162 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

HolyAvenger wrote...

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. 

Please the ME3 dlc wasn't free, it was paid for many times over through microtransactions.

[Wrathion]

DinoSteve wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

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. 

Please the ME3 dlc wasn't free, it was paid for many times over through microtransactions.

That's pretty much what they JUST said.

[McAllyster]

I understand why are the fans are worried about microtransactions. SWTOR is ruined by Cartel Market right now and with the last Cartel update Bioware clearly went too far.

[Redbelle]

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?

Google the term opportunity cost. You can spend money to save time, or spend time to save money.

Imagine your favourite pop artist has released a new single for £1. If you spend a pound on the single, that's a pound you cannot spend on something else.

The question, therefore, is do you spend on the single or keep the pound to spend on something else? Do you take the opportunity to get something at a cost of getting something different? It effectively decision making based on what get's the individual the most satisfaction

The Microtransaction's work's in a similar way. Except there are now two way's to gain what you want. You can invest money in pack's, or invest time in packs. This way you effectively have two opportunities to gain pack's through MT, which also boosts success rates by acquiring better gear, therefore making the time invested more lucrative. Or you can spend time only.

there is a bonus for those who spend money. But the bonus does not imbalance the game on account that's it a PvE MP, not a PvP MP.

Modifié par Redbelle, 22 mars 2013 - 01:30 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I still view it as developers playing wih fire.

Always online DRM is still used in games, despite nearly every example of it being decried and a crash-and-burn experience for both consumer and developer alike. If undying rumors that the new XBox will have always online are true, it may be a MUCH more widely practiced feature. So the lines saying "vote with your wallet" and "developers will learn their lesson" are looking to be totally wrong. People are voting with their wallet, developers are having terrible experiences and we STILL have games talking about doing it and even an entire console built on the premise.

Those who say the same thing won't happen with MTX are viewing the world through rose-tinted glasses. Just like people said similar aruments about DLC when it was first introduced as being fine as long as it was never tied to the story (meaning appearance or weapon packs only, no story) or that it wasn't tied into the main game in any way, then they don't see the problem. Now, DLC is in the case of Bioware, nearly 100% story, it ties into the main game quite often and they even have a game with "fixed endings" available as DLC only.

We are exactly where doomsday sayers said we would be five years after DLC was introduced. We are almost where always online DRM doomsday sayers said we would be. What makes anyone think that the gaming industry as a whole won't be on be exact same page of the concerns voiced in this thread if MTX start popping up in AAA video games? Trends have shown us that the industry will do the exact worst possible practices, even with the best of intentions, if they are allowed to. So what makes anyone think that this will be anywhere different?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 mars 2013 - 01:52 .

[Kidd]

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.

If you're playing so much you're at the top of the leaderboard, methinks you will have maxed out your inventory through in-game money a long time ago.

And even if they have spent a lot of money there, that still doesn't mean it was them paying the MTX that lead them to the top. It simply meant they cared enough for the game (obsessed? ) to the point they found it worth their money to pay for a pack or two.

I'm nowhere near the top and I can freely admit to having bought a few. Not many by any definition of the word, but a few. I wanted just a little bit more and had money to spare. I'm nowhere near the top cause I don't have the time to spend with my console.

Modifié par KiddDaBeauty, 22 mars 2013 - 01:50 .

[Volus Warlord]

CrustyBot wrote...

Volus Warlord wrote...

I still think they should microtransaction romances.

Yes, I think that Dragon Age and Mass Effect should move to a P2F business model.

P2F is one of the most proven business models out there, possibly the most popular all-time. What could go wrong?

[Volus Warlord]

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

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. 

Please the ME3 dlc wasn't free, it was paid for many times over through microtransactions.

That's pretty much what they JUST said.

ME3 handled microtransactions in one of the best manners I've seen. That being said, I still never bought any. 

[Fast Jimmy]

KiddDaBeauty 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.

If you're playing so much you're at the top of the leaderboard, methinks you will have maxed out your inventory through in-game money a long time ago.

And even if they have spent a lot of money there, that still doesn't mean it was them paying the MTX that lead them to the top. It simply meant they cared enough for the game (obsessed? ) to the point they found it worth their money to pay for a pack or two.

I'm nowhere near the top and I can freely admit to having bought a few. Not many by any definition of the word, but a few. I wanted just a little bit more and had money to spare. I'm nowhere near the top cause I don't have the time to spend with my console.

So is the mindset that "if you work hard enough to win, then you will be much more likely to buy MTX" somehow better? Just because Richie Rich can't write a check for $200.00 and be at the top of the Leaderboards before noon doesn't make it NOT a system that preys on gamer tendencies and psychology of "Gotta Collect 'Em All!" It is getting you to the point where you say "$10? I'll spend that, no problem." 

That ME3's MP is (fairly) tame when it comes to this is not the point at all. If anyone thinks that companies will look at ME3's MP and say "wow, it made money" and then say "let's do that exact same approach and make it just as likely or less that it will make money in the same way" then that is silly. They will say "why did this make money? Can we copy this formula? Can we optimize it to get MORE money from players? How do we do that?" It is a trend. It is  the idea that "this went off with lots of people decrying it and was blasted as being a terrible way to treat fans... but it made money. So let's take it one step further!" After all, if it makes money, then obviously you are giving fans what they are secretly craving for, right?

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 22 mars 2013 - 02:03 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Alexandrine Delassixe wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

HolyAvenger wrote...

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. 

Please the ME3 dlc wasn't free, it was paid for many times over through microtransactions.

That's pretty much what they JUST said.

ME3 handled microtransactions in one of the best manners I've seen. That being said, I still never bought any. 

And, regardless, you still had to play MP to receive all the different endings. And this was confirmed to be by design, not by accident. So as magnanimous as its MTX system is heralded as being, the MP system is tainted by proxy.

[Volus Warlord]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And, regardless, you still had to play MP to receive all the different endings. And this was confirmed to be by design, not by accident. So as magnanimous as its MTX system is heralded as being, the MP system is tainted by proxy.

Look, it's always gonna be tainted by something. Whether it's idiotic pubs or SS romances, they is always gonna be something(s) you find to be less than admirable with it. The requirement was later patched out anywho.

[billy the squid]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Microtransaction aren't a horrifying concept prima facie. But, it's only when they start to tred into the realms of pay to win, which ME3 MP was skirting the line with the RNG store mechanics that it becomes more maligned as a concept. For instance, if I drop 1 million credits in MP I expect to get more than a stack of lvl 4 equipment. Hence when I start to drop money, I get a higher chance just through sheer probability of the more packs I buy the more chances I get to pick up an UR,

This is where I start to draw the line and have issues. It's especially frustrating for someone like me who has almost maxed their manifest. 

Now If you creadted a pack which allowed a guarranteed drop rate for a random UR with a cost of 600, 000 credits plus, for 1 or 2 guarranteed UR, I would immediately  go for that. Simply as the other packs have been rendered entirely irrelevant for me. 

As you can see there is a fine line between microtransaction used for people who don't have sufficent time, but do have money and are willing to spend it and microtransactions which begin to be used as a way to arm twist people into paying, as the only way to access the best weapons is prohibitive in terms of hours played or money spent.

[Fast Jimmy]

Volus Warlord wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And, regardless, you still had to play MP to receive all the different endings. And this was confirmed to be by design, not by accident. So as magnanimous as its MTX system is heralded as being, the MP system is tainted by proxy.

Look, it's always gonna be tainted by something. Whether it's idiotic pubs or SS romances, they is always gonna be something(s) you find to be less than admirable with it. The requirement was later patched out anywho.

For those players who could access DLC. Not all players have internet access. Or access that is unfettered, but have limits on what they can use in a given month. Or have internet access, but not through their consoles since they don't want to shell out money for the hardware for it.

"Patched out" would be if brand new copies of ME3 came with these fixes done. Which is not the case, from what I understand. It would just have the free download.

[grumpymooselion]

I think the most annoying thing about DLC for any EA game comes after I've purchased it, and after it's downloaded and installed . . . when my internet connection doesn't work, or EA's servers don't work, and thus the DLC I've long ago paid for, downloaded and installed doesn't work.

[HolyAvenger]

Janan Pacha wrote...

I think the most annoying thing about DLC for any EA game comes after I've purchased it, and after it's downloaded and installed . . . when my internet connection doesn't work, or EA's servers don't work, and thus the DLC I've long ago paid for, downloaded and installed doesn't work.

 

 I can play ME3 offline, with the DLC and all.

[Fast Jimmy]

krul2k wrote...

wonder how long before adverts are the norm in games

Honestly? That doesn't even bother me. After all, we see advertisements all the time in television and product placements in movies. It is annoying, but it doesn't say "in order to do X in this game, pay $Y." It is a level playing field, not a shake down to get you to cough more money up to unlock/access certain parts of the game.

[happy_daiz]

I actually didn't mind that in Deus Ex: HR. It gave the environment a bit more realistic feel.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 22 mars 2013 - 03:12 .

[imbs]

way I see things is there are models for selling computer games. For a semi-decent analogy take theme parks. Most fall into 1 of 2 models for making money. Some parks are free to enter and cost a small(ish) amount for each ride. Other parks cost a larger fee to enter but all rides are free.

Most games also fall into 1 of 2 models. Free 2 play games that cost nothing but charge you for items. Games where you pay a larger fee initially but everything in-game is free. My problem with EA games is they tend to double-dip, and is also one of many reasons their reputation is utterly terrible. Devs like to pretend that its working etc but if it's working so well I have to ask why EA stock has been doing so badly these past 5 years, exactly?

There are other reasons for it ofcourse but this idea that MTs are infallible because "look at the results" is utterly false.

[Fast Jimmy]

imbs wrote...

way I see things is there are models for selling computer games. For a semi-decent analogy take theme parks. Most fall into 1 of 2 models for making money. Some parks are free to enter and cost a small(ish) amount for each ride. Other parks cost a larger fee to enter but all rides are free.

Most games also fall into 1 of 2 models. Free 2 play games that cost nothing but charge you for items. Games where you pay a larger fee initially but everything in-game is free. My problem with EA games is they tend to double-dip, and is also one of many reasons their reputation is utterly terrible. Devs like to pretend that its working etc but if it's working so well I have to ask why EA stock has been doing so badly these past 5 years, exactly?

There are other reasons for it ofcourse but this idea that MTs are infallible because "look at the results" is utterly false.

To be fair, many theme parks have a high ticket price to get in and THEN have hugely inflated prices for food, drinks, mini-games and swag. So it's not exactly a perfect example.

Then again, the theme park industry is shriveling up and even when people do go, they usually only do so once or twice a year. So if the video game industry wanted to take any lessons there, it should be that people only stand being nickeled and dimed on an extremely rare basis.

[Plaintiff]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

imbs wrote...

way I see things is there are models for selling computer games. For a semi-decent analogy take theme parks. Most fall into 1 of 2 models for making money. Some parks are free to enter and cost a small(ish) amount for each ride. Other parks cost a larger fee to enter but all rides are free.

Most games also fall into 1 of 2 models. Free 2 play games that cost nothing but charge you for items. Games where you pay a larger fee initially but everything in-game is free. My problem with EA games is they tend to double-dip, and is also one of many reasons their reputation is utterly terrible. Devs like to pretend that its working etc but if it's working so well I have to ask why EA stock has been doing so badly these past 5 years, exactly?

There are other reasons for it ofcourse but this idea that MTs are infallible because "look at the results" is utterly false.

To be fair, many theme parks have a high ticket price to get in and THEN have hugely inflated prices for food, drinks, mini-games and swag. So it's not exactly a perfect example.

Then again, the theme park industry is shriveling up and even when people do go, they usually only do so once or twice a year. So if the video game industry wanted to take any lessons there, it should be that people only stand being nickeled and dimed on an extremely rare basis.

I wonder what rides and attractions BioLand would have.

"Flemeth's Super Hair Slide", "Hall of Eluvians"...

Maybe they could pay like ten college kids to cram into a single Broodmother costume, and spend their summer wandering around the park and gently caressing small children with tentacles while their parents take pictures.

And don't forget Blights at 2, 4 and 6.

Modifié par Plaintiff, 22 mars 2013 - 04:01 .