611 réponses à ce sujet

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

*Indian accent* You cannot win, unless you buy our special Armors and Weapons.

Pfft, I find this thread pointless.

[Xewaka]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

I believe a closer analogy to ME3 MP packs are CCG booster packs. Now we only need item trading (Like TF2 has) to complete the analogy.

Modifié par Xewaka, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:32 .

[In Exile]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I think it's because of the products that are being sold - bad word of mouth can affect a consumer's choice between two games. I'm not sure the same applies for casinos, though I'd imagine that people would prefer to go to casino's that don't treat patrons badly vs. ones that do. 

The problem with Jimmy's analogy is that the poor perception of casino's exist among non-gamblers, one imagines.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

I think it's because of the products that are being sold - bad word of mouth can affect a consumer's choice between two games. I'm not sure the same applies for casinos, though I'd imagine that people would prefer to go to casino's that don't treat patrons badly vs. ones that do. 

The problem with Jimmy's analogy is that the poor perception of casino's exist among non-gamblers, one imagines.

If the negative view of video games as traps to suck people's money away with constant microtransactions reaches a large amount of non-gamers, it will be just as damaging.

[Addai]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

No it wouldn't.  Modders setting up a Paypal and inviting people to kick in if they wish, that's one thing, but the whole idea of modding is that people love the game so much they're willing to spend free time and talent to enhance it.  Modders share resources because of this open-source spirit.  IMO the wild west and community aspects would be spoiled by commercializing it, if that were even possible.

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
No it wouldn't.  Modders setting up a Paypal and inviting people to kick in if they wish, that's one thing, but the whole idea of modding is that people love the game so much they're willing to spend free time and talent to enhance it.  Modders share resources because of this open-source spirit.  IMO the wild west and community aspects would be spoiled by commercializing it, if that were even possible.

That didn't happen with NWN.

[rapscallioness]

I think perception is important. I think these things need to be done with tact. Tastefully, and with sensitivity.

Cuz I mean, honestly---idk wat it's like in the rest of the world, but in the U.S. it's like everyone is trying to get over on you. One way, or another. Tricking you outta every last dime you have. Mind frakking you w/various propaganda.

We are being constantly bombarded with schemes. So, yes, it is a sore spot. Then you go to find sum bit of respite in a game, and boom! another shiny scheme. At least, that's the way it seems.

Then after screaming ,"Moar! Give us Moar!", they don't deliver on quality. They don't hold up their end of the bargain.

All I want is a fair trade. A good trade. Where we both feel good abt the transaction. Too much snake oil these days. And ppl are wary, sensitive, and just plain exhausted by it all.

Rightfully so.

We love options. We just don't like being grabbed by the back of our necks and having it shoved down our throats. We're at the point where any whiff of trickery, deceit, or manipulation is enough to set us off. Precisely because it's not just from the gaming biz. It comes from all sides.

But then, you guys are consumers, too. The PR ppl. The marketing ppl. The so-called "suits". You guys are consumers. You must understand what it's like? You get it coming at ya, too?

Plz, when you all are coming up with all these sales plans and whatever else, just try to remember what it's like on the other side of it.

Remember how you would like to be treated when you're deciding how you're going to treat us.

that is all

[Fast Jimmy]

Addai67 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

No it wouldn't.  Modders setting up a Paypal and inviting people to kick in if they wish, that's one thing, but the whole idea of modding is that people love the game so much they're willing to spend free time and talent to enhance it.  Modders share resources because of this open-source spirit.  IMO the wild west and community aspects would be spoiled by commercializing it, if that were even possible.

As a software developer co-worker of mine always says, given enough time and resources, anything is possible.

And I realize that the modding community has done some great work in the past, with or without toolkits. But as the PC-only market bleeds more and more into the console+PC market, I think we'll be seeing less toolkits in the future. And while not all modders need a kit, from what little I know about Frostbite2's engine - the one DA3 is coming out on - it's not mod friendly at all. 

Would you rather pay less than you pay for a Coke these days for a mod? Or would you rather next to no mod content come out, and even when it does, it being months or even years down the line?

[Addai]

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No it wouldn't.  Modders setting up a Paypal and inviting people to kick in if they wish, that's one thing, but the whole idea of modding is that people love the game so much they're willing to spend free time and talent to enhance it.  Modders share resources because of this open-source spirit.  IMO the wild west and community aspects would be spoiled by commercializing it, if that were even possible.

That didn't happen with NWN.

People paid for NWN mods?

[In Exile]

Addai67 wrote...
People paid for NWN mods?

People paid for NWN, which was much more a toolset than it was a game. The 'core' campaign was just a mod Bioware made, with quite similar production values to other awesome NWN modules. 

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Addai67 wrote...
No it wouldn't.  Modders setting up a Paypal and inviting people to kick in if they wish, that's one thing, but the whole idea of modding is that people love the game so much they're willing to spend free time and talent to enhance it.  Modders share resources because of this open-source spirit.  IMO the wild west and community aspects would be spoiled by commercializing it, if that were even possible.

That didn't happen with NWN.

People paid for NWN mods?

Premium modules.

[addiction21]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Premium modules.

Modules =/= mods at least that's what is going to come up.

On a sidenote I have always enjoyed linking those when people bring up the "BIoWare never did DLC before EA" DLCs before the term DLC was coined.

[Addai]

Herr Uhl wrote...
Premium modules.

So, basically DLC before that term was used?  Not what I was thinking of, which is stuff made by players.

I wouldn't mind kicking in to pay for a mod kit for games I like, though usually when that idea is brought up a lot of people balk at that, too.

[Herr Uhl]

Addai67 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Premium modules.

So, basically DLC before that term was used?  Not what I was thinking of, which is stuff made by players.

I wouldn't mind kicking in to pay for a mod kit for games I like, though usually when that idea is brought up a lot of people balk at that, too.

The DLA (makers of Wyvern Crown of Cormyr) were just regular modders. They made loads of other mods too.

But yeah, it was basically DLC.

[addiction21]

Addai67 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Premium modules.

So, basically DLC before that term was used?  Not what I was thinking of, which is stuff made by players.

I wouldn't mind kicking in to pay for a mod kit for games I like, though usually when that idea is brought up a lot of people balk at that, too.

And how much are you willing to "kick in" for this toolkit? Is it enough to make a developer/publisher seriously consider it. Even as it stands mods as you want them are still primarily a PC thing because of how open it is.

Steam has Steamworks and Blizzard has been working torwards paid mods since before Wings of Liberty was released. It is supposed to be taking off in a big way with The Heart of the Swarm.

Accept that consoles (xbox, wii, ps3) are the big moneymakers with their own delivery service. So why should they allow free mods? PC's get the benefit of a infrastructure but these developers provide their own.

Would it not be better overall to show that mods are a possible source of income for those paying for the infrastructure?

The argument is always "developers/publishers do not want mods because it cuts into their bottom line" then the flip side is "people mod because they love to do it" If the publishers got to wet their beaks a little bit for providing the distubution while those that are doing it for the love of doing it get to put some coin in their pockets. What is the harm?

More mods for everybody.

P.S.
http://www.homeworld....com/index1.htm
http://www.moddb.com...wars-ascendancy

Two mods that I have been proud of being a part of for a very long time. Not to mention the countless mods I have used for (again) countless other games.

And for anecdotal evidence I do not know one person that would stop doing this because they could link it into a distribution service and get paid for it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

DLC doesn't sell if people aren't still playing the game. If Mods extend the life of a game, then they should encourage DLC sales, not discourage them.

[Brockololly]

Going back a couple pages, but this thread makes for a good read.

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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.

I think its a matter of Day 1 DLC feeling especially exploitative in this respect. Like you said, Day 1 DLC is getting planned and budgeted out earlier and earlier to maximize sales. Yet there comes a point when that Day 1 DLC can go from an attractive bonus to feeling like something that should be in the main game and is instead being charged extra for. With BioWare games, that seems to be story stuff. That's likely a primary draw for people to buy BioWare games and when something like Javik, part of an alien race hinted at repeatedly in prior games, becomes a part of paid Day 1 DLC, I think perception wise thats going too far. That's going beyond the perception of getting a nice bonus feature and into exploiting fans of the previous 2 games with a story/narrative hook that those fans might feel should be something critical to the story and in the main game for everyone.

In Mass Effect 3's case, putting Javik behind a pay wall can even negatively affect people's perception of the base game. Just look at how the guys at Giant Bomb reacted to ME3. The guys that played it with Javik could not fathom how he wasn't in the main game or how that experience would be without him. They loved Javik as a character but the decision to exclude him from the main game made "DLC That Should Be in the Main Game" their worst trend of the year.

Its a matter of almost making the DLC too good. To the point that, especially with Day 1 DLC, not giving it to everyone that pays full price for the game could negatively affect people's perception of the game. And with something like Javik where its best played with from the start, I doubt many people would go back and buy it after the fact. Its a matter of making DLC that complements and enriches the base game and not making DLC content that somebody is going to feel is preying on their passion or enthusiasm for the franchise by putting it behind a pay wall on Day 1.

In Exile wrote...
The issue isn't the idea - paying for  entertainment - but the execution, which is to create a product that  itself creates a need, and then doing your best to design a system to  exploit that desire to fill it. 

Right, with microtransactions and DLC its a matter of perception. Personally, I like to pay up front and once I'm playing a game, not be bothered with having some prompt to bust out my credit card to pay up for more content or an unlock.

EA's CEO has gone on record before saying how they want to get people invested in the game and in that moment of engagement when people's threshold for paying a little might be lower, charge them for something. Riccitiello is basically espousing a a F2P model there, yet what you're seeing in something like Dead Space 3 is that they'll have weapons and crafting materials available to purchase in game as a microtransaction shortcut. They're basically monetizing a cheat code or something you could have achieved with a console command before.

To me, it just feels a little gross since it feels very predatory towards the consumer. Makes sense for EA as a business! And thats fine. I just wish they'd avoid putting the payment mechanisms in the game- like what Dead Space 3 is doing or what Origins did with the NPC offering Warden's Keep. Keep that in the main menu or something.

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 suppose if EA wanted to monetize modding they could look at TF2 and the Mann Co. store there. Let players create content that's more or less cosmetic and submit it for approval to BioWare, then any approved items can be sold for a small fee, with some going to EA/BioWare and letting the content creator get a cut too.That would likely only work with very certain types of mods, but it would be something to try.

I just find it funny that EA/BioWare seems all gung ho on implementing extra multiplayer modes and so forth to extend the life of their game yet modding does just that as well. If you cultivate and encourage an active modding community for your games, thats a huge boon.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

DLC doesn't sell if people aren't still playing the game. If Mods extend the life of a game, then they should encourage DLC sales, not discourage them.

Bingo. A lot of the DLC I ended up buying for DA:O was well after I had finished the game but was still messing around with it due to mods.

Modifié par Brockololly, 24 janvier 2013 - 11:13 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

They should have DLC that unlocks other DLC. lol.

[AlanC9]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Herr Uhl wrote...
Premium modules.

So, basically DLC before that term was used?  Not what I was thinking of, which is stuff made by players.

I wouldn't mind kicking in to pay for a mod kit for games I like, though usually when that idea is brought up a lot of people balk at that, too.

The DLA (makers of Wyvern Crown of Cormyr) were just regular modders. They made loads of other mods too.

But yeah, it was basically DLC.

Note that paid DLC and fan mods had no problem coexisting. You couldn't do weapons and armor DLCs unless they had either unique looks or new effects, unless you can enforce no modded items on the MP side.

[AlanC9]

Brockololly wrote...

Its a matter of almost making the DLC too good. To the point that, especially with Day 1 DLC, not giving it to everyone that pays full price for the game could negatively affect people's perception of the game. 

So day 1 DLC needs to be kinda crappy? Kasumi rather than Javik?

[addiction21]

AlanC9 wrote...

Brockololly wrote...

Its a matter of almost making the DLC too good. To the point that, especially with Day 1 DLC, not giving it to everyone that pays full price for the game could negatively affect people's perception of the game. 

So day 1 DLC needs to be kinda crappy? Kasumi rather than Javik?

Either it is good and they should get it for free or its crappy and they have no interest in it.

Damned if you do and damned if you do not.

[Addai]

addiction21 wrote...

And how much are you willing to "kick in" for this toolkit?

I dunno.  Would depend on the offer, and on the game.

And for anecdotal evidence I do not know one person that would stop doing this because they could link it into a distribution service and get paid for it.

I'm talking mainly from user perspective, but I think it would have harmful effects.  I would certainly vet mods a lot more carefully if I was paying for them.  And if it breaks my game do I get a refund?

[Sylvius the Mad]

DLC that doesn't integrate seamlessly with the game is poor DLC. I couldn't stand how tacked-on Legacy felt with that hackneyed statue mechanic to access it. Whereas, Return to Ostagar slid right into DAO as if it had always belonged there.

That's what I want from DLC. I'd much rather a TotSC or a Stone Prisoner than something that doesn't mesh seamlessly.

The main game is what I'm playing. Legacy had no place in the main game. Now, if it had been presented as a stand-alone adventure (like Witch Hunt), that would have been adequate, but I'd rather have seamless integration that broadens the original campaign.

[addiction21]

Addai67 wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

And how much are you willing to "kick in" for this toolkit?

I dunno.  Would depend on the offer, and on the game.

And for anecdotal evidence I do not know one person that would stop doing this because they could link it into a distribution service and get paid for it.

I'm talking mainly from user perspective, but I think it would have harmful effects.  I would certainly vet mods a lot more carefully if I was paying for them.  And if it breaks my game do I get a refund?

Developer supported modding has been and is mostly dead. If you and the rest of the PC crowd are unwilling to give a inch then it will continue down that path.

If their is no incentive to providing it then why should anyone bother with it? Other then to make some anonymous person on the internet happy because they may or may not like the games and/or mods provided.

These microtransactions are nothing more then developer made and supported mods.

[Addai]

addiction21 wrote...

Developer supported modding has been and is mostly dead. If you and the rest of the PC crowd are unwilling to give a inch then it will continue down that path.

Bethesda?  CDPR?  What do you mean "not give an inch"?  I said I'd kick in for a modkit, and if a mod creator I really liked asked for Paypal donations I'd kick in, too.

If their is no incentive to providing it then why should anyone bother with it? Other then to make some anonymous person on the internet happy because they may or may not like the games and/or mods provided.

There is an incentive.  Even Bioware devs have said this.  It extends the life of the game.

These microtransactions are nothing more then developer made and supported mods.

The point, it has arrived!  Developers can choose their own business model, that's up to them.  I'll choose which ones I support with my gaming dollars.  I like the business model that seeks to increase sales by giving lots of value for the base game price hoping for positive word of mouth and sales of substantive, quality DLC.  I don't like the business model that seeks to strip down the base game and nickel-and-dime lots of piddly content.

Modifié par Addai67, 25 janvier 2013 - 01:42 .