344 réponses à ce sujet

[Volus Warlord]

Psh you don't need to make a good game, you need to market it with senseless orgies of destruction p0rno.

PS that is one of my all-time fav scenes.

[deuce985]

This is the type of MTs gamers do not want in their games...

Video

At least EA isn't that "evil" lol. If you don't watch the video, basically, you pay $4.99 for the game and then each time your charcters die, you spend .99 to revive each one. You have to pay separately .99 for each one too. You can wait hours for the characters to automatically revive, or just do it then. Optional but still terrible because it's intrusive on the gameplay. I think this is what most gamers in here hate about some MTs.

[AshedMan]

deuce985 wrote...

This is the type of MTs gamers do not want in their games...

Video

At least EA isn't that "evil" lol. If you don't watch the video, basically, you pay $4.99 for the game and then each time your charcters die, you spend .99 to revive each one. You have to pay separately .99 for each one too. You can wait hours for the characters to automatically revive, or just do it then. Optional but still terrible because it's intrusive on the gameplay. I think this is what most gamers in here hate about some MTs.

Not too dissimilar from the way EA already does microtransactions in Real Racing 3.  Want to put a new part in your car?  Wait X amount of minutes for it to install or pay cash to instantly install.  

http://www.destructo...ns-247411.phtml

They intentionally put time constraints on gameplay to coerce you into paying money.  This is the future of EA's PC microtransactions.   

Modifié par AshedMan, 02 mars 2013 - 01:32 .

[Withidread]

I paid $50-$60-$1bn for your game when I bought it, if you gave it to me for free (legally) I had no intentions of giving you money in the first place. I refuse to be nickled and dimed by a video game.

[Demx]

Plaintiff wrote...

Siradix wrote...

Xerxes52 wrote...

As
long as I can get all the items with in-game currency, then I don't
really worry about microtransactions. I wouldn't want another RNG store
however, I'd like to pick what I'm spending my in-game money on.

One thing I did like about microtransactions in ME3 though: Free DLC.

I
assume that if EA is trying to push something like this, they will make
the idea more appealing by making the other way a lot more tedious and
mundane. The JRPG way would be to collect  20 items that have a very low
drop rate, and the PC must have a high enough crafting ranking to
actually create the object.

So what you're saying is the base game won't change at all.

Zing!

Perhaps, or perhaps not. They could have a bunch of Levi Dryden guys walking around asking you to purchase items with real money. Or the guy could be like: "Hey, I know there will be a bunch of crap up ahead that you won't be able carry; but you will need to cash them in in order to purchase what you really will need after the next merchant. So I have several backpacks you can buy for a $1 each."

[azarhal]

AshedMan wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

This is the type of MTs gamers do not want in their games...

Video

At least EA isn't that "evil" lol. If you don't watch the video, basically, you pay $4.99 for the game and then each time your charcters die, you spend .99 to revive each one. You have to pay separately .99 for each one too. You can wait hours for the characters to automatically revive, or just do it then. Optional but still terrible because it's intrusive on the gameplay. I think this is what most gamers in here hate about some MTs.

Not too dissimilar from the way EA already does microtransactions in Real Racing 3.  Want to put a new part in your car?  Wait X amount of minutes for it to install or pay cash to instantly install.  

http://www.destructo...ns-247411.phtml

They intentionally put time constraints on gameplay to coerce you into paying money.  This is the future of EA's PC microtransactions.   

You haven't played a lots of F2P Facebooks games haven't you. A lots of them have been using that monetizing scheme for years. It's nothing new and not something EA invented either.

Yes it sucks and this is why I don't play those games and don't care they exist. And yes, EA could ended up destroying all the hard work BioWare have been putting into DA3 with something like this. But I somehow doubt it, they tried it with Dragon Age: Legends already...

Also, Dragon Age 2 already had microtransactions: all those weapons/armor packs.

[Archaven]

Believe it or not.. All of us here is just vocal minority. We can b1tch as much or whine as much as we can.. but EA thiks we are just vocal minority.

On a recent tweet by Cliff Blezinski already revealed that no matter how much you dislike, they don't really care what you think or how you want your game to be.

A business is about making money first.. actually the publisher don't really care about if the game is great or whatever.. they only care IF a game is making money. And when a game makes money they will THINK of ways to make even MORE money from it.

Bioware has no say about it as per usual when they joined the devil. But regardless of that, Bioware is no longer Bioware anyway as their founder has already deserted them and actually already made TONNES of money by selling it to EA. If you think about it he don't really give an F about us anyway.

Like it or not.. EA has already made deep research and survey that their MT will make more money. We are just vocal minority. I've already seen this coming very early ON about the item pack DLCs but Bioware fanboys are so defensive and start attacking me about "It's Optional" and comes out will all sorts of insults about feeding troll etc.

LOL now i should laugh on your face MT is optional and glad these fanboys are getting a tight slap. Well if they like getting slapp so much i just happily watch it from afar.. Just blindly let EA milk you dry. I don't really care anyway since people are just blind sheep and they thought being a fanboy is about defending Bioware.

If Bioware really keen on fan service, they should move out from the "publisher" monopoly and Kickstart like many developers have done and becoming successful. Star Citizen, Project Eternity, Wasteland 2, Dreamfall... and tonnes others more.

Modifié par Archaven, 02 mars 2013 - 04:08 .

[deuce985]

AshedMan wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

This is the type of MTs gamers do not want in their games...

Video

At least EA isn't that "evil" lol. If you don't watch the video, basically, you pay $4.99 for the game and then each time your charcters die, you spend .99 to revive each one. You have to pay separately .99 for each one too. You can wait hours for the characters to automatically revive, or just do it then. Optional but still terrible because it's intrusive on the gameplay. I think this is what most gamers in here hate about some MTs.

Not too dissimilar from the way EA already does microtransactions in Real Racing 3.  Want to put a new part in your car?  Wait X amount of minutes for it to install or pay cash to instantly install.  

http://www.destructo...ns-247411.phtml

They intentionally put time constraints on gameplay to coerce you into paying money.  This is the future of EA's PC microtransactions.   

Ah, that sucks. I'm not too worried though. That's how most F2P games are and why I don't play them. Gotta make money off them since they're 'free'.I haven't seen it at the $60 price point. In fact, mostly all MTs I've seen in that price range is MTs that aren't forced so they don't bother me. At least in the games I play.

When that type of model trickles over to $60 games, then I'll worry.

Modifié par deuce985, 02 mars 2013 - 04:36 .

[imbs]

levyjl1988 wrote...

snippy

Wow I think you are in the wrong place. We don't cite fallacies properly here m8, and we certainly don't criticise the almighty EA and their microtransactions.

On a serious note great post would read again 10/10 etcetc. Although "where theres smoke there is fire" is a logical fallacy itself just sayin

Modifié par imbs, 02 mars 2013 - 05:36 .

[Ninja Stan]

levyjl1988 wrote...

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)

Are you saying that all these diehard ME3 fans aren't the ones buying the comic books, novels, soundtracks, DLC, and multiplayer packs? Then who is? Non-fans? It's not a logical fallacy if there is direct evidence that it is actually happening.

"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)

Again, something that is demonstrably true. No one seemed to have a problem with "pay-as-you-go" gaming in the days of arcades, yet the same principle being applied to gaming now is being criticized and dismissed as "corporate greed." And these days, you still have the base game to play even if you ignore all microtransactions, DLCs, and other extras!

"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)

Could be, I'll admit. Then again, it could be frustration at the kind of thing we see in this discussion: people who seem to want the content offered in DLCs and microtransactions, but wish they were included in the main game instead. People are sometimes quick to criticize big business, but aren't willing to give up their content to make their arguments.

"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)

Microtransactions and DLC have not been demonstrated to be "horrible business models." Quite the contrary, they appear to be working as intended, which is one of the main reasons there is such emphatic resistance to the idea. Some people are afraid that it works and will continue to work as a viable revenue stream. As Mr. Bleszynski writes, if it weren't working, companies would stop doing it and find alternate ways to generate additional revenue from games.

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. 

Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people are complaining about it, doesn't mean microtransactions are necessarily bad, just new and different and unknown.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4042704/real-racing-3-available-in-the-us-for-free
http://www.gamesindu...nsaction-future

Isn't that a slippery slope argument?

Why are your logical fallacies valid arguments against microtransactions but Cliff's logical fallacies are not valid arguments for microtransactions?

[2484Stryker]

I don't like this at all. Microtransactions in a full-priced game is basically asking me to pay for certain things TWICE. Basically me paying the developers for making the game, parts of which they then sell to me again.

And as far as people who say that they don't mind it so long as the core game isn't gutted and/or diminished, all I can say is that you'll be placing a lot of trust into EA for not actively taking things out of the main game just so that they can charge you for it.

Having said that, if these microtransactions are purely cosmetic and their absence in no way hinders me finishing the game itself, then I won't complain.

Modifié par 2484Stryker, 02 mars 2013 - 09:13 .

[2484Stryker]

deuce985 wrote...

AshedMan wrote...

deuce985 wrote...

This is the type of MTs gamers do not want in their games...

Video

At least EA isn't that "evil" lol. If you don't watch the video, basically, you pay $4.99 for the game and then each time your charcters die, you spend .99 to revive each one. You have to pay separately .99 for each one too. You can wait hours for the characters to automatically revive, or just do it then. Optional but still terrible because it's intrusive on the gameplay. I think this is what most gamers in here hate about some MTs.

Not too dissimilar from the way EA already does microtransactions in Real Racing 3.  Want to put a new part in your car?  Wait X amount of minutes for it to install or pay cash to instantly install.  

http://www.destructo...ns-247411.phtml

They intentionally put time constraints on gameplay to coerce you into paying money.  This is the future of EA's PC microtransactions.   

Ah, that sucks. I'm not too worried though. That's how most F2P games are and why I don't play them. Gotta make money off them since they're 'free'.I haven't seen it at the $60 price point. In fact, mostly all MTs I've seen in that price range is MTs that aren't forced so they don't bother me. At least in the games I play.

When that type of model trickles over to $60 games, then I'll worry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what EA is hinting at doing?  I'd be stoked if I'm wrong though.

[2484Stryker]

My problem with microtransactions is that EA will actively take things out of (i.e. withhold) the game just so that they can be sold piece-meal back to us.

E.g. don't want to wait minutes for your character to get from A to B? Give us $5 on top of your original $60 and we'll give you fast-travel (even though this should have been built into the original game, but we "ran out of time" hint hint).

E.g. all the in-game weapons feel a bit underpowered? Give us another $5 on top of full price and we'll give you a special weapons pack comprised of weapons that "almost feel as though they should have been in game to begin with"...hint hint it's not like we nerfed all the vanilla weapons...

I think my point is clear. I'm afraid that developers will intentionally cripple/nerf/diminish the main game that they're still going to charge us $60 for just so that they can charge us a few more $$$$

[WazzuMan]

If it's no more than what we had in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, I don't see a problem with it at all. It was just there, you didn't need it but if you wanted to it was there. Complain all you want but at the end of the day, EA, Bioware and all other gaming companies need to make money somehow. The people of these companies need money so they can feed their families, pay their bills, and keep doing what they do, which is making the games you enjoy. They don't make money, they don't make games. Simple.

[FlamingBoy]

just when u think ea can't sink any lower.....

they do

[FlamingBoy]

WazzuMan wrote...

If it's no more than what we had in Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, I don't see a problem with it at all. It was just there, you didn't need it but if you wanted to it was there. Complain all you want but at the end of the day, EA, Bioware and all other gaming companies need to make money somehow. The people of these companies need money so they can feed their families, pay their bills, and keep doing what they do, which is making the games you enjoy. They don't make money, they don't make games. Simple.

appeal to emotion fallacy

[FlamingBoy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

levyjl1988 wrote...

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)

Are you saying that all these diehard ME3 fans aren't the ones buying the comic books, novels, soundtracks, DLC, and multiplayer packs? Then who is? Non-fans? It's not a logical fallacy if there is direct evidence that it is actually happening.

"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)

Again, something that is demonstrably true. No one seemed to have a problem with "pay-as-you-go" gaming in the days of arcades, yet the same principle being applied to gaming now is being criticized and dismissed as "corporate greed." And these days, you still have the base game to play even if you ignore all microtransactions, DLCs, and other extras!

"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)

Could be, I'll admit. Then again, it could be frustration at the kind of thing we see in this discussion: people who seem to want the content offered in DLCs and microtransactions, but wish they were included in the main game instead. People are sometimes quick to criticize big business, but aren't willing to give up their content to make their arguments.

"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)

Microtransactions and DLC have not been demonstrated to be "horrible business models." Quite the contrary, they appear to be working as intended, which is one of the main reasons there is such emphatic resistance to the idea. Some people are afraid that it works and will continue to work as a viable revenue stream. As Mr. Bleszynski writes, if it weren't working, companies would stop doing it and find alternate ways to generate additional revenue from games.

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. 

Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people are complaining about it, doesn't mean microtransactions are necessarily bad, just new and different and unknown.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/1/4042704/real-racing-3-available-in-the-us-for-free
http://www.gamesindu...nsaction-future

Isn't that a slippery slope argument?

Why are your logical fallacies valid arguments against microtransactions but Cliff's logical fallacies are not valid arguments for microtransactions?

I would try to break this all up, but its beyond my posting knowledge, unfortunately I only want to answer one bit

slippery slope argument is an argument inbetween fallacy and logic, i think after the real racing 3 example its a valid argument

[FlamingBoy]

krul2k wrote...

gamers have noone but themselfs to blame for microtransactions its that simple

Its not the consumer responsibility or even in there abilities to police the industry

[EpicBoot2daFace]

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.

Thanks for the link, Ninja. That was a great read. It's always nice to hear from people like Cliff who have over 20 years of experience working in the game industry. I have to say though, the majority of responses to his personal blog post have been very disappointing to me. This is valuable insight from a veteran of the industry, and since we know very little about the inner workings of game development, I thought for sure that people would be glad to hear from him. But the responses have been overwhelmingly negative, on here and on Gaf.

I'm very happy that he still participates in the industry. After he left EPIC, he could have left the whole video game scene behind him as well, much like the Doctors (founders of Bioware) did after they left. We don't hear from those two anymore.

Overall, I think Cliff's blog post is far more reasonable than any of the anti-microtransactions posts I continue to see on a daily basis. His message very much mirrors my own: this stuff is entirely optional, and if it really puts you off from wanting to buy the game, then vote with your wallet. I think it's a lot more productive than ****ing and moaning about it on an internet forum.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 02 mars 2013 - 01:47 .

[imbs]

You just can't know what proactive means m8. if you think "not paying for microtransactions" is more pro-active than complaining about said microtransactions...Neither are remotely proactive at all. Just gonna assume you mean productive - least that makes some kind of sense in the context of your post.

As to the rest of your post zzz without specifics it's worthless. I found the article pretty condescending and decidedly not insightful personally, but that is just an opinion unless it's backed up by something else.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

imbs wrote...

You just can't know what proactive means m8. if you think "not paying for microtransactions" is more pro-active than complaining about said microtransactions...Neither are remotely proactive at all. Just gonna assume you mean productive - least that makes some kind of sense in the context of your post.

As to the rest of your post zzz without specifics it's worthless. I found the article pretty condescending and decidedly not insightful personally, but that is just an opinion unless it's backed up by something else.

Yes, productive is what I meant. Thanks for the correction.

[TheJediSaint]

I don't have any issue with micro transactions, just so long as I'm not required to pay extra in order to unlock the core content of the game.

[azarhal]

2484Stryker wrote...

deuce985 wrote...


Ah, that sucks. I'm not too worried though. That's how most F2P games are and why I don't play them. Gotta make money off them since they're 'free'.I haven't seen it at the $60 price point. In fact, mostly all MTs I've seen in that price range is MTs that aren't forced so they don't bother me. At least in the games I play.

When that type of model trickles over to $60 games, then I'll worry.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this exactly what EA is hinting at doing?  I'd be stoked if I'm wrong though.

The CTO especially linked microtransactions to F2P games. Actually, they believe that in 5-10 years $60 games are going to be a special thing. Note that EA have been moving their business toward online digital gaming and mobile games where F2P with microtransactions are the norm.

Quotes from the transcript:
"I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but
the game itself or the access to the game will be free," he said.

This one is the one that sparked the "microtransaction in all our games", despite not having the word microtransaction in it.
"So, to the extent that as [EA CTO Rajat Taneja] said, we're building
into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way,
either to get to a higher level, to buy a new character, to buy a truck,
a gun; whatever it might be."

The last quote sound exactly like the DLCs DAO/DA2 had: new weapon packs, new companions, new content dlcs/expac, etc. The whole presentation was about the new backend to handle the microtransactions (including DLCs purchasing) that all future EA games will use as opposed to using 3rd parties to handle the transactions anyway.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

TheJediSaint wrote...

I don't have any issue with micro transactions, just so long as I'm not required to pay extra in order to unlock the core content of the game.

I find the best way to avoid the whole mess is to just play the games I really like, and when I get bored of the core content or simply run out of things to do within the game, I download expansions and/or other DLC to keep it fresh. I still haven't bought any of the other DLC for Skyrim except for Dawnguard. I still have a lot of core content to get through before I plan on playing through Dawnguard. Once I'm done with that, I might pick up Dragonborn. But I have no interest in Hearthfire or any of the other small DLC's that come out for the game.

The whole point is to be able to choose which DLC's you want instead of having them all bundled together. With microtransactions, you can buy digital upgrades to your weapons and armor in some games. But again, it's completely optional and left entirely up to the user. Those weapons and armor can be unlocked simply by playing through the story or getting enough kills in multiplayer. But if you don't want to wait and would rather have everything right at the start of the experience, they give you that option as well. But it's gonna cost you.

People are being anal about this stuff because it's the cool thing to do these days. It's like being back in high school all over again. They're just a bunch of hipsters who hate on everything that's popular or mainstream. They also desperately want to believe that publishers are out to get them and that their favorite hobby is "under attack" from the powers that be and all that bull****. One day they'll grow up and won't have time to worry about this kind of stuff and just enjoy the games for what they are instead of what they want them to be.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 02 mars 2013 - 02:48 .

[Sil]

I can cope with Microtransactions, but I do not like them.

I do believe that we can have them in a game and all content as well, without the need to have one or the other. If they had all microtransaction items (like armour pieces, weapons, etc) in the game and balanced properly in price and useability against all other non-transaction items in the game and also purchaseable for a fair ingame coin price just like all other items then that is fine.

They could then add the microtransaction system on top of that as an optional charge, allowing those with too much money to blow to buy the items without their ingame coins but not forcing those of us with little in the bank to still access content through ingame means. This would be also vastly improved if there was an option in the Options menu to turn off microtransactions, not everyone would do this but those of us who dislike it would be able to.

This would only work if:

a) The game is build as a game first, meaning that these items would be buyable fairly with ingame coin much like the old days.
the microtransaction system is fairly balanced against the ingame coin system -after- the vendor prices using gold coins has been balanced fairly (and I don't incorporate how cool it looks as part of a pricing structure)
c) If you give us the option to turn off microtransaction requests.