263 réponses à ce sujet

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Eurypterid wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Because it would probably lead to better games.

I think you're fooling yourself if you really believe that. But I'm a cynic.

No you're not, David is just retarded and obtuse.

That David guy has to be trolling.

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David7204 wrote...

I would love publishers to raise the price of games.

I'm totally with David on this one.

In 1986, new games cost something like $160 (in 2013 dollars).  Selling the games at a lower per-unit price has turned it into a volume business.  Developers are now forced to pursue the largest possible market.

Yet if a price change resulted in seriously less volume, then it will just result in less revenue, overall.

I'm an advocate of higher game prices, as people who have read my posts may know, but to get away with a drastically smaller market, games would need to cost well over $100 UNLESS the content is far and away better than anything on the market.

Researchers have said even a $70 price tag will drive away gamers... and I think that's faulty logic. You don't ask a gamer today who is paying $60 a game if they would pay $70 for one... of course they will say no. 

Instead, you'd sell the game as "this game offers features X, Y, and Z, which no other game on the market offers, would you buy this?" And, of course, many gamers would say yes. THEN you ask "would you pay $70 for this?" to which many gamers would, again, say yes, since they are seeing stuff they never have before or may have only dreamed of.

The microtransactions and DLC work the same way, excpet instead of selling a core game that is better than the rest of the market, it entices players with "did you like this game/series? Well here are some morsels of content that are just like it, for only the cheap price of $10!"

It's easier and more economical to have the same grade of content and charge $10 for more of it rather than creating a phenomenal game that has quality above all the other games in the market (which charge the standard $60 price tag) to justify its higher price tag. But it's why I am for higher game price tags instead of more piecemeal revenue appraoches like DLC and microtransactions... simply because a higher price tag would result in titles that would be of a higher quality (or result in titles that are lambasted for being only $60 quality with a $70 price tag, which will likely happen for a number of such titles as well).

I'd rather get a game that has to prove how amazing it is to get more money rather than a game be just good enough to keep the addicts coming back for their DLC fix.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:00 .

[Eurypterid]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
I'm totally with David on this one.

In 1986, new games cost something like $160 (in 2013 dollars).  Selling the games at a lower per-unit price has turned it into a volume business.  Developers are now forced to pursue the largest possible market.

It's a volume business anyway. The market now is huge compared to the market in 1986, since gaming is far more mainstream than it was. The industry is a much bigger beast. This means even without trying to appeal to the largest possible market that the base of potential consumers for any particular game is larger than it was in 1986.

As well, there are a lot more development companies today, big and small. More competition means, generally, lower prices. Market forces at work. Higher game prices likely would be a pretty tough sell.

Higher game prices won't necessarily mean bigger profits either (I personally think it would have a detrimental effect as far as revenue goes). And no matter what the profits are, more money (as noted) does not necessarily mean better quality.

[Eurypterid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I don't disagree with the logic that without the time after the game goes gold that certain content wouldn't be finished, but I highly doubt it is coincidence that it is a companion and their associated recruitment mission EVERY TIME without it being by design. Would there be content that didn't make it to the main game/bugs that wouldn't be fixed without this extra time? No doubt. But would that content just so happen to correspond to another companion if not by plan? No, I'd (personally) highly doubt it.

I think you're wrong here. I believe there is a lot more work involved in making a companion with the various dialog/interactions and quests associated with them than there is with making new areas or dungeons. I'm no dev, so can't claim I'm not talking out of my ass, but from what I've understood from various dev comments on various gaming forums, this seems to be the case. So when it comes time for content lockdown and deciding what needs to be cut to make the deadline, wouldn't it make more sense for it to be a companion than a couple dungeon maps?

Fast Jimmy wrote...
The catch is that Bioware can't easily sell a few extra dungeons levels, a few small side quests and/or some bug fixes as a $10 DLC package... but they can sell a companion. So it's possible they select which companion that would be, put the companion's work on the back burner, then finish the less marketable aspects of the game. If the priority was to finish all companions, but skimp on some dungeon maps, would fan outcry about being sold a game with cut content be as loud?

I don't know... but I'd doubt it. 

I think it would actually be worse. Your post seems to indicate you think extra dungeons are far less important or valuable than a new companion. Assuming most people have a similar view, if BioWare decided to sell 'cut content' that consisted of dungeon maps, don't you think the outcry would actually be louder? I certainly do.

Modifié par Eurypterid, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:08 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Tequila Cat wrote...

What's the point of yours? I find him one of the most obtuse and obstinate, are you taking tips from him as well?

You literally called a member "retarded" and "obtuse".

You have no right to describe any member in a negative manner because, not only is it against forum rules, but it also means you're judging someone very prematurely. They may simply me misguided.

If David comments in ways you don't agree with, then disagree on those opinions, and not on David's character himself.

At least he maintains civility in his posts. You on the other hand are being quite rude.

Modifié par Lebdood, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:10 .

[BioWareMod02]

Enough arguing, back on topic please. I don't enjoy locking threads but I will if I must.

[Eurypterid]

Lebdood's right, Tequila Cat. I suggest locking down the insults and following the forum rules, please.

[Lebanese Dude]

BioWareMod03 wrote...

Enough arguing, back on topic please. I don't enjoy locking threads but I will if I must.

I'm sorry. I just don't believe name-calling should be tolerated, but I suppose it's not my place to educate people either.

[Wulfram]

I don't worry about bioware micro-transactions being exploitative, but about them being contrary to good game design.

If people are paying to skip a grind, that does create a question as to why that grind is there. Cosmetic items are a lot less problematic, though if the game isn't free then I expect to have a decent amount of options to begin with.

Micro-transactions can also be annoyingly tacky if promoted the wrong way - I can put up with tacky in a free game, but in a £30 game invitations to spend more money should be discrete.

As for putting up the price, from my point of view I see little reason to accept a price rise when I can always wait a pretty short time and get the game at considerably less that it's launch price.

[Fast Jimmy]

Assuming most people have a similar view, if BioWare decided to sell 'cut content' that consisted of dungeon maps, don't you think the outcry would actually be louder? I certainly do.

The thing is people wouldn't buy cuts maps, or bug fixes, or side quests, or the drudge of miscelany the devs are likely to be working on in the final months. But people WILL pay for a companion. If the development team put all the work into the companions to finish them before going Gold, then spent the month or so between Gold and release working on bugs and released a Day One patch, the same amount of content is ultimately released in both models... but Bioware would be blasted for charging for a patch... while they can get away with charging for a companion.

And the amount of work involved with a companion: the cutscenes, the recruitment levels, the combat animations, the interaction with game events and other characters... it represents a TON of work. Why just chuck out such a huge chunk of work? That's practically throwing a sizeable part of the budget right into the trash can. To say that happens with EVERY game release from Bioware since 2009 either indicates (to me) a deliberate act or a reoccurring misappropriation of resources and scheduling at a gross level. To toss out something representing thousands of combined man hours worth of work like a companion on a repeated level by accident is a high level of inefficiency... inefficiency that just happens to result in higher revenue streams, BTW.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:25 .

[Lebanese Dude]

Wulfram wrote...

I don't worry about bioware micro-transactions being exploitative, but about them being contrary to good game design.

If people are paying to skip a grind, that does create a question as to why that grind is there. Cosmetic items are a lot less problematic, though if the game isn't free then I expect to have a decent amount of options to begin with.

Micro-transactions can also be annoyingly tacky if promoted the wrong way - I can put up with tacky in a free game, but in a £30 game invitations to spend more money should be discrete.

I agree with your comments regarding the promotion.

Micro-transactions should always have their own section in the user interface. If you want to buy something, feel free to click a button in the interface (or menu) to access the store. Otherwise, it shouldn't really stand out and be in your face.

However, I don't mind having non-cosmetic options available. If people want to purchase an option that provides 5% more experience, then it's their business. I don't see much of a difference between that and item DLCs (frankly those make the game considerably easier than they should be).

As long as micro-transactions don't affect the game in a game-changing way, then whatever they sell is fine by me. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy them though.

Modifié par Lebdood, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:25 .

[Eurypterid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


The thing is people wouldn't buy cuts maps, or bug fixes, or side quests, or the drudge of miscelany the devs are likely to be working on in the final months. But people WILL pay for a companion. If the development team put all the work into the companions to finsih them before going gold, then spent the month or so between Gold and release working on bugs and released a Day One patch, the dame content is ultimately released in both models... but Bioware would be blasted for charging for a patch... while they can get away with charging for a companion.

And the amount of work involved with a companion, the cutscenes, the recruitment levels, the combat animations, the interaction with game events and other characters... it represents a TON of work. Shy just chuck out such a huge chunk of work? That's practically through a sizeable part of the budget right into the trash can. To say that happens with EVERY game release from Bioware since 2009 either indicates (to me) a deliberate act or a reoccurring misappropriation of resources and schedulig at a gross level. To toss out something representing thousands of combined man hours worth of work like a companion on a repeated level by accident is a high level of inefficiency... inefficiency that iust happens to result in higher revenue streams, BTW.

Yeah, I guess we're just going to disagree on this issue. From reading about how the development went on several games (not just BioWare's) as told by some of the devs, I don't get this kind of picture at all. What you're looking at as 'misappropriation of resources' is simply part of game development. Some things get cut. Some sooner, and some later in the development cycle. It happens to every game and every developer. That's the nature of it.

[Fast Jimmy]

As long as micro-transactions don't affect the game in a game-changing way, then whatever they sell is fine by me. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy them though.

I find that people usually say the acceptable level of microtransactions or other transactions is usually the level JUST above what they don't see themselves buying. I may be drawing an incorrect conclusion, just something I feel I've observed.

[Fast Jimmy]

Yeah, I guess we're just going to disagree on this issue. From reading about how the development went on several games (not just BioWare's) as told by some of the devs, I don't get this kind of picture at all. What you're looking at as 'misappropriation of resources' is simply part of game development. Some things get cut. Some sooner, and some later in the development cycle. It happens to every game and every developer. That's the nature of it.

Fair enough. It's not something I'm convinced happens (and definitely not a mountain I'd like to die on), at Bioware or at other developers, but from my own experience in project management, it just seems odd that the most marketable piece of content Bioware makes - companions - is the thing that never quite makes the cut for development and has to be completed after the main game... where they just happen to be able to cash in.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

As long as micro-transactions don't affect the game in a game-changing way, then whatever they sell is fine by me. It doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy them though.

I find that people usually say the acceptable level of microtransactions or other transactions is usually the level JUST above what they don't see themselves buying. I may be drawing an incorrect conclusion, just something I feel I've observed.

Well it's a fair observation.

For example:

1) I won't buy an item that allows you to create an infinite amount of potions, because that would make the game too easy.
2) I might buy an item pack DLC that gives me access to a type of weapon that I normally can't get ingame, but isn't very different from whatever is already present.
3) I will buy a cosmetic item that I find awesome/sexy/whatever.

So I propose that the acceptable limit is option 2 with more lee-way with regards to how much of an improvement that item is.

Modifié par Lebdood, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:37 .

[SlottsMachine]

Eurypterid wrote...

It's a volume business anyway. The market now is huge compared to the market in 1986, since gaming is far more mainstream than it was. The industry is a much bigger beast. This means even without trying to appeal to the largest possible market that the base of potential consumers for any particular game is larger than it was in 1986.

As well, there are a lot more development companies today, big and small. More competition means, generally, lower prices. Market forces at work. Higher game prices likely would be a pretty tough sell.

Higher game prices won't necessarily mean bigger profits either (I personally think it would have a detrimental effect as far as revenue goes). And no matter what the profits are, more money (as noted) does not necessarily mean better quality.

I would definitely buy fewer games if they raised prices, and be much more selective in the games that I buy. 

Modifié par General Slotts, 28 novembre 2013 - 11:46 .

[Fast Jimmy]

For me, personally, I can't think of any content I would buy. No bonus items, no story DLC, no stat boosts (like increased XP), no extra companions... nothing would really sell me.

On the other hand, I had no problem buying a game like Rock Band, which cost over $100 for all of its accessories. So it's not a lack of ability or will to spend monry beyond $60 for a game. But, by the same token, I would never buy any of the downloadable songs for extra for Rock Band, either.

I'm probably in the minority, honestly, in that mindset. But it still makes me seriously queasy seeing more and more developers choosing to go the microtransaction route.

[BouncyFrag]

Its all a slippery slope that doesn't lead to a better gaming experience. For instance let's say a game is designed to make leveling up a longer and more tedious experience. Don't like the grind? Easy, just buy an an experience booster pack. This is already in Forza 5. I hate to be pessimistic but all this corporate garbage we see isn't going to go away.

[Eurypterid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For me, personally, I can't think of any content I would buy. No bonus items, no story DLC, no stat boosts (like increased XP), no extra companions... nothing would really sell me.

On the other hand, I had no problem buying a game like Rock Band, which cost over $100 for all of its accessories. So it's not a lack of ability or will to spend monry beyond $60 for a game. But, by the same token, I would never buy any of the downloadable songs for extra for Rock Band, either.

I'm probably in the minority, honestly, in that mindset. But it still makes me seriously queasy seeing more and more developers choosing to go the microtransaction route.

I'm pretty much with you on this. If a game has DLC that looks like something I'd want to have in my game,I won't buy the game on release anymore. I'll wait until the inevitable GotY or Ultimate edition comes out. These compilations are usually much cheaper than the base game alone when it was originally released, so the effect of DLC and microtransactions in my case is that the game actually makes less money off of me.

This is one of the things I posted about in the 'what's your biggest fear' thread in this forum: if Inquisition is going to have a bunch of story-related DLC, then I'll just pass until the GotY comes out.

[Cainhurst Crow]

BioWareMod03 wrote...

Enough arguing, back on topic please. I don't enjoy locking threads but I will if I must.

Come on man, you are good at it. That last lock you did was excellent work.

As for microtransactions, it depends on how it is implimented. I have no problem with mass effect 3's model because it wasn't pay to win. The most expensive packs were avaliable with just 3 extractions on silver. That's not that hard to accomplish. It takes time, sure, but that's time you would have put into the game anyway. And that's for the most expensive pack, the others took even less matches then that to accomplish. But, because people could spend money on packs, and some people did, bioware was able to release lots of content for multiplayer such as new maps, kits, weapons, game mechanics, etc, for free. It was all for free.

Compare that to call of duty where a couple of new maps and a new gun cost you 10 dollars usd, and you tell me that bioware's model is as bad as that. My critique of many who oppose microtransactions is they cast too large a net and react violently without any sort of context or case by case basis. They don't wait to see how it is implimented, or if it is in fact a pay to win model, they jsut hear it's in a game and rage as if a company put but a digital roadblock and told them to pay a tax to cross, even if that isn't the case.

[Fast Jimmy]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Its all a slippery slope that doesn't lead to a better gaming experience. For instance let's say a game is designed to make leveling up a longer and more tedious experience. Don't like the grind? Easy, just buy an an experience booster pack. This is already in Forza 5. I hate to be pessimistic but all this corporate garbage we see isn't going to go away.

And it honestly casts a shadow of doubt on even legitimate decisions. If a game had decided the amount of grinding neccessary to progress was a certain level and it didn't have mocrotransactions, then it may have been seen as a minor fault in reviews, but nothing sinister. If, instead, the same game offers an option to buy an XP bonus for real life money, suddenly it is a conspiracy (whether it was intended or not).

If a developer is to be interupting people's entertainment that they have already paid for with requests for more real life currency (either covertly or overtly), then said developer should be prepared to have every ounce of their game said purchases could affect be examined under an INTENSE microscope for it. People will see conspiracies in it, whether it is true or not - although I'm not one to believe there aren't some serious business decisions being made in terms of how and where these types of transactions are coming into play. 

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For me, personally, I can't think of any content I would buy. No bonus items, no story DLC, no stat boosts (like increased XP), no extra companions... nothing would really sell me.

On the other hand, I had no problem buying a game like Rock Band, which cost over $100 for all of its accessories. So it's not a lack of ability or will to spend monry beyond $60 for a game. But, by the same token, I would never buy any of the downloadable songs for extra for Rock Band, either.

I'm probably in the minority, honestly, in that mindset. But it still makes me seriously queasy seeing more and more developers choosing to go the microtransaction route.

It's arguable that micro-transactions are becoming increasingly prevalent because more people are willing to spend a few extra dollars on a game. 
I have a friend who got his dad to play League of Legends. His father now owns half of the champion skins. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Compare that to call of duty where a couple of new maps and a new gun cost you 10 dollars usd, and you tell me that bioware's model is as bad as that. My critique of many who oppose microtransactions is they cast too large a net and react violently without any sort of context or case by case basis. They don't wait to see how it is implimented, or if it is in fact a pay to win model, they jsut hear it's in a game and rage as if a company put but a digital roadblock and told them to pay a tax to cross, even if that isn't the case.

Eh. Moral relativism doesn't make me feel any better. If the next Call of Duty actually DID charge by the bullet, like the now infamous EA exec comment suggests, it wouldn't make me feel any better about ME3's system. At least with the CoD system, you know what weapons and maps you are unlocking. ME3's system allowed you to use real money to buy a virtual lottery ticket - the player fould spend that money and not get anything they wanted.

Sure, it prevents paying to win... but it also capitalizes on base completionist tendencies many gamers have without a clear idea of what goods they will be getting. To me, that's more dishonest than CoD charging for a map. At least that's a good the player can decide if they want or not.

Not that I like either system... but it's a bit like saying "well, we're not Bank of America, foreclosong people's houses, so that justifies other 'lesser' unethical acts by companies."

[Fast Jimmy]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

For me, personally, I can't think of any content I would buy. No bonus items, no story DLC, no stat boosts (like increased XP), no extra companions... nothing would really sell me.

On the other hand, I had no problem buying a game like Rock Band, which cost over $100 for all of its accessories. So it's not a lack of ability or will to spend monry beyond $60 for a game. But, by the same token, I would never buy any of the downloadable songs for extra for Rock Band, either.

I'm probably in the minority, honestly, in that mindset. But it still makes me seriously queasy seeing more and more developers choosing to go the microtransaction route.

It's arguable that micro-transactions are becoming increasingly prevalent because more people are willing to spend a few extra dollars on a game.

I have a friend who got his dad to play League of Legends. His father now owns half of the champion skins.

Free to Play games are a different breed, in my opinion. Players freely spend more money because they haven't spent any money in the first place. If they play for a while and didn't like the game, no loss. If they do, they may not feel bad spending $10 or so on such a game. They could even see it as supporting a developer they enjoy who has given them this amazing, free product.

Conversely, if I pay $60 for a game and don't like it, I'm screwed. It's not a free ride for me. So if I actually do get a game I like for my $60, to have that game then try and reach their hands in my wallet is even more infuriating. My barrier to entry on the game was $60, $60 which could have been a waste for me (unlike a F2P game I could test out for free) AND I may have to spend more money on top of that to get the "full" experience?

I hope people can understand people's aversion to that. 

[Cainhurst Crow]

But it's not forcing you into paying money to get the content. It doesn't block you from being able to play multiplayer if you don't spend real world money on the multiplayer store. And it doesn't make the alternative to earning in game credits to buy the packs difficult as to leave you with no real alternative but to buy.

So I don't see where the problem is. If people are spending their money on the packs, it's because they would have done so regardless. That is something that is on them, and their impulse control, and not on everyone else to police their behavior for them.