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 Types1) 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
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 novembre 2013 - 01:03 .
Guest_EntropicAngel_*
Retour en haut
