91 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

You cut away the original piece of the argument, which is quite important.

cap and gown wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

The longer you play, the more invested you become in the series, and the more you trust the quality of the developer. In turn you're more likely to purchase more content for the game (such as DLCs and in-game items), buy the next game in the series, and buy other games by the same developer. There is also the possibility of word of mouth making more people buy the game to play with their friends. Maintaining a constant interest in a product is basic economics.

Does this really apply to ME? MP is a pretty late addition to the series. People fell in love with the single player version long before MP came along. I bought most of the DLC well before I started MP. 

cap and gown wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I think it illustrates it well. If you spent 10-20 hours on a single ME3 playthrough, would you have even tried the MPer?

Not sure I understand. BW already has my money from all the DLC I bought. They got nothing from me deciding to try out MP since I already had all the DLC (almost all, I don't have one weapon pack, or any of the alternate apearance packs.)

You're more likely to spend money on MPer if you actually play it than you are if you never try it.

[Zero132132]

1. It promotes microtransactions.
2. Without it, everyone would just purchase a TGI and Harrier ranks, play the hell out of that class, get bored, and move on.

[cap and gown]

Malanek999 wrote...

You're more likely to spend money on MPer if you actually play it than you are if you never try it.

You mean I am more likely to spend money on those Specter, PSP, Arsenal packs, yes?

Modifié par cap and gown, 13 novembre 2013 - 02:23 .

[Heldarion]

The point of microtransactions is that the few people who are actually willing to pay real money for stuff make that stuff free for pretty much everybody else.

Modifié par Heldarion, 13 novembre 2013 - 02:25 .

[cap and gown]

Heldarion wrote...

The point of microtransactions is that the few people who are actually willing to pay real money for stuff make that stuff free for pretty much everybody else.

I wonder. All that stuff is available in SP. Indeed, I bought one of the weapon packs for SP (the one with the Typhoon). I also broke down an bought a collector's edition, though one of my main reasons was for the hoodie. The guns were certainly a nice addition. So they are making money off of SP DLC.

[Zero132132]

cap and gown wrote...

Heldarion wrote...

The point of microtransactions is that the few people who are actually willing to pay real money for stuff make that stuff free for pretty much everybody else.

I wonder. All that stuff is available in SP. Indeed, I bought one of the weapon packs for SP (the one with the Typhoon). I also broke down an bought a collector's edition, though one of my main reasons was for the hoodie. The guns were certainly a nice addition. So they are making money off of SP DLC.

SP and MP are barely the same game. I could give a **** less about having most weapons in the SP; I want them in the MP where I can use them with more characters, and with other players.

[Pearl (rip bioware)]

cap and gown wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

You're more likely to spend money on MPer if you actually play it than you are if you never try it.

You mean I am more likely to spend money on those Specter, PSP, Arsenal packs, yes?

Yes. He's saying that you are more likely to preform a microtransaction if you are aware of it's existence.

[bondiboy]

Zero132132 wrote...

cap and gown wrote...

Heldarion wrote...

The point of microtransactions is that the few people who are actually willing to pay real money for stuff make that stuff free for pretty much everybody else.

I wonder. All that stuff is available in SP. Indeed, I bought one of the weapon packs for SP (the one with the Typhoon). I also broke down an bought a collector's edition, though one of my main reasons was for the hoodie. The guns were certainly a nice addition. So they are making money off of SP DLC.

SP and MP are barely the same game. I could give a **** less about having most weapons in the SP; I want them in the MP where I can use them with more characters, and with other players.

There have been a few posts lately from SP players trying to come to grips with MP. They are different games as stated above.
There is no shortcut to unlocking weapons or kits . You can't turn off the objectives etc. I can understand that it would be frustrating trying to play MP now with so many unlocks etc but thats what happens when you join the MP late in the game . Many of the BSNers here have over 1000 hrs of gameplay in MP with most over 500 hrs

[mybudgee]

Update: 80% of people (kids) already play mostly TGI + Harrier

[palmof40sorrows]

cap and gown wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

The longer you play, the more invested you become in the series, and the more you trust the quality of the developer. In turn you're more likely to purchase more content for the game (such as DLCs and in-game items), buy the next game in the series, and buy other games by the same developer. There is also the possibility of word of mouth making more people buy the game to play with their friends. Maintaining a constant interest in a product is basic economics.

Does this really apply to ME? MP is a pretty late addition to the series. People fell in love with the single player version long before MP came along. I bought most of the DLC well before I started MP.

Yes, it does apply to MassEffect. I have been playing since ME1, and when MP was announced, I SWORE that I would never engage in such a heresy, such a blatant BETRAYAL of the ME ethos.

Then I played it and I have since devoted far more time to the MP than I ever did to the SP (and that's saying something, as I played through ME about five times and ME2 about four). 

I now look forward to the next Mass Effect's MP FAR more than I do the SP. 

Modifié par palmof40sorrows, 13 novembre 2013 - 08:35 .

[Strict31]

Tokenusername wrote...

cap and gown wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

Wouldn't they generate more sales if you knew what you were buying? They are not promising me that I can retire in the Carribean, just that I can play a game a little better. (Course, I don't play the lottery anyway, so what do I know.)

No, because players will always have personal preferences. Why would you ever spend real money to buy the Vindicator? If you can strait up buy the Harrier, you max it out and never buy another pack again. If you can't choose what you buy, every player becomes the market for every item. Allowing players to binge on items also will decrease their interest in the game, and thus lower the longevity of the game. It's just gambling. You buy ten packs because the first nine were all cyro ammo, but the next one could be a Lancer.

I dunno. I personally think it's just an experimental model they've been live-testing. There are certainly other microtransactional models that have met with success.

I'm aware that many folks on this very board are more than willing to spend 300 or so of their favorite dollars on some randomized horse ****, and maybe for Bioware, that' sufficient to justify the model. But there are also many people like me, who won't spend a single dime of real money for something that is completely random.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I damn sure know I'm more than willing to pay for stuff that I know I want. I do it all the time at the grocery store, and this seems to work out. If I go to the store looking for toilet paper and instead receive bubblegum, well, that's just not going to work for me, because I probably needed that toilet paper.

I disagree with the gambling comparison because you go into that with the knowledge and acceptance that well...it's gambling. A gambler specifically and willfully pays for the privilege of gambling. You may lose it all or win big, and that's the allure.

Here, people just want a decent item or character.

I feel that there are other options BW could explore for a microtransactional market that provides greater control to the player. I mean, i'd def spend money to pick up a rifle I've never been able to randomly unlock. And I'd pay to upgrade it. I don't understand why this is such an alien concept since we already do this all the time IRL. BW could even allow a trading system between players which pays out a small fee to the company every time such a transaction is made.

I mean, there are companies out there seeing success with different models.

[DullahansXMark]

Strict31 wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

cap and gown wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

Wouldn't they generate more sales if you knew what you were buying? They are not promising me that I can retire in the Carribean, just that I can play a game a little better. (Course, I don't play the lottery anyway, so what do I know.)

No, because players will always have personal preferences. Why would you ever spend real money to buy the Vindicator? If you can strait up buy the Harrier, you max it out and never buy another pack again. If you can't choose what you buy, every player becomes the market for every item. Allowing players to binge on items also will decrease their interest in the game, and thus lower the longevity of the game. It's just gambling. You buy ten packs because the first nine were all cyro ammo, but the next one could be a Lancer.

I dunno. I personally think it's just an experimental model they've been live-testing. There are certainly other microtransactional models that have met with success.

I'm aware that many folks on this very board are more than willing to spend 300 or so of their favorite dollars on some randomized horse ****, and maybe for Bioware, that' sufficient to justify the model. But there are also many people like me, who won't spend a single dime of real money for something that is completely random.

I obviously can't speak for everyone, but I damn sure know I'm more than willing to pay for stuff that I know I want. I do it all the time at the grocery store, and this seems to work out. If I go to the store looking for toilet paper and instead receive bubblegum, well, that's just not going to work for me, because I probably needed that toilet paper.

I disagree with the gambling comparison because you go into that with the knowledge and acceptance that well...it's gambling. A gambler specifically and willfully pays for the privilege of gambling. You may lose it all or win big, and that's the allure.

Here, people just want a decent item or character.

I feel that there are other options BW could explore for a microtransactional market that provides greater control to the player. I mean, i'd def spend money to pick up a rifle I've never been able to randomly unlock. And I'd pay to upgrade it. I don't understand why this is such an alien concept since we already do this all the time IRL. BW could even allow a trading system between players which pays out a small fee to the company every time such a transaction is made.

I mean, there are companies out there seeing success with different models.

Just a thought, but if they wanted to keep the Troll Store, they could make it so that you could buy either the packs themselves OR a certain number of levels on a given gun. So say you want a Venom but you just can't seem to get one (this totally isn't my situation right now). You break down, buy it with real money instead, and decide you like it. So you buy the next two levels. But, now you can't buy any more levels on the gun. If you want to keep leveling it up, you'll have to buy the RNG packs.

This way, you can buy what you want, but you can't just start winning right out of the gate with it. (of course, this is all assuming they're even thinking about using the Troll Store in ME4)

[Catastrophy]

cap and gown wrote...

Malanek999 wrote...

I think it illustrates it well. If you spent 10-20 hours on a single ME3 playthrough, would you have even tried the MPer?

Not sure I understand. BW already has my money from all the DLC I bought. They got nothing from me deciding to try out MP since I already had all the DLC (almost all, I don't have one weapon pack, or any of the alternate apearance packs.)

Added: Another point is the SP and MP versions seem somewhat divorced from each other. Same cast of character, but absolutely no story behind the MP version, just fighting for the sake of fighting.

They may have had yours but they didn't have my money, because I never buy DLC. So I thought - then I sank some cash in to reward the hours played in MP and purchased all the story DLC. I wouldn't have done this based on SP experience (and that has nothing to do about the ending).

People are different and take different decisions on what they spend their money on, you're not special, I'm not special. We are just a target group.

[redhqs]

To me it seems like intermittent reinforcement, like drops from a table in an MMO raid; all the hooks like weapon/gear/character/appearance levelling, banners, challenge points all give your brain a reason to want to play a bit more or convince yourself it's worth buying some packs to skip ahead. Will be interesting to see how the model works as they applied it to bf4 actually.

[lightswitch]

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

[Beerfish]

Longevity is important because when BioWare comes out with each 'free' dlc for mp a number of people would support that free dlc by buying a few packs they might not otherwise purchase. I did this on more than one occasion before my manifest was maxed.

[Beerfish]

lightswitch wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

Oh they made money on it up to a point.  Once returns started to diminish support would be dropped. I still think it was a mistake on their part not to at least keep a part time skelton crew that produced soemthing new the odd time.

[SpaceV3gan]

It guarantees you several hundred hours of gaming at a low cost.
That is why I don't purchase DLCs for the single player campaign, which is the exactly opposite.

[Zero132132]

lightswitch wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

It took a year for them to decide to cut support. That's not a trivial amount of time.

[VaultingFrog]

lightswitch wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

People buy skins for weapons on FPS games. They buy skins for their characters as well. All to make them look different. They don't do a damn thing else but look slightly different. There is no real world value in these purchases yet players buy them constantly.

You underestimate the stupidity of the video game player community.

[Tokenusername]

lightswitch wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

Ever seen a collectable card game?

[cap and gown]

VaultingFrog wrote...

lightswitch wrote...

Tokenusername wrote...

To promote longevity and microtransaction sales.

No sane consumer would spend money on something which is likely to have nothing of value in it. It's a terrible business model and I really, really doubt they were making any money off of it - if they were, EA wouldn't have decided it was time to cut support for the game.

People buy skins for weapons on FPS games. They buy skins for their characters as well. All to make them look different. They don't do a damn thing else but look slightly different. There is no real world value in these purchases yet players buy them constantly.

Do they know what they are getting when they buy it? If so, then your argument reinforces the point that a randomized system is not the optimal way to go.

[VaultingFrog]

cap and gown wrote...
Do they know what they are getting when they buy it? If so, then your argument reinforces the point that a randomized system is not the optimal way to go.

If they don't then they have poor reading skills (which isn't too hard to imagine).

[cap and gown]

It seems to me that the optimal system would award randomized items to players who only wanted to use in-game credits, but for those willing to pay actual money, they could skip that and buy just what they wanted. I am quite sure Barla Von would be more than happy to spring for the best of the best.

Added: They seem to think that a significant share of their customers must be inveterate gamblers.

Modifié par cap and gown, 13 novembre 2013 - 05:59 .

[Moby]

mybudgee wrote...

Update: 80% of people (kids) already play mostly Juggy + Strength Enhancer

FTFY