344 réponses à ce sujet

[Liamv2]

I am fine with micro transactions as long as it is like ME3's model or costumes

[Robhuzz]

Again, just like intrusive DRM, day one dlc that's ripped from the game, now it's microtransactions in single player games (essentially pay money for using cheats). This is our own fault for accepting this. EA and other big corporations have been testing the waters for years, seeing how far they could go. It will only get worse if people keep accepting this crap.

lets say you roll a warrior in the next game and bioware releases a dlc that will give you a armor that ahs higher defense then any item in the game and a 2 handed that kills most things in one hit and they have no stat requirmments to use.if that happends you will be in god mode through most of the game

Unless the story is REALLY good and the combat is REALLY boring, I'm not sure why anyone would want to use this?

Modifié par Robhuzz, 27 février 2013 - 09:04 .

[MichaelStuart]

I don't mind micro transactions.
That said I'll never use them.

[ghost_ronin]

I like the gear dlcs and extra missions, i paid for them because it wasnt an enormous amount of cash to relieve myself off and they gave me some extra replay value. See that bioware? Make dlcs and gear packs complement the game in a way that makes me want to play through again, like you already have done. Gear needs to tone down a bit though in power but still improve by level if its gonna be worth buying. Microtransaction in dead space 3 was offensively expensive. Do not emulate them, for your own sake. I bought dead space 3 and got all the dlc, but lets just say i pulled a few aces out of my sleeves when the ethernet cable was out so the dlc dropped a bit in price.

So:
- Dlc to enchance replay value = GOOD (since they are usually released after most people have played through the game at least once)

- Microtransaction like DS3 = BAD

[SpunkyMonkey]

HJF4 wrote...

I don't have a problem with them as long as it doesn't gut the default game.

This^

Arkham City was a great example of a game which continueally hinted at certain villains and content, but which didn't deliver them unless you had DLC.

I've no interest in DLC, no interest in cosmetic upgrades and no interest in anything other than a great game. Those who do however should have the option to buy extras, but those like myself who don't shouldn't be punished on their behalf either.

Game companies can try all they like, but the more they try and force consumers into having to spend more post-game money the more they will force us away from gaming. There's beer, boobs, laughs, music, football etc. all out there - giving up gaming isn't really a problem so they really need to think of how much games rely upon these microtransactions and DLC.

As extras for the more game obsessive they are fine. As core elements to the game themselves they really aren't.

Modifié par SpunkyMonkey, 27 février 2013 - 01:02 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I've yet to play a game that I paid full retail price for that requires me to participate in online microtransactions.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 01:11 .

[JWvonGoethe]

Since I'm a completionist, microtransactions irritate me because I always feel like I'm missing out on something. I never download them, and their existence doesn't affect my enjoyment of the core game too much, but it does make me lose a fair amount of respect for the companies who use them.

One of the worst Bioware examples was in ME2, a popular squad mate (I won't spoil who) had badly damaged armor and you were supposed to pay to download new fixed armor for them. Which I found pretty insulting.

Bioware should just focus on making great games. Microtransactions just lose the company goodwill from customers.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 février 2013 - 01:19 .

[Paul E Dangerously]

JWvonGoethe wrote...
One of the worst Bioware examples was in ME2, a popular squad mate (I won't spoil who) had badly damaged armor and you were supposed to pay to download new fixed armor for them. Which I found pretty insulting.

This was the only thing that really irritated me about the "standard NPC look" thing in ME2/ME3/DA2. Don't give me a default NPC outfit where they're either broken (that person) or wearing nothing (Jack) and expect me to like it.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

Since I'm a completionist, microtransactions irritate me because I always feel like I'm missing out on something. I never download them, and their existence doesn't affect my enjoyment of the core game too much, but it does make me lose a fair amount of respect for the companies who use them.

One of the worst Bioware examples was in ME2, a popular squad mate (I won't spoil who) had badly damaged armor and you were supposed to pay to download new fixed armor for them. Which I found pretty insulting.

Bioware should just focus on making great games. Microtransactions just lose the company goodwill from customers.

So, you lose respect for a compnay just because they offer extra content after the game has shipped? Do you not realize how stupid that sounds? I'm not trying to be condescending with this, but just think about that for a moment. Developer releases game and then offers content down the line, some of it's free and some of it's not. No participation required, only if you want to extend the life of your game.

People need to keep in mind that game development is a business. And like any good business, EA is trying something new to see if it'll catch on. The day that microtransactions become mandatory is the day that I don't buy their products any longer and will be there with you in the fight against this stuff. But that day hasn't come, and don't think it ever will. Consumers are a tricky bunch and the majority of them don't have brand loyalty.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 01:37 .

[Sacred_Fantasy]

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.

[Wulfram]

Depends on the microtransaction

DLC: OK in principle, so long as it doesn't seem like things are being left out of the main game so that they can be sold as such. Except the price tends not to be micro enough for me to actually buy it.
Day 1 DLC: Reduces my percieved value of the full game, so I'll wait for the price to come down.
Pay for cheats/easy mode: Unacceptable because it probably means stopping me from cheating/modding for free in a single player game. And unacceptable if it means designing stuff to be tedious so people want to skip it.

[Maytrows]

TLDR: EA wants you to pay more and you get less. Even if you don't use a feature in a game you do pay for it when you buy the game.

Let me further elaborate why micro transactions get me angry. EA answers to it's shareholders and the CEO has to deliver a profit. Today it is not even enough to get a profit it is how much you can increase the profit as a CEO that lets you keep your job.
The CEO in turn will go to his guys and says "We have to get this much profit, do it or someone gets fired". So they come up with ideas how to get more money from us. To them games is nothing more then a product and the cheaper it can be produced the better so they are constantly looking for the most efficient way to get the most money.
Having selling points on the back of the box is one. Multiplayer, how many times have we seen this more or less just tacked on a game so it can say so on the back of the box.
It will sell more games they think so on the box it goes. Now they are doing the same with micro transactions.

I see a lot of people say, "well it does not bother me so its ok". Think again. Bioware does not have infinite resources. Every time EA wants a new feature on a game that will be time and money spent on something else then the core of the game. Less time on the narrative, level design, AI programing, UI and so on.
It does gut the game, and take micro transactions, it is not just something that is there for convenience.
It will be designed so yes you don't need to use it but we will try to give you incentive by making the "free option" a chore rather then something fun so you feel "I want the item but I can't be arsed to farm for it". So now the design of the game has changed and my experience of the game is worse because of it. 

Now we have multiplayer, co-op, season passes, micro transactions, day 1 "DLC" and the list goes on. Every feature is taking resources from "core", and this will continue it will not stop because EA will try to get more and more from the game money wise.
So we as consumers used to have 100% of the resources used to create the "core" of the game and we paid lets say 60$ for it. Now we paying 60$ for a game that spent 75% of its resources on the core and they want even more money if you want the "day 1 DLC". In short we are now spending more for less, the games is going to designed to make room for more and more features that is there to get us to spend more money to have "fun".

Consider this, how many of you wants to pay for the joy of having micro transactions in a game?
Because you do, with the money you spent to get the game you paid for that feature. So when you say you don't mind micro transactions because you wont use them. you do realize that you are paying for them by buying the game? Would you not rather have used that money to get more of what you like?

These features are not there to enhance the game but to get more money to EA's shareholders and as a consumer it is not in my interest to pay for something like that.

Modifié par Maytrows, 27 février 2013 - 02:17 .

[JWvonGoethe]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
So, you lose respect for a compnay just because they offer extra content after the game has shipped?

I don't lose respect for them if I feel that the content is substantial and fairly priced. I was referring to microtransactions specifically, which includes paying for a new piece of armour or a new weapon. I wasn't referring to DLC expansions.

Do you not realise how stupid that sounds? I'm not trying to be condescending with this, but just think about that for a moment. Developer releases game and then offers content down the line, some of it's free and some of it's not. No participation required, only if you want to extend the life of your game.

OK I find it tacky. So does Brent Knowles, lead designer of DA:O (who left Bioware before DA2 came out, and who is certainly not 'stupid' for sharing my opinion.) There is something undignified in selling someone a product and then trying to sell them little additional niceties at a premium. It's just such a petty level of greed. I find it mildly irritating that I half-want those extras, but I don't want to stoop to indulging such grubby-handedness.

People need to keep in mind that game development is a business. And like any good business, EA is trying something new to see if it'll catch on. The day that microtransactions become mandatory is the day that I don't buy their products any longer and will be there with you in the fight against this stuff. But that day hasn't come, and don't think it ever will.

I wouldn't say I was in a fight against microtransactions. This isn't a moral crusade, I just find them tacky. Yes EA have a right to use them as part of their business strategy, and I have the right to lose respect for EA if they do so. I agree I would not buy a game where microtransactions were mandatory - as it stands, their existence in a game just makes it that much more likely I'll wait for a price drop before purchasing.

Consumers are a tricky bunch and the majority of them don't have brand loyalty.

Oh? Just watch how many pre-orders GTAV will get.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 février 2013 - 02:30 .

[StElmo]

N7_killswitch wrote...

I'm going to just say it....


I don't mind microtransactions, and sometimes I find them enjoyable. Especially superficial things like costumes. In single player games it's not like 'pay-to-win' is a problem, as the weapons and spells and such in the vanilla game are perfectly adequate to beat the game.

I understand the reluctance to accept it, but a thread on the forums complaining isn't going to stop if from happening anyway. It's an industry-wide trend that had been proven to work and believe it or not they actually do need money from us to meet the demands we all love to make for our games.

Thats more like Micro DLC - microtransactions, to me, are more like in-game purchases.

But do you want microstransactions in-game? Do you really want to see paypal pop up during a DA:I session?

Do you really want future games designed to make the grind longer unless you buy the microtransaction upgrades?

God I feel bad for BioWare, if they get sucked into a controversy with DA:I like Dead Space did. That won't be pleasant. ):

Hope they can find a way to make everything more like horse armour, rather than in-game immersion breaking dealies.

I'm okay with alternative appearence packs and that kind of thing, provided it is all transacted outside the game and doesn't impact design, it's fine.

Modifié par StElmo, 27 février 2013 - 02:25 .

[SpunkyMonkey]

Maytrows wrote...

TLDR: EA wants you to pay more and you get less. Even if you don't use a feature in a game you do pay for it when you buy the game.

Let me further elaborate why micro transactions get me angry. EA answers to it's shareholders and the CEO has to deliver a profit. Today it is not even enough to get a profit it is how much you can increase the profit as a CEO that lets you keep your job.
The CEO in turn will go to his guys and says "We have to get this much profit, do it or someone gets fired". So they come up with ideas how to get more money from us. To them games is nothing more then a product and the cheaper it can be produced the better so they are constantly looking for the most efficient way to get the most money.
Having selling points on the back of the box is one. Multiplayer, how many times have we seen this more or less just tacked on a game so it can say so on the back of the box.
It will sell more games they think so on the box it goes. Now they are doing the same with micro transactions.

I see a lot of people say, "well it does not bother me so its ok". Think again. Bioware does not have infinite resources. Every time EA wants a new feature on a game that will be time and money spent on something else then the core of the game. Less time on the narrative, level design, AI programing, UI and so on.
It does gut the game, and take micro transactions, it is not just something that is there for convenience.
It will be designed so yes you don't need to use it but we will try to give you incentive by making the "free option" a chore rather then something fun so you feel "I want the item but I can't be arsed to farm for it". So now the design of the game has changed and my experience of the game is worse because of it. 

Now we have multiplayer, co-op, season passes, micro transactions, day 1 "DLC" and the list goes on. Every feature is taking resources from "core", and this will continue it will not stop because EA will try to get more and more from the game money wise.
So we as consumers used to have 100% of the resources used to create the "core" of the game and we paid lets say 60$ for it. Now we paying 60$ for a game that spent 75% of its resources on the core and they want even more money if you want the "day 1 DLC". In short we are now spending more for less, the games is going to designed to make room for more and more features that is there to get us to spend more money to have "fun".

Consider this, how many of you wants to pay for the joy of having micro transactions in a game?
Because you do, with the money you spent to get the game you paid for that feature. So when you say you don't mind micro transactions because you wont use them. you do realize that you are paying for them by buying the game? Would you not rather have used that money to get more of what you like?

These features are not there to enhance the game but to get more money to EA's shareholders and as a consumer it is not in my interest to pay for something like that.

Excellent post.

If a game's budget is say £10m and a great game is developable for £8m with the "left over" £2m being spent on extras, MP, DLC and microtransactions etc. then that's sound by me. But if the game requires £8m to be good, yet around £5m is focussed on these other areas (which, like Arkham City I suspect it was) then we're being cheated, it's a simple as that.

[Oberkaiser]

It's frankly none of consumers' business what a game's budget is, or how much of it is used on the core game or what is placed on the disc you buy. If you consider on-disc DLC to be a spit in the face, don't pay to unlock it. Or unlock it illegaly. But my point is that there's no law regulating what can be put on the game disc and usually most of the space is artificially locked as a piracy prevention mechanism. But I make it a rule not to buy any additional content for the game after its release. If it was a creative endeavor and the developers wanted to make the game better or add features they didn't have time to add during development, they would release it as free content with a patch.

Bottom line is, considering the fact story DLC never lives up to the quality of the core game and companions are typically gimmicky and feel out-of-place during major plot points, they're both pretty easy to overlook. Or if you're really desperate, there are other "sources" for such things.

Modifié par Oberkaiser, 27 février 2013 - 03:36 .

[MassFrost]

As long as they aren't adding artificial grinds to their games in order to encourage people to buy into the MTs, I'm alright with it I suppose.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

I don't lose respect for them if I feel that the content is substantial and fairly priced. I was referring to microtransactions specifically, which includes paying for a new piece of armour or a new weapon. I wasn't referring to DLC expansions.

But how is that any different? DLC is DLC regardless of the size of the content.

OK I find it tacky. So does Brent Knowles, lead designer of DA:O (who left Bioware before DA2 came out, and who is certainly not 'stupid' for sharing my opinion.) There is something undignified in selling someone a product and then trying to sell them little additional niceties at a premium. It's just such a petty level of greed. I find it mildly irritating that I half-want those extras, but I don't want to stoop to indulging such grubby-handedness.

There is nothing wrong or even unethical about offering new content to players. Again, the size of the content doesn't matter and it is usually priced accordingly. Main DLC's usually range from $10-$20. Smaller DLC's between $5-$7.

I wouldn't say I was in a fight against microtransactions. This isn't a moral crusade, I just find them tacky. Yes EA have a right to use them as part of their business strategy, and I have the right to lose respect for EA if they do so. I agree I would not buy a game where microtransactions were mandatory - as it stands, their existence in a game just makes it that much more likely I'll wait for a price drop before purchasing.

Fair enough.

Oh? Just watch how many pre-orders GTAV will get.

It's the one of the best open world series of games ever made. I think that'll be the reason for the pre-orders.

[Althix]

i saw a guy with javelin X and geth plasma shotgun X on first week after ME3 release.

for me - microtransactions is like buying psp for real money.

however i am fine with story related DLCs, addons and even custom costumes or arnor sets for single player.

[Darth Death]

Maytrows wrote...

Now we have multiplayer, co-op, season passes, micro transactions, day 1 "DLC" and the list goes on. Every feature is taking resources from "core", and this will continue it will not stop because EA will try to get more and more from the game money wise.
So we as consumers used to have 100% of the resources used to create the "core" of the game and we paid lets say 60$ for it. Now we paying 60$ for a game that spent 75% of its resources on the core and they want even more money if you want the "day 1 DLC". In short we are now spending more for less, the games is going to designed to make room for more and more features that is there to get us to spend more money to have "fun".

Words of wisdom as I see it. Good to know you're aware of the situation & I agree with everything you've said. The quote I picked from your post highlights the byproduct of two games (ME3 & DA2) that suffered the very thing you've mentioned above. That's why I'm vigilant with everything BioWare does since I know who's backing them (EA).  

[Thibax]

Will the best items be in the microtransactions?

As an online rpg?

That the game punishes you to play for hours and hours to advance and if you have real money in one second you upgrade all of your stuff.

Will be like that?

Modifié par Thibax, 27 février 2013 - 04:13 .

[someguy1231]

EA is sure is living up to their "Worst Company in America" title...

Seriously, though, I have never played a game which I felt was enhanced by microtransactions. At best, it just implements a blatant case of tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BribingYourWayToVictory. At worst, it utterly nickels and dimes honest consumers, cutting off vital parts of the core game from them behind a paywall. Microtransactions are a cancer upon gaming, and never, ever make a game better. Yes, that is a sweeping generalization, but for something like this, it's a justified one.

By the way, EA, do you want to see a vision of the future you're making for gaming? Perhaps you've heard (or perhaps not, if you're so enthusiastic about MTs) of a game Square-Enix made recently called "Final Fantasy: All the Bravest". It featured extremely burdensome MTs to the point that the core "game" barely even qualified as a game. Let's see what video game reviewers thought of it:

Game Informer called it "a Travesty": www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/01/17/final-fantasy-all-the-bravest-is-a-travesty.aspx

1up called it "an insulting excuse for a game": www.1up.com/do/blogEntry

Destructoid called it "f***ing disgusting": www.destructoid.com/review-final-fantasy-all-the-bravest-242882.phtml

Even IGN, whose close relationship with game companies is questionable at best, said it was "designed to extract money with ruthless efficiency": www.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/final-fantasy-all-the-bravest-review

You can find many more examples from other sites, of course. But I fear this game will be a harbinger of what's to come in the gaming industry.

EA, let me make my opinion on this plain and simple. Microtransactions must go. No conditions, no exceptions, no "ifs, ands or buts". They must utterly cease to exist. Period.

[JWvonGoethe]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...

I don't lose respect for them if I feel that the content is substantial and fairly priced. I was referring to microtransactions specifically, which includes paying for a new piece of armour or a new weapon. I wasn't referring to DLC expansions.

But how is that any different? DLC is DLC regardless of the size of the content.

It's about value for money. I feel that offering customers insubstantial DLC is tacky. Call it personal preference; I'm not asking that microtransactions be banned, I'm saying I don't like them.

The difference between main DLC and microtransactions for me is this: say I go into a restaurant and order a meal. If they ask me to pay a little extra for a side order of french fries, I'll say 'fair enough.' However, if I'm asked to pay 20 cents extra for sauce, then I'll make sure not to come back. That's the difference for me. I'm not overly concerned about what other people do with their money. I'm not going to look down on you or anyone else if you want to purchase microtransactions.

There is nothing wrong or even unethical about offering new content to players. Again, the size of the content doesn't matter and it is usually priced accordingly. Main DLC's usually range from $10-$20. Smaller DLC's between $5-$7.

Never said it was unethical. Said it was tacky. If I asked you to pay me 5 cents to PM you an extra sentence of my post, wouldn't you think it was tacky?

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

JWvonGoethe wrote...
Oh? Just watch how many pre-orders GTAV will get.

It's the one of the best open world series of games ever made. I think that'll be the reason for the pre- orders.

Exactly - Rockstar are known for releasing high quality games and DLC, so people trust them more and will be more likely to purchase their games prior to seeing any reviews. Brand loyalty can and does matter in the games industry, which you appeared to downplay earlier.

I used GTA as an example because Rockstar have a great reputation for offering high-quality substantial DLC, and which is also value-for-money. They don't do microtransactions as far as I'm aware, and in my opinion all of this gives them more credibility as a company. That means I trust them more, which makes it more likely that I'll purchase their games at full price, as well buying all the DLC or the GOTY edition.

All this boils down to is: you like microtransactions and I don't. Not a big deal.

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 février 2013 - 04:44 .

[Maytrows]

Thibax wrote...

Will the best items be in the microtransactions?

As an online rpg?

That the game punishes you to play for hours and hours to advance and if you have real money in one second you upgrade all of your stuff.

Will be like that?

We don't know.
But for microtransactions to be successful there must be a demand for what they offer.
Would you pay for a bad weapon? Would you pay for resources if they are easily collected? 
So they will create mechanics and design the game so it will increase thet odds that you will use their microtransactions. It will likly be a completly artificial market, they create two weapons, a "normal" one that you get and a blinged up one that you buy. Resource wise they spent more time and money to create the two weapons then just one weapon in the first place.

Modifié par Maytrows, 27 février 2013 - 04:43 .