611 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Think of it.  Enable voice-overs for a fee.  Enable modding for a fee.

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

[In Exile]

Sister Goldring wrote...

 Australian prices are crazy expensive compared to well pretty much everywhere.  I was reading in the paper the other day that 'choice' (a group that does price/value product reviews) determined that on one Microsoft product the price difference between countries was so massive ($8500) that it would be a better financial decision to fly from Australia to the US, buy the product and then fly home.  Sometimes it's not a lot of fun being an Aussie.  

Wow. There are situations where in Canada it makes sense to make purchases in the US (for example, certain cars, even with import tarifs, especially second hand). But nothing on that scale.

[In Exile]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
I disagree. I don't see it as fake goods/points/skills. I see it as paying real money for real entertainment. There's nothing illogical about it. Do you fault the movie theaters for charging more for their "fake" 3D movies? Is that illogical and unethical? The choice is up to the consumer. Some people like the 3D and are willing to pay for it. If they get sufficient entertainment from it that they find the cost worthwhile, who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

I think the distiction is one of degree. If the movie threatre starting charging 1 cent/frame, then I think we would get close to there being a problem. 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. 

[Wulfram]

How about if the movie included some utterly tedious scenes of people sitting in chairs, and then made you pay for the ability to fast forward through them?

[hoorayforicecream]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The video game companies are free to do this, just like the casinos are. After all, if they aren't doing it, someone else will fill that void instead, right? But realize that it is a very difficult stance to say art on one hand and questionable business practices on the other. And these ARE questionable, otherwise... why would we have so many questions about them?

Because people tend to be self-centered. Many, many people are incapable of seeing things outside of their own perspective. So they pass judgement on it, saying that it is not right. They don't like microtransactions, so the developers should stop doing it. They don't like day 1 DLC, so the developer should stop doing it. They don't like 3D movies, so the movie theaters should stop doing it.

There will always be people questioning every decision ever made, because that's the nature of the beast. Somebody somewhere will disagree. Those who do will think it is questionable.

[ElitePinecone]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

I disagree. I don't see it as fake goods/points/skills. I see it as paying real money for real entertainment. There's nothing illogical about it. Do you fault the movie theaters for charging more for their "fake" 3D movies? Is that illogical and unethical? The choice is up to the consumer. Some people like the 3D and are willing to pay for it. If they get sufficient entertainment from it that they find the cost worthwhile, who are you to tell them they shouldn't?

I'd think there's quite a clear line between entertainment and exploitation. 

The choice is up to the consumer, but you're assuming that the consumer is both rational and able to control their own impulses. Some consumers aren't (because of a whole bunch of reasons, including mental illness), and the risk is that you're handing these players an endless supply of *things* to spend their money on, through a vehicle that is specifically designed to be immensely entertaining and even addictive. The system is designed such that there's never an end to the items bought with microtransactions - in Mass Effect's case a gaming website spent $100 on item packs and was nowhere near unlocking even a fraction of the total content. Subsequent free expansions just keep increasing that pool of unlockables.

As one of the devs said in the article I linked, it'd be nice to think that all the people who spend $10,000 on in-game microtransactions are oil tycoons or royalty or billionaires who can afford it - but frankly, most of them aren't, and other telemetry from a social platform like Facebook probably confirms that they can't afford it. 

In that case, if the game is exploiting obsessive or impulsive people, it's ethically dubious if not downright abhorrent. 

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

How about if the movie included some utterly tedious scenes of people sitting in chairs, and then made you pay for the ability to fast forward through them?

I swear that Television are beginning to makes adds for boxes that can do something that sound supiciously like this.

But anyway, this is the case of having to pay to avoid mandatory content. I don't think games will ever reach that.

[SwitchN7]

Everyone can do and spend whatever they want on what ever they want.From me? Not another cent.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Think of it.  Enable voice-overs for a fee.  Enable modding for a fee.

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

Canon story material, like most of Bioware's DLC, will always have instrinsic value, even with a mod kit. Gameplay features would not, though. 

Although something like ME3's MP MXTs would still be sellers, since you wouldn't be able to (hopefully) mod the multiplayer (otherwise you have a Diablo 1 situation, where cheaters can just rule the entire game).

[SwitchN7]

[Inappropriate post removed. User banned.]

Modifié par John Epler, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:31 .

[John Epler]

Yeah, that's not the kind of post we're going to allow on these forums.

Keep it civil and appropriate or you will be removed.

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The video game companies are free to do this, just like the casinos are. After all, if they aren't doing it, someone else will fill that void instead, right? But realize that it is a very difficult stance to say art on one hand and questionable business practices on the other. And these ARE questionable, otherwise... why would we have so many questions about them?

Because people tend to be self-centered. Many, many people are incapable of seeing things outside of their own perspective. So they pass judgement on it, saying that it is not right. They don't like microtransactions, so the developers should stop doing it. They don't like day 1 DLC, so the developer should stop doing it. They don't like 3D movies, so the movie theaters should stop doing it.

There will always be people questioning every decision ever made, because that's the nature of the beast. Somebody somewhere will disagree. Those who do will think it is questionable.

I don't inherently disagree, but the fact that the vast majority of humanity is incredibly self-centered by nature does not preclude any of the problems I have presented. 

Again, doing these actions will cause the video game industry to be viewed as seedy and unscrupulous. At least, not without a (MUCH) better attempt at explaining themselves. Not that they owe anyone an explanation, but if the video game companies don't control the narrative of things like this, then it will be the people complaining who do. And if that's the case, most video game companies will begin to be viewed through a cynical, disapproving manner. 

That's not entirely Bioware's problem to deal with, but they will be painted with that brush if the industry as a whole starts going down that avenue, especially if Bioware engages in MXT practices nearly identical to others in the industry.

Its already started in many people's minds. And, despite what many say, a bad feeling doesn't go away with time. It just becomes a more resigned jaded mindset. Which is even worse, because then you have lost that customer forever. They may still buy products, but their heart and mind, their loyalty, their passion, will be sapped. And people with empty hearts can often result in empty pocket books for companies.

[hoorayforicecream]

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'd think there's quite a clear line between entertainment and exploitation. 

The choice is up to the consumer, but you're assuming that the consumer is both rational and able to control their own impulses.

The only alternative if someone is incapable of being rational and controlling their own impulses is for someone else to be rational and control their impulses for them. Since I don't believe that should be the case, nor should it be the responsibility of the developer or producer of goods, I disagree. I don't think that it should be up to someone else (especially a company providing goods and services) how I decide to live my life or spend my own money.

If someone has proven to be unable to control their own impulses or be rational, I'd say that the responsibilty lies on that person's caretaker to make those decisions for him or her, and not society at large.

Modifié par hoorayforicecream, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:35 .

[Wulfram]

esper wrote...

But anyway, this is the case of having to pay to avoid mandatory content. I don't think games will ever reach that.

We're already there in F2P, I'd say.  Paying for convenience stuff like being able to quick travel, or have a mount earlier, or be able to summon a shopkeeper to you is basically that.  So is paying for an XP boost or a golld boost so that you can skip grinding.

Of course, in F2P you can hardly complain because the basic stuff is free.  Actually, I should probably feel a little guilty about how much enjoyment I've got out of SWtOR considering I've only payed, and probably will only ever pay, £3.  But putting that sort of thing in full games would be going way too far for me.

Modifié par Wulfram, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:37 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Canon story material, like most of Bioware's DLC, will always have instrinsic value, even with a mod kit. Gameplay features would not, though.

DLC is not an MXT, though. That was all I meant to say. I agree with you. 

Although something like ME3's MP MXTs would still be sellers, since you wouldn't be able to (hopefully) mod the multiplayer (otherwise you have a Diablo 1 situation, where cheaters can just rule the entire game).

Right. The issue is SP MXT, which one would imagine is the aim. I don't play MP, so am not concerned with MP MXT. 

[esper]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'd think there's quite a clear line between entertainment and exploitation. 

The choice is up to the consumer, but you're assuming that the consumer is both rational and able to control their own impulses.

The only alternative if someone is incapable of being rational and controlling their own impulses is for someone else to be rational and control their impulses for them. Since I don't believe that should be the case, nor should it be the responsibility of the developer or producer of goods, I disagree. I don't think that it should be up to someone else (especially a company providing goods and services) how I decide to live my life or spend my own money.

If someone has proven to be unable to control their own impulses or be rational, I'd say that the responsibilty lies on that person's caretaker to make those decisions for him or her, and not society at large.

Or at least for the caretaker to get the person to take proffessional help so they can learn to minimize those impulses.

[In Exile]

hoorayforicecream wrote...
The only alternative if someone is incapable of being rational and controlling their own impulses is for someone else to be rational and control their impulses for them.

You're right - if that was the correct way to characterize what was happening. But it seems to me that our problem arises out of the fact that we disagree over whether that's the correct way of doing so. 

Since I don't believe that should be the case, nor should it be the responsibility of the developer or producer of goods, I disagree. I don't think that it should be up to someone else (especially a company providing goods and services) how I decide to live my life or spend my own money.  

What if the product was addictive, and design to exploit an addiction?

If someone has proven to be unable to control their own impulses or be rational, I'd say that the responsibilty lies on that person's caretaker to make those decisions for him or her, and not society at large.

Usually, that persons caretaker is society. 

[Addai]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

The only alternative if someone is incapable of being rational and controlling their own impulses is for someone else to be rational and control their impulses for them. Since I don't believe that should be the case, nor should it be the responsibility of the developer or producer of goods, I disagree. I don't think that it should be up to someone else (especially a company providing goods and services) how I decide to live my life or spend my own money.

If someone has proven to be unable to control their own impulses or be rational, I'd say that the responsibilty lies on that person's caretaker to make those decisions for him or her, and not society at large.

I'm a dirty capitalist and even I wouldn't go this far.  I think companies should be allowed to do it, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a bad reputation if their marketing and business model is sleazy and exploitative.  There is a spectrum, of course.  Incentives and bonuses can be fun, but EA combines them with stripping down features and quality from core games.  You aren't getting "game plus," you're having to pay more to get a complete game.  At least that is the perception and certainly how I've felt Bioware games are going.

I'll add that I find the other current trend of pre-order bonus packages being different for every retailer is extremely annoying.  Dishonored did that and currently Bioshock Infinite is doing it.

[jkflipflopDAO]

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

[Fast Jimmy]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

ElitePinecone wrote...

I'd think there's quite a clear line between entertainment and exploitation. 

The choice is up to the consumer, but you're assuming that the consumer is both rational and able to control their own impulses.

The only alternative if someone is incapable of being rational and controlling their own impulses is for someone else to be rational and control their impulses for them. Since I don't believe that should be the case, nor should it be the responsibility of the developer or producer of goods, I disagree. I don't think that it should be up to someone else (especially a company providing goods and services) how I decide to live my life or spend my own money.

If someone has proven to be unable to control their own impulses or be rational, I'd say that the responsibilty lies on that person's caretaker to make those decisions for him or her, and not society at large.

The concept that people cannot control their own impulses, behave logically and do what is right for themselves and others is the fundamental basis of why every civilization, country and society in the world has laws. Human history has shown us that humans cannot be counted on this.

Look at the opium wars in China in the 18th/19th centuries. Chinese people had been using opium for medical use for over a millenia. It wasn't until the Europeans introduced the concept of mixing it with tobacco and smoking it for personal use that it became out of control. In less than a century, more opium was imported into China annually then currently is being farmed worldwide today. It resulted in a war breaking out between the Chinese and British, costing hundreds and thousands of lives and devastating the trade of the Chinese. All because people couldn't control their own impulses and behave rationally. 

If, instead, opium sellers had exercised a little restraint, no law would have been needed. If a law had been passed early on, it might have prevented the trade from dominating the economy in just a few short decades and resulting in such high tensions.



Point being, the first war between Europeans and the Chinese ever was started over a vice. It shaded nearly every dealing between China and the West up through World War 1 and beyond. The world might be a completely different place if, instead of "counting on people to act rationally and control their impulses" that the opium dealers and/or the government had stepped in early to set some base ground rules.

Will MXT ever reach that level? I can't see a scenario like that happening, no. But it still could have far-reaching impacts for the industry, for gamers and for developers which may FAR outweighed the negative costs if a little restraint, planning and communication is used instead of a total "laissez faire" approach.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 janvier 2013 - 04:54 .

[hoorayforicecream]

This discussion is rapidly becoming political. I am recusing myself and suggest you all return to discussing game-related topics.

[esper]

Wulfram wrote...

esper wrote...

But anyway, this is the case of having to pay to avoid mandatory content. I don't think games will ever reach that.

We're already there in F2P, I'd say.  Paying for convenience stuff like being able to quick travel, or have a mount earlier, or be able to summon a shopkeeper to you is basically that.  So is paying for an XP boost or a golld boost so that you can skip grinding.

Of course, in F2P you can hardly complain because the basic stuff is free.  Actually, I should probably feel a little guilty about how much enjoyment I've got out of SWtOR considering I've only payed, and probably will only ever pay, £3.  But putting that sort of thing in full games would be going way too far for me.

Guess we have reached that.

Hmm....
Does F2P stand for Free to play, because if that is the case I would likely not mind, (Just not buy the feature). I would be pissed off if it was in an AAA game, though.

But the only thing people can do is not buying. I think kickstarters are the devilspawn incarnated (blasphmy, I know), but the only way I can show that is by saying I think it is an stupid idea, and not pay in the kickstarting phase of an kickstarter.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Usually, that persons caretaker is society. 

Beat me to the punch. 

Unless we are talking about a minor, or someone deemed unfit to function in society on their own, there IS no caretaker. Meth heads, porn addicts, compulsive gamblers, arenaline junkies... none of these people would, inherently, have any type of ward, guardian or caretaker. They will continue to take risks, immerse themselves in their particular fetish until it comes to the point of desperation where it drastically interferes with their ability to function in society.

Whether it is not being able to pay your rent and becoming homeless, resulting to crime, incurring grevious bodily harm or any other number of outcomes, many of these behaviors will then result in the person who has no caretaker and no ability to control their compulsion to do active damage to society. In which case society has to step in to try and correct the damage and reform the person in question, at much greater cost than early prevention or determent at the onset.

Society is the ward of us all, for good or bad. Because if we fall off the tracks, chances are we are going to start participating in behaviors that greatly harm society or its members.

[John Epler]

Let's bring this back on-topic.

[Fast Jimmy]

John Epler wrote...

Let's bring this back on-topic.

You're right, I apologize.

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

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

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

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

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 24 janvier 2013 - 05:03 .