67 réponses à ce sujet

[upsettingshorts]

ReconTeam wrote...

Because Dead Space 3 style microtransactions are the future and should be embraced.

Lots of companies use microtransactions.

Why aren't you lining up outside, oh I dunno, Cryptic Studios?

If microtransactions take off, blame the people who spend money on them.  We (gamers) have no problem doing this when criticizing gold farming as a practice.

But really, this is simply evidence of the Bad=Assign Blame, Good=EA not responsible confirmation bias I referred to.  It's not being upset over microtransactions that's wrong, it's pinning EA as uniquely evil and the source of all the things you hate that's wrong.  But it's a convenient narrative.

ReconTeam wrote...

I suppose most here are just too privileged to see the truth.

The idea of someone named ReconTeam denying the value of perspective continues to be hilarious, keep it up.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:20 .

[Xewaka]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

I blame EA.

More specifically, I blame the way gamers view EA. Everything they do is interpreted through a specific lens of angry, frustrated distrust, whether it is actually called for or not.  Case in point, and you can and will continue to see this, should BioWare do something a person likes in whatever EA published game... BioWare is given credit. You never see EA given credit.  Something a user doesn't like?  Sure plenty of folks blame BioWare.  But EA is also thrown under the bus too.  It's confirmation bias at it's most pervasive.

Their business practices are not unique. They are not uniformly unreasonable. But because they're EA, they get the crap for them smaller companies - that engage in many of the same ones, and plenty of their own we could question if we treated them the same way - get a pass.

My belief in this is so strong, that I'm really only going to interpret anyone who disagree with me below as more evidence.

Keep hating EA guys! You're really bringing a valuable and consistent perspective to the subject.  It really provides insight into the process of making games and displays a truly astonishing amount of respect for the truth.

Naughty Bear wrote...

Look at cd projekt red, people sing songs of joy all over gaming communities and on the forums you see actual optimistic comments and threads.

Two reasons:

They're small... or more accurately, are interpreted as smaller than they are.  Little guys get the benefit of the doubt.  Like how that circular interface and list inventory in TW2 was a pretty clear sign that their marketing pandering about how TW2 would remain a PC exclusive was... well, predictable .  Not that I care about such things either way, but if EA did that they'd be breaking out the torches and pitchforks.  If you didn't care that CDPR clearly intended to port TW2 to consoles from the start, and included console friendly elements in the UI, because you enjoyed their game?  Great, good for you.  Start treating EA the same when they do it.  

You're only as good as your last game.  Gamers, even ones who love to wrap themselves in the title of "loyal," are among the most fickle people around.  Should Cyberpunk tank, this bullet point would rapidly disappear, but the damage would be minimized because of the first point.

Here, have some ammunition.
There is a factor absent from the former reasoning, and it is the following: EA, Activision, and other "large" publishers are usually publicly owned companies, whereas "the PC Darlings", Valve and CDProjeckt Red are (as far as I know) privately owned business.
What does this mean? Valve and CDPR have the customers as their first priority. Not because they're "so much better", but because it is the most sound business plan: Without customers, you have no business.
EA and similar industries have the stockholders as their first priority, because they have to have content investors to keep functioning. This means that customers are, at best, a second priority; when customer and stockholder priorities are at odds, the customer loses, because he is secondary to the stockholders. That's the reason people hate on EA, Activision, etc: Because, wheter they're aware of it or not, customers realize they're second tier to them.

[upsettingshorts]

Xewaka wrote...

Because, wheter they're aware of it or not, customers realize they're second tier to them.

Sure, and there's also the idea - who knows where it comes from - that games should be (and in the "best" cases are) made by passionate hobbyists as a "labor of love."

And only games they like ever qualify as being the result "labors of love," of course.  Nobody has ever labored with love on a game they hate!

Business is business.  EA and Activision's size gives them advantages (resources) and disadvantages (different priorities).  Unless you've got something that prints money for you (Valve with Steam) there are going to be tradeoffs.  Does BioWare make Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age 2, and SW:TOR at the same time without EA?  Absolutely not.  Are those games better without EA?  Who can honestly say?  Do they even get made?  BioWare never once self-published so...

But hey EA is worse than Bank of America so whatever.

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:35 .

[MerinTB]

Xewaka wrote...
There is a factor absent from the former reasoning, and it is the following: EA, Activision, and other "large" publishers are usually publicly owned companies, whereas "the PC Darlings", Valve and CDProjeckt Red are (as far as I know) privately owned business.
What does this mean? Valve and CDPR have the customers as their first priority. Not because they're "so much better", but because it is the most sound business plan: Without customers, you have no business.
EA and similar industries have the stockholders as their first priority, because they have to have content investors to keep functioning. This means that customers are, at best, a second priority; when customer and stockholder priorities are at odds, the customer loses, because he is secondary to the stockholders. That's the reason people hate on EA, Activision, etc: Because, wheter they're aware of it or not, customers realize they're second tier to them.

There is a crapton of truth in the above (more so than crapton is a word, at least) and you can even make (or just accept) the above argument and not think corporations are "evil" or big companies are "out to screw the little guy."

What the priority of the business is, who they answer to and what it is they have to accomplish, is paramount in understanding the actions of said business.

[Giltspur]

There are a lot of ad hominem arguments instead of useful arguments.  A lot of people attack EA or Bioware instead of the game.  That leads to a lot unproductive discussion and talking past one another.  That potential for that has always been there, particularly after EA and Bioware merged.  However, the disappointment some had with DA2 and ME3 combined with the convenient scapegoat (EA) to cause the ad hominem posts to ramp up.  

There will always be these-young-kids-don't-know-quality, these-casuals-don't-know-what-real-games-are and if-I-were-designer-things-would-be-awesome posts as there always have been.   They're not really any big deal by themselves.  The ones that lead to toxicity are the ones where a gamer is unhappy with a game and then decides to (1) explain it all by attacking EA or Bioware or (2) thinks game forums are places to agitate with like-minded people and bring change through protest.  

As for (1), there's always a better way to make your point.  Think of science.  Imagine you dislike a researcher because his mind is weird and generates weird and bad ideas.  You could attack him.  Talk about how he got to be so messed up and why, despite his intelligence, he should never be trusted.  But the expectation in academics is that you will attack his research and not him.  You don't need to attack him.  If you know what you're talking about you can attack his research.  The same standard should apply to game criticism.  Hold yourself to a higher argumentative standard and attack the game itself.  If you're not able to make your point by talking about the game, then what does that say about you?  Maybe you don't have a point.  Or maybe you do have a point but are unable to express it because you keep contenting yourself with the easy ad hominem.  And so in your anger, you never make a point that people will listen to.  And so your anger grows but to no purpose.  (And this can lead to (2).)

Ideally as soon a person notices he's saying "EA this" or "Bioware that" he'd stop and rewrite his post in a way that focuses on elements within the game he's criticizing.  In this way, he makes his point better.  Another possibility is that his opinions will evolve as a result of the rewriting.

(2) can get tiresome if it results in the same things being said over and over as opposed to any real discussion talking place.  It becomes shouting instead of conversation.

[ObserverStatus]

Personally I think the problem is a feeling of entitlement on the behalf of developers. Too many developers these days feel entitled to charge outlandish prices on subpar products, and feel entitled to act indignant when their customers feel betrayed. I think that we as consumers have the right to ask for the kinds of games we want to buy, and to ask for a fair price on their contents.  EA and Capcom may think themselves entitled to our money, but I don't think it's too unreasonable that we ask for them to work for it.

Modifié par bobobo878, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:36 .

[Inquisitor Recon]

Upsettingshorts wrote...
Lots of companies use microtransactions.

Yes, to varying degrees and effects. Many of "F2P" online games go overboard with the concept, but I think selling the player really basic items and resources in a singleplayer focused franchise like in Dead Space is a first however.

Why aren't you lining up outside, oh I dunno, Cryptic Studios?

I've never been much of a fan of MMOs. Perhaps in part due to the current 'grind long hours or pay to win' trend.

If microtransactions take off, blame the people who spend money on them.  We have no problem doing this when criticizing gold farming as a practice.

Oh I blame most everybody, it's a skill of mine.

But really, this is simply evidence of the Bad=Assign Blame, Good=EA not responsible confirmation bias I referred to.  It's not being upset over microtransactions that's wrong, it's pinning EA as uniquely evil and the source of all the things you hate that's wrong.  But it's a convenient narrative.

It's not that EA is the only one guilty of this behavior, it's rather the fact that they tend to be quite innovative in ensuring you get less for the $60 you pay to buy the game. The list of developers they publish for ensures they get a lot of attention too. Some companies like THQ (RIP) offer some microtransactions but don't pursue that strategy with nearly the same dedication EA and others do.

You can say what you want about these Eastern European developers, but they haven't picked up this trend yet. EA has also been quite efficient at ensuring no sort of community modding occurs with their newer games. Quite unfortunate when you consider all of the excellent mods that were released for past Battlefield series titles.

The idea of someone named ReconTeam denying the value of perspective continues to be hilarious, keep it up.

I must admit I am rather disappointed I was never attacked by that mob of angry feminists and hipsters your #1reasonwhy hashtag was supposed to send my way. There is a quite a difference between "perspective" and this modern "you're wrong and should feel guilty because you're a straight male" line of thought. A line of thought which you don't see much outside of some areas of the the internet and some college campuses.

Modifié par ReconTeam, 23 janvier 2013 - 07:49 .

[Emzamination]

You know you're on a moral low ground when your business model starts to resemble that of the local smack dealer.

[Emzamination]

^ Lol can't argue with that logic xD

[billy the squid]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

ReconTeam wrote...

Because Dead Space 3 style microtransactions are the future and should be embraced.

Lots of companies use microtransactions.

Why aren't you lining up outside, oh I dunno, Cryptic Studios?

If microtransactions take off, blame the people who spend money on them.  We (gamers) have no problem doing this when criticizing gold farming as a practice.

But really, this is simply evidence of the Bad=Assign Blame, Good=EA not responsible confirmation bias I referred to.  It's not being upset over microtransactions that's wrong, it's pinning EA as uniquely evil and the source of all the things you hate that's wrong.  But it's a convenient narrative.

ReconTeam wrote...

I suppose most here are just too privileged to see the truth.

The idea of someone named ReconTeam denying the value of perspective continues to be hilarious, keep it up.

Well when the CEO of EA discusses micro transactions and says that players will willingly pay for a reload, if they are in the game. It's not a ringing endorsement of microtransactions is it? And yes there is the recording, no I'm not going to dig around for it for you now.

Yet, a company EA's size using microtransactions is a very different issue all together, primarily as you've glossed over the trio of EA, Activision and Capcom, who hold the bulk of the market. Microtransactions by CDPR or another smaller developer, Hell Bethesda isn't small and it hasn't done what these 3 have with Skyrim.These 3 restrict the market and they are notorious for putting as little content as they can get away with in for the highest profit margin possible, even if it's at the expense of quality.

Yes, gamers are to blame as is the direct involvement of publishers in how to best implement the microtransactions, the same with day 1 DLC, on disk dlc, etc. The sole purpose is to extract funding or do you think the ME3 random store was a clear design choice to improve things for the player?

Clearly that's simply dumb and disingenuous. Do people blame EA, Activision, Capcom etc when things go bad, indeed, it's unfortunate that many refuse to believe that the developer's priorities shift as they are no longer the sole arbiter of their product. Which is partially what causes such blind ignorance and doesn't help their case.

But I hope you aren't under the impresion that EA is a font of creativity given it's past history, you only need look at the corporate leanings and the accquisition history. It's not. It accquires IP's, churns out sequals to maximise the profit margin and repeats it. Look at it's sports franchise. Same with Activision and Capcom. Simple reskins. They tried it with DA2 and it didn't work, or was an 18 month deadline for creative reasons too.

As to the bashing of EA here, well it's their forums....wouldn't make much sense to bash Capcom and Activision when there is no discussion of their games here, would it.

Modifié par billy the squid, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Blaming gamers for microtransactions is like blaming crackheads for drug crime.

You don't do it. Why? Because the drug dealer is peddling wares that play on people's psychology and hard-wired nature.

[upsettingshorts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Blaming gamers for microtransactions is like blaming crackheads for drug crime.

You don't do it. Why? Because the drug dealer is peddling wares that play on people's psychology and hard-wired nature.

No, it's like blaming gold buyers for buying gold.  Which we do all the time.  We also blame gold farmers.

Furthermore, there is no chemical addiction to ammo or MMO currency.  

I'm not defending microtransactions with this statement.  I am defending using a more relevant comparison.  

Personally, I look at microtransactions as whaling.  Which... has a different set of arguments against it than a vague, sensationalist comparison to drug dealers.  But this isn't a microtransactions thread. 

Modifié par Upsettingshorts, 23 janvier 2013 - 08:49 .

[Ninja Stan]

I think this discussion has gone off the rails and is no longer in a good place.

End of line.

[Fiddles dee dee]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

It has been noted by people that the BSN is growing in 'toxicity'...and so it may seem it is happening all over gaming. Lashing out at games, forum rage on various forums, YouTube rants, metacritic bombing, etc. It seems to be growing and growing...and its interesting to observe. But what is causing it?

Is it due to gamer entitlement?
Is it due to fan disappointment?
What about seeking too wide an audience?
Is it greed?
Is it merging of genres?
Is it overreaction?
Is it causing drama for no reason?
Is it natural market reaction, supply or demand side?

So many potential reasons. Why has grumblings and backlashes and negativity in gaming so common these days? It's interesting to hear all perspectives, but let's be civil and polite and look into the core of why its happening.

1. Participating factor.
2. Participating factor.
3. Participating factor.
4. Doubtful but part of a more general issue with marketing.
5. Possibly.
6. Probably not.
7. Almost certainly so.
8. Yes.
9. Partly.

Let's just go with push/pull factors - you need both. For almost all human beings on the planet life has not been especially easy since the GFC restructuring or at least the perception of what that might mean causes stress. People then invest more in getting away from said problem (i.e. Cinema patronage WWII), they don't just invest money they invest time and emotion. This participates toward entitlement (much facilitated by the "Me" generation" and when they don't have what they desire from the product they become angry and lash out.

Without at least a "perceived" disappointment or wrong they have to be at least subtle about their rage or just drink a lot. How people behave reflects the phase their society is going through, there are individual reasons and less general ones but that's the crux of the issue, in my opinion of course.

I don't know if there's an actual solution, people have had trouble behaving in a mature manner around art since it became a commercial commodity. However listening to one another and having the patience to disagree without resorting to personal attacks might be a nice start.