263 réponses à ce sujet

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

I don't think it's fair to call the "virtual lottery ticket" of ME3 MP packages as dishonest. People were told exactly what they were buying.

Whether it was a good idea to implement this however, is up for debate.

I, for one, got rather annoyed that I didn't get a good "ticket" and stopped purchasing packs after a try or two.

Maybe it should be the consumer's job to know their limits. It's the consumer's responsibility after all. 

More options is rarely a bad thing. 

Modifié par Lebdood, 29 novembre 2013 - 12:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

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.

Assuming the consumer will have impulse control is a bad idea. It's just a terrible business decision. 

It begs an instance to appear where someone becomes homeless while they push tons of cash into your game. Or a mother buying cosmetic skins while Child Protective Services says she is an unfit mother who doesn't feed her kids. 

The media already blames every shooting or act of violence on video games - does anyone honestly think every instance of poverty or neglect by someone who owns a video game system being laid at gaming's feet wouldn't be a very real scenario that would further perpetuate the stereotype that gamers are nerds who have an unhealthy obsession with their pasttime? When you open the possibility for someone to spend an unlimited amount of money on your game... someone will spend WAY too much for their own means. Which makes it a ticking time bomb until just the right person (or wrong, depending on your perspective) to do it and be picked up on 24 hour news rotation on a slow news week. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think it's fair to call the "virtual lottery ticket" of ME3 MP packages as dishonest. People were told exactly what they were buying.

Whether it was a good idea to implement this however, is up for debate.

I, for one, got rather annoyed that I didn't get a good "ticket" and stopped purchasing packs after a try or two.

Maybe it should be the consumer's job to know their limits. It's the consumer's responsibility after all.

For the record, you stopped buying because you had bad luck. Do you know how the vast majority of habitual gamblers start out? Winning. Going on hot streaks, hot streaks that they are convinced are the norm that will be replicated if they just keep pumping money into the system... and ultimately wind up paying in MUCH more than they ever get out.

You bought, with real money, the item pack for the chance to get something you wanted. Here was a higher chance of you getting something you didn't want than there was to get what you did. And you weren't communicated clearly the chances of getting what you wanted. How is that different than a virtual lottery ticket or slot machine? At least with gambling, the casinos/lottery operators are legally forced to give you the odds of winning if you request.

And, again... assuming consumer responsibility is, to put it plainly, dumb. Look at industries that made this assumption: alcohol, gambling, tobacco, fast food... these industries said "our products are possibly unhealthy, but if people are smart and use them in moderation, then they are totally fine... So we don't need to put any safeguards in place."

And yet, now, all of these industries have regulations placed by various governments on them. Restrictions on advertising, disclosure information required, age restrictions, lobbyist organizations who make it their entire existence to put these industries out of business, tons of money in donations and programs to help combat their negative images...

People will always do stupid things with the products and services on the market. And if they can say with any level of confidence that the problems that befell them are because of your company, they will.

It is better to take steps as an industry first to self-regulate rather than wait for the wordt to happen and suffer the insanely harsh penalties that come from the mob that comes with torches and pitchforks.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Assuming the consumer will have impulse control is a bad idea. It's just a terrible business decision. 

It begs an instance to appear where someone becomes homeless while they push tons of cash into your game. Or a mother buying cosmetic skins while Child Protective Services says she is an unfit mother who doesn't feed her kids. 

The media already blames every shooting or act of violence on video games - does anyone honestly think every instance of poverty or neglect by someone who owns a video game system being laid at gaming's feet wouldn't be a very real scenario that would further perpetuate the stereotype that gamers are nerds who have an unhealthy obsession with their pasttime? When you open the possibility for someone to spend an unlimited amount of money on your game... someone will spend WAY too much for their own means. Which makes it a ticking time bomb until just the right person (or wrong, depending on your perspective) to do it and be picked up on 24 hour news rotation on a slow news week. 

I think you're being a little too harsh on video game industry and their responsibilities towards their consumer base.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Assuming the consumer will have impulse control is a bad idea. It's just a terrible business decision. 

It begs an instance to appear where someone becomes homeless while they push tons of cash into your game. Or a mother buying cosmetic skins while Child Protective Services says she is an unfit mother who doesn't feed her kids. 

The media already blames every shooting or act of violence on video games - does anyone honestly think every instance of poverty or neglect by someone who owns a video game system being laid at gaming's feet wouldn't be a very real scenario that would further perpetuate the stereotype that gamers are nerds who have an unhealthy obsession with their pasttime? When you open the possibility for someone to spend an unlimited amount of money on your game... someone will spend WAY too much for their own means. Which makes it a ticking time bomb until just the right person (or wrong, depending on your perspective) to do it and be picked up on 24 hour news rotation on a slow news week.

First of all, that has already happened.  When EverQuest first got big, there were stories of parents neglecting their kids to play EQ.

That wasn't bad for MMOs, and it didn't even appear to harm EQ.

Second, you're basically describing how smartphones already work.  I had to specifically configure mine to require my password in order to buy things with it (which I did mostly to make me stop and think about what I was doing).  No one seems particuarly up in arms about it.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Assuming the consumer will have impulse control is a bad idea. It's just a terrible business decision.

Isn't the whole point behind these multiplayer packs to make bank off the consumers who don't have impulse control? It's certainly worked for most trading card games.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

And, again... assuming consumer responsibility is, to put it plainly, dumb. Look at industries that made this assumption: alcohol, gambling, tobacco, fast food... these industries said "our products are possibly unhealthy, but if people are smart and use them in moderation, then they are totally fine... So we don't need to put any safeguards in place."

And yet, now, all of these industries have regulations placed by various governments on them. Restrictions on advertising, disclosure information required, age restrictions, lobbyist organizations who make it their entire existence to put these industries out of business, tons of money in donations and programs to help combat their negative images...

People will always do stupid things with the products and services on the market. And if they can say with any level of confidence that the problems that befell them are because of your company, they will.

It is better to take steps as an industry first to self-regulate rather than wait for the wordt to happen and suffer the insanely harsh penalties that come from the mob that comes with torches and pitchforks.

This reminds me of the same-sex romance discussion that got closed earlier. Some people held pitchforks and torches when BioWare included non-heterosexual options. It doesn't mean they will stop.

This applies to transactions as well. Freak incidents are always going to happen and victims may blame the company on occasion. It's still their responsibility.

[Sylvius the Mad]

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.

If you're making a niche product, that's irrelevant.

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.

Great.  That's more peopel who could potentially pay $160 for a game.

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.

Giant, inefficient companies.

As little as 15 years ago, AAA games were getting made by teams of 20 people.

I'm not saying that today's games could be made with 20 people.  I'm saying that great games can be made with 20 people.

[Lebanese Dude]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Assuming the consumer will have impulse control is a bad idea. It's just a terrible business decision.

Isn't the whole point behind these multiplayer packs to make bank off the consumers who don't have impulse control? It's certainly worked for most trading card games.

I suppose this is rather true lol

It reminds me of those pokemon pogs that you collected from buying potato chips. Yeah...

[Fast Jimmy]

First of all, that has already happened. When EverQuest first got big, there were stories of parents neglecting their kids to play EQ.

That wasn't bad for MMOs, and it didn't even appear to harm EQ.

Second, you're basically describing how smartphones already work. I had to specifically configure mine to require my password in order to buy things with it (which I did mostly to make me stop and think about what I was doing). No one seems particuarly up in arms about it.

And millions of people got fat from fast food before someone filed a lawsuit and won a multi-million dolar suit and now fast food restaurants across the globe are including calorie counts right next to their menu choices.

And smartphones are an even younger market than video games. Heck, even internet shopping is younger than the option to spend extra money on video games (there were arcade games that practically were rigged to require a steady stream of quarters, lest we not forget).

These types of suits are not a matter of "if" but when if industries don't attempt some form of either disclaimer (which throughly informs the consumer) or limitations (such as how much money can be spent in a certain time period, or one that takes into account some form of means test).

I'm not saying the video game industry should start these practices, mind you. I'm saying they should avoid microtransactions altogether, simply because they are getting themsves in some very thorny, ugly territory when (again, not if) things turn sour.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 01:03 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Outside of causing bodily harm, health issues, or malicious and intention damage to a person on a non-physical level ala stealing money from their accounts, disclosing their personal information, compromise their system to viruses, spy on them, and otherwise inconvenience them without their consent, video game companies don't really have much of an obligation to control their customers lives and what decisions they do or don't make.

Marketing and advertising are two separate beast all together, but in terms of a companies duty in providing an option service that doesn't force individuals to use it, I think that is fair.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

First of all, that has already happened. When EverQuest first got big, there were stories of parents neglecting their kids to play EQ.

That wasn't bad for MMOs, and it didn't even appear to harm EQ.

Second, you're basically describing how smartphones already work. I had to specifically configure mine to require my password in order to buy things with it (which I did mostly to make me stop and think about what I was doing). No one seems particuarly up in arms about it.

And millions of people got fat from fast food before someone filed a lawsuit and won a multi-million dolar suit and now fast food restaurants across the globe are including calorie counts right next to their menu choices.

And smartphones are an even younger market than video games. Heck, even internet shopping is younger than the option to spend extra money on video games (there were arcade games that practically were rigged to require a steady stream of quarters, lest we not forget).

These types of suits are not a matter of "if" but when if industries don't attempt some form of either disclaimer (which throughly informs the consumer) or limitations (such as how much money can be spent in a certain time period, or one that takes into account some form of means test).

I'm not saying the video game industry should start these practices, mind you. I'm saying they should avoid microtransactions altogether, simply because they are getting themsves in some very thorny, ugly territory when (again, not if) things turn sour.

Really? Because from this side of the screen, it really seems like you are when you bring up lawsuits and what the video game industry should do if they don't want them.

[Fast Jimmy]

This reminds me of the same-sex romance discussion that got closed earlier. Some people held pitchforks and torches when BioWare included non-heterosexual options. It doesn't mean they will stop.

This applies to transactions as well. Freak incidents are always going to happen and victims may blame the company on occasion. It's still their responsibility.

Two totally different concepts.

People can protest about gay romances and don't have a legal leg to stand on - it's a simple preference of a game feature. If you don't like it, don't buy the game. If you buy the game and it has this feature you dislike, you don't have much of a legal leg to stand on, since no real hwrm is done (although a Better Business Bureau complaint could be an avenue of recourse, although it wouldn't likely result in much due to it being an optional feature).

But enticing players to spend money, with no limit that could allow them to spend much more than would be wise? That is rife with possibility of doing harm - even if that harm is the result of the consumer's poor judgment. That is the realm of legal recourse, which is what I'm referring to here.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 01:12 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Disclaimers I guess wouldn't be too bad, limitations would just led to further lawsuits however as the limit would become a constantly contested thing.

And I don't find the choice of "You either go down this path and face legal action or you avoid it by not doing it at all" to not be much of a fair choice at all, especially if it is for something that isn't illegal and is arguably not immoral.

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Outside of causing bodily harm, health issues, or malicious and intention damage to a person on a non-physical level ala stealing money from their accounts, disclosing their personal information, compromise their system to viruses, spy on them, and otherwise inconvenience them without their consent, video game companies don't really have much of an obligation to control their customers lives and what decisions they do or don't make.

Marketing and advertising are two separate beast all together, but in terms of a companies duty in providing an option service that doesn't force individuals to use it, I think that is fair.

Casinos don't inflict any harm outside of possibly taking huge sums of money from people without any real goods or items of worth. That's exactly what we are talking about here. And there are MOUNTAINS of extrs regulations, taxes and lobbying against that industry. 

So it is a very real possibility. And, to be honest, just because here isn't a legal precedent for it doesn't mean an industry is safe from having to answer for the harm that can come about from misuse of their product unless they work to do proper indemnification. After all, there's reasons why companies put notes such as "do not iron clothes while wearing them" for Pete's sake. It's not because they got bored and thought it would be funny to add the tag. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Really? Because from this side of the screen, it really seems like you are when you bring up lawsuits and what the video game industry should do if they don't want them.

If the industry is going to be down the route of such revenue streams, then it becomes inevitable. If, instead, they stay on the side of selling a clear product for a clear price and not opening the doors for consumers to spend a totally open-ended amount of money on their product, then they don't need to worry about it.

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Disclaimers I guess wouldn't be too bad, limitations would just led to further lawsuits however as the limit would become a constantly contested thing.

And I don't find the choice of "You either go down this path and face legal action or you avoid it by not doing it at all" to not be much of a fair choice at all, especially if it is for something that isn't illegal and is arguably not immoral.

It's not illegal to sell someone cigarettes, which can lead to cancer. It's arguably not immoral.

Yet how many BILLIONS has that industry paid out in lawsuits, PR campaigns and lost revenue. Lost revenue is a big one - the limits on how the ads can be distributed, the increased price due to morality taxes, the crippling campaigns against smoking in nearly every place that could be called public (including apartments)... it's a can of worms. 

[Giga Drill BREAKER]

This guy: www.youtube.com/watch has the right of it, if you are paying 60 euro for a game, you should not have to fork over more for the complete experience, microtransactions are fine in f2p games but they should not be in games bought for full price off the shelf or downloaded. It is a bad business pratice, there should be a law stopping it.

[StElmo]

Wulfram wrote...


Though I do think making multiplayer a standalone F2P is potentially a good idea. They could stick in a "free starter pack" with the main game to get some cross promotion.

Basicall what I am thinking Justifies to MT's and it makes purchasers feel special

[StElmo]

Plaintiff wrote...

I wish more games would release significant DLC packs closer to the release date. I bought the season passes for The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite and Assassin's Creed III & IV, but by the time the DLC gets released, I've already moved on to other games.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have content not worked on before release of the major game without it being months late.

I prefer the later content to be honest, stoked for Bioshock and Last of us DLC personally

[Fast Jimmy]

StElmo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I wish more games would release significant DLC packs closer to the release date. I bought the season passes for The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite and Assassin's Creed III & IV, but by the time the DLC gets released, I've already moved on to other games.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have content not worked on before release of the major game without it being months late.

I prefer the later content to be honest, stoked for Bioshock and Last of us DLC personally

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

[StElmo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

StElmo wrote...

Plaintiff wrote...

I wish more games would release significant DLC packs closer to the release date. I bought the season passes for The Last of Us, Bioshock Infinite and Assassin's Creed III & IV, but by the time the DLC gets released, I've already moved on to other games.

You can't have it both ways. You can't have content not worked on before release of the major game without it being months late.

I prefer the later content to be honest, stoked for Bioshock and Last of us DLC personally

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

yeah that'd be awesome.

[Lebanese Dude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

I like expansion packs more than DLC, but they seem to be a dying breed.

[Il Divo]

Lebdood wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I feel like an expansion pack around one year after release is a good model. But that's probably just the grognard in me. 

I like expansion packs more than DLC, but they seem to be a dying breed.

I'd prefer my content out faster myself.

[Fast Jimmy]

Double Post

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 29 novembre 2013 - 01:57 .