81 réponses à ce sujet

[bmwcrazy]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

People who believe that the best guns and will automatically win have obviously never played COD.

If you play games like Battlefield 3 and Counter Strike, having BETTER weapons makes a difference.

I've played my share of MW, MW2, Black Ops and Black Ops 2 multiplayer, and your CoD example doesn't exactly work, because most of the rifles operate the same and have similar behaviors like recoil.

If you're good with first person shooters, you can just jump right into the multiplayer and get plenty of kills. There's little learning curve.

[someguy1231]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

People who believe that the best guns and will automatically win have obviously never played COD.

Here's the way it goes: If you want free DLC, accept microtransactions.

If you have a problem with DLC, find a new hobby. DLC is just as much of the market as games themselves now.

People who believe that the best guns don't matter have obviously never played Halo, Gears of War, or Battlefield.

Here's the way it goes: if you don't want game companies to give rich players unfair advantages, refuse microtransactions.

If you don't have a problem with microtransactions, find a new hobby. Fair play is just as much a part of competitive multiplayer games as the games themselves.

[someguy1231]

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.  

Irrelevant. I'm merely making a comparison with a hypothetical scenario.

[OdanUrr]

Extra Credits: Microtransactions

[someguy1231]

OdanUrr wrote...

Extra Credits: Microtransactions

Meh, anything can be made to sound good or beneficial if you just emphasize "doing it right" in a vague manner. And most of the MTs he talked about were purely cosmetic, which I don't care for. Not convinced.

[OdanUrr]

someguy1231 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Extra Credits: Microtransactions

Meh, anything can be made to sound good or beneficial if you just emphasize "doing it right" in a vague manner. And most of the MTs he talked about were purely cosmetic, which I don't care for. Not convinced.

It's a 9-minute video and I've posted it three minutes ago. How did you finish it already?

Perhaps you would prefer this article?

On Cliffy B, microtransactions, and Electronic Arts

Modifié par OdanUrr, 17 mars 2013 - 10:04 .

[bmwcrazy]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Sounds like an excuse to me. I've played a fair share of Battlefield and Halo and as long as you have map knowledge and a basic understanding of strategy, you'll do just fine. Under your system and beliefs, people who buy the game 5 months after release would never have a chance. They wouldn't have the weapons they obviously need to succeed with, and if you don't succeed you will never get the weapons you need.

That is exactly how every mulitplayer game should be. 

Life of a newb is tough, get used to it. It doesn't mean you're entitled to "cheat" either.

This kind of system should be enforced in all games, and especially in MMORPGs where newbs can just buy ultimate items on ebay and that essentially ruins the game for everyone.

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 17 mars 2013 - 10:04 .

[someguy1231]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

People who believe that the best guns and will automatically win have obviously never played COD.

Here's the way it goes: If you want free DLC, accept microtransactions.

If you have a problem with DLC, find a new hobby. DLC is just as much of the market as games themselves now.

People who believe that the best guns don't matter have obviously never played Halo, Gears of War, or Battlefield.

Here's the way it goes: if you don't want game companies to give rich players unfair advantages, refuse microtransactions.

If you don't have a problem with microtransactions, find a new hobby. Fair play is just as much a part of competitive multiplayer games as the games themselves.

Sounds like an excuse to me. I've played a fair share of Battlefield and Halo and as long as you have map knowledge and a basic understanding of strategy, you'll do just fine. Under your system and beliefs, people who buy the game 5 months after release would never have a chance. They wouldn't have the weapons they obviously need to succeed with, and if you don't succeed you will never get the weapons you need.

Nonsense. I started Halo and Gears months after each respective game had come out (waited for price drops), and never had any trouble leveling up. But an unfair advantage is an unfair advantage. Doesn't matter how big or small it is. The moment your real-world cash takes precedence over your in-game skills is when the game is giving out unfair advantages. It doesn't matter whether the actual gear unlocked helps you, or how much it helps you. The fact that they're unlocked by player skill and have a tangible impact on gameplay (ie aren't purely cosmetic) is the relevant point.

TL:DR: I was a newb once too, but I sucked it up and didn't resort to cheating. And they should too, damnit.

Modifié par someguy1231, 17 mars 2013 - 10:12 .

[Tommyspa]

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

[someguy1231]

Tommyspa wrote...

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

If they're purely cosmetic (outfits, hats, etc), then it doesn't impact me. If it's equipment that has a tangible effect on gameplay (guns, armor, etc) in a competitive environment, and can be unlocked by skillfully playing the game,  then yes, it does impact me. And if you need me to spell out why, then there's no point in discussing this with you.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

someguy1231 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

If they're purely cosmetic (outfits, hats, etc), then it doesn't impact me. If it's equipment that has a tangible effect on gameplay (guns, armor, etc) in a competitive environment, and can be unlocked by skillfully playing the game,  then yes, it does impact me. And if you need me to spell out why, then there's no point in discussing this with you.

The reason you won't spell it out is because you have nothing to say. You have no argument. Is it bad? Yes. But not for the reasons you describe. It's not a competetive environment.

It's Co-op.

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 17 mars 2013 - 10:26 .

[bmwcrazy]

Tommyspa wrote...

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

I'm just making a point that having better equipments gives you an advantage in multiplayer games. Microtranscations aren't necessarily bad, except when it comes to Battlefield 3 where you can unlock all weapons and upgrades if you purchase a $40 "shortcut" DLC pack. 

Now every new player with the "shortcut" DLC has a shiny new large calibre sniper rifle with straight pull bolt and long range scope that took you nearly 100 hours to unlock.

To the person who says weapons don't make a difference in Counter Strike, why don't we go 1 on 1 with you using only submachine guns and me with an automatic rifle and see how many rounds I can kill you before you rage quit?

[Splinter Cell 108]

Tommyspa wrote...

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

What is wrong is that some day it won't be optional anymore if people keep tolerating it. This is especially true of EA, it is the only reason that it survives because there are so many fools that will still buy their stuff even when they have outright screwed them over. Look at Sim City, I'm sure a lot of people bought it and even if this whole mess has happened people will still be dumb enough to keep buying their crap, just like people will still be stupid, wasteful and vain enough to buy a $100 dollar hat. 

EA pushed Origin on people for their games and people complained but they still keep tolerating it and as a result no EA game will ever remove the origin requirement, EA pushed the always online DRM and people still bought their games and now EA will push microtransactions and because there are so many clueless morons out there, they will pay for these idiotic items and then EA will start forcing it, it is already happening, they have announced that all their games will use this retarded crap. So yes, there is something wrong with optional microtransactions, maybe it won't affect you know but eventually it will. The same happened with DLC. 

So go ahead you too OP, say that EA has "saved" gaming, keep giving them free passes to get away with their money grubbing schemes and pretty soon we will probably be paying to "rent" their games instead of buying them. Haven't you heard? EA would charge for clips in Battlefield 3 if they could. 

Modifié par Splinter Cell 108, 17 mars 2013 - 10:59 .

[MichaelStuart]

Here's my opinion.
If microtransactions offer my something I would enjoy I will buy it.
This is yet to happen as I find weapons and costumes boring,

[someguy1231]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

Tommyspa wrote...

Nothing is wrong with optional microtransactions. You are not obligated to pay a thing, and should someone else choose to, in what way does it impact you? I'll never understand this particular stick up gamers asses.

If they're purely cosmetic (outfits, hats, etc), then it doesn't impact me. If it's equipment that has a tangible effect on gameplay (guns, armor, etc) in a competitive environment, and can be unlocked by skillfully playing the game,  then yes, it does impact me. And if you need me to spell out why, then there's no point in discussing this with you.

The reason you won't spell it out is because you have nothing to say. You have no argument. Is it bad? Yes. But not for the reasons you describe.

I have no argument? Challenge accepted.

My entire argument is that it's wrong and inexcusable for a competitive multiplayer game to offer instant unlocks to weapons/armor/etc. through real-world cash if that same gear can be unlocked through gameplay. It's a blatant example of Screw the Rules, I have Money and Bribing your Way to Victory, which completely ruins the point of a competitive game. They're supposed to be based solely on player skill, not how much money each player is willing to spend in the real world. As someone who's played in competitive leagues, I feel very strongly about this subject. If I spend 10 hours playing a game to unlock this or that high-quality gun or gadget, and some other player who just started the game unlocks them right away by paying real world money, then I have a hard time seeing how anyone could consider that "fair".

Don't give me some sob story about gamers not having the time or dedication to unlock everything through gameplay alone. If they want to do so but are unwilling or unable to give the time/dedication needed then they shouldn't have bought the game in the first place.

EDIT: I just noticed you edited your original post to refer solely to co-op games instead of competitive games. Hmm, perhaps you realized you had a flawed argument? Hehehe

Modifié par someguy1231, 17 mars 2013 - 10:49 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Let's all go to metacritic and zero-bomb a recent EA game because of this thread

[bmwcrazy]

sympathy4sarenreturns wrote...

Let's all go to metacritic and zero-bomb a recent EA game because of this thread

I only zero-bomb the games that I bought and couldn't play because of server problems.

Like Diablo 3. Thank God I didn't buy Sim City. 

Modifié par bmwcrazy, 17 mars 2013 - 11:04 .

[sympathy4sarenreturns]

Gaming would be better off without EA.

Fact.

[spirosz]

someguy1231 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.  

Irrelevant. I'm merely making a comparison with a hypothetical scenario.

That is NOT irrelevant.  That is exactly what we're arguing and that's why I'm asking for proof. 

[spirosz]

If you can give me examples of this happening, then I'll agree to your sentiments, but till that actually happens...

[Lunch Box1912]

Mumba1511 wrote...

OP went full retard. Never go full retard.

lol what Mumba said.

[Overdosing]

voice_of_darkness wrote...

Microtransactions are the future of gaming and I support EA in whatever they choose to do.