81 réponses à ce sujet

[bmwcrazy]

someguy1231 wrote...

IMO, anyone who purchases microtransactions in a multiplayer game in order to bribe their way to victory should have a massive arrow over their player character at all times reading "CHEATER RIGHT HERE", so everyone will know he's a cheap bastard, and the opposing team can find him more easily.

Haha. They should totally do that.

Like how you pay $40 to unlock everything in Battlefield 3 and the "shortcut" DLC for terrible Medal of Honor Warfighter. Everyone I know just plays the game for real and grinds instead.

I don't have a problem with those boost or "shortcut" DLCs that unlock everything but why would you spend real money to take the fun out of the game for yourself?

[someguy1231]

spirosz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

IMO, anyone who purchases microtransactions in a multiplayer game in order to bribe their way to victory should have a massive arrow over their player character at all times reading "CHEATER RIGHT HERE", so everyone will know he's a cheap bastard, and the opposing team can find him more easily.

How so?  What if said person has no time to actively be playing the game to get to a certain level, kids, work, etc, but to enjoy the game at the individual's terms, they want to purchase it, so they can have fun.  If anything, skill will always triumph players who "buy" to get better. 

Because it gives an unfair advantage to players with more real-world cash to throw around. Lord knows we already have too much of that in the world. Now EA and others want to institutionalize that in virtual worlds as well? Disgusting. If players are going to blatantly cheat to get ahead in a game, especially one that involves playing against other players, then let's see if they're willing to bear a mark of shame and constantly announcing their presence to the other team.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Cool story OP.

[someguy1231]

voice_of_darkness wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

IMO, anyone who purchases microtransactions in a multiplayer game in order to bribe their way to victory should have a massive arrow over their player character at all times reading "CHEATER RIGHT HERE", so everyone will know he's a cheap bastard, and the opposing team can find him more easily.

 

Anyone who doesn't use microtransactions should be penalized for not supporting the game. I could have bought something else but I decided to spend my money on the game and thus support the developers multiple times. Anylone who doesn't have microtransactions should get a cheapskate banner and let everyone know that they are cheap and thus not strong enough in multiplayer=]

You, sir, are completely delusional (assuming you're not trolling). We're already supporting the game by buying it in the first place. We don't need to buy absolutely everything the devs throw at us to support them.

And here's an interesting idea: how about we prove we're strong in multiplayer by (GASP!) actually playing it with skill and teamwork instead of using real-world money to circumvent the rules and get an unfair advantage over other players???

[axl99]

Microtransactions are another way for publishers to make money. Simple as that.

That money can go anywhere from there: to charity, to incubator projects for aspiring developers, to marketing, to devs who need to keep the studio running so their employees can put food on the table for themselves and their families.

The main concern players have with microtransactions is essentially whether the game balance will be affected in a multiplayer/leaderboard scenario. Microtransaction customers are ideally not buying their way to victory, just making the going a little easier.

HOWEVER. The unspoken iron clad rule is that microtransactions need to be optional.

The only things worth scrutinizing are gameplay exploits/hacks and griefing players.

Modifié par axl99, 17 mars 2013 - 07:46 .

[SlottsMachine]

He posted this yesterday and nobody replied. Solution; post it again.

[voice_of_darkness]

axl99 wrote...

Microtransactions are another way for publishers to make money. Simple as that.

That money can go anywhere from there: to charity, to incubator projects for aspiring developers, to marketing, to devs who need to keep the studio running so their employees can put food on the table for themselves and their families.

The main concern players have with microtransactions is essentially whether the game balance will be affected in a multiplayer/leaderboard scenario. Microtransaction customers are ideally not buying their way to victory, just making the going a little easier.

HOWEVER. The unspoken iron clad rule is that microtransactions need to be optional.

The only things worth scrutinizing are gameplay exploits/hacks and griefing players.

 
You and me, we're the only people around who actually see the big picture. 

[bmwcrazy]

General Slotts wrote...

He posted this yesterday and nobody replied. Solution; post it again.

I think the original thread was locked and blackholed.

Troll harder, OP. 

3/10

[someguy1231]

bmwcrazy wrote...
I don't have a problem with those boost or "shortcut" DLCs that unlock everything but why would you spend real money to take the fun out of the game for yourself?

Exactly. It's like paying $20.00 to buy the last Harry Potter book, and then paying someone else $15.00 to know how it ends right away. Insanity.

[spirosz]

someguy1231 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

IMO, anyone who purchases microtransactions in a multiplayer game in order to bribe their way to victory should have a massive arrow over their player character at all times reading "CHEATER RIGHT HERE", so everyone will know he's a cheap bastard, and the opposing team can find him more easily.

How so?  What if said person has no time to actively be playing the game to get to a certain level, kids, work, etc, but to enjoy the game at the individual's terms, they want to purchase it, so they can have fun.  If anything, skill will always triumph players who "buy" to get better. 

Because it gives an unfair advantage to players with more real-world cash to throw around. Lord knows we already have too much of that in the world. Now EA and others want to institutionalize that in virtual worlds as well? Disgusting. If players are going to blatantly cheat to get ahead in a game, especially one that involves playing against other players, then let's see if they're willing to bear a mark of shame and constantly announcing their presence to the other team.

No it doesn't, if you have the best gun in the game, I'll still out play you, most games that are competitive, more than 90 percent of the time, the better player will outclass the player who's only way to win is with a "cheap gun/setup".  You have to understand, that certain players would like to enjoy the game at the same level as other players, but they can't put in the time, so if possible, they'll throw money at it to get a setup they can enjoy, but that doesn't mean they'll get better at the game.  

For example, I can put my sensitivity to the same setting as a known highly ranked Gears of War player, but that won't make me be able to achieve the same level of skill that he/she has.  Or I can buy a gun that you can only get at rank 50, but more than likely, I'll end up getting lucky kills and half the time, I'll end up losing the battle because I'm still not good at the game itself.  

Look at ME3 for example, I've seen people with the same exact build as me, guns, etc and yet, I'm able to outplay them, why because I either have more skill with that specific character or the other player just isn't as good, now that doesn't mean that they can't get better, but maybe buying certain things will help them achieve getting better and learning the maps better because they won't get as frusterated getting shot down because they have a decent setup.  

I don't know, I don't think it's a plague as some people like to view it. 

[voice_of_darkness]

spirosz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

IMO, anyone who purchases microtransactions in a multiplayer game in order to bribe their way to victory should have a massive arrow over their player character at all times reading "CHEATER RIGHT HERE", so everyone will know he's a cheap bastard, and the opposing team can find him more easily.

How so?  What if said person has no time to actively be playing the game to get to a certain level, kids, work, etc, but to enjoy the game at the individual's terms, they want to purchase it, so they can have fun.  If anything, skill will always triumph players who "buy" to get better. 

Because it gives an unfair advantage to players with more real-world cash to throw around. Lord knows we already have too much of that in the world. Now EA and others want to institutionalize that in virtual worlds as well? Disgusting. If players are going to blatantly cheat to get ahead in a game, especially one that involves playing against other players, then let's see if they're willing to bear a mark of shame and constantly announcing their presence to the other team.

No it doesn't, if you have the best gun in the game, I'll still out play you, most games that are competitive, more than 90 percent of the time, the better player will outclass the player who's only way to win is with a "cheap gun/setup".  You have to understand, that certain players would like to enjoy the game at the same level as other players, but they can't put in the time, so if possible, they'll throw money at it to get a setup they can enjoy, but that doesn't mean they'll get better at the game.  

For example, I can put my sensitivity to the same setting as a known highly ranked Gears of War player, but that won't make me be able to achieve the same level of skill that he/she has.  Or I can buy a gun that you can only get at rank 50, but more than likely, I'll end up getting lucky kills and half the time, I'll end up losing the battle because I'm still not good at the game itself.  

Look at ME3 for example, I've seen people with the same exact build as me, guns, etc and yet, I'm able to outplay them, why because I either have more skill with that specific character or the other player just isn't as good, now that doesn't mean that they can't get better, but maybe buying certain things will help them achieve getting better and learning the maps better because they won't get as frusterated getting shot down because they have a decent setup.  

I don't know, I don't think it's a plague as some people like to view it. 

 

Nice to see some more people can actually see the good things about microtransactions.

[someguy1231]

spirosz wrote...
No it doesn't, if you have the best gun in the game, I'll still out play you, most games that are competitive, more than 90 percent of the time, the better player will outclass the player who's only way to win is with a "cheap gun/setup".  You have to understand, that certain players would like to enjoy the game at the same level as other players, but they can't put in the time, so if possible, they'll throw money at it to get a setup they can enjoy, but that doesn't mean they'll get better at the game. 

For example, I can put my sensitivity to the same setting as a known highly ranked Gears of War player, but that won't make me be able to achieve the same level of skill that he/she has.  Or I can buy a gun that you can only get at rank 50, but more than likely, I'll end up getting lucky kills and half the time, I'll end up losing the battle because I'm still not good at the game itself.  

Look at ME3 for example, I've seen people with the same exact build as me, guns, etc and yet, I'm able to outplay them, why because I either have more skill with that specific character or the other player just isn't as good, now that doesn't mean that they can't get better, but maybe buying certain things will help them achieve getting better and learning the maps better because they won't get as frusterated getting shot down because they have a decent setup.  

I don't know, I don't think it's a plague as some people like to view it.

It doesn't matter to me how skilled or unskilled the player is. If their shiny new rank 50 equipment that they just bought without earning it gives them the slightest advantage over what their starting gear provided, then they are guilty of cheating in a competitive multiplayer game and do not deserve to be playing with other players that would rather earn their gear. Everyone starts at the same place and gains rank/gear at the same rate as everyone else. No exceptions. If they don't have the time to play the game to the fullest then they shouldn't have bought it in the first place. I don't have any sympathy for buyers with lots of cash to throw around but little time (or common sense, as the case may be). If they're saddened they can't earn their right to be with the top players without resorting to real-world cash exchanges, then that's their own damn fault.

[bmwcrazy]

spirosz wrote...

No it doesn't, if you have the best gun in the game, I'll still out play you, most games that are competitive, more than 90 percent of the time, the better player will outclass the player who's only way to win is with a "cheap gun/setup".  You have to understand, that certain players would like to enjoy the game at the same level as other players, but they can't put in the time, so if possible, they'll throw money at it to get a setup they can enjoy, but that doesn't mean they'll get better at the game.  

For example, I can put my sensitivity to the same setting as a known highly ranked Gears of War player, but that won't make me be able to achieve the same level of skill that he/she has.  Or I can buy a gun that you can only get at rank 50, but more than likely, I'll end up getting lucky kills and half the time, I'll end up losing the battle because I'm still not good at the game itself.  

Look at ME3 for example, I've seen people with the same exact build as me, guns, etc and yet, I'm able to outplay them, why because I either have more skill with that specific character or the other player just isn't as good, now that doesn't mean that they can't get better, but maybe buying certain things will help them achieve getting better and learning the maps better because they won't get as frusterated getting shot down because they have a decent setup.  

I don't know, I don't think it's a plague as some people like to view it. 

It doesn't make any sense.

If you get the best weapons in the game in the beginning, all you have to do is learn to use them and them only. Once you get used to the game and you master these weapons, you'll be able to compete with the best.

It doesn't matter what kind of the game it is. Given the same skills and luck, the person that is better equipped will always be able to beat the other who is under-equipped. 

Having better weapons and items DOES give you more advantage. Some of you guys are overthinking it.

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 17 mars 2013 - 08:08 .

[spirosz]

Have you played in competitive leagues, for twitch based gaming, such as GOW, Counter Strike, Call of Duty? I've played in my fair share of leagues and I can tell you based off my experience, guns mean nothing to a player, teamwork, setup, communication and skill level determine who has the advantage.

Edit:  All guns do, is make you play in a particular style, that works best for you.  

Modifié par spirosz, 17 mars 2013 - 08:26 .

[MegaSovereign]

EA saves gaming the same way the Reapers save organic life.

[spirosz]

MegaSovereign wrote...

EA saves gaming the same way the Reapers save organic life.

Rofl. 

[someguy1231]

spirosz wrote...

Have you played in competitive leagues, for twitch based gaming, such as GOW, Counter Strike, Call of Duty? I've played in my fair share of leagues and I can tell you based off my experience, guns mean nothing to a player, teamwork, setup, communication and skill level determine who has the advantage.

Actually, yes I have, and that's why I feel so strongly about a topic like this. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me whether skill beats gear. All players need to start on equal footing and earn their gear the same way as all other players. No Exceptions. EVER.

Frankly I'm disgusted someone like you is defending this blatant cheating mechanic in competitive games. As a league player, I'd think you of all people would be against this. How would you like it if one of your fellow league players slipped a 20 dollar bill to the game master to "convince" him to, let's say, make everyone on your team spawn with only half health, or make your team vulnerable to friendly fire while his team isn't? Because in my view that would be no different than what we've been discussing about microtransactions.

Modifié par someguy1231, 17 mars 2013 - 08:31 .

[spirosz]

By the way, I'm defending a certain aspect of microtransactions, but as a whole - I like what it does for Free-to-play games, I think they thrive off of certain types of microtransactions. I personally don't want to see SP games going down a route where I have to pay for certain chapters of a game - that's more on the DLC aspect, which I think has been going the wrong direction for a long time and I personally miss true expansion packs. Half the time, I feel DLC being released are half-done and were supposed to be in games originally, but unrealistic release times and schedules that developers have to go through, cause this bull****, publishers are just suites and nothing more. They don't care about gaming and gamers and I know I'm generalizing, but that's how I feel, haha.

[spirosz]

someguy1231 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Have you played in competitive leagues, for twitch based gaming, such as GOW, Counter Strike, Call of Duty? I've played in my fair share of leagues and I can tell you based off my experience, guns mean nothing to a player, teamwork, setup, communication and skill level determine who has the advantage.

Actually, yes I have, and that's why I feel so strongly about a topic like this. Like I said, it doesn't matter to me whether skill beats gear. All players need to start on equal footing and earn their gear the same way as all other players. No Exceptions. EVER.

Frankly I'm disgusted someone like you is defending this blatant cheating mechanic in competitive games. As a league player, I'd think you of all people would be against this. How would you like it if one of your fellow league players slipped a 20 dollar bill to the game master to "convince" him to, let's say, make everyone on your team spawn with only half health, or make your team vulnerable to friendly fire while his team isn't? Because in my view that would be no different than what we've been discussing about microtransactions.

Mircrotransactions that I've seen, don't give that type of advantage.  And usually, competitive gaming has a restricted setup on how and what players use.  

[spirosz]

someguy1231 wrote...

I'm disgusted someone like you is defending this blatant cheating mechanic in competitive games. As a league player, I'd think you of all people would be against this. How would you like it if one of your fellow league players slipped a 20 dollar bill to the game master to "convince" him to, let's say, make everyone on your team spawn with only half health, or make your team vulnerable to friendly fire while his team isn't? Because in my view that would be no different than what we've been discussing about microtransactions.

Plus, give me an example of a competive match or game, that allows those setups.  

[spirosz]

J. Reezy wrote...

spirosz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

I'm disgusted someone like you is defending this blatant cheating mechanic in competitive games. As a league player, I'd think you of all people would be against this. How would you like it if one of your fellow league players slipped a 20 dollar bill to the game master to "convince" him to, let's say, make everyone on your team spawn with only half health, or make your team vulnerable to friendly fire while his team isn't? Because in my view that would be no different than what we've been discussing about microtransactions.

Plus, give me an example of a competive match or game, that allows those setups.  

None that I know of.

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

EA saves gaming the same way the Reapers save organic life.

They saved the hell out of simcity

[RedArmyShogun]

lol the hell am I even reading?