50 réponses à ce sujet

[FredLOMD]

Thumbs down on micro transactions in general. I know I can't fight them. But that's not going to stop me being grumpy about them.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

Guanxii wrote...

How do we (the community) feel about BioWare incorporating consumables into the next singleplayer game? E.g. making ammo powers consumables, adding gear bonuses, gear consumables (e.g. assault rifle amp III) and using in-game credits you earn throughout the game for medigel, ops packs, etc as in multiplayer?

What if BioWare used this opportunity as a method of incorporating microtransactions and the store into singleplayer - giving the player the option of buying their upgrades and unique weapon ugrades (e.g. ultra-rares) with their in-game credits or with real money?

Consumables would work as they do in multiplayer with each player having 4 upgradable (upto 6) slots for consumables as in multiplayer for medigel, ops packs and ammo clips, etc only instead of only having a hydra rockets slot we had a heavy weapons slot that includes hyras, cains, spitfires, etc as heavy weapons consumables.

In addition your inventory could be tied to both singleplayer and multiplayer so when you earn new weapons/upgrades, etc in one mode you can use them immediately in the other... that would be quite bad ass imo.

Personally, as long as it's easy to earn credits in the game without having to spend real money and mictrotransactions are entirely optional then i don't really have a problem with it; but I do understand that it's an ugly precendent to set/dangerous slippery slope with valid arguements on either side.

How do we (the community) feel in general about mictro-transactions, consumables/multiplayer elements and store intregration in the next singleplayer game?

I don't want to pay extra for the gear I need to use to play the game, especially when I already own the game. I don't like the randomized way that the gear is used the MP, I alway seem to get stuff that I don't want, need, or use and the stuff that I do need, want, and use I can't get (or not enough).

[Sanunes]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

Guanxii wrote...

How do we (the community) feel about BioWare incorporating consumables into the next singleplayer game? E.g. making ammo powers consumables, adding gear bonuses, gear consumables (e.g. assault rifle amp III) and using in-game credits you earn throughout the game for medigel, ops packs, etc as in multiplayer?

What if BioWare used this opportunity as a method of incorporating microtransactions and the store into singleplayer - giving the player the option of buying their upgrades and unique weapon ugrades (e.g. ultra-rares) with their in-game credits or with real money?

Consumables would work as they do in multiplayer with each player having 4 upgradable (upto 6) slots for consumables as in multiplayer for medigel, ops packs and ammo clips, etc only instead of only having a hydra rockets slot we had a heavy weapons slot that includes hyras, cains, spitfires, etc as heavy weapons consumables.

In addition your inventory could be tied to both singleplayer and multiplayer so when you earn new weapons/upgrades, etc in one mode you can use them immediately in the other... that would be quite bad ass imo.

Personally, as long as it's easy to earn credits in the game without having to spend real money and mictrotransactions are entirely optional then i don't really have a problem with it; but I do understand that it's an ugly precendent to set/dangerous slippery slope with valid arguements on either side.

How do we (the community) feel in general about mictro-transactions, consumables/multiplayer elements and store intregration in the next singleplayer game?

I don't want to pay extra for the gear I need to use to play the game, especially when I already own the game. I don't like the randomized way that the gear is used the MP, I alway seem to get stuff that I don't want, need, or use and the stuff that I do need, want, and use I can't get (or not enough).

I agree, I don't want to pay money for my single player experience that is why I am giving them the base cost of the game.  With the microtransactions of multiplayer I am mostly okay with that because I looked at that as how they recouped the cost of the DLC they gave for free instead of charging $15 for a map pack.

[bloodstalker1973]

I've been playing Multiplayer pretty much since launch, and for a good time I played it obsessively. So we're talking well over a year. I still don;t have a Harrier because the random store packs are just that. Random. I don;t want that anywhere near SP. Just my opinion.

[BackdoorPaco]

I wouldn't mind though the concept of sharing equipment would really only work if you use the same avatars in both sp and mp (unlike me3 where you use agents in mp).
Would also love to see the delicious tears of rage flow through everyone on the forums.

[Bendigoe]

It's something EA will probably push for Bioware to put in the single player campaign but I don't believe Bioware is douchebaggy enough to actually do that.

[AlanC9]

Microtransactions would probably be a good thing for Bio' SP balance; their games are typically so easy that you usually need to handicap yourself to have a challenge, so just don't spend any money and you're set.

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...
Microtransactions would probably be a good thing for Bio' SP balance; their games are typically so easy that you usually need to handicap yourself to have a challenge, so just don't spend any money and you're set.

Or they could actually make their games challenging, again, because to me that sounds like a much more fitting solution.

[Atheist Knight]

Jorina Leto wrote...

I will not buy ammo with real money! If this enters single player, I won't buy the game.

I agree with this, they're alrady ripping me off for their DLC as it is.

[Ajensis]

I'd rather not see it, but if they incorporate it like they did with multiplayer (i.e. optional), I think I would simply ignore it. I'd prefer not to see it at all, though. There's something distinctly jarring about it when the real world is mixed up with the game world I'm trying to sink into. Multiplayer in ME3 was fine, since it wasn't the real game anyway in terms of lore and immersion, but I'd rather not see it in the single-player campaign.

SwitchN7 wrote...

Who's we and why do you speak in we's
name? (...)

"We" refers to the community, as he makes clear in the very first line. He's not speaking on anyone's behalf, he's just making an inquiry. No need for hostility

DarthLaxian wrote...
indeed - something like that is DESPICABLE and a totally WRETCHED IDEA IMHO  (and that is exactly why i fear them going down this road, as a lot of things (like DLC - at least if it is cut content (Day one DLC!!!), makes the game a lot worse (like say LotSB, Arrival, Kasumi, Citadel and Omega (note: i do not have the last two - i will not buy ME3-DLC, as tempted as i am, because they screwed that game up IMHO and they do not deserve extra money from me for it)) etc. - was, but they still make them!) like this have already happened (and fans did protest, but were ignored!)

greetings LAX

You just used up your quota of parentheses for the next two months

[Eamon696]

What purpose would this serve other than to increase their profits? There would be no benefit to such a system, unless all singleplayer DLC would be free as result. If this was the case then i would consider it.

[Jay-Em]

no, just..no!

We get fleeced enough as it is.

[AlexMBrennan]

How do we (the community) feel about BioWare incorporating consumables into the next singleplayer game? E.g. making ammo powers consumables, adding gear bonuses, gear consumables (e.g. assault rifle amp III) and using in-game credits you earn throughout the game for medigel, ops packs, etc as in multiplayer?

I don't care either way, but making them consumables would add unnecessary hassle.

What if BioWare used this opportunity as a method of incorporating microtransactions and the store into singleplayer - giving the player the option of buying their upgrades and unique weapon ugrades (e.g. ultra-rares) with their in-game credits or with real money?

That wouldn't work - unless you run the game on Bioware servers (e.g. like Diablo 3 - in fact, I'd argue that the only reason Diablo 3 is always online is to allow Blizzard to make money from the auction house) this would be trivially easy to bypass: Remember, the player can arbitrarily modify all game files, save files and even active memory.

Finally, it's a dangerous path to take - once you start selling the player optional convenience, it won't take long for the developers to realise that they can boost revenue by making the game less convenient, and you end up holding the game for ransom.

[Zuzu Mumu]

Ha! you have to be kidding me , if this ever reaches single player , i will not waste any money on the game that much i can tell you.

[Degs29]

JMTolan wrote...

Degs29 wrote...

JMTolan wrote...

Nopenopenopenopenope

Singleplayer has enough milking with DLC packs. I can understand microtransactioning multiplayer, but that system has no place in single player.

-Tolan

Odd.  I think having microtransactions in MP is video-game sacriledge, whereas micotransactions in SP is fine so long as I can choose to ignore it personally.  Whatever floats someone's boat.  But multiplayer, paying to win is just flat out stupid, and takes away so much from the experience of those who like to earn their skills/items/etc in-game.  I don't think I'll ever change my mind on that point.  I frickin' hate it.

If I had to guess you're probably a more competitive gamer than me--or at least, more of a multiplayer fan. I have always been more focused on single-player sides of games, and tend to view microtransactions in MP as less paying to win and more paying to save time, depending on the case of course. But because I care less about that side of the game, it doesn't bother me that much.

That's probably true lol.

I enjoy matching skill against skill, rather than skill against money.

[levyjl1988]

Stopped playing ME3 multiplayer, the pacing for rewards is too slow and not worth it, felt way too repetitive despite the free packs. All that money invested in multiplayer won't matter much in the long run when the servers go down.

[dekkerd]

No, already paid for the game thanks.

MP needs to stay separate from SP. Completely. Hopefully they learned from the ME3 debacle and will remember that.

That said, a new chapter in the ME universe means they could go the MP direction. I wouldn't buy it, but others would I guess

[Nitrocuban]

Paying for content I already payed for?
This is madness!

[Jaulen]

So if I'm understanding this correctly......you want to turn a ME single player RPG into SWToR?

[levyjl1988]

I don't even play multiplayer. Multiplayer in AAA games are usually meant to create replay value. Usually it fails quite miserably, look at Tomb raider for example. Companies should learn from Bioshock Infinite, games don't need multiplayer. Just dedicate those resources to single player.

Microtransactions ruins the pacing of receiving rewards, halting progress and in turn results players into pay to progress. I rather play Halo 4 and pay for map packs to be honest. At least my progress won't be hindered when I simply want to shoot stuff. And weapons aren't locked as they are with Mass Effect. Wanting to experience a gun and it's not unlocked, forget it.

[spacehamsterZH]

The problem with consumables is that you can run out of them and get stuck - games used to do this to you all the time in the olden days, but now, I just can't see a game mechanic that could put you in a situation where you have to abandon an entire mission/quest close to the end, reload from before you started, go grinding for consumables and then do it all over. Not gonna happen, especially not in a AAA, casual-friendly series like Mass Effect.

As for paying for consumables, the only reason that's justifiable in mobile games is BECAUSE THOSE GAMES ARE %&$#ING FREE. If I've already paid the full price for a retail game, it's completely unacceptable to keep nickel and diming me. I'll swallow it as long as it's entirely optional (but it's kind of like buying a DVD and finding out I have to skip over ads every 15 minutes as if I was watching the movie on TV for free), but I just can't help thinking what happened in the ME3 multiplayer was only the first step and soon we'll have systems where you have to pay for extra stuff or you'll be screwed, like some mobile games. Except those ARE %&$#ING FREE and if I realize after 2-3 hours that I can't progress without buying stuff with real money I can just stop playing, no harm done.

[rashie]

To be honest i would not be surprised if EA actually went through with this, the most recent example is micro transactions in dead space 3 if sticking to EA.

AlanC9 wrote...

Microtransactions would probably be a good thing for Bio' SP balance; their games are typically so easy that you
usually need to handicap yourself to have a challenge, so just don't spend any money and you're set.

The difficulty is fine on Hardcore and Insanity in ME2 and ME3, everything below that i agree fully.

Modifié par rashie, 20 juillet 2013 - 01:21 .

[gisle]

I don't mind it in itself, though I will never make use of such a feature. However, while this worked in multiplayer, the 'requisition lottery' would be terribly out of place in single player.