611 réponses à ce sujet

[Conduit0]

Wozearly wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

He's also conveniently ignoring the large number of titles in other genres that come out regularly that don't support his point. Sports, racing, RPG, RTS, MOBA, Turn-based Strategy, puzzle, simulation, tower defense, rhythm and beat, fighting, motion games, and hybrids of these various genres are all still being produced regularly by many studios of varying sizes that aim for varying numbers of sales.

But there's a grain of truth if you widen his argument to a less extremist position, as a lot of the AAA activity seems concentrated on a relatively small number of genres, most of which are action-based formats (shooters, racing and sports spring most immediately to mind) which have a natural multiplayer element.

That's not to say this doesn't reflect the preferences of the majority of the PC/console gaming market - it almost certainly does. Or that there aren't successful and large budget games appearing from other genres...or games from those genres produced at a lower budget for a niche audience.

The only downside to heavy focus on a few areas is if the AAA end winds up pushing its cost base up in a destructive fashion in order to 'keep up with the Joneses' to a degree that their player base cannot, or will not, financially support. Then one failure brings a studio down.

Much though I have a low opinion of EA, by having its fingers in multiple genres, acting both as publisher and developer across multiple genres, creeping steadily into the distribution channel and generally showing a healthy disregard for the views of its customer base in pursuit of profitisation, they're pretty secure against one-off risks for the immediate future.

As a result, Bioware are probably better in than out. I wouldn't want a single flop to kill them, no matter how much I might disagree with them around whether DA2 was any good or not.

The only note of caution I'd sound is that its a depressingly good indicator that a company which treats its customer base as cash cows and has customer perceptions moving steadily towards rock bottom (hello, EA) has been a market leader for longer than it should have been and become complacent. History shows that as with empires, so with companies...no dominant power lasts forever, no matter how much it looks like it will at the time. .
So its probably a good thing that Bioware is consistently playing second fiddle to Bethesda in terms of sales, because it'll discourage complancency. Following this logic to its Sylvius-like conclusion, if you want DA:3 to be magnificent, rave about how amazing Skyrim was and how you wish Bioware would learn more from Bethesda and the Elder Scrolls world.

Just don't do it in front of John Epler...I hear he has a vicious temper.

AAA games have narrowed down to a handful of genres out of necessity, when you have to sell millions of copies to recoup your investment, you are naturally going aim for the genres with the largest market shares, which are shooters and action games. The irony in complaining about the narrow focus of AAA titles is that if publishers could move a significant portion of their revenue stream away from unit sales, to say microtransactions, then they could afford to branch out into other genres.

[dreman9999]

FedericoV wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...

If you don't like microtransactions, it is generally a good idea to not purchase them. They should not be required to enjoy or finish a game, but are available for those who want that sort of content. Seems like a simple enough deal.

They change the nature of the gaming experience for everyone.

If you want people to use microtransactions, then you have to manufacture occasions where a player could need them.

No they don't. Look how they use it in ME3. That game has it and there are no problems with it. It's an issue that it has to be done right instead of it just being bad.

[Wozearly]

Conduit0 wrote...

AAA games have narrowed down to a handful of genres out of necessity, when you have to sell millions of copies to recoup your investment, you are naturally going aim for the genres with the largest market shares, which are shooters and action games. The irony in complaining about the narrow focus of AAA titles is that if publishers could move a significant portion of their revenue stream away from unit sales, to say microtransactions, then they could afford to branch out into other genres.

Which is the problem with defining AAA in terms of "it has a huge budget compared to other games", because therefore only genres with a large enough potential customer base to support budgets at that threshold can ever be considered to produce an AAA game.

Not sure I agree with you about shifting the revenue stream leading to diversification.

Firstly, its not actually about the revenue stream, but the total revenue. In terms of this discussion, its a trade off between average income per customer and number of customers. Whether you get this in one go with a boxed CD or in multiple little goes spread over the player base as with microtransactions isn't relevant, unless one of those models is innately better at generating more revenue for essentially the same game.

Games that are designed to be played in small bursts for a heck of a long time are likely to profit more from the microtransaction or subscription models. Games that are designed to be played intensively and immersively are more likely to suffer under the microtransaction model, or are forced to pick a hybrid position between sale and microtransaction - be that DLC, or primarily sale price but with microtransactions as well.

But lets say that a publisher did change the way they got money and it earned you 20% more for the game. Would they then spend that extra 20% in developing down a different genre with (presumably) a new external studio?

If its a big publisher like EA that doesn't want all its eggs in one basket, that might make sense. Or if its a tiny publisher that focuses on one niche genre and feels that expansion into other niches is highly sensible (see Paradox Interactive). Or it could swallow it as extra profit, pat itself on the back, then repeat the formula in the next game in the same genre. Or allocate a higher budget for the next game in that genre now there's evidence it could be sustained.

Even if the idea is to invest it in a different (new) game that you otherwise wouldn't have funded, the temptation would still be to reinvest it in the genres that your trusted and/or internal development studios are confident in, and that they know how to make and you know how to market. Very rarely do studios expand too far beyond one or two core genres, which is no real surprise. Excellent though the DA team are, I would be somewhat sceptical if Mike Laidlaw announced that after DA3 the same team would be developing a story-led racing game.

It might be that Bioware would hit the ball out of the park on that, but its more likely that it would be a poor use of the skills the team has and there'd have to be time and money for a lot of mistakes and false starts made before they caught up with studios that knew what they were doing.

Call me a sceptic, but I believe the push to microtransactions and DLC are methods of attempting to raise larger amounts of money from (hard)core players because its easier to do this over time than have a terrifying price tag to face before you've even played the game. The proof in the pudding is over on smartphone games, where the entry price has a horribly low bar before its considered 'expensive' in comparison to other game apps...but take a look at the free to play games, and you often see that the microtransactions get you to that 'expensive' entry price (or even way beyond it) surprisingly quickly. Normally one transaction will do it.

Modifié par Wozearly, 05 février 2013 - 11:16 .

[Fugiz]

I dont value my money so take it EA take it! I am still waiting for novelty underwear for my mass effect LI. Microtransact me a Star Child dance battle. How about real credits for in-game credits. Black Widow 11? Sold.

Single Player a microtransaction gold mine. Mine me EA mine me!

[Wulfram]

dreman9999 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

They change the nature of the gaming experience for everyone.

If you want people to use microtransactions, then you have to manufacture occasions where a player could need them.

No they don't. Look how they use it in ME3. That game has it and there are no problems with it. It's an issue that it has to be done right instead of it just being bad.

ME3 multiplayer would undoubtedly be different if it wasn't set up to encourage microtransactions.

[LinksOcarina]

Wulfram wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

FedericoV wrote...

They change the nature of the gaming experience for everyone.

If you want people to use microtransactions, then you have to manufacture occasions where a player could need them.

No they don't. Look how they use it in ME3. That game has it and there are no problems with it. It's an issue that it has to be done right instead of it just being bad.

ME3 multiplayer would undoubtedly be different if it wasn't set up to encourage microtransactions.

Possibly, but only in its design through how drops are done. 

Gameplay-wise, it would be pretty much the same. 

[katamuro]

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

[katamuro]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

Because the whole system of including them makes the company design a game in  a way that people would use that system. They cant avoid it because the money is so attractive. Look at the new dead space 3 system. It clearly shows that they want to make microtransactions into singleplayer where it should not be used at all. I have already played for a game why I should pay more to get better weapons in a singleplayer? If its like in ME3 where it really is only a substitude for actualy game time then sure in MP its ok. But not in single.

[LinksOcarina]

katamuro wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

Because the whole system of including them makes the company design a game in  a way that people would use that system. They cant avoid it because the money is so attractive. Look at the new dead space 3 system. It clearly shows that they want to make microtransactions into singleplayer where it should not be used at all. I have already played for a game why I should pay more to get better weapons in a singleplayer? If its like in ME3 where it really is only a substitude for actualy game time then sure in MP its ok. But not in single.

Then BioWare failed with Mass Effect 3 since I avoided paying a dime for anything in multiplayer. And so far the post-review chatter I am getting is that the microtransactions are not intrusive, basically they are not really needed to get through the game. 

So I think your presumption is falling flat, and that it is still optional. That said, you do have a point about how mechanics can influence behavior, and some people will use the system because its designed into them. But to that point, it is on the person, not the company, for offering the incentive in the end.

The only way it would not be optional is if you needed a key to unlock level 5, or something like that. Something that is only obtainable yet required to win the game. And if that happens, then EA is doing something wrong in their design process.

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 06 février 2013 - 04:01 .

[Sanunes]

katamuro wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

Because the whole system of including them makes the company design a game in  a way that people would use that system. They cant avoid it because the money is so attractive. Look at the new dead space 3 system. It clearly shows that they want to make microtransactions into singleplayer where it should not be used at all. I have already played for a game why I should pay more to get better weapons in a singleplayer? If its like in ME3 where it really is only a substitude for actualy game time then sure in MP its ok. But not in single.

My understanding of Dead Space 3 is that you use microtransactions to get additional crafting materials, which to me is a lot better then DLC weapons, for you have to buy the DLC for the weapons but with buying crafting material you can still just play the game to unlock the crafting materials and not pay any money for it, which is what you seem to want.

[bEVEsthda]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kickstarter sadly has not proven anything yet, because most of the projects funded on it are speculative at best, and promising a product in the future. The numbers for kickstarter projects like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Shadowrun, and so forth are also very miniscule in comparison to the general audience. 

The caveat for them is that they don't need to be big-scale, so they have their niche space to grow in. But at the same time, the Kickstarter projects are also competing against each other more than anything else, which is making the indie market saturated with both good and bad games. Ironically, your last line is what these kickstarters are not doing, as they are serving a tiny portion of the market for their own financial gain. There is even no guarentee they will all be successfull or on the up and up, if you will. They may have been funded yes, but that doesn't determine quality of the product. If anything Kickstarter is on the verge of a bursted bubble.

Minecraft is also a special case, because they are more like Rovio only with actual game ideas coming out. They hit it big with one thing, expanded it, and are now trying to diversify. The question is maintaining versus being successful, and if Mojang can't maintain, they will fail or at the very least, decrease production. 

The problem all these are facing, is that just a small niche of old-hand gamers see them.
Same problem for expanding the market for the industry. The games that could, are only visible to a few diehard veterans.

The public beyond don't bother. They 'know' what videogames are. The old console formula (run on a track-bash the baddies-pick jewels-whittle Boss... and so forth). And they're not interested. (And neither am I, frankly).

[alhamel94]

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kickstarter sadly has not proven anything yet, because most of the projects funded on it are speculative at best, and promising a product in the future. The numbers for kickstarter projects like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Shadowrun, and so forth are also very miniscule in comparison to the general audience. 

The caveat for them is that they don't need to be big-scale, so they have their niche space to grow in. But at the same time, the Kickstarter projects are also competing against each other more than anything else, which is making the indie market saturated with both good and bad games. Ironically, your last line is what these kickstarters are not doing, as they are serving a tiny portion of the market for their own financial gain. There is even no guarentee they will all be successfull or on the up and up, if you will. They may have been funded yes, but that doesn't determine quality of the product. If anything Kickstarter is on the verge of a bursted bubble.

Minecraft is also a special case, because they are more like Rovio only with actual game ideas coming out. They hit it big with one thing, expanded it, and are now trying to diversify. The question is maintaining versus being successful, and if Mojang can't maintain, they will fail or at the very least, decrease production. 

The problem all these are facing, is that just a small niche of old-hand gamers see them.
Same problem for expanding the market for the industry. The games that could, are only visible to a few diehard veterans.

The public beyond don't bother. They 'know' what videogames are. The old console formula (run on a track-bash the baddies-pick jewels-whittle Boss... and so forth). And they're not interested. (And neither am I, frankly).

the new android OUYA was kickstarter and is coming out soon

[LinksOcarina]

alhamel94 wrote...

bEVEsthda wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Kickstarter sadly has not proven anything yet, because most of the projects funded on it are speculative at best, and promising a product in the future. The numbers for kickstarter projects like Wasteland 2, Project Eternity, Shadowrun, and so forth are also very miniscule in comparison to the general audience. 

The caveat for them is that they don't need to be big-scale, so they have their niche space to grow in. But at the same time, the Kickstarter projects are also competing against each other more than anything else, which is making the indie market saturated with both good and bad games. Ironically, your last line is what these kickstarters are not doing, as they are serving a tiny portion of the market for their own financial gain. There is even no guarentee they will all be successfull or on the up and up, if you will. They may have been funded yes, but that doesn't determine quality of the product. If anything Kickstarter is on the verge of a bursted bubble.

Minecraft is also a special case, because they are more like Rovio only with actual game ideas coming out. They hit it big with one thing, expanded it, and are now trying to diversify. The question is maintaining versus being successful, and if Mojang can't maintain, they will fail or at the very least, decrease production. 

The problem all these are facing, is that just a small niche of old-hand gamers see them.
Same problem for expanding the market for the industry. The games that could, are only visible to a few diehard veterans.

The public beyond don't bother. They 'know' what videogames are. The old console formula (run on a track-bash the baddies-pick jewels-whittle Boss... and so forth). And they're not interested. (And neither am I, frankly).

the new android OUYA was kickstarter and is coming out soon

Ok.

Does that mean its going to be successful? Or will it become a Gizmondo or Atari Jaguar? Ouya can make it, but it needs to beat out other, competiing platforms (which there are several now that are trying to emulate the Ouya's success and be released within the next two years) and prove that it has a viable game base to hook the audience. 

Right now it has nothing set in stone except a release date and a price. That is sadly not enough. 

[ForgottenWarrior]

They in ME3, they would be in DA3. Despite our wishes

[EpicBoot2daFace]

katamuro wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

Because the whole system of including them makes the company design a game in  a way that people would use that system. They cant avoid it because the money is so attractive. Look at the new dead space 3 system. It clearly shows that they want to make microtransactions into singleplayer where it should not be used at all. I have already played for a game why I should pay more to get better weapons in a singleplayer? If its like in ME3 where it really is only a substitude for actualy game time then sure in MP its ok. But not in single.

They are not to blame for your lack of self-control.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Dead Space 3











that is all.

[LinksOcarina]

DinoSteve wrote...

Dead Space 3



that is all.

What about it? Did you play it and have something meaningful to add to this conversation? 

[Fast Jimmy]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

katamuro wrote...

Lets just not feed the EA? microstransactions are a parasite on the current gaming industry. They came out of the social games like farmville made by a company that is now dead. So lets keep that in mind. Microtransactions are a bad idea and the people who use them should feel bad. Its a terrible thing both gameplay wise and player wise.

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

Because the whole system of including them makes the company design a game in a way that people would use that system. They cant avoid it because the money is so attractive. Look at the new dead space 3 system. It clearly shows that they want to make microtransactions into singleplayer where it should not be used at all. I have already played for a game why I should pay more to get better weapons in a singleplayer? If its like in ME3 where it really is only a substitude for actualy game time then sure in MP its ok. But not in single.

They are not to blame for your lack of self-control.

Just like a drug dealer is not to blame for a drug addict's lack of self control? Well, good thing we don't chase after and try to jail them.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

LinksOcarina wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Dead Space 3



that is all.

What about it? Did you play it and have something meaningful to add to this conversation? 

Don't need too speaks for itself.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Just like a drug dealer is not to blame for a drug addict's lack of self control? Well, good thing we don't chase after and try to jail them.

The fact that you're comparing microtransactions in a video game to drugs is very telling. If you want to join the grown up's at the big table, I suggest you start by refuting this...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

Why are they so bad? They are optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to, and everything that's available to buy is attainable by playing the game.

[Wulfram]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

They are not to blame for your lack of self-control.

You're missing the point.  Even if I don't pay for microtransactions - I won't - I'm still going to be playing a game that's designed to encourage microtransactions.  Which will likely include bits of grinding, so that people will be willing to pay to skip some of that grinding.

The content there to promote microtransactions is only optional in the "well, you don't need to buy the game" sense.

Modifié par Wulfram, 06 février 2013 - 10:49 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Wulfram wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

They are not to blame for your lack of self-control.

You're missing the point.  Even if I don't pay for microtransactions - I won't - I'm still going to be playing a game that's designed to encourage microtransactions.  Which will likely include bits of grinding, so that people will be willing to pay to skip some of that grinding.

The content there to promote microtransactions is only optional in the "well, you don't need to buy the game" sense.

Can you prove to me that these games are infact designed to encourage the player to participate in microtransactions, or are you just guessing?

[XX-Pyro]

Wulfram wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

They are not to blame for your lack of self-control.

You're missing the point.  Even if I don't pay for microtransactions - I won't - I'm still going to be playing a game that's designed to encourage microtransactions.  Which will likely include bits of grinding, so that people will be willing to pay to skip some of that grinding.

The content there to promote microtransactions is only optional in the "well, you don't need to buy the game" sense.

The grinding would more than likely be there anyways, like in most MP's. And your last line is completely incorrect. If I don't buy the game, I don't get the content. If I buy the game and don't pay for microtransactions (never do), I still get the exact same content.