611 réponses à ce sujet

[Conduit0]

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.

This is more an emotional argument than anything, but I just want to see developers focused on making excellent games where we beg them for more content so we can dive right back in. I don't want to be prompted to buy things, or tempted with trinkets that are superior to anything I could find while exploring the world. It feels a bit like buying a book with missing chapters or absent dialogue.
I'm apprehensive about the future of gaming microtransactions to say the least.

This is the very definition of a slippery slope. Agressive use of micro-transaction systems will never become a norm in gaming, because those kinds of systems are always doomed to failure. Micro-transaction systems work because people are willing to pay money for something they enjoy, but the reverse is also true, people will not pay money for something they don't enjoy. All successful micro-transaction systems have one thing in common, the game is fun to play without ever spending a dime, and thats not going to change.

[In Exile]

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.  

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

Unless they're millionares, they're going to be focusing on their real job, to avoid starving and being homeless. After that, if they like things like friends or family, probaby those (after a long, hard day of work). 

[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 .

[Conduit0]

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:

For someone who claims they want to work in the industry, you sure are full of hyperbolic bull****

Games today on average are bigger, longer, have more content, and higher replay value than games did in 1999. Also throwing inflation into the mix, a game now complete with buying all of its DLC is still CHEAPER than a game was in 1999. So on average, you're actually getting more, while paying less than you did 14 years ago.

[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.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

They already have made the base game cheaper.  Games are less than half the price the were 20 years ago.  That fixed $60 is a steadily diminishing price over time as the value of individual dollars falls.  Measured in 2011 dollars, I paid $160 for just one new game in 1986.

I think games should be more expensive.  Microtransactions are a way to make them more expensive, while keeping that extra expense optional.

[Conduit0]

Sylvius the Mad 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.

They already have made the base game cheaper.  Games are less than half the price the were 20 years ago.  That fixed $60 is a steadily diminishing price over time as the value of individual dollars falls.  Measured in 2011 dollars, I paid $160 for just one new game in 1986.

I think games should be more expensive.  Microtransactions are a way to make them more expensive, while keeping that extra expense optional.

Exactly, DLC and micro-transactions are a way to offset the rising costs of development without directly increasing the price of games. Sadly most people seem to be too stubborn, or too stupid to accept this simple reality.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My goal here is to reduce the required sales volume necessary to make the game profitable. In 1998, selling 200,000 games was a huge achievement, but now it could well cause a major developer to go bankrupt. Why? Because the revenue is lower relative to the production costs. One way to fix that is to lower production costs. The other is to increase revenues per unit sold.

I've long advocated means to lower production costs, but BioWare shouldn't ignore the possibility to earning more on each game.

[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.

[hoorayforicecream]

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.

[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.

[Plaintiff]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

They already have made the base game cheaper.  Games are less than half the price the were 20 years ago.  That fixed $60 is a steadily diminishing price over time as the value of individual dollars falls.  Measured in 2011 dollars, I paid $160 for just one new game in 1986.

I think games should be more expensive.  Microtransactions are a way to make them more expensive, while keeping that extra expense optional.

Heavens above, you're killing me.

I agree they're getting cheaper, with inflation and costs rising byut the price staying the same, but I can barely justify spending $60 on a game as it is. Let's not make the gateway even more difficult (more difficult by parsing out integral content like tactics or party control, I'm fine with things like the appearance packs or DLC characters)

I pay $80, $90, sometimes more than a $100 for a videogame, even though the Australian dollar is currently roughly equal to the US dollar.

[In Exile]

Plaintiff wrote...
I pay $80, $90, sometimes more than a $100 for a videogame, even though the Australian dollar is currently roughly equal to the US dollar.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's the same PPP-wise, but I think all posts on video-game costs should come with an "Aussies are still screwed!" sticker. Have games gotten more expensive in the last decade, though?

[hoorayforicecream]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I pay $80, $90, sometimes more than a $100 for a videogame, even though the Australian dollar is currently roughly equal to the US dollar.

Steam is your friend.

I really can't justify that kind of money myself. Maybe later in life, when my income is much larger than my expenses. But it isn't currently.

Australians pay significantly more on steam as well. It sucks.

[Inquisitor Recon]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
Australians pay significantly more on steam as well. It sucks.

It must be somehow related to all of the thousands of horrible human-slaying creatures down there.

[AlanC9]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
(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?)

I think the sophisticated version of the argument is that you make more money in the short term, but lose money in the long term since your fans desert you for your later projects even if they put up with this sort of thing for the products they're already committed to.

I don't buy much DLC or do any microtransactions, so I don't got a dog in that fight. Edit: I mean that I don't do those things because I'm a cheap bastard; so far everything that's been DLC or micotransactions has been dispensable, and therefore I've dispensed with it. 

Modifié par AlanC9, 24 janvier 2013 - 07:00 .

[Fiddles dee dee]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I pay $80, $90, sometimes more than a $100 for a videogame, even though the Australian dollar is currently roughly equal to the US dollar.

Steam is your friend.

I really can't justify that kind of money myself. Maybe later in life, when my income is much larger than my expenses. But it isn't currently.

Australians pay significantly more on steam as well. It sucks.

It's true but there's a major inquiry on at the moment so hopefully that will adjust the gouging.

Or it could be as Recon is suggesting, a tax we pay to keep the drop bears at bay.

[Plaintiff]

In Exile wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...
I pay $80, $90, sometimes more than a $100 for a videogame, even though the Australian dollar is currently roughly equal to the US dollar.

That doesn't necessarily mean it's the same PPP-wise, but I think all posts on video-game costs should come with an "Aussies are still screwed!" sticker. Have games gotten more expensive in the last decade, though?

Well, it varies from store to store, sometime by as much as $10. But if I recall correctly, when the current gen first started, new games were insanely exorbitant ($120 each). So comparitively, I'd say they've gone down.

DLC is pricier too. I paid about $16 for each of the DA2 story packs, for instance.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 24 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .