162 réponses à ce sujet

[HolyAvenger]

ME3MP's microtransactions made the DLC free. For time-rich, money-poor people like myself, that was a real blessing.

I'm ambivalent about them. I don't think I hate them on principle.

[DragonAgeLegend]

I they don't make any micro transactions..

[Commander Kurt]

Why do I always feel like Bioware is more of a pusher than a game developer when I walk into threads like this..?

You can turn it down, people. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If the game without it isn't worth your time and money, don't buy it. I mean, I get the fact that you don't like it and would prefer your games to be without it. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable request. But don't act like adding it is evil or immoral or unfair.

EA IS NOT SELLING MEDICINE TO ORPHANS.

They are putting a product on the market. They will decide how that product works, and you will decide if that product is something you want to buy. Your relationship really isn't any more complicated than that.

[DarkSpiral]

I'm going to have to go with Kurt, here.

Who cares if they use micro-transactions in the game. Assuming they don't make those micro-transactions necessary to beat the game (I have little fear of that happening), just don't buy it. o.O

[Kidd]

HolyAvenger wrote...

ME3MP's microtransactions made the DLC free. For time-rich, money-poor people like myself, that was a real blessing.

I'm ambivalent about them. I don't think I hate them on principle.

That's a really neat way of looking at it =)

[Redbelle]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Why do I always feel like Bioware is more of a pusher than a game developer when I walk into threads like this..?

You can turn it down, people. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If the game without it isn't worth your time and money, don't buy it. I mean, I get the fact that you don't like it and would prefer your games to be without it. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable request. But don't act like adding it is evil or immoral or unfair.

EA IS NOT SELLING MEDICINE TO ORPHANS.

They are putting a product on the market. They will decide how that product works, and you will decide if that product is something you want to buy. Your relationship really isn't any more complicated than that.

As long as a developer does not make MT's out of SP core game content, or devise SP, or by and large MP games that are made to be paid to win, I'm fine with MT's. IMO BW made a good decision in how MT's were incorporated in to MP mode.

Having heard of examples about other developers cutting ending's off their product's and then packaging those endings is one example of core game content being pulled and packaged for DLC........ except it beg's the question, was that ending game content ready and developed for inclusion at the time when the product launched?

The use of DLC, in that instance, is an example of how a product, that is not ready, can have it's development cycle extended. It's bad for the consumer in that the consumer has to fork out more money for content traditionally packaged into past games, (which it should and continue to do so). But if a distributer is pushing the developer for a release date and the developer cannot make all aspects of the game in time then usng DLC, while indicative of poor planning, is a get clause for them to give themselves more time on the development front.

[Allen Spellwaver]

I don't have many problems with micro transaction. But sure we don't need that.

[HolyAvenger]

KiddDaBeauty wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

ME3MP's microtransactions made the DLC free. For time-rich, money-poor people like myself, that was a real blessing.

I'm ambivalent about them. I don't think I hate them on principle.

That's a really neat way of looking at it =)

 

Something often overlooked when discussing that subject. 

[Allan Schumacher]

Valcutio wrote...

The problem with Microtransactions are they beg the question, "Why are they there?"

Example 1: You can purchase 100 Rocks for 10 dollars. Why? Are Rocks hard to get without spending money? More importantly, were they difficult to get only after EA decided to put a price tag on them?

Example 2: You can purchase a Double Experience potion for 10 dollars. Why? Is Experience not balanced effectively while playing the normal game? Was is balanced appropriately before EA decided to put a price tag on it?

These issues are basically trading time for money.    I don't think it has so much to do with the rocks being hard to get, nor the experience awards being unbalanced.  Though I understand the concerns people have about MTX fueling decisions like that.

In a single player game, I philosophically consider MTX to be akin to cheating.  In that, if it doesn't affect your own game experience to do so, I honestly don't care what you do.

For some people (especially as gamers get older), time is more and more scarce (while discretionary income may be higher than it's ever been).


I have paid for accelerated XP growth in a game called Navy Field, because I was particularly interested in trying out the bigger ships.  It cost me like $10 or soemthing and accelerated my xp and money growth for some period of time.  In that case, it was easy to "justify" because I actually felt the game was worth $10 (it's free to play typically).

Once I got to the bigger ships, I didn't care so much about rate of progress because I was driving the boats that I wanted to drive.  I did something similar with World of Tanks.

Though I acknowledge that both of those games are free to play.

[Valcutio]

Commander Kurt wrote...

Why do I always feel like Bioware is more of a pusher than a game developer when I walk into threads like this..?

You can turn it down, people. If you don't want it, don't buy it. If the game without it isn't worth your time and money, don't buy it. I mean, I get the fact that you don't like it and would prefer your games to be without it. That's fine, and a perfectly reasonable request. But don't act like adding it is evil or immoral or unfair.

EA IS NOT SELLING MEDICINE TO ORPHANS.

They are putting a product on the market. They will decide how that product works, and you will decide if that product is something you want to buy. Your relationship really isn't any more complicated than that.

According to your logic there's nothing to ever discuss on a game forum then. The product will be the product.

In any case, Microtransactions are not evil. They're just slimy.

[HolyAvenger]

Allan Schumacher wrote...


These issues are basically trading time for money.    I don't think it has so much to do with the rocks being hard to get, nor the experience awards being unbalanced.  Though I understand the concerns people have about MTX fueling decisions like that.


For some people (especially as gamers get older), time is more and more scarce (while discretionary income may be higher than it's ever been).

 

People really don't get this. I see this attitude of  "hahah what idiot would pay for packs in the RNG store" on the MP subforum all the time. But the opportunity cost of not sinking several hundreds hours into the game exists, and why not compensate for that by spending money.

Time = money. 

[Valcutio]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

For some people (especially as gamers get older), time is more and more scarce (while discretionary income may be higher than it's ever been).


I have paid for accelerated XP growth in a game called Navy Field, because I was particularly interested in trying out the bigger ships.  It cost me like $10 or soemthing and accelerated my xp and money growth for some period of time.  In that case, it was easy to "justify" because I actually felt the game was worth $10 (it's free to play typically).

Once I got to the bigger ships, I didn't care so much about rate of progress because I was driving the boats that I wanted to drive.  I did something similar with World of Tanks.

Though I acknowledge that both of those games are free to play.

Thanks for the response Allan!

I've never understood the arguement of being in favor of Microtransactions because of lack of time. Either you enjoy playing a game and spending what time you do have on it, or you don't. Working towards unlocking something is part of the experience, is it not? For me, cheating just ruins the gaming journey... but alas, that's not my point.

Like you, I could care less what other people do with their time. What does effect me and every other gamer is when a company will purposefuly make experience or resources harder to obtain just to sell more Microtransactions... thus lowering the quality of the overall gaming experience for everyone.

Then toss in their Real World Money currency that's rarely 1:1. "Buy 562 KooKoo points for 10 dollars!" Like we don't understand why they do that. It's like these companies constantly question and belittle our intelligence (whether or not it works...).

Overall, I just wish EA and other gaming companies would start showing just a shred of respect for their consumers. Are the profit margines for nickle and diming consumers really worth the long-term animosity such practices will cause? I guess that's a question we'll only be able to answer down the road.

Modifié par Valcutio, 22 mars 2013 - 09:36 .

[Wulfram]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

In a single player game, I philosophically consider MTX to be akin to cheating.  In that, if it doesn't affect your own game experience to do so, I honestly don't care what you do.

Thing is, in a single player game I've payed money for I really expect to be able to cheat for free.

If I want to give myself 10,000 XP to make the start of the game more fun, I want to be able to use the console or fire up a save editor.  And I'm unlikely to be able to do this, without risking getting banned anyway, if XP has been monetised.

[Commander Kurt]

Redbelle wrote...

The use of DLC, in that instance, is an example of how a product, that is not ready, can have it's development cycle extended. It's bad for the consumer in that the consumer has to fork out more money for content traditionally packaged into past games, (which it should and continue to do so). But if a distributer is pushing the developer for a release date and the developer cannot make all aspects of the game in time then usng DLC, while indicative of poor planning, is a get clause for them to give themselves more time on the development front.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. But the thing is, if developers can get away with releasing a substandard game just by adding the option of buying MT then all games would already be substandard. Why am I so sure? Because the whole industry would have to agree on this practice in order for it to work, you can't have traitors out there making excellent games for less dollars, and if they all agreed not to compete then there would be no reason to fork out millions on developing a game trying to beat the competition.

I think developers are trying their very hardest to make amazing games that every gamer would love, but they are also desperate for cash. Letting people who hate scurrying around for gold/bullets/potions buy them is really win-win. It's like you say, if they turn out bad games as a result then that's certainly bad, but even then we don't need to buy it.

[Commander Kurt]

Valcutio wrote...

According to your logic there's nothing to ever discuss on a game forum then. The product will be the product.

In any case, Microtransactions are not evil. They're just slimy.

As I said, requesting stuff (or discussing them) is a-okay. But altering your own product, or it's price, isn't slimy, unless we're talking about someone having the monopoly on the cure for cancer. I could start selling a product tomorrow that no one in the world would want for a price that no one in the world could pay. It's not slimy. They aren't tricking you. You know exactly what you're buying and what the price is, you just don't like the product (or the price). That's not slimy.

"Gamers" are truly never satisfied. This is a way to make games more casual (skipping the exploration/making stuff easier) without having to adapt the entire game. And it's not even the "hardcore"s that will be paying extra, it's the "casual"s. Still not good enough.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

Yeah, I don't buy the "casuals" being the largest market for MTX.

If Bioware were to do an analysis of the top ME3 MP leaderboards right now, one year after release, I would bet my shoes that over 50% of the players in the Top 50 have paid more than $10 in MTX. If this is true (again, I would bet my shoes), then it could be inferred that the model is, indeed, a pay-to-win one.

[HolyAvenger]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Yeah, I don't buy the "casuals" being the largest market for MTX.

If Bioware were to do an analysis of the top ME3 MP leaderboards right now, one year after release, I would bet my shoes that over 50% of the players in the Top 50 have paid more than $10 in MTX. If this is true (again, I would bet my shoes), then it could be inferred that the model is, indeed, a pay-to-win one.

 

I disagree with said assertion. Most of the top players have racked up many hundreds of hours of play time indicating that they've unlocked their weapons and so forth via playtime not with money.

[Kingthlayer]

I have no issues with microtransactions in a game like The Simpsons Tapped Out. Even the Mass Effect 3 Spectre packs were fine.

It's when the microtransactions start to effect the main game that I have a problem with. Paying real money to get better armor or weapons. And I still can't get over that EA interview where they talk about microtransactions when you run out of ammo and need more bullets. That needs to stay the hell away from gaming.

[Osena109]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I can raise any issue I please, but thanks.

This actually isn't true. For instance, referring to a year old poll regarding EA's success in the Consumerist poll isn't really relevant to the discussion, which is often how threads go off topic and I become all scowly.


To the topic at hand:

I don't find Microtransactions inherently evil. I think that they can be misused though, and it's entirely up to developers to not misuse them and for gamers to let developers know when they feel they are used inappropriately (note, vehemently complaining about it but still buying it sends very conflicting data!).

I have no real beef with ME3's microtransactions, for instance, because for some people their time is more valuable than their money. It perhaps flirts a line as it can be argued it is "paying to win" but in a cooperative multiplayer, I think that that is less of an issue.

I do think people need to be careful when criticizing microtransactions, however. Specifically in assuming that it's to blame for something bad being in the game.

For example, I often see people express a concern that the presence of microtransactions as an incentive for a designer to pad parts of the game and make it grind, in order to encourage purchasing the microtransactions. This is a fair concern, and it is indeed possible. By the same token, many gamers rate length of game as a primary metric for whether or not a game is worth the money, so on some level there is already an influence to help pad game time through some other means. So a game that has a grind and microtransactions may not actually have that grind because of the MTX, but rather to ensure that the game has appropriate length. (Obviously the ideal solution to game length is never having it be a grind, but that is a separate discussion IMO).

That's mostly just a thought experiment that simply because you can logically deduce that MTX may be a cause, may not necessarily be the case. Excessive grind is usually something I consider bad for games, and whatever the reason it exists should be examined and potentially remedied.


As for MTX in games, I'm pretty ambivalent. The likelihood of me buying any of them is exceptionally small. I can't think of any non-F2P game I played that had them that I felt I wanted to purchase, but then I can't think of too many games that had MTX present anyways, so maybe that doesn't mean much.

A game like Portal 2 had MTX that let you deck out your multiplayer bots, but it was too expensive so I didn't really care. ME3 had MTX for the MP, but I enjoyed the MP as it was so I didn't buy any. I did buy a sprite pack for Hearts of Iron III once. Was cool seeing the US and German units running around, but it only existed at close up zoom which wasn't very practical during gameplay, so probably not worth the money.


To the OP, your concern is definitely noted.

Thank you 

[Fast Jimmy]

HolyAvenger wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Yeah, I don't buy the "casuals" being the largest market for MTX.

If Bioware were to do an analysis of the top ME3 MP leaderboards right now, one year after release, I would bet my shoes that over 50% of the players in the Top 50 have paid more than $10 in MTX. If this is true (again, I would bet my shoes), then it could be inferred that the model is, indeed, a pay-to-win one.

I disagree with said assertion. Most of the top players have racked up many hundreds of hours of play time indicating that they've unlocked their weapons and so forth via playtime not with money.

That logic doesn't hold up.

The longer you play a game with microtransactions, the higher your rate of buying them. Just like true longer you hang out in a casino, the longer chance you have to gamble.

Free 2 Play games don't get the bulk of their revenue from players who fire the game up and throw money at the screen. They get it by making the entry level of the game easy and enjoyable, then as the game progressss, have harder and harder obstacles that can still be shortcutted with real currency.

I don't doubt that many of the top MP players are really good, and that they have invested serious time in that portion of the game. But that just means if someone else in the Leaderboards unlocks a high level weapon or a new spec, it will push the other Leaderboard holders to catch up, pushing some of them to buy their first Spectre pack or two.

Point being I don't think anyone in the top 50 spots bought their way there and are not good... but I guarantee you over half of them have bought numerous Spectre Packs. 

[HolyAvenger]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

^

Yeah, I don't buy the "casuals" being the largest market for MTX.

If Bioware were to do an analysis of the top ME3 MP leaderboards right now, one year after release, I would bet my shoes that over 50% of the players in the Top 50 have paid more than $10 in MTX. If this is true (again, I would bet my shoes), then it could be inferred that the model is, indeed, a pay-to-win one.

I disagree with said assertion. Most of the top players have racked up many hundreds of hours of play time indicating that they've unlocked their weapons and so forth via playtime not with money.

That logic doesn't hold up.

The longer you play a game with microtransactions, the higher your rate of buying them. Just like true longer you hang out in a casino, the longer chance you have to gamble.

Free 2 Play games don't get the bulk of their revenue from players who fire the game up and throw money at the screen. They get it by making the entry level of the game easy and enjoyable, then as the game progressss, have harder and harder obstacles that can still be shortcutted with real currency.

I don't doubt that many of the top MP players are really good, and that they have invested serious time in that portion of the game. But that just means if someone else in the Leaderboards unlocks a high level weapon or a new spec, it will push the other Leaderboard holders to catch up, pushing some of them to buy their first Spectre pack or two.

Point being I don't think anyone in the top 50 spots bought their way there and are not good... but I guarantee you over half of them have bought numerous Spectre Packs. 

 

I don't think you can really compare ME3MP to a casino. The unlock system might be, sure, but the game itself isn't. I certainly don't play to unlock, that's a side affect of enjoying the actual gameplay. 

And no one takes the leaderboards very seriously, simply because they do not indicate any actual skill at the game, but simple XP grinding. 

I invite you to come hang out in the MP subforum for a while, get a feel for the actual culture of its players before making such assertions. 

[Shevy]

When DLC were implemented, people said "aww, they are not so bad" .... that got us day1 DLC, on-disc DLC, 11 DLC at DS 3 start, which left the feeling of being exploited

When DRM started, people said "aww, it's not that bad".... that got us always online DRM and Diablo III, Sim City launches

Now we got microtransactions and people say "aww, they are not so bad"..... let's see.

Companies will always find new ways to exploit their customers and because for reasons I don't understand those things are getting bought and are profitable.

While it is difficult today to bring evidence that microtransactions influence retail price single player gameplay, after seeing the development this industry has been through the last decade, it's only a matter of time until you can bring evidence.

The developers and thats just my opinion, are going to alter gameplay mechanics to the extend that microtransactions seem very tempting. This is business after all and not a romantic illusion of 25 people creating something only to do you a favor.

And one day, a developer will cross the line and your single player experience lacks seriously without microtransactions, then there will be an excuse and after a while the majority of the consumers will have forgotten it and it establishs as a common method.

Yep, this is alarmism, but for me it seems like the way this industry is taking.

[Fast Jimmy]

^

I took this Shevy to the levy, 'cause this Shevy is right.

[HolyAvenger]

The only reasonably effective form of feedback we as consumers have is voting with our wallets. I did not like DA2, I did not purchase the DLC. If I do not like microtransactions, or heck even they way they are implemented into the game I will not use them or possibly not purchase the game.

But I do not pre-judge before I see the actual design and implementation. That is silly.

FWIW I prefer the DLC model to the expansions model. I can pick and choose the content I want to have in my game, and generally pay less because I'm not buying all of it. The slippery slope argument is a bit tough to pull off here, I feel.