. Surely there are a lot of players who won't buy DLCs at the current price point but would pick up, say, an ME2 UE for $20 or so? I would.

Purely speculative on my part, but (especially given the reputation EA has as being moneygrubbing) I wouldn't be surprised if the financial viability of Ultimate Editions isn't really there. If it was, wouldn't EA go out and print the money?

[Allan Schumacher]

I've done my best to remove my finanical support for things I disagree with and vote with my dollar. Problem is? Instead of the industry hearing me and saying "maybe these aren't good ideas" they, instead, crusade against those who do this. Have a rented copy of a game? Well, if next gen console rumors are true, developers are looking awfully hard at preventing you from playing a game that doesn't have the original product code. Don't like Microtransactions? Too late, they're starting to show up in AAA Single Player games like Dead Space 3 - and if you find and exploit a glitch in your own single player game you paid money for, you could theoretically be taken to court now. Don't want to download any DLC? With "always online" next gen consoles or PCs, the quests like Stone's Prisoner in DA:O, where a location on your map and a conversation marker can pop up that will say "to play this quest, buy this DLC! Just a click away!" Not to mention how the Always Online function can easily ride way out of control, with tying into things like Social Media, MP, ad placement, etc. that can wind up affecting and influencing the SP game, requiring me to Tweet my LI romance scene or grind away in a forty minute death match just to explore all of a game's different endings.

While I don't want to make it look like I'm laying all (or even most) of the blame on the feet of Bioware (or even EA), it still doesn't seem right that when I'm voting with my dollar, I am (or at least the gamers who share my purchasing habits) targeted with the same draconian practices that companies chase after hackers with. I'm voting with every dollar I spend, but instead of listening, the industry want to make it their way or the highway. And if it comes down to it, I'm going the highway - or at least sticking around to see how Kickstarter turns out. As is, that looks to be my future source of gaming if some of the worst next gen rumors can be believed.

Is it that the industry "isn't listening" to your vote, or there are a lot of other votes out there that don't fall in line with the way you'd like to vote?

"Abstaining" your vote is a valid play here, and if you don't like the decisions that are being made and feel they leave you feeling taken advantage of and exploited, then yes you should stop paying the money.

If there's enough, revenues will get hit and companies will have to respond to that.

I don't think the companies are "crusading" against you. They just, at least for now, aren't going in the direction that you feel is the one for you. If you're not buying the games, that's still making an impact. It's just that it's not only you making the votes. Maybe it's just that not enough votes have come in yet to make it obvious that "these aren't very good ideas."


It's still useful to come in and communicate your reasons, but in my own experiences I rarely find myself outraged at a purchase that I make.  Things like digital distribution allow greater price flexibility and there's an interesting new angle with crowd sourcing.

At the very least, if there's enough Fast Jimmy's out there, someone's going to see a business opportunity and try to make games that you'll want to buy.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 11 février 2013 - 05:50 .