344 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

JWvonGoethe wrote...

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.

Right. But they're not asking you to pay 20 cents extra everytime you play the game or whatever. They offer some weapon packs that are priced at $2. Suddenly everyone is up in arms. I just don't understand it. It's completely optional and people are acting like it's being forced on them. Same thing with ME3's multiplayer and Dead Space 3. They allow you to buy points or weapons/armor that is obtainable just by playing the game. Again, no participation required, it's just there if you want it.

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

I would say no and that would be the end of it, tacky or not.

Exactly - Rockstar are known for having standards of quality, 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 tried to downplay.

Anyway I used GTA as an example since 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.

Well, I was referring to publishers regarding brand loyalty. Major publishers like EA and Activision. And yeah, I agree with that last part: it's not a big deal at all. But so many people on here and on other sites are making it a big deal just so they have something to push against. This generation in particular... it's turned gamers into very hateful people.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 04:51 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Well, I was referring to publishers regarding brand loyalty. Major publishers like EA and Activision. And yeah, I agree with that last part: it's not a big deal at all. But so many people on here and on other sites are making it a big deal just so they have something to push against. This generation in particular... it's turned gamers into very hateful people.

Amazing... this generation is the first to make people turn so vitriol and easy to anger... and this generation also saw the rise of such things as Collector's Editions, Day One DLC and microtransactions...

Coincidence? Yes.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 27 février 2013 - 05:04 .

[EpicBoot2daFace]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Amazing... this generation is the first to make people turn so vitriol and easy to anger... and this generation also saw the rise of such things as Collector's Editions, Day One DLC and microtransactions...

Coincidence? Yes.

No. I think it's the internet and websites like NeoGaf that have turned a lot of folks into hateful people who only get their jollies by hating on something or someone within the game industry. A lot of them are hipsters. Have you noticed how cool it is to hate on big Triple-A games these days? Stuff like that.

[AbnormalJoe]

what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.

this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesrada...as-peter-moore/)

[JWvonGoethe]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...
Well, I was referring to publishers regarding brand loyalty. Major publishers like EA and Activision. And yeah, I agree with that last part: it's not a big deal at all. But so many people on here and on other sites are making it a big deal just so they have something to push against. This generation in particular... it's turned gamers into very hateful people.

I don't know if they really are that hateful. Self-righteous indignation is a powerful drug.

Anyway, we don't appear to disagree on too much. I find it bad business etiquette to charge customers for such inconsequential extras (especially when said customers have already paid a premium for the main game.) For you that isn't so much of an issue.

But I'm not infuriated by it, just mildly disappointed. Bioware should have more style than that - and they do sometimes: giving away all the DA:O and DA2 promotional items for free this winter was encouraging, as is the fact that ME3 MP maps are offered to customers for free.

But then you see them charging you $2 to download a Mass Effect 2 t-shirt for your Xbox avator... ugh, that really is tacky...

Modifié par JWvonGoethe, 27 février 2013 - 05:43 .

[AlanC9]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

No. I think it's the internet and websites like NeoGaf that have turned a lot of folks into hateful people who only get their jollies by hating on something or someone within the game industry. A lot of them are hipsters. Have you noticed how cool it is to hate on big Triple-A games these days? Stuff like that.

But doesn't being attracted to those websites show that these people were always hateful? They just have an outlet for it now.

[DaosX]

If EA adopts this, they can be assured I will not be purchasing any more EA games like how I haven't bought a single Capcom game in years. EA, you are the new Capcom!

[EpicBoot2daFace]

AlanC9 wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

No. I think it's the internet and websites like NeoGaf that have turned a lot of folks into hateful people who only get their jollies by hating on something or someone within the game industry. A lot of them are hipsters. Have you noticed how cool it is to hate on big Triple-A games these days? Stuff like that.

But doesn't being attracted to those websites show that these people were always hateful? They just have an outlet for it now.

Yeah, it could be. Outside of games, times are tough right now. I can see why people get upset when they think they're being ripped off by this huge corporation. Going onto Gaf and saying "**** that noise. I'm canceling my pre-order!" ---- maybe it makes them feel better.

Then you have other people who think games are being dumbed down and they feel neglected by these developers who once gave them their favorite gaming experiences. That sucks and I can understand that frustration. But games have to change with the market. It's necessary.

Then you have the worst of the bunch: the hipsters. These people tend to hate on everything in some way, but especially the big Triple-A games just because it's the cool thing to do. Any game that isn't made by a small group of people living in basement gets thrashed. I really despise these types of people. I wish they would just go back to the old games they love so much or just stop gaming altogether since they seem to hate it so much.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 06:01 .

[LinksOcarina]

AbnormalJoe wrote...

what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.

this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)

But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board. 

Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible, not to mention a way to generate stronger revenue over hit-driven metrics. 

The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours. 

In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine. 

That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. I'm patient enough to see EA make changes to their services and find a method that is non-intrusive and beneficial to both sides. So far, BioWare has gotten it right with Mass Effect 3, and Dead Space 3 worked as well. Thats 2/2 at this time. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 06:07 .

[Emzamination]

AbnormalJoe wrote...

what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.

Lmao, I'd like to see which corporate executive has the titanium jewels to sign off on that order. Gamers would frenzy and descend upon eas head like an apocalyptic plaque.

[Terraforming2154]

If people want to spend their money on innocuous microtransactions then that is their prerogative. Personally, I don't like or use them.

I just worry that this is a slippery slope into gutting the base game and making it truly unplayable (like locking out important content) without the purchase of microtransactions. Seems like an inevitability now, really, and that will be the point where I stop buying EA games completely.

Modifié par Terraforming2154, 27 février 2013 - 06:06 .

[LinksOcarina]

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.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

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.

Oh, you just opened a can of worms. It's all on you now. I wish you luck, LinksOcarina.

[AbnormalJoe]

LinksOcarina wrote...

AbnormalJoe wrote...

what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.

this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)

But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board. 

Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible.

The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours. 

In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine. 

That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. 

True enough, but it's not just the fact that they are doing it, it's that they're doing in as a facade as a "way to move forward" when it fact it's just simply a money grab!

There are normally two types of games when it comes down to pricing: Full, 60$ (American) games, and free to play, with micro transactions to support it. what EA is doing is making two into an abomination of the two, making you pay 60 dollars (Once again, American) so that you can pay more to get what's already on the Disc. (The same can be said for Disc Locked Content). it's sickening business tatics, and the fact that it's working is even sadder.

[Emzamination]

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.

Waaay ahead of you, link! I've never bought anything off steam anyway.

[LinksOcarina]

AbnormalJoe wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

AbnormalJoe wrote...

what going to suck, because it'll eventually happen: Disc Locked Content requiring not only online passes and keys to unlock it, but rather Microtransactions to KEEP IT OPEN AND UNLOCKED.

this is why I EA; because Moore himself said that game exist as "on going service" (http://www.gamesradar.com/publishers-have-invest-games-service-says-eas-peter-moore/)

But heres the caveat to that entire issue, most gamers don't mind the on going service because their current purchasing behaviors have shown increases in game activities and revenue across the board. 

Gabe Newell for instance has talked extensively on the fact that Valve is no longer focusing on single player content exclusively (Newell referring to it as Single Player +) He also recently said that their push for multi-player is mostly patented to figure out the hueristics of how they work. Considering that most of their experience as of late has been that of expanding multiplayer content, and promoting multiplayer over single player (even in Portal 2, which had a marketing focus of their co-op mode) and their recent transition to free to play for games like Team Fortress 2 have shown this model to be lucrative and possible.

The Walking Dead is another example. Its episodic, small scale, staggared releases and has enough content to get through to gamers because of the content, not the gameplay. It is selling the games as a service in this route by providing months of content that you can enjoy over time, rather than all at once for ten hours. 

In truth, Peter Moore is correct as the current route of Microtransactions is the next evolution. The specs for the PS4 are all about connectivity for example, and trying to connect to developers and gamers with bigger architecture and more features to allow connectivity on the internet. The Wii U is a pure service model as well, their online features are supposed to connect gamers with each other in positive (and negative, but no one talks about it) ways. EA is frankly ahead of the curb in some respects regarding this change, and provided they do things right (which is not what Square did with that iOS game) they should be fine. 

That said, they are reviled because they are EA. But I am basically seeing what Valve went through in most repsects after they launched Steam, lots of uncertainty and mistakes made by Valve before they found their center. 

True enough, but it's not just the fact that they are doing it, it's that they're doing in as a facade as a "way to move forward" when it fact it's just simply a money grab!

There are normally two types of games when it comes down to pricing: Full, 60$ (American) games, and free to play, with micro transactions to support it. what EA is doing is making two into an abomination of the two, making you pay 60 dollars (Once again, American) so that you can pay more to get what's already on the Disc. (The same can be said for Disc Locked Content). it's sickening business tatics, and the fact that it's working is even sadder.

Except, its not.

A money grab is what square did. It was blatant and obvious enough because they directly tried to disbar you from playing the game without buying something. Zynga made a fortune off of that but its short term gains at best, as we see Zynga slowly fall apart as a company.

What EA is doing is implementing microtransactions into existing content. Dead Space 3 had it as an optional way to get crafting materials to make weapons, the same materials you can find in-game with ease to build weapons. Is it impeding your play of the game? Is it forcing you to buy upgrades or is it optional? 

That is a fundamental difference. Recently Uncharted 3 now has a free to play multiplayer mode, but has it capped at level 15. You can buy unlimited levels for $20 if you want, or the co-op modes for about $10. Considering how the multiplayer is built, you need to be higher levels to compete fundamentally, so capping at level 15 is designed to make you buy the next portion of the game. Or the GOTY edition for $30, which includes everything anyway.

You are paying $60 for a game, and you as a consumer can pay more to make the game easier. Not to beat it. 

[The Elder King]

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 admire your guts. This isn't going to end well.
While I think that certain publishers (like Capcom and EA) are worst than others,  every software house or publishers is following the same rules. I mean, as much B:AC is good, Rocksteady dlc's policy was one of the worst I saw. How many people will buy the next Batman game, regardless this?
As far as I know, the only software house who release dlc as free content (and the enhanced edition of their games too) is CDPR.

[LinksOcarina]

EpicBoot2daFace 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.

Oh, you just opened a can of worms. It's all on you now. I wish you luck, LinksOcarina.

Well, I guess people don't like hearing the truth sometimes. But hey, someone needs to call them out on their double standards.

Or at least point out the obvious. Let them come though. I'm not afraid .

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 27 février 2013 - 06:37 .

[LinksOcarina]

hhh89 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 admire your guts. This isn't going to end well.
While I think that certain publishers (like Capcom and EA) are worst than others,  every software house or publishers is following the same rules. I mean, as much B:AC is good, Rocksteady dlc's policy was one of the worst I saw. How many people will buy the next Batman game, regardless this?
As far as I know, the only software house who release dlc as free content (and the enhanced edition of their games too) is CDPR.

See, I find that to be a false problem. Capcom and EA are no different from CDPR. Are the practices different? Yeah I give you that, but in execution only. Their core goals are essentially the same, as is their intent. 

Would it be better if everyone had the same standards for conducting microtransactions? Possibly. I don't know. There are so many different models and real abuses out there (Zynga again is emblematic) its hard to really discern which would be best until we get financial data and a general consensous from the community by and large. 

[EpicBoot2daFace]

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace 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.

Oh, you just opened a can of worms. It's all on you now. I wish you luck, LinksOcarina.

Well, I guess people don't like hearing the truth sometimes. But hey, someone needs to call them out on their double standards.

Or at least point out the obvious. 

True enough. But I know what battles to stay out of. Anything involving Valve or Steam just turns into a mud slinging contest.

Modifié par EpicBoot2daFace, 27 février 2013 - 06:38 .

[DaosX]

EpicBoot2daFace wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

EpicBoot2daFace 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.

Oh, you just opened a can of worms. It's all on you now. I wish you luck, LinksOcarina.

Well, I guess people don't like hearing the truth sometimes. But hey, someone needs to call them out on their double standards.

Or at least point out the obvious. 

True enough. But I know what battles to stay out of. Anything involving Valve or Steam just turns into a mud slinging contest.

Well, if Valve would turn a little bit counter clockwise, there would be less mud coming out...