635 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Celcore wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Celcore wrote...

See I think you're already at the point, Look at my comment above. Clearly the multiplayer in ME3 was just designed to be a money making engine.

I think that this perspective is overly dismissive towards people that enjoy the multiplayer.  You talk about psychological feedback loops as if they were only considered during the design of the multiplayer, and not the rest of the game.  This isn't true.

If you want to be ultracynical, the whole game was designed to be a money making engine.

True the whole game was made to make money, but with the game itself there is story that someone put effort into, it could even be called part of an artistic endeavor of course people want to make money off of their. But the whole game wasn't designed to be a continuous source of income. The Multiplayer was. The Free DLC is just to add more stuff to the game to get people to buy more random packs and keep the money coming. There was no thought of story or art put into multiplayer, it was made as a grind to generate money continuously. The same system is put into a lot of EA sports game with people paying real money for a random roll of the dice. I wouldn't have as much of an issue with the micro transaction if they made it so you want X you buy X, you want Y you buy Y.. But this you want X you buy Pack 1 and have 5% chance of getting X is clearly just made to have a constant source of income for the game.

the way I view it, the multiplayer store is a double edged sword really. The random generation does suck, but at the same time it also promotes for people to try new classes, weapons, and generally helps to promote more...how do I put this, it's like replayability, but not the exact same thing, sort of like promoting gameplay itself but in a non-grinding way.

Basically I feel it promotes people to not just buy their niche guns and niche class and actually experience what the game offers overall.

I do still feel the store could have used tweaking in the way it does this, but I don't see much of a option that would still keep the spirit of playing other things than just your one class and weapon than what we have now.

[Cyonan]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Whenever that happens, I bring up EA LA and EA Canada, both of which were also acquisitions that have been around for many years. What some people seem to forget is that studios close all the time, and EA has no obligation to keep someone's favourite studio open, especially if that studio isn't performing or if another department is already doing the same kind of work.

If people want to ensure a given studio stays open, support them by buying their games or spend millions of dollars to buy the studio itself and keep it running. EA shouldn't hemorrhage money on a losing proposition just to keep fans (who, by the way, are doing nothing to help out) happy. (NOTE: I cannot say for certain why Westwood or Origin Systems was closed, but EA would not have closed them just to be a douche to gamers.)

See also this 2005 Escapist article on Origin Systems.

An interesting read. Truth be told I did not know much about what happened with Origin Systems, just that it had been bought by EA and closed, and that people didn't like them for it.

I'm not certain as to why either studio was shut down either, and as a Command & Conquer fan is was a bit disheartening to see Westwood close, regardless of the reasoning behind it. Of the things I am certain of one of them is that EA wouldn't have closed down a studio that was making them good money.

This is usually a case of a gamer not knowing how game development works and what kind of lead time a game needs in order to make it onto store shelves on time. Games usually need to be completely finished two months before its release date. What goes on the disc has to be finalized and locked in so that the complete product can be tested by the publisher and so that it can be sent to the console manufacturers to ensure they meet all technical requirements. This is the Certification process (or "cert"), and it costs money every time the product has to be sent to cert. If the game fails cert, problems must be fixed before being sent again.

Day 1 DLC is usually intended to come out at the same time as the main game. The cert process for a digital download-only product is far less time consuming, since there's no manufactuting required. You input your authorization, and boom, the package is downloaded and integrated with your game.

Because there is a vastly reduced cert process, work on Day 1 DLC can continue in the 1-2 months when the disc is in certification and manufacturing. Any attempt to put DLC on the disc during this time means stopping the cert process and starting over, which costs a lot of time (since Microsoft and Sony have to schedule cert testing time amid all the other games being released at the same time) and could mean missing the release window, and a whole bunch of money, as in thousands and thousands of dollars.

Gamers wouldn't have much incentive to buy DLC contained only content they don't really want. The fact it feels like content they need is precisely the selling point. This doesn't mean, however, that it was meant to be included in the base game, or that it is absolutely required to complete the base game. It also doesn't mean that gamers are entitled to this content in the first place.

I hope that helps.

I get that DLC needs to be something that I really want, and that the down time between finished game and launch needs to be utilized. A company needs to make efficient use of its time, especially when making a product as expensive to make as AAA video games are.

To quickly talk about the idea going on in this thread about "cut content" from the base game, BioWare has a habit of mixing their DLC and base game files together. Development may have occurred along side the base game but that doesn't neccessarily mean that it was to be included at any point. Between your animations, your voice actors, your programmers, etc. not everybody is going to finish their work at the exact same time.

This is how my thread came to light that many from the ME3 MP forums will know titled "Decompiling Retaliation" which laid out the entire DLC before it had launched.

From Ashes specifically is an odd one, and simply put the fact of who Javik is plays pretty much the only part in this. I'd probably not have even bothered to call it a grey area had it been another Zaeed type character.

That's what makes it so hard for me to say "at this point day one DLC is bad" because I'm really just saying that Zaeed would have been fine as paid day one DLC while Javik is less fine(obviously not a deal breaker since I bought the ME3 CE). It's really about how each individual person feels about it, as it wasn't a choice that had a right answer.

I can see where both sides are coming from on this one. I'm not really entirely on one side or the other myself, and I'm certainly not going to blame BioWare for having made the choice they did.

[hoorayforicecream]

Cyonan wrote...

To quickly talk about the idea going on in this thread about "cut content" from the base game, BioWare has a habit of mixing their DLC and base game files together. Development may have occurred along side the base game but that doesn't neccessarily mean that it was to be included at any point. Between your animations, your voice actors, your programmers, etc. not everybody is going to finish their work at the exact same time.

Just to address this... a lot of pieces of cut content will often make it into final game files, but still never be touched - Hot Coffee for GTA3 is a prime example of this. A lot of time the content will be started on, then cut later while the project is still in production. Since it would often require a non-trivial amount of effort from multiple developers to strip all traces of the cut (or designated DLC) content from the base game files, and then another non-trivial amount of effort to create a patch that re-integrates that data back into the game files, they just leave the stuff there.

The stuff that ships isn't ready for prime time by any means - it will most likely be buggy, broken, and there will most likely be a lot of things missing. But there will be some framework there, and that's what people see when they decrypt the data on the disc. It isn't a grand conspiracy theory, it's actually just saving effort that could and should be spent making sure the game doesn't crash.

[hoorayforicecream]

Celcore wrote...

Lots of EA sports game have the randomized microtransaction in a trading card style multiplayer, Not a bioware Idea.

Great, then you'll have no problem providing me a list.

[Cyonan]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Just to address this... a lot of pieces of cut content will often make it into final game files, but still never be touched - Hot Coffee for GTA3 is a prime example of this. A lot of time the content will be started on, then cut later while the project is still in production. Since it would often require a non-trivial amount of effort from multiple developers to strip all traces of the cut (or designated DLC) content from the base game files, and then another non-trivial amount of effort to create a patch that re-integrates that data back into the game files, they just leave the stuff there.

The stuff that ships isn't ready for prime time by any means - it will most likely be buggy, broken, and there will most likely be a lot of things missing. But there will be some framework there, and that's what people see when they decrypt the data on the disc. It isn't a grand conspiracy theory, it's actually just saving effort that could and should be spent making sure the game doesn't crash.

KotoR 2 is actually a great example of this. There was a player patch that restored an incredible amount of content that got cut from the final game but was left in the files. If I remember right, it was not in a state that a company would want to release before the players fixed it up.

There's also some stuff in the base Mass Effect 3 game files, as well as in some of the DLC that never found their way in. Retaliation actually originally planned on having 5 new ammo types rather than 3.

[addiction21]

Celcore wrote...

Lots of EA sports game have the randomized microtransaction in a trading card style multiplayer, Not a bioware Idea.

And like you said its EA sports game. Short of the ME3 what else is there? And what would be your reaction if people could pay real money to get a specific thing for ME3 while those that grind the game had to stick to randomize packs?

[Allan Schumacher]

Celcore wrote...

Thats quite the slippery slope though, the next step is to integrate these dice rolls in to the single player game and throttle the leveling and item games to a point where you're grinding for hours to get to the next stage of the game or pay 5 dollars now for X experience and random weapon to progress.. I honestly don't see a company like EA beyond that tactic its only a slight side step from what they are doing with multiplayer.

I think your assertion is a slippery slope, and not as sound of an analogy as you think it is.


First off, unless you think that the consumable items merit a significant reward, there is an end to ME3's Multiplayer, unlike a slot machine.  Furthermore, people define their metrics for when they win, in that not everyone is going to want a particular (and certainly not every) piece of equipment.  That said, because people are able to define what they want from the reward mechanic, it also means that reception of a reward that is not what one wants serves as a penalty.  It can frustrate the user (which has been a frequent complaint).  This would be akin to the slot machine occasionally award money that is actually useless.  Slot machines also have the benefit that the reward given directly feeds into the payment mechanism.  ME3's MTX rewards are not the type that allow you to directly repurchase the card packs.  Unfortunately, the psychological gambling loop is interrupted by that whole "play some multiplayer, or take a break and spend some more money directly" which interferes with the slot machine analogy.  Slot machines keep the player playing, because by providing some level of reward, they can keep the player playing until the reality of the odds comes to fruition, where the more games that are played, the greater the chance the player ends up losing. 

Although you seem to have shifted your argument away from the slot machine in this post, and are acknowledging something more accurate, which is that the MTX system is more about trading time for money.


As for the slippery slope, if we start critiquing the various methods to keep people interested in playing a game as being unethical, you can start to draw conclusions that the entire way BioWare makes their games.  By providing interesting rewards (i.e. fun game experiences), we allow people to form a degree of attachment and desire to return to the state of pleasure that they received while playing our games.  You could even argue that we did this with Mass Effect, and that part of the reason why 3's ending was poorly received was because people held too strong of an attachment to the setting and characters (there were literally posts where people described symptoms of depression).

Suddenly, because we've made our games in a way that people just can't wait to play the next one, they are displaying a form of addiction because even though they consciously dislike EA and protest our decisions, they still feel they must pick up the next BioWare game and therefore feel compelled to support practices that they do not actually support.  People accused us of manipulating their emotions because someone like Javik was the DLC, and not a less interesting character like James Vega.


On a final note, regarding the situation you describe, you're right that that is a potential risk.  I think that if a game came down to what you describe, it probably wouldn't do very well unless it was maybe a free to play game.  Regardless, it's a situation I likely wouldn't enjoy if that's what all games came do be.  I very rarely buy MTX, and the ones that I have were only in F2P games I enjoyed where I drew a line of "This game is worth $X, so I will contribute $X" to it, and receive benefits for supporting the company.

[hoorayforicecream]

Celcore wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Celcore wrote...

Lots of EA sports game have the randomized microtransaction in a trading card style multiplayer, Not a bioware Idea.

Great, then you'll have no problem providing me a list.

The NHL series, FIFA series, The Madden series all have randomized multiplayer Team Card Packs which have the same randomized principle as ME3 Multiplayer

Specific games, please. You said it is "classic EA". EA has been around for 30 years, I find it difficult to accept that "classic" EA would be something that came up within the past year or two.

[Allan Schumacher]

I believe there are MP card packs for forming the various "Ultimate" teams in recent sports games (2K Sports does it as well). Earn some points and get some player cards, and when you get the player you can put them on your team.

I don't know how many players there are in total, and I don't know if you can receive duplicate cards either.

[hoorayforicecream]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I believe there are MP card packs for forming the various "Ultimate" teams in recent sports games (2K Sports does it as well). Earn some points and get some player cards, and when you get the player you can put them on your team.

I don't know how many players there are in total, and I don't know if you can receive duplicate cards either.

As far as I understand it, the issue Celcore has is that they are not tradable so the only means of obtaining them is via microtransactions or playing the game. The various EA sports games have cards, but they are tradeable (though from what I read, they also degrade over use). Thus only Bioware's particular version is objectionable.

I still find it difficult to accept that it is "classic" EA, considering that this is a rather new development in monetization.

[addiction21]

Celcore wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Celcore wrote...

Lots of EA sports game have the randomized microtransaction in a trading card style multiplayer, Not a bioware Idea.

And like you said its EA sports game. Short of the ME3 what else is there? And what would be your reaction if people could pay real money to get a specific thing for ME3 while those that grind the game had to stick to randomize packs?

Its still the same situation where game play is throttled to entice purchase of DLC If anything you should play for point to buy what you want, or be able to buy what you want with real money if you want to be on the same level as people quickly.

The mere fact that you can pay for something instead of spending time is a enticement.

So if you could play and get what you want or pay to get what you want is fine? How is that different then both being random?

Both are one equal footing.

[Interloper]

There is not a seed of doubt that whilst EA do not directly influence creative decisions, they do hold the reins to is 'time' and 'allocation of finances', core aspects of any game which to some degree define not only the gameplay aspects but also the creative aspects of any game. I feel as though EA initially allows developers to take their time, make a great game but then, just as soon as one 'masterpiece' is released, they instantly subject that particular franchise to a multitude of cynical micro transactions to bleed the player for every last cent...and it's gotten worse over the years. The 'dollar for a bullet' creed spilled over into even ME3, and I have to say, the most disappointing feature of the game has to be the fact that you tied the quality of the ending to a beloved franchise with the need to play online multiplayer with Gears of War frat boys just to get a 'high EMS'. It was evident what was happening, EA wanted you to acquire more money through micro transactions in multiplayer 'spectre' packs rather than focus on the beauty of the ME3 story, and it shows, it really does.

The ending wasn't the 'end of the world' but its abrupt nature(which heavily suggested a lack of either time, effort or resources), the way it was tied to the need to play multiplayer, the inchoate interjection of a Vigil reject, it all just made the send off to such a great series that much more bitter and inane, and one cannot help but draw some form of pattern which emerges between games which pre-EA are innovative, interesting, entertaining and amass immense fan bases, and post-EA which, although initially enjoying greater financial resources, begin to lose their shine, lapse into the petty realm where art becomes driven by profit rather than inspired by respect for the fan base and the company eventually just gets shut down(ref. Pandemic). Bioware, I really love your games, DAO, ME 1 and ME2, KOTOR, are terrific, but if EA really is forcing these decisions, then you've got to realise, is EA helping you to become a more profitable company by opening your games up to new audiences, or is it actually making you less profitable by driving away your most devoted fans, even when the new frat boy fans return back to Madden 2056, Call of Duty Black Ops 45 and Battlefield:The revenge of lens flare. A great company should realise when it's in an abusive relationship and get out...fast. 

Modifié par Interloper, 11 avril 2013 - 04:05 .

[Sajuro]

Celcore wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Celcore wrote...

Thats quite the slippery slope though, the next step is to integrate these dice rolls in to the single player game and throttle the leveling and item games to a point where you're grinding for hours to get to the next stage of the game or pay 5 dollars now for X experience and random weapon to progress.. I honestly don't see a company like EA beyond that tactic its only a slight side step from what they are doing with multiplayer.

I think your assertion is a slippery slope, and not as sound of an analogy as you think it is.


First off, unless you think that the consumable items merit a significant reward, there is an end to ME3's Multiplayer, unlike a slot machine.  Furthermore, people define their metrics for when they win, in that not everyone is going to want a particular (and certainly not every) piece of equipment.  That said, because people are able to define what they want from the reward mechanic, it also means that reception of a reward that is not what one wants serves as a penalty.  It can frustrate the user (which has been a frequent complaint).  This would be akin to the slot machine occasionally award money that is actually useless.  Slot machines also have the benefit that the reward given directly feeds into the payment mechanism.  ME3's MTX rewards are not the type that allow you to directly repurchase the card packs.  Unfortunately, the psychological gambling loop is interrupted by that whole "play some multiplayer, or take a break and spend some more money directly" which interferes with the slot machine analogy.  Slot machines keep the player playing, because by providing some level of reward, they can keep the player playing until the reality of the odds comes to fruition, where the more games that are played, the greater the chance the player ends up losing. 

Although you seem to have shifted your argument away from the slot machine in this post, and are acknowledging something more accurate, which is that the MTX system is more about trading time for money.


As for the slippery slope, if we start critiquing the various methods to keep people interested in playing a game as being unethical, you can start to draw conclusions that the entire way BioWare makes their games.  By providing interesting rewards (i.e. fun game experiences), we allow people to form a degree of attachment and desire to return to the state of pleasure that they received while playing our games.  You could even argue that we did this with Mass Effect, and that part of the reason why 3's ending was poorly received was because people held too strong of an attachment to the setting and characters (there were literally posts where people described symptoms of depression).

Suddenly, because we've made our games in a way that people just can't wait to play the next one, they are displaying a form of addiction because even though they consciously dislike EA and protest our decisions, they still feel they must pick up the next BioWare game and therefore feel compelled to support practices that they do not actually support.  People accused us of manipulating their emotions because someone like Javik was the DLC, and not a less interesting character like James Vega.


On a final note, regarding the situation you describe, you're right that that is a potential risk.  I think that if a game came down to what you describe, it probably wouldn't do very well unless it was maybe a free to play game.  Regardless, it's a situation I likely wouldn't enjoy if that's what all games came do be.  I very rarely buy MTX, and the ones that I have were only in F2P games I enjoyed where I drew a line of "This game is worth $X, so I will contribute $X" to it, and receive benefits for supporting the company.

Okay so how much would you have to spend to reach that limit.. Though there is a hard cap like you said, a person would have to spend a ridiculous amount of money to reach it. If you keep play a slot machine you will could fill up the machine too and all the Machines in the building so that is limited too until someone comes and cleans out the Machine : IE adds more free DLC. The multiplayer is still designed with that addictive nature in mind, That was my main point. The example of a the slot machine have a hard cap was just it to say just because there is a hard cap, doesn't mean it feasible reached.

I think you have look at what you want your limit to be, someone wants to be a completionist and unlock every color for every class and every upgrade/weapon fully.You are going to have to choose how you want to go about it and it will be a difficult task but Bioware never gave any kind of achievement  or 'you have to get this' for unlocking all of one thing that could only be achieved in multiplayer.
For me, I got my Kroguard giggles in pink and green armor, and I'm happy to play with new classes but I already have my favorite races and classes.

[c_cat]

Probably a lot of simmers unhappy with buggy games lacking in content would vote for EA in a poll like this, not only SimCity buyers and ME3 ending haters.
As a long time simmer I don't really have a lot of postive things to say about the Sims3 Store.

Bad quality? Yes, very often if you think of things like missing textures.

Overpriced? Obviously some people are going to think so when they have to pay more for a world released in the Store than an expansionpack.

Broken content? I can only assume they don't play test things at all or they don't mind releasing broken content to customers since this happens. The greenhouse venue comes to mind as one example.

Actually misleading customers about broken content/bad quality content? The latest Store world released
certainly seems to confirm this.

The only positive thing I can think of is that when you buy content in pieces instead of in expansion packs or stuff packs you can more easily uninstall the bad things. Of course when you uninstall a lot of the things you bought after trying them in the game you might eventually stop buying and give up. I did.

And EA customer support? Really, really bad. And in poll for consumers that should mean something.

Modifié par c_cat, 11 avril 2013 - 05:36 .

[Maria Caliban]

Are casinos also unethical?

[Sajuro]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Are casinos also unethical?

Do casinos give you tokens for free and then let you use your own money if you run out? I don't think Microtransactions are unethical but Casinos are strictly Pay to Play

[Firky]

Ninja Stan wrote...

See also this 2005 Escapist article on Origin Systems.

Yikes, that was interesting. (Thanks for link.)

Modifié par Firky, 11 avril 2013 - 05:43 .

[In Exile]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Are casinos also unethical?

I think people complain more about the implications for turning their, say, beach volleyball game into a casino.