611 réponses à ce sujet

[Wulfram]

I don't find the multiplayer micro-transactions objectionable in ME3, because I basically interpret the MP as a free extra, and thus I find financing it by such methods acceptable.

Similar logic would apply to DA3 - if it's part of an optional MP then it's fine, if it's part of the SP that I payed £30 for then, well, I won't be getting the game so I won't be paying my £30.

[Fast Jimmy]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

As long as the microtransactions are walled in to the multiplayer side of the house it won't matter. The first time an in-game character tells me he'll sell me an epic quest for 1200 bioware points I'm going to go f&cking ballistic. That's beyond classless and just downright disgusting.

I don't disagree with the MP statement.

But what you describe is exactly how the Shale DLC worked. You went to a location marked on your map, engaged in a conversation, got a prompt to begin a quest, and then received a notice that "To play this quest, you must have The Stone Prisoner DLC."

Granted, this DLC was free for all new copies. Still, that is the exact setup for the first DLC for DA:O.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 janvier 2013 - 05:11 .

[Wulfram]

Yeah, and then Penny Arcade made a comic about how this was stupid and Bioware seems to have got the message.

Hopefully there'll be no backsliding

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

John Epler wrote...

Let's bring this back on-topic.

You're right, I apologize.

Regardless, all I was trying to reinforce originally was that MXT and DLC practices are viewed, by a not-insignificant-amount of people, as unethical. Whether it truly is or not is something that can be argued all day long (as can be seen by this thread).

However, the feeling that it is unethical, the PERCEPTION it is wrong, is not going away. And this perception can be incredibly damaging to developers, publishers, the industry and even gamers as a whole.

So if companies choose to participate in these practices, they either need to change the narrative on how MXT and DLC are perceived or they risk being tainted by association. Currently, Bioware has not done much to try and brand their MP transactions as anything other than industry-standard Micro-transactions, nor assuaged assumptions that they will be present in all future MP or even all future games period.

Again, none of this is bad or wrong, but to expect the perception of the future of Bioware and these transactions to be viewed with anything other than negative light is, in my opinion, incredibly silly. Not that they don't have value and need, but by following the exact same model that people ridicule and mock, you will never be able to get out from under that shadow without some MUCH better communication than this.

Hey, do you remember when people hated Steam and thought it was a horrible unethical invasive piece of garbage that only existed to keep them from playing their legitimately purchased games? That eventually went away, and it wasn't because of better PR. The service eventually improved as Valve did more research and made the product better.

The same applies to microtransactions. All any developer needs to do is keep putting out better and better value for the microtransactions. Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice. There will always be holdouts (there are still steam haters, after all), but for the most part it will fix itself because those who produce quality products for the cost provided will get and keep customers. Those who do not improve will lose out to those who do.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 24 janvier 2013 - 05:13 .

[esper]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

As long as the microtransactions are walled in to the multiplayer side of the house it won't matter. The first time an in-game character tells me he'll sell me an epic quest for 1200 bioware points I'm going to go f&cking ballistic. That's beyond classless and just downright disgusting.

I don't disagree with the MP statement.

But what you describe is exactly how the Shale DLC worked. You went to a location marked on your map, engaged in a conversation, got a prompt to begin a quest, and then received a notice that "To play this quest, you must have The Stone Prisoner DLC."

Granted, this DLC was free for all new copies. Still, that is the exact setup for the first DLC for DA:O.

Indeed, as one that did not have an internet for her PS3 at that point, I found it ***** annoying. I had the code, but I couldn't autencicate it.

I don't mind paying for optional content, but my line goes with being informed in game while I play. 'Hey come buy extra stuff'. Had I not the code for free I would likely not have bought another bioware game again.

I prefer approach of nforming in the main menu of which new content is avaible, then when I start to play. Let me play in peace.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Hey, do you remember when people hated Steam and thought it was a horrible unethical invasive piece of garbage that only existed to keep them from playing their legitimately purchased games? That eventually went away, and it wasn't because of better PR. The service eventually improved as Valve did more research and made the product better.

The same applies to microtransactions. All any developer needs to do is keep putting out better and better value for the microtransactions. Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice. 

Improving service is a form of PR. If your service becomes better, it improves the Relationship you have with the Public.

That being said, Bioware's first foray into MXTs had a RNG equipment vending machine that oftentimes gave you useless or already-owned items, which prompted you to either put hours of work into the game or add more money to get what you wanted.

Many people did not view it as work, but rather playing the game, which is good. But it is a model which induces frustration, if the ME3 MP forums are any indicator.

There will always be holdouts (there are still steam haters, after all), but for the most part it will fix itself because those who produce quality products for the cost provided will get and keep customers. Those who do not improve will lose out to those who do.

And I disagree here.

The concept of DRM is still reviled. Steam has shown themselves to be a good steward of that role and a solid provider of ancillary services with that DRM. Through improving their service, they changed the narrative. 

If I say the two statements "DA3 will have DRM" and "DA3 will be distributed through Steam" you will have two very different reactions from your average gamer.

In addition, the winner is not the best provider of services. It is the company that makes the most money. You can't sell crap continuosly and make money, but the best game or service does not neccessarily make the most money. A decent game with unethical practices could very well make a TON more money than a fantastic game with more traditional pricing models.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 janvier 2013 - 05:21 .

[Addai]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice.

So EA hopes.  I don't see anything about this practice that benefits gamers.  Some services and features evolve and get established because they improve player experience.  Forcing me to have my credit card out while playing a game is not one of those.  Especially when I can go over to a different developer and buy a game that offers a lot under the original selling price and supports modding that allows a community to add value to a game.

[hoorayforicecream]

Addai67 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice.

So EA hopes.  I don't see anything about this practice that benefits gamers.  Some services and features evolve and get established because they improve player experience.  Forcing me to have my credit card out while playing a game is not one of those.  Especially when I can go over to a different developer and buy a game that offers a lot under the original selling price and supports modding that allows a community to add value to a game.

It isn't just EA that hopes. There are many, many games that are entirely based on microtransactions. The most popular online game in the world (League of Legends) is entirely supported by microtransactions. Valve's ongoing support of Team Fortress 2 is based on microtransactions. It might not benefit you in specific, but it certainly benefits the gamers who enjoy playing those games.

[HiroVoid]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice.

So EA hopes.  I don't see anything about this practice that benefits gamers.  Some services and features evolve and get established because they improve player experience.  Forcing me to have my credit card out while playing a game is not one of those.  Especially when I can go over to a different developer and buy a game that offers a lot under the original selling price and supports modding that allows a community to add value to a game.

It isn't just EA that hopes. There are many, many games that are entirely based on microtransactions. The most popular online game in the world (League of Legends) is entirely supported by microtransactions. Valve's ongoing support of Team Fortress 2 is based on microtransactions. It might not benefit you in specific, but it certainly benefits the gamers who enjoy playing those games.

Well, sure.  If they let me download Dragon Age 3 for free while having microtransactions, I have no problem with them.

[Fast Jimmy]

HiroVoid wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice.

So EA hopes.  I don't see anything about this practice that benefits gamers.  Some services and features evolve and get established because they improve player experience.  Forcing me to have my credit card out while playing a game is not one of those.  Especially when I can go over to a different developer and buy a game that offers a lot under the original selling price and supports modding that allows a community to add value to a game.

It isn't just EA that hopes. There are many, many games that are entirely based on microtransactions. The most popular online game in the world (League of Legends) is entirely supported by microtransactions. Valve's ongoing support of Team Fortress 2 is based on microtransactions. It might not benefit you in specific, but it certainly benefits the gamers who enjoy playing those games.

Well, sure.  If they let me download Dragon Age 3 for free while having microtransactions, I have no problem with them.

What if, instead, they sold you the game for $60, had a 20 hour campaign and then MP was free (aside from the microtransactions)? 

Eh? EH? Does that sound fun? 

[Xewaka]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Peoples' perceptions will change as they increasingly adopt the practice.

So EA hopes.  I don't see anything about this practice that benefits gamers.  Some services and features evolve and get established because they improve player experience.  Forcing me to have my credit card out while playing a game is not one of those.  Especially when I can go over to a different developer and buy a game that offers a lot under the original selling price and supports modding that allows a community to add value to a game.

It isn't just EA that hopes. There are many, many games that are entirely based on microtransactions. The most popular online game in the world (League of Legends) is entirely supported by microtransactions. Valve's ongoing support of Team Fortress 2 is based on microtransactions. It might not benefit you in specific, but it certainly benefits the gamers who enjoy playing those games.

Both those games share in common their Multiplayer-only competitive nature and a healthy (in the sense of stablished and supported) proffesional scene. Due to the nature of the beast, their support method works. The question is, can the microtransaction model that supports these multiplayer, competitive games be translated into single player, without damaging the single player experience? After all, the frame of mind the player is in is different for either style of gaming.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I'm pretty sure that modding for a fee won't exist, because (one imagines) that modding is precisel the thing that kills almost all microtransactions. 

I'll accept that when they start offering DLC that mimics the sorts of mods I like.

Can you imagine a No Follower Auto-Level DLC for DAO?  Or Detailed Tooltips?  Both were essential to my enjoyment of that game.  Mods are way more valuable to me than the sorts of DLC that actually get sold.

[Addai]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

It isn't just EA that hopes. There are many, many games that are entirely based on microtransactions. The most popular online game in the world (League of Legends) is entirely supported by microtransactions. Valve's ongoing support of Team Fortress 2 is based on microtransactions. It might not benefit you in specific, but it certainly benefits the gamers who enjoy playing those games.

We aren't talking about F2P games in the case of Bioware, but about full-price games and the various ways they are trying to introduce price creep while stripping down what you get for your 60 bucks.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Addai67 wrote...

We aren't talking about F2P games in the case of Bioware, but about full-price games and the various ways they are trying to introduce price creep while stripping down what you get for your 60 bucks.

Keeping the price constant (inflation adjusted) does not constitute price creep.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I'm pretty sure that modding for a fee won't exist, because (one imagines) that modding is precisel the thing that kills almost all microtransactions. 

I'll accept that when they start offering DLC that mimics the sorts of mods I like.

Can you imagine a No Follower Auto-Level DLC for DAO?  Or Detailed Tooltips?  Both were essential to my enjoyment of that game.  Mods are way more valuable to me than the sorts of DLC that actually get sold.

Until a company can find ways around mods only existing for PC players (and not being designed on the PC, but then allowed to be ported to a console), then I believe we will continue to see a decline in them. 

Ironically enough, as much as I have seemed opposed to DLC and MXTs in this thread, I would be totally in support of monetizing the modding features of a game. Beats just not having it at all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Until a company can find ways around mods only existing for PC players (and not being designed on the PC, but then allowed to be ported to a console), then I believe we will continue to see a decline in them. 

The only way around that is to stop using closed platforms.

Ironically enough, as much as I have seemed opposed to DLC and MXTs in this thread, I would be totally in support of monetizing the modding features of a game. Beats just not having it at all.

That's my thinking behind my support of microtransactions at all.

If the choice is between not getting a feature I like and having to pay for a feature I like, I will pay for that feature.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Until a company can find ways around mods only existing for PC players (and not being designed on the PC, but then allowed to be ported to a console), then I believe we will continue to see a decline in them. 

The only way around that is to stop using closed platforms.

Ironically enough, as much as I have seemed opposed to DLC and MXTs in this thread, I would be totally in support of monetizing the modding features of a game. Beats just not having it at all.

That's my thinking behind my support of microtransactions at all.

If the choice is between not getting a feature I like and having to pay for a feature I like, I will pay for that feature.

It is essentially microscale Kickstarter. Excpet we don't get the option to fund it until the work has been done, instead of vice versa.

In regards to feature DLC, that is. Gear/XP/Gold MXTs are still a bane to the existence of gaming in my humblest of opinions.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'll accept that when they start offering DLC that mimics the sorts of mods I like.

Can you imagine a No Follower Auto-Level DLC for DAO?  Or Detailed Tooltips?  Both were essential to my enjoyment of that game.  Mods are way more valuable to me than the sorts of DLC that actually get sold.

I agree with you that modding improves the experience, and I think it's an absolute shame that EA can't appreciate this at the design-level. But the concern isn't with those mods - it's with the various armour mods, and appearance mods, and equipment. That's what EA sells, and that's what (presumably) they think competes. 

This becomes  much more serious issue for microtransactions when (from what I understand) the whole model is just to sell in-game item to deal with frustration (which may be intentionally included). If you allow people to create their own in-game items for free to deal with that frustration, then you defeat the model.

I think there's a world of difference between what you are thinking of (modular games with discrete features each sold individually) and what we're being offered currently (buy items with real $$). 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It is essentially microscale Kickstarter. Excpet we don't get the option to fund it until the work has been done, instead of vice versa.

Well, one has some interesting legal implications vis-a-vis capital raising, but I suppose that' s just my own background. 

[AlanC9]

Why would that perception matter to game companies any more than it maters to casinos?

[ElitePinecone]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't find the multiplayer micro-transactions objectionable in ME3, because I basically interpret the MP as a free extra, and thus I find financing it by such methods acceptable.

Similar logic would apply to DA3 - if it's part of an optional MP then it's fine, if it's part of the SP that I payed £30 for then, well, I won't be getting the game so I won't be paying my £30.

That's a reasonable way to look at it. 

I don't have any issues with MXT in principle - and I have no idea, really, of the development or economics side behind the logic of their inclusion - but there *are* practices involved with them that do concern me. ME3's system of random unlocks was a frustrating step backwards, and (like I said earlier) probably even the catalyst for some people spending much more than they wanted, or could afford, in pursuit of a desired item. It's less about paying a set price for a particular item (a straight purchase) and more akin to gambling with item packs. 

In a hypothetical DA3 situation, if any hypothetical MP took my fancy, I'd much rather pay $1 or $2 directly for the item or character unlock that I actually wanted (let's call it, I don't know, a chevalier), and not have to wrestle with a convoluted and opaque random unlock system. With the caveat that I'm not an economist or a game developer, isn't there an argument that giving people the option to buy desired weapons/characters directly could actually entice more people to pay real money in the long run? Particularly if the items (or characters) they're getting are considered especially valuable, or showy in the case of vanity items.

(Of course, the point is moot - I never spent a cent on ME3's MXT while I played the MP; the in-game credits price for all the random loot packs was low enough to keep me playing instead of buying. I'd consider it for DA3 if we could buy individual items with MXT, but then we don't know a thing about what form MP will take.)

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you that modding improves the experience, and I think it's an absolute shame that EA can't appreciate this at the design-level. But the concern isn't with those mods - it's with the various armour mods, and appearance mods, and equipment. That's what EA sells, and that's what (presumably) they think competes. 

I would disagree with this logic. Most of the armor/appearnce mods that get sold as DLC as done so pre-release for Bioware games (the Ser Issaac's armor, for example). Very rarely do they release such content after the game went to market. And Bioware would have no fear of modders creating items pre-release... after all, how could they? They wouldn't have the toolkit yet.

This becomes  much more serious issue for microtransactions when (from what I understand) the whole model is just to sell in-game item to deal with frustration (which may be intentionally included). If you allow people to create their own in-game items for free to deal with that frustration, then you defeat the model.

I think there's a world of difference between what you are thinking of (modular games with discrete features each sold individually) and what we're being offered currently (buy items with real $$). 

But there could be.

If a game was designed that would not let any mods developed with the mod kit to work unless it was distributed through a distribution program (like, say, Steam or Origin) and then all mods were distributed from one central location and certain mods were charged for (in a profit-sharing venture with the modder and Bioware), I don't see why many people wouldn't rather have that than just have no toolkits at all. 

Especially if smaller mods, like appearances or armor mods, were free, and then larger mods, like ones that change gameplay or create actual new story content, would be charged.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Why would that perception matter to game companies any more than it maters to casinos?

Casinos constantly have to struggle against that stigma. Video game companies don't... yet. It is quite possible that just like casinos are viewed as games of chance, video game economics will develop to a point where it is viewed as the same - you risk your money to MAYBE get a better experience. 

That is not an optimal perception for an industry to have. Especially when it could be side-stepped with proper steps.