611 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Wulfram wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
It seems like quite a bit of this could be rectified by simply waiting a week or so and seeing what people are saying.

Though of course the publisher doesn't want you doing that, and gives you various incentives to not do that.

I'm not sure incentive is the right word... but they definitely don't want you to be smart about your purchasing habits. Given that the vast majority of game sales happen in the first week, all game companies do their best to crank the marketing machine... which is fine, but it's hardly a good industry to let your product speak for itself, flaws or perks, and let the consumer decide. 
If the majority of fans actually did the "wait-and-see" game, the industry would probably collapse overnight. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 04:17 .

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

For a physical product there are issues, sure. Only so much shelf space you're going to get, and there are manufacturing and shipping costs. But these are not issues for digital unless bandwidth costs a lot more than I think it does. OTOH, in digital there's no particular reason to do a UE rather than individual product sales, unless you want to do a bundle so people buy more stuff ( I wouldn't have ever bought Golems of Amgarrak if it didn't come with the UE, for instance) So maybe we should talk about no big DLC sales rather than UEs as such. 

I can see a case for not doing sales. Even if you've sold about all the copies of LotSB you're ever going to at the current price but you could sell a bunch more at $2, selling those copies at $2 might teach people to hold off on buying Leviathan until it also costs $2. So you get a revenue bump for LotSB but lose some Leviathan revenue.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One last thing here... in regards to voting with your dollar, it can be difficult to do this as well. For DS3, microtransactions exist in the SP, yet EA says that they aren't required to best the game. Yet what does that mean? The Dragon Age games don't require companions or potions to beat them... but that doesn't mean it's not painfully harder to do so. We were told Mass Effect 3 didn't require MP or the mobile phone app to get the best endings... well, unless you consider a scenario where your hero lives (even in be most dubious of ways) as an ending, instead of an Easter Egg. Diablo 3 has always online DRM, but it won't affect your SP playthrough... except for all the server crashes for a SP GAME.

You're mixing some legitimate concerns with absurd hypotheticals, and I'm not sure you're even giving the legitimate ones a fair shake. Take companions, for example: of the Bioware companion NPCs to date (such as Shale, Sebastion, Javik, Zaeed, and Kasumi), they've all had a few things in common: they existed alongside an already complete and fleshed out main cast, none of them were story-critical for the gameplay experience, and most importantly all of them showed indications of being outside the content lock limits: that if they hadn't been in DLC, they wouldn't have been released at all.

It's one thing to be concerned about when core elements of the game are being locked out, but here? 

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I'm not sure what about the above quote you took from me was hypothetical?

Dead Space 3 has microtransactions in the SP game. ME3 required MP or the mobile phone app to get the Breathe ending scene before the EC. Diablo 3 had an always-online requirement that made the SP unplayable if their servers were down or slow.

I'm not sure I'm discussing any hypotheticals.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 07:06 .

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I'm not sure what about the above quote you took from me was hypothetical?

Dead Space 3 has microtransactions in the SP game. ME3 required MP or the mobile phone app to get the Breathe ending scene before the EC. Diablo 3 had an always-online requirement that made the SP unplayable if their servers were down or slow.

I'm not sure I'm discussing any hypotheticals.

Not exactly hypotheticals, but one can argue the merits of each aspect not being a negative. Dead Space 3's stuff is not pay-to-win, which is the fearful sticking point everyone has, so the claim is groundless on that one at least.

As for Mass Effect 3...well I said before it was the only ending unavilable, but was it the best ending is the question. That is a subective exercise and honestly it takes meta-game knowledge to know it exists. Now its not even a problem so its really a non-issue at this point.

As for Diablo 3...well I never liked Diablo 1 or 2, so there you go. But that one is all on Blizzard in the end mucking up and not admitting it. 

[bEVEsthda]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...
It seems like quite a bit of this could be rectified by simply waiting a week or so and seeing what people are saying.

Though of course the publisher doesn't want you doing that, and gives you various incentives to not do that.

I'm not sure incentive is the right word... but they definitely don't want you to be smart about your purchasing habits. Given that the vast majority of game sales happen in the first week, all game companies do their best to crank the marketing machine... which is fine, but it's hardly a good industry to let your product speak for itself, flaws or perks, and let the consumer decide. 

That would explain why some games didn't sell much, Vampires T.M. Bloodlines, Mirror's Edge, From Dust...
Actually, to be fair, Mirror's Edge was marketed. But it was an EA game that mainly appealed to EA-haters. Everybody I knew wanted it. But everybody was also so P* off by Spore that they refused to buy M.Edge just to spite EA. Me, I eventually bought it through Steam. Fabulous game. Whoever decided there had to be combat in it, was wrong though.

If the majority of fans actually did the "wait-and-see" game, the industry would probably collapse overnight. 

Or maybe they would reset their expectations?
Or maybe the industry would reset their perception of what sells?

[Fast Jimmy]

Not exactly hypotheticals, but one can argue the merits of each aspect not being a negative. 

I don't really care, not to sound rude, if there is a positive side to these practices or not. I think they are unethical. So the fact that it appears that DS3 isn't pay-to-win (from what I above been told), that ME3 was fixed three months after the game debuted or that Diablo 3 was "mucked up" by Blizzard.

All of these concepts are things I'm not wanting to endorse in the gaming industry. And every year, it seems to be tunneling further and further into a realm I, and other gamers, don't like of even recognize. When microtransactions in online games and always online was first introduced for multiplayer, people cried out that it wouldn't be long before these things would make it to the SP game and were dismissed as outlandish. When companies started putting MP in franchises with primarily SP bases, people decried that eventually there would be a requirement to play MP to see all the SP content and were similarly called crazy.

But now we've seen proof of these things. Whether they were accidents, poorly executed or actual intended ways to force players to do something that they don't want to do in an attempt by the companies to either circumvent things like used game sales or get more money through microtransactions.

How likely is it that we'll have even more of the dire predictions come true? That's unknown. But things like putting Twitter updates whenever you level up, or a pay2win model for a $60 SP game, or being unable to get all the content from a game without agreeing to ten or fifteen microtransactions to unlock quests or dialogue could all be today's nutcase prediction that becomes tomorrow's "one-off decision" from a developer to the next day's standard practice.

I'd rather put a hard stop to all of that now if I can with my decisions, regardless of the slanted benefits it brings to either the developer, the publisher or even myself as a consumer. Something truly great and amazing would have to come along to change that mindset for me n

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 08:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Or maybe they would reset their expectations?
Or maybe the industry would reset their perception of what sells?

You know, there's a saying - you can hope in one hand and crap in another... guess which one fills up first?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 11 février 2013 - 09:34 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I'm not sure what about the above quote you took from me was hypothetical?

Dead Space 3 has microtransactions in the SP game. ME3 required MP or the mobile phone app to get the Breathe ending scene before the EC. Diablo 3 had an always-online requirement that made the SP unplayable if their servers were down or slow.

I'm not sure I'm discussing any hypotheticals.

That was referring to a part of your post I cut out, I believe about making potions a paid-DLC item.

[Fast Jimmy]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

I'm not sure what about the above quote you took from me was hypothetical?

Dead Space 3 has microtransactions in the SP game. ME3 required MP or the mobile phone app to get the Breathe ending scene before the EC. Diablo 3 had an always-online requirement that made the SP unplayable if their servers were down or slow.

I'm not sure I'm discussing any hypotheticals.

That was referring to a part of your post I cut out, I believe about making potions a paid-DLC item.

Ah. I was more insinuating the slidiing scale of how a developer could say "you don't need microtransactions to beat the SP game" when, while true, could have very different meanings. Getting some of the best gear in the game right at the beginning (either through Gear DLC or through in-game SP microtransactions) does not seem to be required to beat the game. But, then again, you dont' need potions to beat the game either. So it would be a sliding scale to believe what a developer says about how interwtined microtransactions would be for the SP experience.

I didn't mean to imply that EA was going to go out and do that for DA3. 

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Getting some of the best gear in the game right at the beginning (either through Gear DLC or through in-game SP microtransactions) does not seem to be required to beat the game.

If it was there'd be something really wrong with game balance.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Not exactly hypotheticals, but one can argue the merits of each aspect not being a negative. 

I don't really care, not to sound rude, if there is a positive side to these practices or not. I think they are unethical.

Well, to be frank. No one cares what you think, at least in terms of the business side of things. You would be considered a non-asset, not part of the consumer base that the companies in the gaming industry are trying to cater to. 

And it's not just EA doing this either. Valve, Nintendo, Sony, Ubisoft, Activision, each of them has some sort of implementation of the same model because it is a successfully viable model both in terms of financial profit and stability for the industry. Much like how twenty years from now we may not even see physical disk copies for anything anymore, or at least wide-spread releases in physical format. Gaming as a service is not going away, and having one or 1 million people not purchase titles from them is almost insignificant, because they would have thousands of others either discovering the games for the first time, or purchasing the games because they want to play them. Or buying DLC because its on sale. Or signing up for a service because it nets you free stuff. 

Gaming is in the middle of an evolving phase, it's in-between consoles and also changing its business model because the consumer base demanded it so, unethical or not. 

[AlanC9]

LinksOcarina wrote...
 Much like how twenty years from now we may not even see physical disk copies for anything anymore, or at least wide-spread releases in physical format. 

Twenty? Five for PCs -- the games barely get shelved now, so what's the point of having physical product?

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, to be frank. No one cares what you think, at least in terms of the business side of things. You would be considered a non-asset, not part of the consumer base that the companies in the gaming industry are trying to cater to. 

This is completely untrue. I am a current customer. I have been a steady and loyal customer for over two decades to the video game industry.

From a business/marketing perspective, the old marketing adage is that it costs nearly five times more to bring in a new customer than to keep an old one. This means unless there are five new customers gung ho to buy games and purchase DLC to replace me, then it SHOULD matter to a business to offend existing customers with new practices to the point of losing them.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 février 2013 - 09:36 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
This means unless there are five new customers gung ho to buy games and purchase DLC to replace me, then it SHOULD matter to a business to offend existing customers with new practices to the point of losing them.

Not precisely true. They can make up for losing you with more revenue from the existing customers. They don't need new ones to make this a profitable move.

The questions are how many Fast Jimmys there are, and if they'd rather lose you or lose whatever other group of fans they'd lose with alternative strategies, like games with less expensive content or higher retail prices

Modifié par AlanC9, 12 février 2013 - 09:41 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Which is a shame, since I personally don't MIND paying more, at least in principle. I think games should retail for more (at least here in the States). I don't mind expansions, despite it beng added content for more. I even really love the idea of (unlimited, non-restrictive) DLC Season Passes.

It's the practices of nickel and dime, small expenses or paying for bits and pieces across the entire game that really turns me off and rubs me the wrong way.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 12 février 2013 - 11:49 .

[philippe willaume]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Which is a shame, since I personally don't MIND paying more, at least in principle. I think games should detail for more (at least here in the States). I don't mind expansions, despite it beng added content for more. I even really love the idea of (unlimited, non-restrictive) DLC Season Passes.

It's the practices of nickel and dime, small expenses or paying for bits and pieces across the entire game that really turns me off and rubs me the wrong way.

+1

[Kajagoogoo3]

I will only pay for DLC and that is it. If this is a pay to play then forget it.

[ghost_ronin]

I like the gear dlcs and extra missions, i paid for them because it wasnt an enormous amount of cash to relieve myself off and they gave me some extra replay value. See that bioware? Make dlcs and gear packs complement the game in a way that makes me want to play through again, like you already have done. Microtransaction in dead space 3 was offensively expensive. Do not emulate them, for your own sake. I bought dead space 3 and got all the dlc, but lets just say i pulled a few aces out of my sleeves when the ethernet cable was out so the dlc dropped a bit in price.

[DaosX]

http://www.ign.com/a...ll-future-games

This bothers me tremendously. The thought that parts of all future games are intentionally withheld until more money is paid is simply unethical. I can sort of understand if the game was free but having to BUY a full game only to not get a full game is just simply effed up.

Modifié par DaosX, 27 février 2013 - 03:52 .

[Travie]

DaosX wrote...

http://www.ign.com/a...ll-future-games

This bothers me tremendously. The thought that parts of all future games are intentionally withheld until more money is paid is simply unethical. I can sort of understand if the game was free but having to BUY a full game only to not get a full game is just simply effed up.

"And consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business."

A more outright lie has never been spoken.

[AlanC9]

DaosX wrote...

http://www.ign.com/a...ll-future-games

This bothers me tremendously. The thought that parts of all future games are intentionally withheld until more money is paid is simply unethical. I can sort of understand if the game was free but having to BUY a full game only to not get a full game is just simply effed up.

This is just confused. If the plan is always to have DLC, they are not holding anything back. The plan is to make the game and some DLC. If there wasn't going to be DLC, they'd have had a different production plan with less stuff in it.

Modifié par AlanC9, 27 février 2013 - 05:46 .

[DaosX]

AlanC9 wrote...

DaosX wrote...

http://www.ign.com/a...ll-future-games

This bothers me tremendously. The thought that parts of all future games are intentionally withheld until more money is paid is simply unethical. I can sort of understand if the game was free but having to BUY a full game only to not get a full game is just simply effed up.

This is just confused. If the plan is always to have DLC, they are not holding anything back. The plan is to make the game and some DLC. If there wasn't going to be DLC, they'd have had a different production plan with less stuff in it.

Are we that gullible to believe that? Remember the days of Final Fantasy games where you'd get a @#$%load of random quests that would have constituted a "DLC". Now, developers simply take out content that ought to have been a part of the original game and leaves it off so they can resell it later. From Ashes should've been included in the original ME3 release. So was Omega which was talked about multiple times yet was strangely left off.

[LinksOcarina]

DaosX wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

DaosX wrote...

http://www.ign.com/a...ll-future-games

This bothers me tremendously. The thought that parts of all future games are intentionally withheld until more money is paid is simply unethical. I can sort of understand if the game was free but having to BUY a full game only to not get a full game is just simply effed up.

This is just confused. If the plan is always to have DLC, they are not holding anything back. The plan is to make the game and some DLC. If there wasn't going to be DLC, they'd have had a different production plan with less stuff in it.

Are we that gullible to believe that? Remember the days of Final Fantasy games where you'd get a @#$%load of random quests that would have constituted a "DLC". Now, developers simply take out content that ought to have been a part of the original game and leaves it off so they can resell it later. From Ashes should've been included in the original ME3 release. So was Omega which was talked about multiple times yet was strangely left off.

That was then though, this is now.

As I said in the other thread:

But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board. 

Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible, not to mention a way to generate stronger revenue over hit-driven metrics. 

The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours. 

In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine. 

That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. I'm patient enough to see EA make changes to their services and find a method that is non-intrusive and beneficial to both sides. So far, BioWare has gotten it right with Mass Effect 3, and Dead Space 3 worked as well. Thats 2/2 at this time. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 06:10 .