344 réponses à ce sujet

[Withidread]

azarhal wrote...

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.

This clears a few things up.

I don't see DLCs (as handled in the DA series thus far) as microtransactions, I'd prefer it if we could avoid referring to them as microtransactions. 

I remain steadfast in my refusal to be nickled and dimed by a video game though, which is why I do not, have not, and will not ever play "free to play" games. There's no such thing as free, developers, programmers, writers etc... all have to be paid which means money has to be made either via nickel and diming or via advertising. The idea of either in a video game I'm playing makes me physically ill. If you're not making enough money on the front end, raise the prices.

[shootist70]

Ninja Stan wrote...

[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.

I don't think that's the cause of resistance, I think it's an aversion to that modern disease of 'corporate creativity'. You know the one I mean, it's the one transmitted by corporate suits in boardrooms who pump up groups of hacks or whatever to produce design-by-committee products.

And we all know the results. Somebody hits the big-time with tales of teen vampires, boy wizards, or a reality TV show, a BDSM novel or a teen boy band and we're quickly getting spin-off after spin-off rammed down our throats ad nauseum until we're flicking through TV channels, bookstore shelves or cinema guides going 'crap, crap, crap, crap, crap...'

And that's what could be annoying people - the suspicion that the suits have found another way to milk the cow that circumvents the need for actual creative standards and talent.

Personally, I'm happy to pay for MT's as long as creative standards are upheld and it's a decent game that just keeps getting better. When they're not, everybody who has encountered the product has a right to their opinion. And if it just so happens that a dev has wheeled out a product that is basically just a vehicle for MT's, say, by the exploitation of intrinsic reward gratification, for example - then obviously it should get roundly trashed by critics and audience alike until the developer either raises the bar or quits the field.

Modifié par shootist70, 02 mars 2013 - 06:02 .

[FlamingBoy]

http://dudehugespeak...es-and-quarters

this is not an argument, its a work CV for electronic arts, there is no real argument beyond its a publishers right to use dlc/micro transactions. But at the same time pinning the responsibility of the repercussions on the consumer. Its lazy and shortsighted. Complete avoids the ethical equestions and uses an appeal to emotion with the whole "food on the table" routine.

Beginning to the think the only way to deal with this is to call a senator (or if your American a congressman) and have some regulation and a more clear idea of our rights. Such police work should have never fallen on the consumers head anyway.

Modifié par FlamingBoy, 03 mars 2013 - 02:24 .

[BlazingSpeed]

Sacred_Fantasy wrote...

I only interested in modifying the game/story. So unless EA offer me object and clothing meshes textures, poses, animations, characters, backdrops, scenarios, lighting and camera setup, miscellaneous utilities and plugins to enhance my story creation and character design for use with their game, I have little interest to spend more money on their micro transaction.

Toolset first. Then we talk about further investment from me.

That, and the small fact that I don't want another Levi Dryden standing right smack in the middle of the camp with a giant glowing exclamation mark trying to get the player to spend more money on the game.

That was/is really annoying.

Modifié par BlazingSpeed, 03 mars 2013 - 03:35 .

[BlazingSpeed]

LinksOcarina wrote...

I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.

I never have and probably never will ever buy anything off of Steam in fact the only reason I even have Steam installed on my PC is because my game design class was using the free Unreal 3 engine in addition to 3D Max a few years ago.

[Gilbert Salarian]

FlamingBoy wrote...

http://dudehugespeak...es-and-quarters

this is not an argument, its a work CV for electronic arts, there is no real argument beyond its a publishers right to use dlc/micro transactions. But at the same time pinning the responsibility of the repercussions on the consumer. Its lazy and shortsighted. Complete avoids the ethical equestions and uses an appeal to emotion with the whole "food on the table" routine.

Beginning to the think the only way to deal with this is to call a senator (or if your American a congressman) and have some regulation and a more clear idea of our rights. Such police work should have never fallen on the consumers head anyway.

Hah!  Our congressmen have perfected the art of getting nothing done, so that option is out.  


On topic, consumer rage isn't just limited to MTs, and the problem isn't that people aren't voting with their wallet, it's that there aren't viable options.  The option is: accept the charges or do without.  Don't like how much gas costs?  Deal with it, or walk.  Don't like your internet service?  Deal with it, or do without.  Don't like FOP?  Deal with it, or wait two weeks for Dapper Dan.

Sure, the consumer can exercise restraint, but consumer restraint is a rare thing.  Why?  People are used to being exploited.  Heck, we need it to give us a firm sense of place.  People accept exploitation up to a certain threshhold.  Once that threshhold is crossed the powers-that-be are overthrown a la the Big Business of the late 19th Century, or the Frrench aristocracy in the Revolution, or the Romanovs in the Russian Revolution.

[Ninja Stan]

FlamingBoy wrote...

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

One game does not a pattern make.

[Icinix]

I live in a world where I dream that the offline single player can still get the full experience.

I think my race might be going extinct due to massive game forest clearing for high yield dlc and micotransaction farms.

[Ninja Stan]

Gilbert Salarian wrote...

On topic, consumer rage isn't just limited to MTs, and the problem isn't that people aren't voting with their wallet, it's that there aren't viable options.  The option is: accept the charges or do without.  Don't like how much gas costs?  Deal with it, or walk.  Don't like your internet service?  Deal with it, or do without.  Don't like FOP?  Deal with it, or wait two weeks for Dapper Dan.

While I disagree with your thesis in the paragraph after the quoted one, I wanted to commend you on your "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" reference.

[Icinix]

BlazingSpeed wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

I want everyone here who says they will stop buying EA games, to also pledge to not buy anything off of Steam as well, considering Valve promotes the same practices.

I never have and probably never will ever buy anything off of Steam in fact the only reason I even have Steam installed on my PC is because my game design class was using the free Unreal 3 engine in addition to 3D Max a few years ago.

Yeah - I hate Steam. Its caused me nothing but grief on multiple machines since its inception.

Truth be told I get a better experience from Origin than I do with Steam.

Although I still find GOG the most delicious distribution system ever.

[FlamingBoy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

FlamingBoy wrote...

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

One game does not a pattern make.

real racing 3, dead space 3, the simpsons game, mass effect 3, and now "all ea games will have microtransactions"

I think there is enough for a decent slippery slope argument

[Reznore57]

Not a fan of microtransactions.
Mostly microtransactions are often over priced ...and I saw what happened with The sims 3 over the years , at first it was fine but now when you don't see a feature the community wants in an add on , you know it's gonna end up on their online store.Did i mention it was overpriced?

Anyway , I was fine with ME3 MP microtransaction.You could get the content without paying so...

I don't care about armor pack neither ...DLC ...The last I bought were for Skyrim.Tons of content so I felt my money was well spent.

It always come down to how it's done ,I mean if you feel ripped off , or the company seems to not play "fair " game with how they sold the product...some people start feeling uneasy about their purchase.

[imbs]

There's not much us non-morons can do if you ask me. Companies down the line will continue to remove content from games to release as premium content in one shape or another. There will continue to be silly things like unlocking consumables and overpowered-armor/item packs that will be sold to idiots who want it for whatever reason. There will be more games with deliberately placed frustration with paid short cuts in em. This is all because of the morons who actually pay for this stuff.

Microtransactions should only ever be cosmetic items in non-f2p games imo. People who play that ridiculous Real Racing game (lists of Real Racing microtransactions make for hilarious reading) should surely realise they are being screwed over, right? Things like selling action bars in swtor (which got laughed out; fans in mmos are [slightly] smarter than in racin games apparently), unneeded loading bars that require pay to be skipped - these things work because fans pay for them. EA do have an obligation to their shareholders to make money (although as that article is correct to point out they suck at image control) - it's the customer's fault things are so lame right now.

I also like how EA consistently point out f2p microtransaction filled games are the future, except things like dead space are at the very top end of initial game price??? I wish they would stop citing that stuff. Also let's not forget, because of these ridiculous MTs Bioware will be under large pressure to oppose things like mods. If mods were available it'd be far harder to sell morons item packs and other "goodies".

Modifié par imbs, 03 mars 2013 - 09:04 .

[Damicles]

The answers simple in the end. If you don't like MTs don't buy from the company that does them. Personal I'm getting nauseated with the amount of greed these company's have soon it will be MTs on creating a character or race in single player games.

[metatheurgist]

Everything Old is New again.

Back in the day you had to feed quarters into machines to play games. The games were designed to be so hard that you'd have to pay hundreds of dollars to get good enough to get value for money. They would tease you to continue by dropping more quarters.

Now we have micro-transactions. Same dog, different leg action. You're still getting pee'd on.

Computer games companies destroyed arcades by producing games that didn't need a constant revenue stream. Now that they've removed the competition they are instituting the same regime. classic business practice. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

The commercial contract is I pay for a product I get a full product. Business doesn't like that model because the power belongs to the consumer. They have to beg for the consumer's money and constantly produce a complete product every year and suffer if we decide the product sucks. If they can convince people to constantly shell out for half-assed stuff like Horse Armor, Clothes, New characters, A small additional chapter in the story, of course they will. They want the power in the commercial relationship.

Don't play their game...literally.

[nicethugbert]

metatheurgist wrote...

Everything Old is New again.

Back in the day you had to feed quarters into machines to play games. The games were designed to be so hard that you'd have to pay hundreds of dollars to get good enough to get value for money. They would tease you to continue by dropping more quarters.

Now we have micro-transactions. Same dog, different leg action. You're still getting pee'd on.

Computer games companies destroyed arcades by producing games that didn't need a constant revenue stream. Now that they've removed the competition they are instituting the same regime. classic business practice. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

The commercial contract is I pay for a product I get a full product. Business doesn't like that model because the power belongs to the consumer. They have to beg for the consumer's money and constantly produce a complete product every year and suffer if we decide the product sucks. If they can convince people to constantly shell out for half-assed stuff like Horse Armor, Clothes, New characters, A small additional chapter in the story, of course they will. They want the power in the commercial relationship.

Don't play their game...literally.

My dad wouldn't let me play arcade games when I was a kid.  I have to thank him for that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Damicles wrote...

The answers simple in the end. If you don't like MTs don't buy from the company that does them. Personal I'm getting nauseated with the amount of greed these company's have soon it will be MTs on creating a character or race in single player games.

Given the amount of people who are begging Bioware for a "Races DLC" for DA3 since we are only playing human (nevermind a Happy/Not-Plothole-Ridden Ending DLC for ME3), I think if this did happen, it would be exceptionally profitable.

That Bioware says they are not doing such things means that the intent (to date, at least) is not to put out a product that intentionally leaves out features that fans would later demand and be willing to pay more money for is not yet present... but how long until more companies begin doing such things on purpose for the expressed once of of earning more cash?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 03 mars 2013 - 09:57 .

[Ninja Stan]

Hey, imbs. Calling people names when they like something you don't makes your argument weaker. Your tastes and opinions are not necessarily the best/most correct/only ones out there. You might want to stop with the name-calling.

[Boiny Bunny]

From what I can tell, the type of micro-transactions EA are referring to are not in the same category as DLC (i.e. removed or additional content, however you view it). They are basically just ways to make the game easier for yourself/remove grinding requirements. Some examples I can imagine making their way into DA3:

* Pay $1 for 10 gold pieces
* Pay $1 for X crafting reagents/runes
* Pay $1 for X experience/level ups

I believe the best example of what they intend to do is Dead Space 3 - which is what has spurned this decision and announcement. In Dead Space 3, you collect resources throughout the game, which you use to upgrade your weapons and armour. The microtransactions in that game essentially allow you to buy resources, and that's about it. There are also some re-skin packs (same as usual EA DLC).

Honestly I don't see the problem with this kind of DLC in a single player game. Some busy full time worker with a wife/husband and kids would probably rather optimise their gaming time by paying $5 for a whole bunch of resources and moving forward immediately than spending upwards of 10 hours farming for the resources otherwise.

There is of course an argument to be had about how hard Bioware/EA make it to collect said resources in the first place, with the micro-transactions in mind. Their priority here is to make a little extra on the side, without affecting the gameplay of those who can't afford it/refuse to be involved in such a practice.

I'd be personally irritated if they started creating special weapons/armour that can only be bought with real money, and putting them into the in-game shops from release - but until I see that, I'm not bothered by it.

Modifié par Boiny Bunny, 04 mars 2013 - 05:32 .

[IanPolaris]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'd be personally irritated if they started creating special weapons/armour that can only be bought with real money, and putting them into the in-game shops from release - but until I see that, I'm not bothered by it.

It's already happened.  What do you think the Warrior, Mage, and Rogue I and II item packs were in DA2?

-Polaris

[Boiny Bunny]

IanPolaris wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'd be personally irritated if they started creating special weapons/armour that can only be bought with real money, and putting them into the in-game shops from release - but until I see that, I'm not bothered by it.

It's already happened.  What do you think the Warrior, Mage, and Rogue I and II item packs were in DA2?

-Polaris

Yes, but not in the context that I described.  You are referring to DLC packs, which were released (IIRC) months after the game - and the items were not dangled in your face within the game, essentially leaving players who sought such goods to track them down themselves.

What I am referring to is essentially a situation like the Shale DLC in Origins.  You find a shop, which has some great weapons, which cost in game currency, but also a few weapons, much more powerful than the others, which cost real money.  Imagine if you will, that virtually every merchant in the game had a section of their store like this (and as I stated, on release).  Or, imagine if every time you moused over an item that you couldn't afford, or an item that you didn't have the reagents to craft, a pop-up appeared with a friendly message directing you to the EA store.  That sort of thing is where I personally draw the line.  I respect that others may draw it far sooner (or later) however.

[IanPolaris]

Boiny Bunny wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Boiny Bunny wrote...

I'd be personally irritated if they started creating special weapons/armour that can only be bought with real money, and putting them into the in-game shops from release - but until I see that, I'm not bothered by it.

It's already happened.  What do you think the Warrior, Mage, and Rogue I and II item packs were in DA2?

-Polaris

Yes, but not in the context that I described.  You are referring to DLC packs, which were released (IIRC) months after the game - and the items were not dangled in your face within the game, essentially leaving players who sought such goods to track them down themselves.

What I am referring to is essentially a situation like the Shale DLC in Origins.  You find a shop, which has some great weapons, which cost in game currency, but also a few weapons, much more powerful than the others, which cost real money.  Imagine if you will, that virtually every merchant in the game had a section of their store like this (and as I stated, on release).  Or, imagine if every time you moused over an item that you couldn't afford, or an item that you didn't have the reagents to craft, a pop-up appeared with a friendly message directing you to the EA store.  That sort of thing is where I personally draw the line.  I respect that others may draw it far sooner (or later) however.

Fair enough.  Since there are some shooters that do this sort of thing now, I expect what you describe will happen and will only be a matter of time.  In fact I wouldn't be at all suprised to see it in DA:I.

What's more, I fully expect in the not-so-distant future to be unable to complete or play the game you paid for without doing microtransactions at various points in the game.

-Polaris

[imbs]

http://www.eurogamer...-space-3-report

"It seems Dead Space 3 suffered a somewhat troubled development. According to the report, weapon-specific ammo was switched for generic ammo late in the day to accommodate the game's controversial micro-transactions,"

Microtransactions are fine you guys, takes nothing away from games! Just vote with your dollars, okay?!

[grumpymooselion]

If the quality is there, and it's something worthwhile? I see no problem with micro-transactions and DLC. If it's not, then, I guess you just speak with your wallet. Don't like what you see, don't spend on it. I never want to see in game stuff sold for real money though, if it's in the game sell it for in game money only. If you want to sell me an item for real money, make it one part of something larger - and make sure it's nothing like what I can get in the main game.

[LinksOcarina]

imbs wrote...

http://www.eurogamer...-space-3-report

"It seems Dead Space 3 suffered a somewhat troubled development. According to the report, weapon-specific ammo was switched for generic ammo late in the day to accommodate the game's controversial micro-transactions,"

Microtransactions are fine you guys, takes nothing away from games! Just vote with your dollars, okay?!

So...where is this report and why is it not shown at the end of the article?

Most of it sounds like made up BS to me until I hear a confirmation. Random sources are typically wrong. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 05 mars 2013 - 12:08 .