263 réponses à ce sujet

[victorbarry]

I didnt have a problem with microtrans. in ME3, it was with the random system.
Why would anyone pay for the _possibility_ of getting the pack you want? Madness.
But if it comes to give longevity or whatever to the game, then the random system makes sense. I hate the random system, hmpf.

[David7204]

Is that a serious question?

You pay if the odds are good. Anyone who understands math should be happy to pay 50 cents for a 10% chance of something instead of 10 dollars for a certainty of it.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One aspect I have mentioned is quantity. DLC is not an overly dangerous model simply because there is a rather finite amount of it. Otehr types of virtual goods, such as cosmetic skins or characters, can be small. Extra outfits in ME2 could be bought, which only resulted in ten extra outfits. Only two or three classes are locked in certain online games, which only result in a few purchases before the options are eliminated. However... ME3's MP? 

You've failed to address this point several times now.

Any consumer product can be prone to abuse. I can go on amazon.com right now and burn my entire salary on new computers. Why would a court make a distinction between someone who blows his entire salary on multiplayer packs vs. buying a billion copies of the same sweater or any other item? That is key for your point to make any sense. Because otherwise, companies are screwed no matter what they do, at the hands of irresponsible consumerism. And the only clear counter (since you view a potential lawsuit as being the single worst scenario possible) is to close up shop.

[victorbarry]

yh my question was genuine, i guess i dont understand maths like you do? because im dumb 8D

[metatheurgist]

Maria Caliban wrote...
Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

Back when online trading started, there was a lot of news about people getting ripped off. When I started buying stuff online I created a credit card with a $1 limit, I fill it with the amount of money I'm prepared to lose if anything goes wrong. I did this in the 90s. I don't consider myself visionary or particularly financially responsible, it just seemed like common sense to me. Now we have debit cards. I'm not sure people should be breeding if they can't see obvious solutions like that, especially if they can't trust their kids do to the right thing. Then again, I never agreed with the idea that kids need ipads or iphones or other $1000 electronic devices. They have them because other kids have them, which is pretty much the same principle microtransactions rely on. <more shrugs>

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
There were dozens of diffferent classes, dozens of different weapons and dozens of different capacity upgrades. But, on top of that, each upgrade could be earned or purchased nine times, giving a slight bonus each time to that weapon/class/etc. You are talking about the total number of unlockable items being in the thousands. 

While earning in game credits to buy packs was very easy and not very time consuming, there still were dozens of unlockables the player could really want and it could require hundreds of item packs before they could realistically have them in their hands. It could result in a player just wanting to buy them all.

And there are players that do.

A very small minority of people go out of their way to buy every permutation and combination of equipment.

Is the video game industry supposed to shift an entire strategy to accomodate those incapable of controlling their expenditures?

What would you propose be done instead?

Modifié par Lebdood, 30 novembre 2013 - 02:05 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One aspect I have mentioned is quantity. DLC is not an overly dangerous model simply because there is a rather finite amount of it. Otehr types of virtual goods, such as cosmetic skins or characters, can be small. Extra outfits in ME2 could be bought, which only resulted in ten extra outfits. Only two or three classes are locked in certain online games, which only result in a few purchases before the options are eliminated. However... ME3's MP? 

You've failed to address this point several times now.

Any consumer product can be prone to abuse. I can go on amazon.com right now and burn my entire salary on new computers. Why would a court make a distinction between someone who blows his entire salary on multiplayer packs vs. buying a billion copies of the same sweater or any other item? That is key for your point to make any sense. Because otherwise, companies are screwed no matter what they do, at the hands of irresponsible consumerism. And the only clear counter (since you view a potential lawsuit as being the single worst scenario possible) is to close up shop.

There are regulations, industry guidelines and flat out laws that control how a company like Amazon can advertise to you to sell thier product. But there are no such restrictions on how a video game can entice you to buy microtransactions. 

Amazon can't make it so cold outside that you feel that sweaters are your only venue of clothing that is effective against the cold. Yet a game maker can make the player feel they will lose (or at least lose lots of their time struggling) without the use of a microtransactions. "Grind for ten hours... or buy the XP bonus, or the uber-gear, or the secret character and breeze through the game, instead."

Are there any glaring examples of games that do this? Some online and/or social games, maybe. No AAA games to date, to my knowledge. Then again, the idea of an on-disc DLC character was exactly the type of "doomsday" scenario many opponents of DLC predicted when the DLC model was first begun - that consumers would be paying for unlock codes, not for actual downloaded content. And, to some degree, that has been seen by companies like Capcom and Bioware.

There is nearly a limitless number of ways a game maker can design a game to coerce gamers to pay extra money for transactions. Because the game maker controls the environment of the game and, essentially, can engineer their market's own need, that sets them up very easily in an unethical situation.

Can you beat a game without a healing potion? Sure - it could be hard as snot, but a gamer could do it. What if you could purcahse potions with in-game gold as well as buying potions through real-life currency? Now what if in-game gold was an intensely rare commodity, such that you'd want to use it for weapons, never for something as throw-away as a potion. Or what if it is like Fable 3, where the amount of gold you amass determines story outcomes... would you rather buy a potion with in-game gold and get sub-par story outcomes, or spend real money and then get the happiest endings?

I could keep going, but I shouldn't need to - microtransactions aren't just video game developers creating their own store... they are also creating their own supply and demand for their own product. They are creators, distributors and sole benefactors of the content they sell. 

With every passing year, we've seen a larger presence of online game content and microtransactions for AAA video games. Developers and publishers are looking at these methods as very large, untapped revenue streams and push the boundary of what the industry has seen to date on a regular basis. How long until a developer goes too far? How long until a game is so popular, that people throw money at it not to take shortcuts, but, instead, to avoid insane amounts of tedium or difficulty? 

It's a game of Russian roulette developers are playing, where they are seeing just how much gamers will put up with and still buy their game. But it's not just consumer resilience they should worry about... they should worry about consumers getting TOO resilient and accoustomed to the practice, such that they don't even notice that they've thrown more money than they could ever hope to afford into a system and are now trying to blame the company who "made" them.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 novembre 2013 - 03:31 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
There were dozens of diffferent classes, dozens of different weapons and dozens of different capacity upgrades. But, on top of that, each upgrade could be earned or purchased nine times, giving a slight bonus each time to that weapon/class/etc. You are talking about the total number of unlockable items being in the thousands. 

While earning in game credits to buy packs was very easy and not very time consuming, there still were dozens of unlockables the player could really want and it could require hundreds of item packs before they could realistically have them in their hands. It could result in a player just wanting to buy them all.

And there are players that do.

A very small minority of people go out of their way to buy every permutation and combination of equipment.

Is the video game industry supposed to shift an entire strategy to accomodate those incapable of controlling their expenditures?

What would you propose be done instead?

If I had to propose anything, the industry should figure out how they want to do microtransactions in a way that is both safe for consumers (even bonehead consumers) and still be a maintainable practice for developers. Just like the industry did with the ESRB, develop a set of standards that either developers would need to abide by to qualify as "consumer friendly" with the way the microtransactions are done, or give a rating system of how risky the different systems can be. Something where the consumer can be at least educated and aware of the type of game they are picking up without needing to worry about if they are going to be ripped off or not. AND without abusing customers (or allowing them to abuse themselves) so bad that a governing entity comes in and dictates to the industry the solution they deem neccessary... which is, much more often than not, not a solution that businesses enjoy.

Or, you know, cut back or even scrap microtransactions in games that already cost $60. The entire industry has lasted for decades without the revenue stream of digital transactions... it can do so again. Saying "the cat's out of the bag" after just a few short years of it is silly, especially when many developers have yet to EVER include DLC or microtransactions or other products in their games.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 novembre 2013 - 03:38 .

[slimgrin]

Goddamn Jimmy, you have this figured out.

I still take the CDPR/Larian route for DLC.

Edit - I remember when you just made songs. Happy days.

Modifié par slimgrin, 30 novembre 2013 - 03:43 .

[Fast Jimmy]

slimgrin wrote...

Goddamn Jimmy, you have this figured out.

I still take the CDPR/Larian route for DLC.

Edit - I remember when you just made songs. Happy days.

Songs and memes Those were happy days, indeed.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If I had to propose anything, the industry should figure out how they want to do microtransactions in a way that is both safe for consumers (even bonehead consumers) and still be a maintainable practice for developers. Just like the industry did with the ESRB, develop a set of standards that either developers would need to abide by to qualify as "consumer friendly" with the way the microtransactions are done, or give a rating system of how risky the different systems can be. Something where the consumer can be at least educated and aware of the type of game they are picking up without needing to worry about if they are going to be ripped off or not. AND without abusing customers (or allowing them to abuse themselves) so bad that a governing entity comes in and dictates to the industry the solution they deem neccessary... which is, much more often than not, not a solution that businesses enjoy.

Or, you know, cut back or even scrap microtransactions in games that already cost $60. The entire industry has lasted for decades without the revenue stream of digital transactions... it can do so again. Saying "the cat's out of the bag" after just a few short years of it is silly, especially when many developers have yet to EVER include DLC or microtransactions or other products in their games.

Fair enough.

[AlanC9]

osbornep wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Jeez.... I get the feeling something bad must have happened in Fast Jimmy's family. I've never seen paternalism get this far out of control without some kind of deep psychological scar behind it.

In my experience, playing armchair psychologist on an internet forum rarely ends well.

It's just that I prefer to look for the charitable interpretation whenever possible. But I probably should have kept that to myself, since now my illusions are shattered.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If I had to propose anything, the industry should figure out how they want to do microtransactions in a way that is both safe for consumers (even bonehead consumers) and still be a maintainable practice for developers. Just like the industry did with the ESRB, develop a set of standards that either developers would need to abide by to qualify as "consumer friendly" with the way the microtransactions are done, or give a rating system of how risky the different systems can be. Something where the consumer can be at least educated and aware of the type of game they are picking up without needing to worry about if they are going to be ripped off or not. AND without abusing customers (or allowing them to abuse themselves) so bad that a governing entity comes in and dictates to the industry the solution they deem neccessary... which is, much more often than not, not a solution that businesses enjoy.

Exactly what "governing entity" do you figure would handle this? I still can't envision how this comes about.

Lay out the nightmare scenario. How does a lawsuit not get laughed out of court? Or are we talking about some future Democratic Congress empowering some kind of super ESRB?

Even Mike Bloomberg couldn't come up with a way to make this one fly.

Modifié par AlanC9, 30 novembre 2013 - 06:04 .

[Dean_the_Young]

[quote]Fast Jimmy wrote...

[quote]You'll also be happy to learn that luxury goods and premium perks aren't considered a coercion for those who don't buy them. Coercion would apply if the consumer was being threatened or discriminated against on various grounds if they didn't buy the product... but not getting a product you didn't pay for isn't considered coercion, no matter how much you want it. There are centuries of American capitalism on this point, by the way.
[/quote]

This point doesn't even make sense. Cigarettes are a luxury good. Is Camel Joe "coercion" by your definition? Did a cartoon camel discriminate against any particular group? No, but Camel cigarettes got dinged bad in the 90's for using him because it was deemed trying to sell cigarettes to minors, which resulted in tbe entire industry being regulated on how advertising was allowed to work. [/quote]Camel cigarettes are also highly addictive and cause cancer, the cover up of which is what got the companies dinged in the 90's. You sure you want to make this comparison? After all, chemical addiction is generally considered a form of coercion.
[quote]
I don't see how anyone can fail to see how a microtransaction system in a video game, which gives false senses of value, immediacy and need, would be an industry that is practically begging to be regulated... HEAVILY. [/quote]...because that standard can apply to any purchase of anything, and historically hasn't been grounds for regulation?

[quote]
[quote]You're also using regulation as a catch-all boogeyman, instead of an applicable practice or policy that might not harm or would even help the industry players. Let's say the ultimate overreaction occurs, and Congress bans the sale of all downloadable content. Free stuff is alright... but no selling fake virtual digits. 
[/quote]

Such a law would be nigh impossible to draft, let alone implement. [/quote]You realize you just argued against your own raised concern about regulation, right?
[quote]
You'd have to define exactly what "fake" and "real" mean in the virtual world.[/quote]Excellent idea. Since you started using the qualifiers first, you start.
[quote]If this is what you think I'm advocating, I question whether or not you are following my line of logic.[/quote]Luckily I'm not. You were all over the place, hence why I'm asking you to be clear. I gave two examples that could fit in your broad criteria without fitting your intent, to demonstrate why you needed clarity.


[quote]
I can sell you a virtual rocket launcher. I can package it in the base game and include it in the base game's sticker price. I can sell it as a DLC item pack, payable upon download. I can sell it to you as an instant microtransaction, where it becomes available to you immediately in-game.

I can charge you in game currency. I can chage you real life money. I can charge you in-game currency that can only be bougjt with real life money. I can sell you items only purchaseable with in game currency. I can sell you other items that are only purchaseable with real life money. I can sell you items that can be purchased with both.

I can sell you the good for a day. I can sell it to you for a week. I can sell it to your for a lifetime. I can sell it to you and have it be lost forever if your console ever breaks. I can sell it to you and have it be available for you to access forever, no matter where you are playing the game from.

I can let you buy as many items as you want. I can limit you to only being able to purchase one in day. Or one week. Or one year. I can let you spend as much real life money as you want at once. I can limit how much you can spend in a day. In a week. In a year. [/quote]All of these are long standing business practices, yes.
[quote]
Nowhere, in any legal precedent, does any company have to give me any of these arrvices to goods nor regulation on how money can be spent on said goods. I could be told today that every good I bought would be honored for all time and be told the next that every good I own is now gone and unrecoverable without repurchasing. [/quote]Dude, those all have been present in the entertainment markets and service industries for decades. Most of those apply to various amusement parks- token systems, in-park currencies, line passes, membership subscriptions and perks, and so on. They aren't new practices, and they aren't new concepts.

Pay-for-more has been a basic principle of capitalism before we understood the word.

[quote]
There is no regulation. No industry standard. No consumer advocacy. No RULES. THAT'S what I mean.[/quote]Except... there are. You sign the terms of agreement, which reference the rules, when you sign in and sign up to buy stuff. You have a host of consumer advocacy groups, starting with the BSB and moving on to private groups. You have the right and standing to sue a company if they sell you a faulty product that doesn't do what they say it can.


[quote]
If a law was passed tomorrow, the things you are mentioning would be part of the courtroom battles and diatribes. But that's NOT what I'm saying. I'm saying today, a company can do whatever it pleases with microtransactions that are ancillary to a base product like a game. With this freedom, as companies begin to dip their toe into questionable tactics, such as gambling or pay to win models, etc., they are practically begging for a legislative or regulatory fight to break out. [/quote]Legislation can occur regardless of whether there's a harm or not. You aren't showing an actual harm other than self-inflicted.

How pay to win is a questionable tactic is bizaar in itself, unless you don't understand the concept of a loss-leader business strategy... and that model is legal and stands up today.

[quote]
If a consumer is making a choice based on an emotionally fueled mindset at the behest of a company who has no guidelines about the nature of the transaction, let alone the avenues of recourse a consumer can follow, then that consumer can take the company to court over nearly anything. They may not win, but winning a court case is not the goal of a company. Preventing them from going to court at all is in most cases - which is why the vast majority of civil suits are settled out of court. [/quote]If a consumer is making a choice based on an emotionally fueld mindset, it won't matter what the company does: there is nothing a company can do to disuade someone from being irrational and taking them to court.

Hence, you need to demonstrate why your proposal will resolve this issue, and not suffer from the same.


[quote]
Regulation ISN'T a boogeyman... but it is the result of what happens when the free market can't hold itself responsible. And nearly every industry on the planet that is now mired in laws, regulation and red tape started out with saying "no one is forcing you to buy our products."[/quote]No, most regulations come from directly killing or harming someone in a context in which the consumer couldn't control. Not selling arguably over-priced luxury goods and services.

But, since you're still using regulation as a boogeyman argument rather than a specific proposal, I'll ask you again: what regulation of DLC business practices should the companies be concerned of?

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Hence also the film example. Much like how you don't know exactly what you're getting with each ME3 pack (although Dean correctly points out you are always guaranteed certain rare items), you don't actually know what experience you're getting every instance you enter a movie theater. Since a consumer doesn't have a perfect idea of what they're getting with any purchase, is every industry/product open for regulation on that front? 

A movie is not an immediate, impulse purchase. You can't walk into a movie theater and watch a movie with the click of a button.

True- all you have to do is impulsively give them your credit card and tell them a movie. You don't even have to hit a button. Then there's the snack lobby, the arcade, any other stands.

Then we can talk about impulse-purchasing the movie at the check-out isle at the store, or on amazon, or on your pay-per-view channel.

You can impulse-buy movies.

Besides, there is an upper limit to how many movies you can purchase and realistically consume (to officially decide if you like or don't like them) at one time. A microtransaction, especially a gambling one where you pay and immediately find out if your investment was worthwhile or not, can allow dozens of such transactions in a matter of minutes. If I fire up ME3 MP the first time and REALLY want to play a Volus Engineer, I could pay a hundred dollars, theoretically, and not get said character.

There's a limit in how many movies you can consume at one time, but the only upper limit on how many movies you can purchase is monetary. You can buy movies far faster than you can watch them... and still not find one you want.

But even putting the RNG aspect aside, there is no method to prevent someone from spending hundreds, if not thousands, if not TENS OF THOUSANDS, of dollars on microtransactions. Just like there is nothing stopping someone from going into a casino and losing the same amout of money. Yet the casino industry is heavily regulated, both in terms of where it canoperate and who it can allow to use its facilities.

...but not in how much people can spend. Which is the issue here. Plus, online gambling.

When we talk about ME3, a game that already has an M rating, and which can only make puchases through a credit card, which can only be issued to people of a certain age...

Does a video game company suffer the same penalties if an 11 year old spends $50 in an afternoon as they would if that same kid tried to gamble that at a casino? Or tried to buy cigarettes? Heck, the 11 year old couldn't even buy a pack of condoms in many places without a legal guardian givjg the okay.

If the 11 year old spends $50 dollars to play a game already not sold to 11 year olds, they're stealing a credit card and improperly playing the game in the first place. This falls onto the parent or guardian (who, yes, can report the credit card as stolen and file to not be charged).

Yet with video games, this is entirely possible. One creit card hookup to your Steam or XBL account and a minor can spend every dime in their parent's savings without even so much as a flag being raised.

Actually, flags are raised- in the credit card statements. Which the card holder can be expected to realize and challenge. Same as if any other online purchase agency gets a massive purchase.

You aren't actually saying anything unique to DLC- just online credit card purchases. The same theft/misuse can apply to an amazon account, or any number of other online retailers.

And before anyone says "that's the parent's job" I'd quickly point to the countless instances where video games have been blamed and the industry suffered due to parents not doing their jobs.

And you're pointing to... what? The same thing every other retailer deals with and has dealt with for years?

Also, collectible card games are small time. Church raffles also are a form of gbling - the government and legal bodies just knows its better to let small-operation instances like that have free reign instead of trying to become mired in the inner workings of such a minute amount of real impact.

Trading cards are small time? By what standard? It's a billion dollar industry across several continents that's been kicking for almost a century.

One of the largest companies in a billion dollar industry? Now you are looking at a target worth going after if they prove unreliable enough to regulate themselves.

Comparative size confusion aside, what's more unreliable about DLC purchases than any other digital purchase?

[Dean_the_Young]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Why would parents ever give their child unlimited spending power like that?  That would be crazy.  Those people deserve to be bankrupt.

Parents give money to their children so their children can buy things. For an online store, a parent can't just give their child $20. They need a credit or debit card, which often allows unfettered access to the money in the account or the amount of money lent.

I'd say it's not so much the parents being irresponsible as financial technology not keeping abreast with modern spending.

The ideal solution would be for banks to provide parents limited spending debit cards for their children. That way a parent could say 'this card only has access to $40 per month.'

If we're talking Bioware, EA, or Microsoft, their stores allow
you to buy points. The parent can buy the points, and let the child
spend them. Since Microsoft/EA points can often only be bought in various blocks, it's a way to limit spending.

[In Exile]

I'm not especially familiar with torts outside of the corporate/securities field, so with the caveat that this is not legal advice and that any user reading this should speak to a lawyer about their rights, I'd imagine it would have to be some form of misrepresentation. 

If we take the item packs as an example, if a company distorted the odds of winning, I could at least see some basis to say that the company misrepresented the product. We might distinguish gambling by saying I could reliably find out those odds. Though I don't know if misrepresenting odds of winning a game of chance would be actionable. 

Modifié par In Exile, 30 novembre 2013 - 06:33 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Okay, we're getting somewhere.

DLC has been around for a few years and there hasn't so much as a whisper of litigation. So have all kinds of transactions exchanging real money for virtual goods. ME 3's multiplayer system might be a bit of a potential issue since players don't know the exact drop odds, but aside from that, how is it not honest and clear?

I'll take these one point at a time.

DLC is not my favorite practice, nor one which I participate in nor endorse. But it, by the same token, is limited in what damage it can do to a player. I'm willing to bet money that if we did some serious digging, we wouldn't be able to find more games that had chargeable DLC that cost more than a base, AAA $60 game than we have fingers on one hand... if any exist at all. ME3 had Jahvik ($10), possibly some items packs (let's just say an addition $5), the EC (free), Leviathan ($10), Omega ($15) and Citadel ($10). Altogether, that is $50, less than the $60 price tag and Bioware is known in the industry as putting out lots of DLC for their games, a model they have received notice for from other developers about. So, ultimately, the damage is rather limited. Again - I think it's a poor value proposition - a quarter or fifth of the base price, yet barely a few hours of content is a terrible cost/benefit ratio - but there are only so many DLC you can buy before you own them all... and at a price that cannot devastate anyone's life.

Now... virtual goods are another discussion. They can mean so many different things that it would behoove us to start divying them up.

Good Types
1) Cosmetic - a new farm building in Farmville could be an example, or a Manchester united banner to unlock for your CoD avatar. What-have you. 

2) Game boosts - these are your XP boosts, or +X% damage,  or health bonuses, or higher drop rates, etc. These actually affect gameplay and can result in the odds being balanced more to players... for a cost, of course.

3) Gear - Similar to boosts, except these represent actual items in-game. Instead of 10% more damage, as a boost would do, gear usually represents a certain level of quality. This can be uber-grade level, unobtainable without purchases (like many "pay to win" models) or it can be gear that isn't the highest, maybe even mid-tier, but available earlier than it would be earlier (think Ser Issaac's armor for DA2... well, I know you haven't played DA2, let alone seen its promotional virtual goods, but use your imagination). 

4) Characters/classes - This can range from unlocking Yoda in Soulcaliber to unlocking the Volus Infiltrator class in ME3 MP. Basically, a character or class you can play that gives a different appearance and (usually) different abilities or gameplay for your in-game avatar. 

5) Consumables - Last, but certianly not least, we have consumables. These are items that are used in game, for a (very) limited number of times and assist with gameplay. While similar to game boosts, they are usually much more immediate in their application and instead of lasting for a certain period of time, usually wait until activation before the clock begins ticking.


Distribution Types
1) DLC -  I've covered this earlier. Do not like, but it's limited range of damage keeps it from being a true threat to game companies in terms of ways for consumers to abuse it and come after them.

2) Delayed Effect Purchase - This would be like buying a new outfit, or a new barn in Farmville, or a new class in ME. You purchase the item, it gets added to your inventory, your collection grows and you continue the game. It is a bit more passive... but not in any way less dangerous. The Simpson's Tapped Out game can have a player spending real money to buy donuts, the virtual currency, and buying seasonal-themed items regularly every few months, with some items costing $10 a piece. Times that buy a dozen or so seasonal items (they just ended their Halloween themed event and are now moving on to Christmas) and a player can easily sink hundreds of dollars into the game over the course of months and not be vividly aware.

3) Immediate Effect Purchases - You see this often with action games, especially those of competitive play. Purchases that can revive your fallen character and get you back in the action, or those that give your team a damage multiplier during a match, etc. 

There is a blurry line here sometimes with consumables and the last two categories. In one way, they are almost always delayed effect purchases, since they are purchases ahead of time. Yet their use is often an immediate one, such as using medigel during ME3's MP. I'd lean them more towards the delayed purchase, although EA exec John Riticello once mused in a public stock holder's meeting about charging for bullets if you are needing a reload, which would pretty much be the most blatant example of the exact behavior I am saying will completely ruin the entire practice for the gaming industry and result in regulation being needed to prevent this type of gross manipulation of gamers... but John is no longer apart of EA or the video game industry, so that may be beating a dead horse.



One aspect I have mentioned is quantity. DLC is not an overly dangerous model simply because there is a rather finite amount of it. Otehr types of virtual goods, such as cosmetic skins or characters, can be small. Extra outfits in ME2 could be bought, which only resulted in ten extra outfits. Only two or three classes are locked in certain online games, which only result in a few purchases before the options are eliminated. However... ME3's MP? 

There were dozens of diffferent classes, dozens of different weapons and dozens of different capacity upgrades. But, on top of that, each upgrade could be earned or purchased nine times, giving a slight bonus each time to that weapon/class/etc. You are talking about the total number of unlockable items being in the thousands. 

While earning in game credits to buy packs was very easy and not very time consuming, there still were dozens of unlockables the player could really want and it could require hundreds of item packs before they could realistically have them in their hands. It could result in a player just wanting to buy them all.

And there are players that do.



Because for every game where you can use real life money, there are people who use way too much. And that's where the danger comes in. No matter which type of virtual good a company is trying to get you to buy - a shiny new outfit, a brand new character to have run around your virtual town, a new weapon that will give you an advantage in the next MP match or a cute dog to play with and show off to your virtual friends... there are people who pay WAY too much for it all. 

So, no big deal, right? People buy stupid stuff all the time. Buyer's remorse, their own responsibility, the internet's been doing it for years... stop being paranoid, Fast Jimmy.

But I'll go back to my McDonald's example. McDonald's was founded in 1940 as a small barbecue joint in San Bernardino, CA. It shifted to becoming a burger stand in 1948 and began franchising, with the "official" McDonald's corporation being started in 1955. 48 years later, a man sued McDonald's and three other fast food chains for making him obese and not informing him of the content of what he was eating. In 2010, 70 years after the first meal was served at a McDonald's, a Brazilian man successfully won a suit against McDonald's for the weight he gained while he was employed there, citing he was forced to eat the food and it was now adversely affecting his health.

It took over half a decade for suits to start coming out of the woodwork against the fast food industry. Even longer for the tobacco industry, and the alcohol industry as well. Microtransactions and virtual goods have been a serious, legitimate business for barely a decade. If anyone really thinks that there won't be suits and, tailing right behind those, a wave of popular support legislation for the flavor of the week's social justice cause, then I seriously think you are underestimate the power of selfish individuals in large groups with what they feel is right on their side.

Video games aren't a fast food industry. They aren't tobacco. Or alcohol. Or gambling. Or hardcore narcotics, like cocaine or heroin. They aren't products that, inherently, are dangerous for people to use... until people start making them that way to maximize profit. In the past half decade, we've really seen the growth of the DLC model and, now, the microtransaction one, as video game companies are toeing the line of a new revenue stream that they see as an endless piggy bank... but which they should be looking at as a giant bear trap, always on the cusp of clamping down on a company and forcing them to cut off their leg to get out. 

Free to Play models, social games... heck, even collectible card games - they all represent small fish in a big pond. They aren't worth the effort to reel them in, despite how booming one company can be for four to six quarters straight with the newest Candy Crush, or Angry Birds, or what have you. Very small fish, not worth eating after you have to throw them in the fryer.

But a big catfish, that's been circling the pond a few decades, that's been eating its fill of profitable ventures and has the infrastructure to take a big chunk of it and not have the whole house of cards collapse on itself? Now that's a tasty looking fish. One that's worth reeling in. One that would still have enough meat once you scorched it in the deep fry for a little while to get your meal. That fish is EA and if it doesn't think there isn't a hook out there with its name on it, then I question the sanity of those who make such decisions on behalf of their company.

/rant

Maybe I overlooked it three times, but I don't think you answered his question.

Without talking about McDonalds, or other games, or anything but ME3's MP microtransactiosn-

How was ME3's MP transactions not honest and clear?

You said you didn't like it, but you made no argument that the transactions weren't honest, or that they weren't clear. Just that you might not get what you wanted.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

One aspect I have mentioned is quantity. DLC is not an overly dangerous model simply because there is a rather finite amount of it. Otehr types of virtual goods, such as cosmetic skins or characters, can be small. Extra outfits in ME2 could be bought, which only resulted in ten extra outfits. Only two or three classes are locked in certain online games, which only result in a few purchases before the options are eliminated. However... ME3's MP? 

You've failed to address this point several times now.

Any consumer product can be prone to abuse. I can go on amazon.com right now and burn my entire salary on new computers. Why would a court make a distinction between someone who blows his entire salary on multiplayer packs vs. buying a billion copies of the same sweater or any other item? That is key for your point to make any sense. Because otherwise, companies are screwed no matter what they do, at the hands of irresponsible consumerism. And the only clear counter (since you view a potential lawsuit as being the single worst scenario possible) is to close up shop.

There are regulations, industry guidelines and flat out laws that control how a company like Amazon can advertise to you to sell thier product. But there are no such restrictions on how a video game can entice you to buy microtransactions.

You're avoiding the question again by changing arguments. The consumer harm comes from the irresponsible consumer spending money to the point that they're broke. Your previous arguments rested on that microtransactiosn could see people spend hundreds of dollars in short order.

How is the same consumer not harmed if they quickly spend hundreds of dollars on a different product?

Amazon can't make it so cold outside that you feel that sweaters are your only venue of clothing that is effective against the cold. Yet a game maker can make the player feel they will lose (or at least lose lots of their time struggling) without the use of a microtransactions. "Grind for ten hours... or buy the XP bonus, or the uber-gear, or the secret character and breeze through the game, instead."

A game company also can't make you stay and play the game. Playing, grinding, or purchasing are all voluntary commitments of the player- unlike environment, which neither Amazon or anyone else controls.

Are there any glaring examples of games that do this? Some online and/or social games, maybe. No AAA games to date, to my knowledge. Then again, the idea of an on-disc DLC character was exactly the type of "doomsday" scenario many opponents of DLC predicted when the DLC model was first begun - that consumers would be paying for unlock codes, not for actual downloaded content. And, to some degree, that has been seen by companies like Capcom and Bioware.

There is nearly a limitless number of ways a game maker can design a game to coerce gamers to pay extra money for transactions. Because the game maker controls the environment of the game and, essentially, can engineer their market's own need, that sets them up very easily in an unethical situation.

How are these coercion? Even if you factor in advertisement?

The basic definition of coercion is 'the action or practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats'. What threat is being raised against the consumer in this case? That they will have to play a luxury good for a longer period of time to achieve a luxury advantage?

Can you beat a game without a healing potion? Sure - it could be hard as snot, but a gamer could do it. What if you could purcahse potions with in-game gold as well as buying potions through real-life currency? Now what if in-game gold was an intensely rare commodity, such that you'd want to use it for weapons, never for something as throw-away as a potion. Or what if it is like Fable 3, where the amount of gold you amass determines story outcomes... would you rather buy a potion with in-game gold and get sub-par story outcomes, or spend real money and then get the happiest endings?

I could keep going, but I shouldn't need to - microtransactions aren't just video game developers creating their own store... they are also creating their own supply and demand for their own product. They are creators, distributors and sole benefactors of the content they sell.

Actually, this is just you creating strawman fallacies unrelated to the question you were being asked.

You're rambling, and poorly.

With every passing year, we've seen a larger presence of online game content and microtransactions for AAA video games. Developers and publishers are looking at these methods as very large, untapped revenue streams and push the boundary of what the industry has seen to date on a regular basis. How long until a developer goes too far? How long until a game is so popular, that people throw money at it not to take shortcuts, but, instead, to avoid insane amounts of tedium or difficulty? 

Until the developers and corporations marginalize themselves and fail to make a return because people decided to spend their money elsewhere.

That's what generally happens in the luxury good industries. No regulation needed- if you charge more than the market will bear for a product that provides insufficient satisfaction, the market won't support it.

It's a game of Russian roulette developers are playing, where they are seeing just how much gamers will put up with and still buy their game. But it's not just consumer resilience they should worry about... they should worry about consumers getting TOO resilient and accoustomed to the practice, such that they don't even notice that they've thrown more money than they could ever hope to afford into a system and are now trying to blame the company who "made" them.

First it was coercion, now it's an analogy of of life or death? Drama queen, much?

Let's not delude ourselves any more- incredibly irresponsible and obsessive consumers are not the foundation of the industry.

[Dean_the_Young]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

If I had to propose anything, the industry should figure out how they want to do microtransactions in a way that is both safe for consumers (even bonehead consumers) and still be a maintainable practice for developers. Just like the industry did with the ESRB, develop a set of standards that either developers would need to abide by to qualify as "consumer friendly" with the way the microtransactions are done, or give a rating system of how risky the different systems can be. Something where the consumer can be at least educated and aware of the type of game they are picking up without needing to worry about if they are going to be ripped off or not. AND without abusing customers (or allowing them to abuse themselves) so bad that a governing entity comes in and dictates to the industry the solution they deem neccessary... which is, much more often than not, not a solution that businesses enjoy.

Hey, what a great time to see if you can answer this question again.

What sort of regulation would solve the issue that the businesses would not enjoy?

Or, you know, cut back or even scrap microtransactions in games that already cost $60. The entire industry has lasted for decades without the revenue stream of digital transactions... it can do so again. Saying "the cat's out of the bag" after just a few short years of it is silly, especially when many developers have yet to EVER include DLC or microtransactions or other products in their games.

...you do realize that inflation has occured, right? That 60 decades ago was considerably more than now?

The industry hasn't survived as a single model during that time. If we ignore the crash that almost destroyed it, the industry also evolved new revune sources in franchising and, well, post-release content.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

dishonest an clear wouldn't be the right words, I could rob someone and still be honest and clear about my intentions, microtransactions are reprehensible and wrong, you should not have to pay more money after buying a 60 euro game

Modifié par DinoSteve, 30 novembre 2013 - 07:10 .

[Fredward]

DinoSteve wrote...
dishonest an clear wouldn't be the right words, I could rob someone and still be honest and clear about my intentions, microtransactions are reprehensible and wrong, you should not have to pay more money after buying a 60 euro game

-blink- As far as I'm aware no one makes you but the extras. And presumably they are that, extras. A lot of people seem to assume bits get cut off of the main game and then shipped out later with an extra price tag. Except for day one companions who totally do that I don't see how that's the case. Seriously I don't like microtransactions either (capitalism to the MAX!) but that doesn't make it robbery. You choose to buy DLC you do not choose to be robbed. Unless you're an undercover cop I guess.

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

I didn't say it was robbery, I said it was reprehensible and wrong, and while it is up to you to buy it, the games MP is set up in such a way to make you want to buy it. I have read about people who have spent about 500 quid on it, that is ridiculous, and the way Bioware released ME3 that in order to get the perfect ending in SP you had to play MP and to be good at MP you had to use microtransactions, it makes me angry to think about it, what they did and are doing deserves condemnation. Only after an outcry of people did they fix SP.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 30 novembre 2013 - 07:31 .

[Fredward]

DinoSteve wrote...
I didn't say it was robbery, I said it was reprehensible and wrong.

You used a robbery as an example tho. Anyway I'm curious, to what degree do you think this is reprehensible and wrong? Do you think it should be made illegal? Or do you just wish companies would stop doing it?

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...
I didn't say it was robbery, I said it was reprehensible and wrong.

You used a robbery as an example tho. Anyway I'm curious, to what degree do you think this is reprehensible and wrong? Do you think it should be made illegal? Or do you just wish companies would stop doing it?

I don't think it should be made illegal but thereshould be laws to say how they should be used for instance in a F2p game I agree with them as the initial game is free or very cheap, but when you fork out 50-65 Euro for a game, the game should be complete, there should be no microtransactions. If you want to make a MP game with microtransactions, then give the game to people for free or make its purchase price cheap.

Modifié par DinoSteve, 30 novembre 2013 - 07:37 .