344 réponses à ce sujet

[Yggdrasil]

Brodoteau wrote...

As long as you can ignore them, that's fine. As long as they don't become necessary to beat the game then fine. Until we know about these things, then this statement is not something to get excited about.

I don't know if I'm exactly fine with this practice, but I basically agree with your point.  Requiring microtransactions to beat the game or to have a complete experience would definitely cross the line.  As someone else in this thread said, "It'd be time to take my ball and head home."

Modifié par MichaelStJohn90068, 01 mars 2013 - 06:24 .

[Relshar]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Relshar wrote...

You can bet your life on the fact that EA will make you pay money to use that new sword you just unlocked in DA3. You will never find them as world loot, only through a store via Origin.

How do you unlock a sword that you can't find?

You unlock it via skills but then would have to buy the actual sword with real money to be able to use said item. So your playing DA3 for example. You unlock the ability to use Dragon Bone weapons and armour, but none will drop in the game and you can't make them. You can only buy them via a microtransaction, they tempt you with the carrot (which is the skill unlock.) You then buy the item because you can use it.

[Ninja Stan]

Here's an argument from the other side. No, it's certainly not an unbiased view, but then again, neither are many of the arguments in this thread. It does, however, give you a different perspective.

[Wulfram]

I find that companies are located in an expensive area to be about the least convincing argument ever. And the rest is a long winded repetition of the tremendously tired arguments that computer games compenies are businesses, and that you can not buy it.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 mars 2013 - 08:37 .

[deuce985]

beank wrote...

What were the micro transactions in ME3?

Were the in multi-palyer? if thats the case, then let them do them.... I dont play MP any ways....

Yes but they're purely optional. They're not forced on you. In other words, all the content is still available to you, just that, you get it slower than people who buy it straight up. What's wrong with that? You can still get those same items that the people who bought the packs are getting without spending a dime. Some people don't have time to mow 100+ hours in ME3 and they want that content available immediately. EA games are now doing this same thing in SP but it's really not that big of a deal. Dead Space 3 does it but you don't have to spend a single dime on any of those resources. It's all available in every retail copy for free.

Even Battlefield 3 shortcut aren't that bad, IMO. I can see the argument for P2W in a competitive MP shooter but it's really not THAT bad since you can still have access to all the content. The bad MTs are the ones where it's P2W in a competitive game and you can't touch ANY of that content without paying extra money for it. From experience, not many(if any) $60 games do this. It's mostly F2P games and they need to make money somehow.

I agree with most gamers, I don't like MTs either but not all of them are bad. They have acceptable MT models and then some that aren't. My worry is with the new consoles coming, we'll see $60 games change their MT model to forcing them on you. Mainly due to higher budgets. In other words, cutting content out of the game day 1 and it can only be accessed by spending another $10 on the game. Like your $60 purchase isn't enough.

I'm a student. I don't have a full career yet. At what point does gaming as a hobby become too expensive? Why is it that everything in the video game industry is forced on the consumers? Why do we have to pay for poor management at times?

edit: ugh I can't type on a tablet at all...

Modifié par deuce985, 01 mars 2013 - 08:46 .

[wright1978]

MichaelStJohn90068 wrote...

Brodoteau wrote...

As long as you can ignore them, that's fine. As long as they don't become necessary to beat the game then fine. Until we know about these things, then this statement is not something to get excited about.

I don't know if I'm exactly fine with this practice, but I basically agree with your point.  Requiring microtransactions to beat the game or to have a complete experience would definitely cross the line.  As someone else in this thread said, "It'd be time to take my ball and head home."

Yeah sums up my opinion. My gut reacts negatively to the idea of microtransactions in the same way it reacted negatively to the adding of MP. I don't like the direction of travel but if the core SP experience is still intact and good then i won't be at the close my wallet and head home point.

[AshedMan]

Hanz54321 wrote...

I have no idea what a micro-transaction is. But let me take a crack . . .

Hawke's armors in Warrior Pack 1 all were stupid looking, forcing me not to use them because I hate looking stupid. But with a micro-transaction I could buy a new armor skin that doesn't make him look like Liono from the Thundercats?

Is that about right?

Microtransactions done right, are cosmetic items like your example.  Microtransactions done wrong are flat out buying advantages such as paying to increase your skill/level/equipment over those who don't pay, etc.  

[sirus1988]

wsandista wrote...

I think that romance scenes should be microtransactions.

$3 and you get to see your character perform an Antivan Milk Sandwich with his/her LI companion(s).

[Relshar]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Here's an argument from the other side. No, it's certainly not an unbiased view, but then again, neither are many of the arguments in this thread. It does, however, give you a different perspective.

If EA wants microtransactions attached to games then they should lower the over all price of the game on release. To pay £40 for a PS3 game from EA and then be expected to pay £10 for new weapons and armour is out of order.

I know they are a public company who wants to make a profit, but they will rip off their player base.

SWTOR was a distater, ME3 ending was very poor, DA2 was just rubbish. I can see the change in development direction from when BioWare was independant to when EA bought them out, those who can not are either blind or so far up EAs' backside they can't see the light of day; because of all the excrement in their eyes.

[Wulfram]

Relshar wrote...

If EA wants microtransactions attached to games then they should lower the over all price of the game on release. To pay £40 for a PS3 game from EA and then be expected to pay £10 for new weapons and armour is out of order.

If you don't like the price on release, then don't buy the game on release.  Wait for the price to come down.

I really think this is one of the best ways for the customer to effectively "negotiate" with the companies, and if enough people do it then they'll have to rethink.  And you'll still get the game you were looking forward to in the end - probably with some annoying bugs fixed before you get there.

Modifié par Wulfram, 01 mars 2013 - 09:53 .

[levyjl1988]

http://www.escapistm...Make-Money?hq=1

I doubt our voices will be heard in the forums about micro-transactions. The best thing us fans can do is boycott this game, send muffins, give bad metacritic scores, and to not purchase this game if the game does not deliver. I'm expecting at least a 7.8 in review score, looking at the EA trends so far.

I don't think Bioware wants another DA2 disaster. If DA3 fails the franchise is doomed, regardless how much money is poured into it.

I can only think of one good microtransaction model and that's with Uncharted 3 multiplayer going free to play, other than that every other instance was anti-consumer.

[mousestalker]

I was against microtransactions but then I found out that they do not necessarily involve the sale of very short people. If a for-profit business wishes to make money, then it should. As a potential customer it is my decision whether or not to reward their business plan.

[AshedMan]

I expect microtransactions in free-to-play games. Charging $60 for an RPG and then throwing microtransactions into the mix is obscene.

[Yggdrasil]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Here's an argument from the other side. No, it's certainly not an unbiased view, but then again, neither are many of the arguments in this thread. It does, however, give you a different perspective.

For the most part I would agree with this article.  First of all, the off-the-hook, unrestrained anger often expressed in safely anonymous cyberspace is utter BS, even concerning issues that actually matter in the grand scheme of things.  Everyone should be able to show enough restraint to express their opinions calmly and rationally and not spew vitriol all over anyone with a differing point of view.  And I also understand that video game companies are in it to make money, and yes, there's nothing wrong with that.  I don't like seeing EA get endlessly dumped on to the point of becoming a meme when measured, constructive criticism would be better for everyone involved.

However, the end doesn't justify the means here.  Just because something is profitable doesn't automatically make it an acceptable business practice.  I personally don't mind Day 1 DLC because I think it's fair to offer an incentive to purchase a new game, and you could play DA:O and DA2 without any DLC whatsoever and still have a complete gaming experience.  I don't even mind microtransactions as long as they remain focused on window-dressing extras.  What makes me nervous about them is what happens if they're so successful every game becomes a pay-as-you-go experience?  The author of this piece mentions how much better current gaming is compared to endlessly feeding quarters into an arcade machine.  I agree and wouldn't like to see the gaming experience return to that model, especially when I never had to pay $60-70 just to walk into an arcade.  (Yes, I'm that old...)

[mousestalker]

AshedMan wrote...

I expect microtransactions in free-to-play games. Charging $60 for an RPG and then throwing microtransactions into the mix is obscene.

Gaming companies are not cats. Cats are not trainable. Gaming companies are at least as smart as dogs. And dogs are trainable. If you are housebreaking a puppy, you punish him every time he piddles on the floor and reward him every time he asks to go for walkies.

Treat gaming companies the same way. When they do something you do not like, such as totally revamping the combat system in Star Wars: Galaxies, punish them by with holding your money. When they do something you do like, reward them by buying their product. If saying "Bad Company" and "Good Company', as appropriate, makes you feel better, then you may do that as well.

<3

[Sylvius the Mad]

AshedMan wrote...

I expect microtransactions in free-to-play games. Charging $60 for an RPG and then throwing microtransactions into the mix is obscene.

Why?  As was pointed out earlier in the thread, $60 for a game in 1999 dollars is over $80 in 2013 dollars.  Why shouldn't the cost of games keep pace with inflation?

An example I often use is that I once paid $80 for a new game in 1986.  That's over $160 in today's money.

You're taking the $60 price point as some sort of immutable limit, but the fact is that game prices have been falling for years, and its having an adverse effect on the industry.  Moreover, since the value of $60 is not fixed from year to year, your threshhold is not only arbitrary, it's also moving.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 01 mars 2013 - 10:49 .

[shootist70]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Here's an argument from the other side. No, it's certainly not an unbiased view, but then again, neither are many of the arguments in this thread. It does, however, give you a different perspective.

God that was annoying and condascending. It served up a lot of ''hey, games are business, and in business you can justify anything as long as it makes money!' Then it seasoned that with some 'and if you're the little guy that don't like it, who cares? We're talking big business here!.'

I understand that as technology marches on and facilitates more of a gaming experience that consumer tastes get more complex and demanding. Development prices rise accordingly. That's great when that actually results in ground-breaking products. I'll happily hand over the cash on MT's.

When it's simply tied to clever marketing of mediocre products that serve as a vehicle for MT's...well, it's like the day that the music industry realised there was more cash to be made from appealing to needy pre-teen female hormones than there was from actual talent.

That's when major publishers jump on the fickle bandwagon and decide that actual talent just isn't a good enough bet any more.

[levyjl1988]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Here's an argument from the other side. No, it's certainly not an unbiased view, but then again, neither are many of the arguments in this thread. It does, however, give you a different perspective.

There's a neogaf post about this one....

http://www.neogaf.co...ad.php?t=517078

and the responses are pretty good...

here's some examples, such as:

"Quote:And that brings me full circle to my main point. If you don’t like the games, or the sales techniques, don’t spend your money on them.

You vote with your dollars.Absolutely.

But my problem is not with looking at the games industry as a profit making business. My problem is how these monetization schemes provide direct incentive to cut completed content from the core game to repackage later as DLC, or to add or extend in-game XP grinds and unlockables or resource gathering needs. 

If a premium item exists solely to overcome frustration or shorten a grind, then I'd argue those grinds and frustrations shouldn't be in the game to begin with, and that they were probably put in the game or made more onerous purely to give premium content a reason to exist. 

The last thing I want is more grinds, or NPCs telling me in-game to view the marketplace to buy exclusive missions. Its one thing to see ads everywhere I go in the physical world, but its another thing entirely when I'm getting propositioned to buy more stuff from game characters or menu items. Especially so if I've already paid the retail price for a game. Even moreso if I'm already being asked to pay Microsoft a tax to play the multiplayer elements of that same game that I already paid for.

It may be good for business but it doesn't seem positive for the game experiences themselves."

"Originally Posted by pizzaroll[/b]: Probably the worst thing I've read in a while. Yes, ask the vets of one of the worst arcade developers of all time. Garbage.It's the quintessential "appeal to tradition" fallacy. The existence of coin-op arcades can NOT be used to justify the proliferation of microtransactions today because of current market conditions.

"Just because the guys in the 80's did a pseudo-microtransaction system...that must mean it's okay to do it now!"

Yeah Cliff. Great reasoning. His article is loaded with all sorts of fallacies.



Here's a couple:

"If you truly love a product, you’ll throw money at it." [/b]= No true scotsman logical fallacy (Dismisses criticism by appealing to some kind of purity)

"People like to act like we should go back to 'the good ol’ days' before microtransactions but they forget that arcades were the original change munchers."[/b] = Appeal to tradition logical fallacy (Dismisses criticism by using an outdated economic model to support his point)

"And that brings me full circle to my main point. If you don’t like the games, or the sales techniques, don’t spend your money on them."[/b] = Red herring logical fallacy (Deflects criticism by falsely connecting your purchase of a game to criticisms you may have with a game)

"But understand that when faced with this issue those that fund and produce those games you love have to come up with all sorts of creative ways for the business to remain viable and yes, profitable."[/b] = Appeal to pity logical fallacy (Deflects criticism for horrible business models by trying to get you to pity them)

Etc."

As always microtransactions bring the worst out of people because it's anti-consumer, if a lot of people are complaining about it, there's an issue. 

http://www.theverge....the-us-for-free
http://www.gamesindu...nsaction-future

[shootist70]

Nice post, Levyjl1988. Basically, the Clifford Unchained article is a piece of empty polemic packed with redundant, rhetorical arguments.

And that's not say I'm against MT's. If they're there to further enchance an already excellent product, bring them on. If they're there because the industry managed to set a precedence of using mediocre, under-developed products as a vehicle for MT's, then we should be battering down these flimsy arguments whenever we see them.

[AlanC9]

shootist70 wrote...
I understand that as technology marches on and facilitates more of a gaming experience that consumer tastes get more complex and demanding. Development prices rise accordingly. That's great when that actually results in ground-breaking products. I'll happily hand over the cash on MT's.

When it's simply tied to clever marketing of mediocre products that serve as a vehicle for MT's...well, it's like the day that the music industry realised there was more cash to be made from appealing to needy pre-teen female hormones than there was from actual talent.

That's when major publishers jump on the fickle bandwagon and decide that actual talent just isn't a good enough bet any more.

But if the products are mediocre, surely you wouldn't be buying them anyway, MTs or no MTs.

[Kleon]

Microtransactions?
Sure, why not.

Microtransaction, payable DLC, what next?
Will we have to pay for patches too?

[Paul E Dangerously]

If you want to make more money out of a game, then spend that time making a better game instead of thinking up ways to nickel-and-dime players. Before you even consider adding a multiplayer mode that's just an excuse to shill microtransactions and DLC, you'd damn well better have the SP portion up to snuff.

Bioware is an RPG developer, and it's the RPG end of it people expect to be great. The multiplayer end might be decent enough, but an RPG lives and dies on the reputation it's SP campaign gets.