344 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

Mr Massakka wrote...

I doubt posting in the BSN will do anything, but oh well...

The gaming industry is turning into a worrying direction since ~2010.
This microtransaction system is only a relatively small expansion of what we already have: content that was finished with the game at release is sold separately, simple things that do not take much effort to make (such as weapon packs) are sold with ridiculous price-tags, in a full version that you legally obtained with 60$ is only 90% of the in-game equipment included, and pre-order bonuses all over the stores deny you access to certain content unless you buy the game 3 times. And don't blame EA. Almost all publishers who come close to the size of them are doomed to continue it as well.
This micro-transaction-system is basically an attempt at standardizing these smaller business tactics into one big process of exploitation.

And you know who made this possible? Those people who willingly pre-order their special weapon skin, those who bought multiplayer packs all the time... those who really paid for this nonsense in the first place. Publishers wouldn't come onto that ridiculous idea if it wasn't profitable.

Just get some balls, stop supporting this by throwing money at them, spread the word and this system WILL fail.

<shrug> Doesn't really work. Just like people picketing in front of Wal-Mart for a week doesn't actually stop them from growing to every corner of the globe, boycotting games and preaching to those who do pay money that support this type of market won't work either.

The key is finding an alternative. Find a budding game company that aligns with your principles. Hate how DLC is marketed? Check out CDPR and how they give away their DLC for free. Think that buying games from certain stores is gimmicky and cheap? Look at ways to get your game through digital download, or look at renting if you are on a console. Don't like games that include microtransactions? Find a good Kickstarter game that you feel is solid (or even well on their way on the development train, so there is less risk involved) and know that you can play the game offline without any petitions for money.

But if you stay in the AAA game market and follow the same habits but just wag your finger at people who buy DLC or microtransactions, you will likely wind up with nothing but disappointment and occassionaly the opportunity to say "I told you so."

[Degs29]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...
The recent shift in philosiphy is encouraging game companies to produce sub-standard games. DLC and Microtransactions give those companies a reason/excuse to release rushed & unfinished products.

I agree with this somewhat.  Bioware releasing DLC on day one was a huge mistake that generates a lot of animosity.  I mean, it gives Bioware full control in deciding how much content is worthy of a $60 pricetag.  What motivations would be involved in that decision?  The obvious one is greed (not that I'm saying that's what happened with Bioware).  It's a slippery slope.  I honestly have no problem with paying a little extra for actual added gameplay DLC, so long as it's not priced ridiculously like every single DLC I've seen!

My problem will always be real-world microtransactions that give the player an advantage, whether it be SP or MP (but especially MP).  You have to remember that SP isn't entirely cut off from everyone else.  Achievements are earned whether you earned them completely yourself or paid $5 to fast track your way through them.  Some people take achievements very seriously and feel a sense of pride in amassing so many...that feeling gets crushed when you see competing individuals with an equal amount of achievements and you don't know whether they earned them through the same struggle or merely paid $5 for an uber-powerful weapon that basically makes the hardest mode of the game a piece of cake.  In the years to come, how much will the sense of achievement of dominating a game legitimately erode because of these microtransactions? 

Obviously, this is a small complaint next to microtransactions that give an advantage in MP.  That's just plain evil!

[Fireblader70]

I check on the BSN for the first time in a while and see this.

Micro-transactions may not be harmful if you choose not to go along with it, but they're kind of like the elephant in the room. Or a poop sitting in the corner of a lavish sitting room.

I can't be bothered with EA anymore... I honestly don't think I have the willpower to buy anything from them because it feels like I'm being slapped in the face a hundred times over with a wad of cash. Does that sound fun? Not to me. It's not really a moral stand, I just... can't be bothered.

[Degs29]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But if you stay in the AAA game market and follow the same habits but just wag your finger at people who buy DLC or microtransactions, you will likely wind up with nothing but disappointment and occassionaly the opportunity to say "I told you so."

I'm interested to know your opinion of DLC and microtransactions Jimmy.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Fast Jimmy wrote... Find a good Kickstarter game that you feel is solid (or even well on their way on the development train, so there is less risk involved) and know that you can play the game offline without any petitions for money.

Ho ho ho.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sopa de Gato wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote... Find a good Kickstarter game that you feel is solid (or even well on their way on the development train, so there is less risk involved) and know that you can play the game offline without any petitions for money.

Ho ho ho.

I know, the irony isn't lost on me. 

Still, it is more honest to say "give me money so I can try to make a product which I will then share with you" rather than saying "You just bought our product! Now... do you want that product to be EVEN BETTER? Just enter your credit card information."

[Fast Jimmy]

Degs29 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
But if you stay in the AAA game market and follow the same habits but just wag your finger at people who buy DLC or microtransactions, you will likely wind up with nothing but disappointment and occassionaly the opportunity to say "I told you so."

I'm interested to know your opinion of DLC and microtransactions Jimmy.

I think they are one of the best ways for a publisher and developer to make money without losing overhead costs and giving cuts to distributers. 

Much like drug dealing is one of the most effective ways to make money, as it avoids taxes, regulations and involves high mark ups for a product that costs pennies to actually make.

[Paul E Dangerously]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I know, the irony isn't lost on me. 

Still, it is more honest to say "give me money so I can try to make a product which I will then share with you" rather than saying "You just bought our product! Now... do you want that product to be EVEN BETTER? Just enter your credit card information."

The problem there is that's exactly what Kickstarters often do. "Want this basic feature? Welp, better meet that stretch goal!"

[sirus1988]

Hmm.. it depends on how they implement the microtransactions. If they do something like ME3 multiplayer where you can either buy packs with real money or in game credits, then that's fine with me. But if they are trying to make certain equipment (not sold in DLC packs) able to buy in game with only real money.. then no, I would not go for that.

And as for DLC weapon and gear packs, I'm fine with it as long as they hold a decent amount of items and for a small price (around $3 - $6 a pack). And I'm not talking about random item packs, like in ME3 multiplayer. You should know what you are buying.

[Degs29]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think they are one of the best ways for a publisher and developer to make money without losing overhead costs and giving cuts to distributers. 

Much like drug dealing is one of the most effective ways to make money, as it avoids taxes, regulations and involves high mark ups for a product that costs pennies to actually make.

Those mark ups are my biggest issue.  They're making content where the technology is already in place to quickly produce said content and releasing it without a physical copy...and yet they add mere hours of gameplay while charging a quarter of a regular game's full price.

[Volus Warlord]

Degs29 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I think they are one of the best ways for a publisher and developer to make money without losing overhead costs and giving cuts to distributers. 

Much like drug dealing is one of the most effective ways to make money, as it avoids taxes, regulations and involves high mark ups for a product that costs pennies to actually make.

Those mark ups are my biggest issue.  They're making content where the technology is already in place to quickly produce said content and releasing it without a physical copy...and yet they add mere hours of gameplay while charging a quarter of a regular game's full price.

Many games are now <10 hours long.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Which is why I rent all of my games. I can just enjoy them for what they are (or aren't). I'm paying the same flat rate if I play three 10 hour games a month or one 40 hour game.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 février 2013 - 08:54 .

[LinksOcarina]

SpunkyMonkey wrote...

Captain Crash wrote...

Optional micro-transactions don't bother me. As said they are optional and if you want some extra equipment or help then I think its fair you can pay to get some.

I not ever seen micro-transactions being shoved down my throat as some people are making out. Additionally I've not ever seen myself missing out on awesome content because of micro-transactions either.

Compare.....

ME to ME3

Arkham Asylum to Arkham City

DA:O to DA:2

Dead Space to Dead Space 3

etc.

The recent shift in philosiphy is encouraging game companies to produce sub-standard games. DLC and Microtransactions give those companies a reason/excuse to release rushed & unfinished products.

Robhuzz wrote...

QFT. If gamers took a stand for once
instead of just falling for all the hype and overmarketing and follow it
like sheep, we wouldn't even have these practices. By refraining from
buying into this we could force developers to once again focus on making
good games, instead of ways to make as much money as possible, then
building a game around that.

This!^

By whose definition are the games sub-standard? 

Last I checked, Arkham City and Dead Space 3 got really good reviews, both from critics and fans, and honestly the first time I see people complain about Akrham City is in this thread. I never played it, but then again I thought Arkham Asylum was overrated so what do I know? 

My point though is the same, are the games really sub-standard, or is it just a perception as such because of the assumption that creativity is stifled through different venues of service? Once again, its an image issue versus and actual moral issue to me. And perception of actions are always  a mean to misinterpetations of intent. Its like what I say to the kids I used to teach; see things from all angles before assuming the worst or best, and leave your own emotions out of it to make a rational decision.

And I would also like to point out another fallacy people have; refraiming from buying anything will do nothing. There is a reason why Jorgensen said the microtransactions have been successful. Organizing a coalition against a company because of a peceived threat of malpractice against what is a subjective field of economics and quality is not going to work.  Not to mention the fact that, despite what many in our community think, we are a large minority compared to the "casual" market out there. 

[LinksOcarina]

chuckles471 wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

This assumes someone is being a bad guy. 

Also, how is the multiplayer in Mass Effect 3 ripoff, because of that connection? Did you play it to discern how fair it was? Also, how can it be unfair when its co-op multiplayer, not versus deathmatch, where weapon output is just as important? 

And how is this not a double standard if companies are all following the same practices? You can say some do it better than others, but blanket statements like I quoted before make such accusations a double standard.

I also want to point out, you are basically telling me that microtransactions are ok within your own personal standards. Should all games follow those standards as well to be acceptable? 

Look under my avatar, Sherlock.
Same practices, less ****y.  Remember that?
And for the thrid time, for a FREE game.  Stop trying to put words in my mouth, that is a Perez Hilton move.  Unless EA have a major breakdown, DA3 wont be free.

I do, but that means to me you are giving a double standard. Hence the questions for clarification. If the same practices are going around, but one of them is "less ****ty", that makes it ok? 

I also am not really put words in your mouth, I am merely asking questions to discern why you think this way. Although I would ask you to stop being rude, that is annoying to me.

Lastly, why would Inquisition be free? Chances are it will be a $60.00 game in the end. Is that really so bad? 

[Wulfram]

Dead Space 3 has got a worse (professional) metacritic rating than DA2. Wouldn't call that really good.

[LinksOcarina]

Wulfram wrote...

Dead Space 3 has got a worse (professional) metacritic rating than DA2. Wouldn't call that really good.

A seven average is not a bad score. 

Or it shouldn't be at least.  Thats another peeve of mine but a rant for another day. 

[TheBlackBaron]

I'm surprised at the relative lack of OWS-type rhetoric in this thread. Normally there's a whole lot more in threads with these sorts of topics.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOcarina wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Dead Space 3 has got a worse (professional) metacritic rating than DA2. Wouldn't call that really good.

A seven average is not a bad score. 

Or it shouldn't be at least.  Thats another peeve of mine but a rant for another day. 

Eh. Seven is average for every game that comes out. Out of the hundreds of games that came out in a given year, your game is right there in the middle. Higher than a Cooking SIM for a DS game. Lower than the latest CoD knockoff. 

That's not exactly a shining endorsement. Being average when there is an unmitigated amount of utter crap you did better than when you are being put together with a AAA development, multi-million dollar budget is a failure. Games that get (and truly deserve) 4's or 5's for their score likely spent a tenth of what a large development game did. The fact that the games that score a 4 are truly terrible is simply a matter of who had a better budget.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 février 2013 - 09:22 .

[AlanC9]

Degs29 wrote...


My problem will always be real-world microtransactions that give the player an advantage, whether it be SP or MP (but especially MP).  You have to remember that SP isn't entirely cut off from everyone else.  Achievements are earned whether you earned them completely yourself or paid $5 to fast track your way through them.  Some people take achievements very seriously and feel a sense of pride in amassing so many...that feeling gets crushed when you see competing individuals with an equal amount of achievements and you don't know whether they earned them through the same struggle or merely paid $5 for an uber-powerful weapon that basically makes the hardest mode of the game a piece of cake.  In the years to come, how much will the sense of achievement of dominating a game legitimately erode because of these microtransactions? 

Anyone who takes pride in his game achievements is an idiot in the first place. I've seen a lot of achievements that are tedious to get; I've never seen one that I'd call difficult to get.

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOcarina wrote...

Wulfram wrote...

Dead Space 3 has got a worse (professional) metacritic rating than DA2. Wouldn't call that really good.

A seven average is not a bad score. 

Or it shouldn't be at least.  Thats another peeve of mine but a rant for another day. 

Eh. Seven is average for every game that comes out. Out of the hundreds of games that came out in a given year, your game is right there in the middle. Higher than a Cooking SIM for a DS game. Lower than the latest CoD knockoff. 

That's not exactly a shining endorsement. Being average when there is an unmitigated amount of utter crap you did better than when you are being put together with a AAA development, multi-million dollar budget is a failure. Games that get (and truly deserve) 4's or 5's for their score likely spent a tenth of what a large development game did. The fact that the games that score a 4 are truly terrible is simply a matter of who had a better budget.

I disagree. Sorry for the off topic rant but ill tie it in again. 

For starters, the grading system in the industry is broken beyond comprehension, since every critic under the sun has their own grade criteria they haven to follow for the site or magazine they work for. 

Simply put, a seven is not average. A five is. The gaming world follows an educational curve for grading, something that, as a teacher and a reviewer, I hate, because measuring quality for a higher curve actually should be malleable upon the needs of the students. The reason a 75 is average in most colleges and schools is because they demand a sort of perfectionist attitiude out of your workload, something that gaming industry can't actually deliver, because quality is in the eye of the beholder. You can't quantify a seven as an average game like this, because if you really sit down and think about it, most games would be a seven anyway. 

And for the few people who actually read the reviews I write, the grading system for me is simply that. A five score is your average title, a seven is above average/good, if you will, and I have yet to give beyond an eight score in my tenure. I guess this makes me a harsh critic, but I look at it as being fair in the end. 

Another peeve is also the fact that a 5 star score, or a 10/10, or  A+ should be all but impossible to obtain. Most sites however hand it out like popcorn, which skus grades higher and gave us that nasty inflation perception most game journalists have. Not to mention the journalists need to learn how to write and form good criticism without falling into common traps of bare adjectives without proper context. Hell I struggle with this still too.

And it doesn't matter the quality or budget either. Limbo a few years ago was a seven game at best, and is only notable for being visually artistic. World of Goo is a great puzzle game but is far from a high eight or nine, as most sites put it. I would even argue that several episodes of The Walking Dead game are not as great as people make them out to be. And considering the glut of horrible games out there in the indie field, that is a huge misnomer. 

But like microtransactions, its a perception issue that again, is misleading. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 février 2013 - 09:40 .

[Herr Uhl]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Well, that's moving the goalpost a little. Volus' criteria for DLC was that you would only need to buy something once to use, not if you could buy it only through real money transactions or through actual in-game actions.

If the criteria that we are using is that DLC can unlock things not in the game and microtransactions can unlock things that can be unlocked through normal play, then I'm leaning more towards microtransactions being the better option.

Well, I use my own definition, as it is blurry. But I prefer DLC as that would actually add to the game and couldn't be used as an excuse for a bad economy in game (see buying money) when it comes to single player in order to incentivise you.

If you can play to pay for content, then sure, but it seems unlikely for a finite game like DA has been. You can't really grind anything.

[Fast Jimmy]

LinksOrcana wrote...
snip

I disagree. In terms of teaching, a score is representative of how much you have learned. If you have learned less than 75% of the material that was deemed critical to the class, then you have failed. Learning everything that you were required to learn, a 100% score, is not impossible.

With games, it is the same. On a scale of all the possible aspects of the game, a game that only hits 70% of what is deemed to be successful is a low score. Your game loads? Has an interface? Shows some level of quality control? Basic tenets of design, such as being able to move your character, load and save your game, do more than pressing one button over and over... these are what separates a mediocre game from a zero.

Thing is, we will never playable zero, or a one, two or three. The basic concepts of being a game are all addresses by any game that actually warrants a review by a credible source.

If your game works, but is terrible, boring, crashes and has game-breaking bugs, then it will score. A four. If the game is functional, has polish that let's the game not be exceptionally painful to play but offers nothing extraordinary, unique or memorable, it scores between a 5 and 6, depending on the quality, number and variety of featurs and content. Games that are average are 7's. Games that are truly well-designed are 8's. Games that are "do not miss" are 9's. Games that are truly one of a kind, the true cream of the crop, are 10's.

It is not a true bell curve of all possible outcomes, simply because credit must be given for the effort given, because a truly low score is just not possible for us to encounter, as end-user consumers, due to safeguards present in the industry. Just like we could never go buy a book that wasn't complete, missing pages, full of typos or print that is completely illegible. It's not a matter of ratings chasing perfection, but of recognizing that even the lowest rated mass-produced forms of entertainment account for at least some basic concepts, principles and skill.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 février 2013 - 09:55 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Herr Uhl wrote...

Well, I use my own definition, as it is blurry. But I prefer DLC as that would actually add to the game and couldn't be used as an excuse for a bad economy in game (see buying money) when it comes to single player in order to incentivise you.

If you can play to pay for content, then sure, but it seems unlikely for a finite game like DA has been. You can't really grind anything.

I personally don't support either. Morally or financially. 

As for DA games, I don't think any developer would agree to this either. But maybe for each playthrough you do past the first, it gives you credits that could be used to buy a future DLC for a reduced or even free price. 

While I'm just pie-in-the-sky-ing, I'd also like a pony. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

LinksOrcana wrote...
snip

I disagree. In terms of teaching, a score is representative of how much you have learned. If you have learned less than 75% of the material that was deemed critical to the class, then you have failed. Learning everything that you were required to learn, a 100% score, is not impossible.

With games, it is the same. On a scale of all the possible aspects of the game, a game that only hits 70% of what is deemed to be successful is a low score. Your game loads? Has an interface? Shows some level of quality control? Basic tenets of design, such as being able to move your character, load and save your game, do more than pressing one button over and over... these are what separates a mediocre game from a zero.

Thing is, we will never playable zero, or a one, two or three. The basic concepts of being a game are all addresses by any game that actually warrants a review by a credible source.

If your game works, but is terrible, boring, crashes and has game-breaking bugs, then it will score. A four. If the game is functional, has polish that let's the game not be exceptionally painful to play but offers nothing extraordinary, unique or memorable, it scores between a 5 and 6, depending on the quality, number and variety of featurs and content. Games that are average are 7's. Games that are truly well-designed are 8's. Games that are "do not miss" are 9's. Games that are truly one of a kind, the true cream of the crop, are 10's.

It is not a true bell curve of all possible outcomes, simply because credit must be given for the effort given, because a truly low score is just not possible for us to encounter, as end-user consumers, due to safeguards present in the industry. Just like we could never go buy a book that wasn't complete, missing pages, full of typos or print that is completely illegible. It's not a matter of ratings chasing perfection, but of recognizing that even the lowest rated mass-produced forms of entertainment account for at least some basic concepts, principles and skill.

That is not how scoring works in education, because there is not quantifiable rubric that determines if you earn a 75 for a class or an 80 for a class. Each individual teacher has their own standards for students to follow, and they grade students differently, but are forced to follow tandardize testing rules for general tests in the end. The standardize tests, especially here in the U.S, tend to cripple students more than assess how they learn. 

And because gaming, and game reviewing is in the arts, it has no quantifable rubric to follow. Basically, its up to the whims of the person penning the article to determine what is good and bad. Objectivity rarely exists, and most of the time its impossible to find.  Games are not made to take a test and hit all the right notes, and neither are students. This is why most reviews, quite frankly, suck. They read like a spreadsheet instead of a review. 

And the bolded part is also wholly subjective because it presumes a 5-6 is under quality, and a 0-3 don't exist. Well, they do.  They are also, like everything else, dependent on the authors assessment of what they have played. And there are also differences between games with the same  score.  One of the things I like about the site I contribute to is the secondary recommendation line, as it gives a better sense at a glance, of what the content of the review is. Not all 7's are equal, and this is something that a standardized take of "learning" misses.

To put rote, unmovable standards on something is bad for the industry and for reveiewing. Also, I apologize for constantly promoting my stuff like that. 

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 28 février 2013 - 10:16 .