344 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

ashesandwine wrote...

The thing about micro-transactions in single player games is that the game developers may make games around that business model. They then purposely make in-game resources hard to obtain, to entice players to pay to skip the grind. That is alright in multiplayer games but should not be anywhere near single player games.

So why protest MTs if the grind is the actual problem?

[IanPolaris]

AlanC9 wrote...

ashesandwine wrote...

The thing about micro-transactions in single player games is that the game developers may make games around that business model. They then purposely make in-game resources hard to obtain, to entice players to pay to skip the grind. That is alright in multiplayer games but should not be anywhere near single player games.

So why protest MTs if the grind is the actual problem?

Because the grind isn't a problem if you are trying to milk customers from as much of their money as possible.  The MT to reduce grind is about as dishonest (and very much related) to subliminal advertising.  You get the sucker, I mean customer, hooked into a fast paced action scene and then make them pay "a quarter" to continue.  Invariably impulse buyiung to continue the action takes over from normal cost/benefit shopping.

-Polaris

[imbs]

You do know that we can see your name right next to all your posts, right? Theres no need to sign.

It may be useful if you are going for some kind of pretentious tone or want people to know they can just skip over your posts I suppose, but yeah.

[stormhit]

imbs wrote...

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".

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

[IanPolaris]

stormhit13 wrote...

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

So you are suggesting that paying rent on a game we own is a good thing?  That's what Microtransactions are going to come down to...paying for the right to play a game we've bought and paid for.

-Polaris

[imbs]

stormhit13 wrote...

imbs wrote...

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".

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

What on earth could arcade games have to do with it? I know devs love to cite them as an excuse to be able to screw fans over left and right, but aside from that no one references them ever. You wanna know why? It's coz they are irrelevant. EA are not competing with arcades. Arcades are not particularly profitable. Arcades are outdated.

Modifié par imbs, 07 mars 2013 - 07:58 .

[shootist70]

I'm still torn on this one. As gaming technology gets more and more advanced it's becoming all the more expensive to develop blockbuster titles. I don't want to see the situation where developers shrink away from the risk of big 3D games and start pumping out browser-based games and games for handhelds instead. The only thing left will be same old the big titles that are ensured big sales that the devs can make a profit on (Call of Duty, Battlefield, GTA etc etc).

On the other hand, I don't want bland, corporate entities producing design-by-committee products that are engineered to be a vehicle for MT's. I could actually see BW heading that way.

[NUM13ER]

I think the fear for many is that games are becoming more and more about how much money can they take from the customer rather than producing a quality final product that people will want to buy. Having to pay for on disc content, day one DLC that was clearly developed alongside the vanilla game, overpriced DLC for a few hours of content. Now micro-transaction fueled multiplayer and single player games.

And if you're looking for the person to blame, gamers need look no further than themselves. They've allowed companies like Capcom, Activision and EA to make millions on business practices they hate. They buy their games, they buy their DLC and wonder why they won't stop pushing their luck.

The gaming industry is the only one that deliberately goes out of it's way to make it's product belong less and less to the person who purchased it. I mean how dare you try to sell your own property on whenever you feel like it and not pay them any money. It's not your game, it's theirs. You're just renting it. Worse still we allowed this to happen .

Modifié par NUM13ER, 07 mars 2013 - 09:48 .

[IanPolaris]

NUM13ER wrote...

I think the fear for many is that games are becoming more and more about how much money can they take from the customer rather than producing a quality final product that people will want to buy. Having to pay for on disc content, day one DLC that was clearly developed alongside the vanilla game, overpriced DLC for a few hours of content. Now micro-transaction fueled multiplayer and single player games.

And if you're looking for the person to blame, gamers need look no further than themselves. They've allowed companies like Capcom, Activision and EA to make millions on business practices they hate. They buy their games, they buy their DLC and wonder why they won't stop pushing their luck.

The gaming industry is the only one that deliberately goes out of it's way to make it's product belong less and less to the person who purchased it. I mean how dare you try to sell your own property on whenever you feel like it and not pay them any money. It's not your game, it's theirs. You're just renting it. Worse still we allowed this to happen .

You're right.  We as consumers bear much of the blame.  However, a lot of us like games (of whatever type) and given how much of the gaming market is controlled by Capcom, Activision, and EA, not going along means all to often not playing.  This is how the practice has become terribly exploitive and predetory IMO.  I have no issue with a company making money.  However, when the consumer loses the effective ability to say "no" or are forced into a situation where they are renting their own property, then it crosses the lines into exploitation, and that's when outside forces tend to step in.  I hope EA and others back away before this happens because when outside forces (read governments) step in, nobody wins.

-Polaris

[Medhia Nox]

@IanPolaris: I'm sorry - but you haven't lose the ability to say "No".

And if you have - I certainly have not - so your condition is not all encompassing for the gaming community.

[Cyonan]

If the micro-transactions give us free content like it did for Mass Effect 3 multi-player I'm okay with this.

If not, there's a good chance I'll not buy it.

[NUM13ER]

It's looking at how these big companies handle successful games that troubles me the most. Trying to fix what isn't broken. An almost self-destructive need to enforce short term financial gains over long term success. Attempting to reach the "broadest audience" even if will alienate the core fans who brought it in droves. Trying to please everyone and pleasing no-one (read: Resident Evil 6). And it's not motivated by a desire to make a better product, it's pure greed. Worse still if they just stopped "enhancing" successful games, they'd probably make MORE money.

For now micro-transactions are a choice. They don't earn you any content you wouldn't see without a bit more hard work. And that's fine, if you want to throw away more cash on something you've already paid for, that's your choice. However the fear is of it becoming essential to accessing all of a games story or that without buying better equipment the game is virtually impossible to defeat.

Modifié par NUM13ER, 07 mars 2013 - 01:21 .

[AshedMan]

 I get a big laugh out of that CFO Jorgenson's response:

“I made a statement in the conference along the lines of, ‘We’ll have microtransactions in our games,’ and the community read that to be ‘all games,’ and that’s really not true,” he explains. “All of our mobile games will have microtransactions in them, because almost all of our mobile games are going to a world where its play-for-free.”
Jorgensen uses a different term for paid content on the PC and console platforms: extensions. “You’re going to see extensions off of products like Battlefield Premium which are simply not microtransactions,” he says. “They are premium services, or additional add-on products or downloads that we’re doing. It’s essentially an extension of the gameplay that allows someone to take a game that they might have played for a thousand hours and play it for two thousand hours. We want to ensure that consumers are getting value.”

They aren't microtransactions in their premium $60 priced games!  They are "extensions" you silly gamers.  Don't you see the difference?  They gave it a new name.  

[IanPolaris]

Medhia Nox wrote...

@IanPolaris: I'm sorry - but you haven't lose the ability to say "No".

And if you have - I certainly have not - so your condition is not all encompassing for the gaming community.

Point.  Missing it.  The practice of MTs especially in a game you bought is inherently exploitive especially if the MT is required to actually play the game at high-stress critical points.  In those parts of the game, it is not reasonable for anyone to engage in calm "cost-benefit" analysis when the psychological drive will be to quickly finish the game.  Subliminal Advertising is also exploitive for similiar reasons.

My free advice is for EA and other gaming giants to proceed carefully.  If they go down too far the path I mention, then other players besides the consumers WILL enter the fray (as they did with subliminal ads), and no one will like the outcome.

-Polaris

[LinksOcarina]

IanPolaris wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

So you are suggesting that paying rent on a game we own is a good thing?  That's what Microtransactions are going to come down to...paying for the right to play a game we've bought and paid for.

-Polaris

Technically you don't own the games at all since it is all under borrowed liscences through a EULA.

But that is a technicality. Its why the second-hand market is so ****ing huge. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I always tell people that if you don't feel comfortable with a game or the way the publisher does business, don't buy it or just rent it. $60 is a lot to put down for just one game, so you have to be a smart consumer. I almost always wait until the game drops in price or is on sale for half off before I buy.

[IanPolaris]

LinksOcarina wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

So you are suggesting that paying rent on a game we own is a good thing?  That's what Microtransactions are going to come down to...paying for the right to play a game we've bought and paid for.

-Polaris

Technically you don't own the games at all since it is all under borrowed liscences through a EULA.

But that is a technicality. Its why the second-hand market is so ****ing huge. 

Not correct.  When you make the purchase you OWN the game.  You don't own the intellectual property which is the big loophole that is permitting this to happen.  Actually it was this very sort of problem that got EA in trouble in the EU courts.

-Polaris

[LinksOcarina]

IanPolaris wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

stormhit13 wrote...

Your take reads like arcade games never existed, yet you're calling people morons.

So you are suggesting that paying rent on a game we own is a good thing?  That's what Microtransactions are going to come down to...paying for the right to play a game we've bought and paid for.

-Polaris

Technically you don't own the games at all since it is all under borrowed liscences through a EULA.

But that is a technicality. Its why the second-hand market is so ****ing huge. 

Not correct.  When you make the purchase you OWN the game.  You don't own the intellectual property which is the big loophole that is permitting this to happen.  Actually it was this very sort of problem that got EA in trouble in the EU courts.

-Polaris

Yeah, no. That has been tested in the U.S and so far the few cases that went that far either settled out of court or never went to trial due to lack of actual evidence. There is also the argument that the IP is more important than the physical copy, which in is mostly the case, because an IP is a copyright law first and foremost. 

Now if EA rescinded anything on the EULA through illegal practices, then I would see a case being made. So far its subjective context at best. But as I said before, all a technicality. 

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ashesandwine wrote...

The thing about micro-transactions in single player games is that the game developers may make games around that business model. They then purposely make in-game resources hard to obtain, to entice players to pay to skip the grind. That is alright in multiplayer games but should not be anywhere near single player games.

So why protest MTs if the grind is the actual problem?

Because the grind isn't a problem if you are trying to milk customers from as much of their money as possible.  The MT to reduce grind is about as dishonest (and very much related) to subliminal advertising.  You get the sucker, I mean customer, hooked into a fast paced action scene and then make them pay "a quarter" to continue.  Invariably impulse buyiung to continue the action takes over from normal cost/benefit shopping.

You're still not making a case for why this is a problem for anyone but the suckers.

Or is that the point? This is just flat-out paternalism?

Modifié par AlanC9, 07 mars 2013 - 07:00 .

[AshedMan]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're still not making a case for why this is a problem for anyone but the suckers.

Or is that the point? This is just flat-out paternalism?

Artifical restrictions/conditions are placed into the game to try and coerce people into paying to avoid them or move through them faster.  That alone is a single way microtransactions impact the actual game.