750 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Micro-transactions, to me, are the most insipid in the industry. It fosters a form of game development that directs said development(The new forza game as the latest example).

[Il Divo]

Ninja Stan wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

I factor it in. This game will be like 30.00 after 6 months. So the moral that  people should not buy games day one and just wait till they are cheap.

That's what I do, since buying a game on day 1 is not a priority for me. For others, it's definitely a priority. It's not my place to tell those people that they are wrong, dumb, or otherwise inferior for making a choice that's different from mine.

Which still I'd say goes to show that cost/benefit analysis in its strictest form is not an acceptable metric by which to judge a product's value, since there are several dlc's which from a price stand point are a much worse deal than base games, but have still managed to keep me entertained.

If, as consumers, all we wanted was the best deal possible, we'd be playing DA:O now (only $7 on Steam for all the dlc as well), instead of at launch.

[ghostzodd]

Meltemph wrote...

Micro-transactions, to me, are the most insipid in the industry. It fosters a form of game development that directs said development(The new forza game as the latest example).

Jim sterling has a great video on Microtransactions and how they are doing harm to the industry, Publishers could care less though its all about the mula. It really has done some damage though *cough* dead space 3.

[ghostzodd]

Filament wrote...

For the record, a perfunctory check of vgchartz, unreliable as it may be, indicates that the 3.4 million number for Tomb Raider is, in fact, based on unit sales.

and thats what I did. I got DAO ultimate last year on steam for 15 dollars. We the consumers have the power to change the market by voting with our money.

[In Exile]

Meltemph wrote...

Micro-transactions, to me, are the most insipid in the industry. It fosters a form of game development that directs said development(The new forza game as the latest example).

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play). 

[ObserverStatus]

Ninja Stan wrote...
There are many people in this discussion trying to convince everyone that Day 1 DLC is an unethical practice that they'd like to see abolished. Okay, let's say that, for the sake of argument, Day 1 DLC content is deliberately ripped from the bas game to be sold to you as DLC. Now what? How does it affect you or your decision to buy/not buy the game? What are your stakes in this situation? Aside from the content itself, why is this the hill you're choosing to die on rather than, just as one example, wanting developers to make better games, period?

Personally I don't think it's necessarily unethical for a developer to rip content out of a game and sell it as Day 1 DLC, it just reduces the value of the product in my mind when I choose how to spend my entertainment budget. If I decide that a new video game and its $15 day one DLC are worth $75 to me, I'll buy them, but if not, I'll be feeling more inclined to either wait for a price drop, buy the game when it's on sale, hold out for a Collector's Edition of the game containing all the DLC, or I might just skip the DLC altogether.

The thing is though, that I have no objective way to quantify the value of video game content. Instead, these choices I make are based almost entirely off of my personal feelings. So if I hear that the Day 1 DLC I might consider buying is "disc locked" or otherwise ripped out from the base product, than whether these allegations are true or not, they may reduce the value of the base product in my mind when making the decision as to whether or not it is worth my money.

But as you seem to have implied in your previous posts, if EA continues selling the game for $60 and the Day 1 DLC for $15 and they aren't going out of business, than the complete package must be worth $75 to someone, and that's fine with me. I don't see selling a video game for $100+ to people who have the money to buy the game and all the DLC on the days they arrive, and then letting the rest of us wait for a price drop, as being any more sinister than a book publisher selling the hardback edition for more than the paperback. It just depends on what each consumer's money is worth to them. 

[Il Divo]

bobobo878 wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
There are many people in this discussion trying to convince everyone that Day 1 DLC is an unethical practice that they'd like to see abolished. Okay, let's say that, for the sake of argument, Day 1 DLC content is deliberately ripped from the bas game to be sold to you as DLC. Now what? How does it affect you or your decision to buy/not buy the game? What are your stakes in this situation? Aside from the content itself, why is this the hill you're choosing to die on rather than, just as one example, wanting developers to make better games, period?

Personally I don't think it's necessarily unethical for a developer to rip content out of a game and sell it as Day 1 DLC, it just reduces the value of the product in my mind when I choose how to spend my entertainment budget. If I decide that a new video game and its $15 day one DLC are worth $75 to me, I'll buy them, but if not, I'll be feeling more inclined to either wait for a price drop, buy the game when it's on sale, hold out for a Collector's Edition of the game containing all the DLC, or I might just skip the DLC altogether.

The thing is though, that I have no objective way to quantify the value of video game content. Instead, these choices I make are based almost entirely off of my personal feelings. So if I hear that the Day 1 DLC I might consider buying is "disc locked" or otherwise ripped out from the base product, than whether these allegations are true or not, they may reduce the value of the base product in my mind when making the decision as to whether or not it is worth my money.

But as you seem to have implied in your previous posts, if EA continues selling the game for $60 and the Day 1 DLC for $15 and they aren't going out of business, than the complete package must be worth $75 to someone, and that's fine with me. I don't see selling a video game for $100+ to people who have the money to buy the game and all the DLC on the days they arrive, and then letting the rest of us wait for a price drop, as being any more sinister than a book publisher selling the hardback edition for more than the paperback. It just depends on what each consumer's money is worth to them. 

Phrased it much better than I ever did.

This times a thousand.

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

In what way is DA:Heroes broken by microtransactions?

As context, I do play it, and I haven't given them a cent.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 31 décembre 2013 - 12:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My favorite example, the new Tomb Raider was a failure to Square Enix, despite making 3.4 million dollars.

That's roughly the equivalent of both Dragon Age games combined so far.

Are you confusing sales versus revenue? Selling $3.4 million in revenue is abysmall and even DA2 blew that out of the water. 3.4 million in sales is close to two hundred million in revenue.

Careful where you throw your accusations, Jimmy. Your numbers and math were pretty atrocious earlier in this discussion, and reflected a very subjective and distorted, not to mention ignorant, view of reality. Note that, in this particular case, $200M in revenue is retail sales split up among all the various retailers. The publisher doesn't get anywhere near this amount.

Also, depending on the game's budget, $3.4M in sales may be good or bad. For a AAA title, it's probably bad, but without knowing the actual budget for Tomb Raider, I can't say that it's definitely bad. Don't throw numbers around unless you can back them up.

I'm not sure how saying it was nearly impossible for Tomb Raider to have $3.4 million in revenue (or profit, for that matter) is an accusation, per se? I think it was just a misconception of revenue versus unit sales. And, as someone else confirmed - 3.4 million units sold was what Tomb Raider did and was still considered less than a success by Squaresoft/Enix.

I'd challenge what numbers of mine were atrocious, as well? I'm not claiming to be an authority, but I'm curious to see what areas were grossly off base given your industry perspective. As you just said, publishers don't get anywhere near the amount of gross revenue, so the only questionable numbers I can remember using was the 25% of gross revenue being profit margin for the publisher. To which I admit was merely a stab... but I can't imagine it not being in the ballpark (give or take 10%).

All the other numbers, like the 50% D1DLC attach rate, or the 4.5 million total unit sales for ME3 or that most DLC costs $10 are all based on fairly public pieces of knowledge.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale? 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale?

I'm forced to ask the same question.

But, unlike Jimmy, I don't see a problem with either.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale? 

But the scale and frequency is all the difference. What's the difference between Day 30 DLC and an expansion pack except scale? 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale? 

But the scale and frequency is all the difference. What's the difference between Day 30 DLC and an expansion pack except scale? 

Exactly. And what is scale? The volume of benefit gained from price point. That is it. Expansions have more content to justify their $30 price point. A microtransaction that unlocks a small piece of content for a $1 has a small price point to keep the player at a low price threshold.

Which brings us back to the base question - perception. You view microtransactions as the bane of gaming because their scale makes them so subtle, that they can easily become insidious to the industry and slowly creep and cross the line of decency without developers even be aware of it, let alone properly course correct.

The same goes for D1DLC. Is the current model the absolute worst gaming industry consumer experience? Or even the worst entertainment industry consumer expereince? No. But it leads down a terribly slippery slope.

DLC was originally weapon packs or extra costumes. Then it has slowly become much, much more. Now it is not only an acceptable practice, but a foregone conclusion. Do people not see this is the path? As I mentioned earlier, would people be as carefree if there were two D1DLC companions? Or three? Or an entire section of the main plot cut out? What if Orzammar was a D1DLC? You wouldn't need it to complete the base game - after all, you can still recruit forces to fight the Blight and nothing about Orzammar offered you anything more to the main game aside from the content, side quests and companion you can recruit.

That's why I am advocating free D1DLC to new copies. Because it limits the scope of what D1DLC can be - Bioware isn't going to make Orzammar as D1DLC if the content is free, simply because it is giving away too much. They won't give away three companions for free, simply because one is all you'd need to clinch the New unit sale. 

If you draw the line in the sand, saying "this is where we, as gamers, are comfortable things staying" then that is the line that stays. Saying to developers that "well, we understand you had to do work for this and, even if you planned on not finishing this content before going Gold just so that you could finish it up duirng post-production to sell it to us for extra, we understand" then that is basically saying "go ahead and take the next step," whatever that next step may be. When someone toes the line and the reaction is "that's okay," it's not saying "where you wound up wasn't so bad, so we'll overlook it" but rather "it's okay to toe that line, you won't ever get in trouble as long as you toe it in increments."

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale? 

I think that is a personal distinction, just like the differences between DLC and expansion.  For me a microtransation is something that speeds up playing the game such as buying resourses or character unlocks, but its something if I invest the time I can accomplish without spending anything.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Exactly. And what is scale? The volume of benefit gained from price point. That is it. Expansions have more content to justify their $30 price point. A microtransaction that unlocks a small piece of content for a $1 has a small price point to keep the player at a low price threshold.

I disagree. It's not the volume of benefit gained from the price-point. Or rather, that's a way to operationalize it mathematically from the POV of business analysis, but I think it misses something very substantive when we're either trying to understand the psychology of consumers or the actual comparative merits of different types of product design. 

The scale is the quantity (and quality) of content, not the utility (in microeconomic terms). 

You view microtransactions as the bane of gaming because their scale makes them so subtle, that they can easily become insidious to the industry and slowly creep and cross the line of decency without developers even be aware of it, let alone properly course correct.

No. I view microtransactions as the bane of gaming because they so fundamentally alter the design of a game that you're dealing with a product design to be tedious and unpleasant at its base to encourage you to purchase extra content to make the experience less aggravating. Microtransactions are bad because they turn the philosophy of game design from "fun" to "not-fun and aggravating", not because of some insiduous creep. 

I don't care about how a practice spreads: I care about whether in principle I agree with it or not on its merits. 

In the case of DLC, the complaint isn't that somehow Bioware would make Orzammar an insane grind so that I'd purchase Warden's Keep, but that they'd design Orzammar side-by-side with the main game and them ask if I wanted to purchase it at release (or in advance by pre-ordering). 

DLC was originally weapon packs or extra costumes.

And that point, I considered it a scam and wouldn't pay money for it. I had no opinion on other content becoming available other than a general opposition to digital content because I was quite young and my internet didn't have the capability for digital content. 

What if Orzammar was a D1DLC? You wouldn't need it to complete the base game - after all, you can still recruit forces to fight the Blight and nothing about Orzammar offered you anything more to the main game aside from the content, side quests and companion you can recruit.

That would be OK. I wouldn't mind if Bioware in the future made all of their DLC extra plot regions like that instead of quasi-fluff like Legacy and MoTA. 

If you draw the line in the sand, saying "this is where we, as gamers, are comfortable things staying" then that is the line that stays. Saying to developers that "well, we understand you had to do work for this and, even if you planned on not finishing this content before going Gold just so that you could finish it up duirng post-production to sell it to us for extra, we understand" then that is basically saying "go ahead and take the next step," whatever that next step may be. When someone toes the line and the reaction is "that's okay," it's not saying "where you wound up wasn't so bad, so we'll overlook it" but rather "it's okay to toe that line, you won't ever get in trouble as long as you toe it in increments."

Again: microtransactions fundamentally change game design. The strongest complaint against DLC is that it rips up the game and forces you to pay more for it. That's not the same as making developers create an entirely different kind of game. 

Edit: It's exactly like your criticism re: adding MP to DA:I and the effect it would have on gameplay. It's the design philosophy shift that makes it dangerous. 

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2013 - 12:42 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale?

I'm forced to ask the same question.

But, unlike Jimmy, I don't see a problem with either.

My problem is that, at certain scales, the transactions in no way improve the overall game quality. 

An expansion often adds new game features, new forms of gameplay, new expereinces. DLC rarely does this (although it has been known to happen). Microtransactions never do, to my knowledge.

Just like I would support a $70 price tag over paying $60 and then buying a $10 D1DLC, simply because a $70 price tag for the base game would demand a higher overall experience and quality, while a $10 D1DLC will simply add 5 hours (max) of the same base quality game.

[In Exile]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
In what way is DA:Heroes broken by microtransactions?

As context, I do play it, and I haven't given them a cent.

Because at a certain point, the random number generator aspect of the packs that you get and the incredibly difficulty spike make it such that you have two choices: grind, and grind for a very long time, or pay IRL money to progress. A parallel would be making XP so rare, and the power curve between levels so high, that you'd have to fight random mobs for days to level up enough to move on to the next DA:O-type screen. 

[Fast Jimmy]

Sanunes wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale? 

I think that is a personal distinction, just like the differences between DLC and expansion.  For me a microtransation is something that speeds up playing the game such as buying resourses or character unlocks, but its something if I invest the time I can accomplish without spending anything.

This isn't always true. Many games have special classes that can only be unlocked by paying, for example. I'd definitely say this is a microtransaction, but there is no possible way I could unlock this content simply by playing a lot. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 12:57 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The same goes for D1DLC. Is the current model the absolute worst gaming industry consumer experience? Or even the worst entertainment industry consumer expereince? No. But it leads down a terribly slippery slope.

It's funny how the slope always starts being slippery right at the point where the poster doesn't like the practice.

[Fast Jimmy]

No. I view microtransactions as the bane of gaming because they so fundamentally alter the design of a game that you're dealing with a product design to be tedious and unpleasant at its base to encourage you to purchase extra content to make the experience less aggravating. Microtransactions are bad because they turn the philosophy of game design from "fun" to "not-fun and aggravating", not because of some insiduous creep.

I don't care about how a practice spreads: I care about whether in principle I agree with it or not on its merits.

In the case of DLC, the complaint isn't that somehow Bioware would make Orzammar an insane grind so that I'd purchase Warden's Keep, but that they'd design Orzammar side-by-side with the main game and them ask if I wanted to purchase it at release (or in advance by pre-ordering).

Doesn't the DLC model, especially the D1DLC model where content could be truly edited out of the main game (by other developers less scrupulous than Bioware, of course) and sold separately, completely alter the game industry by the same stroke? Sure, it doesn't place arbitrary obstacles in the way hoping the player throws money at it, but it still encourages developers to see what content would be most likely to sell as a standalone product and to charge for it.

Grinding microtransactions make the journey to what you really want harder and longer in hope that the player will throw money at it. DLC takes destinations you'd want to see out of that journey and asks the player to pay more to see them all. Aren't those two sides of the same coin?

Again: microtransactions fundamentally change game design. The strongest complaint against DLC is that it rips up the game and forces you to pay more for it. That's not the same as making developers create an entirely different kind of gmae.

See, I have a completely different viewpoint on the subject.

Combat difficulty is something that is to be overcome. I wouldn't pay to go through it if the developer purposefully made it so difficult I had to use MTX - I would just turn the game off, sell it to Gamestop for what I could and blast it as one of the worst designed games I'd encountered to anyone who would listen.

Story content, especially by a developer like Bioware that focuses their story content as their leading strengths, is the cheese in the maze. It is what we, as the players, are chasing after more often than not, when navigating the game's obstacles. No matter what I do as a player, I'll never be able to experience it as DLC without paying money. It's not an added challenge, it is a diminished experience. And the foreknowledge that I, as the player, am missing out on content has a very easy way of diminishing the content I am already seeing.

Either way, our enjoyment of the base game is harmed by these development practices. I am feeling like every scene, conversation or interaction the game gives me could possibly have been made better if I had just forked over the money... you feel that every game that offers microtransactions was possibly made overly hard for the sole purpose of squeezing money out of you. Yet if the DLC didn't exist, I wouldn't second guess every scene I saw. And if the microtransactions weren't in your game, you'd think it was pretty brave of the developer to put such difficult sequences in a game to challenge today's gamers.

Again... perception creates the reality here.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The same goes for D1DLC. Is the current model the absolute worst gaming industry consumer experience? Or even the worst entertainment industry consumer expereince? No. But it leads down a terribly slippery slope.

It's funny how the slope always starts being slippery right at the point where the poster doesn't like the practice.

Expansion packs were very slippery slopes as well. If you think I am saying differently, then I apologize. 

But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

[Billy-the-Squid]

In Exile wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...
The market size has also increased immensely. The game industry is bigger then the movie industry now, there is a reason why game prices havn't got up much. But for AAA titles they are slightly higher..

But look at what that means for games. COD, for example. The room for error and experimentation falls to 0 when costs of production are so high that you need absolutely insane sales to be succesful with your product. DA2's sales would have been phenomenal in 2002, but they're a failure for when it came out. Skyrim was a legend that probably outsold alll the isometric RPGs combined. And so on.

Really? I don't think CoD is a good example at all. There is no experementation because it doesn't need it, it caters to a market that demands exactly what CoD provides, it doesn't want anything "innovative" it doesn't have to as it caters to a very obvious mass market need. The problem is everyone else trying to copy CoD... which is counter productive as everyone already has CoD, so why buy a CoD clone? The market is finite, which is something that publishers seem to fail to grasp in a bid to unseat CoD aka Battlefield 3, as they did with WoW and TOR.

Frankly, in terms of Dev cost CoD is a terrible example, as it uses the same engine tweaked repeatedly in each game. It doesn't have to drop a truckload of cash on new engines, it doesn't have to constantly draw up new concept art and designs as they are recycled, and really writing in a CoD game is as straight forward as you can get, while the market is captured. 

It becomes a problem when your production costs have ballooned to monstrous sizes, yet CoD's haven't and it knows it's market and knows it's not going anywhere. Payday 2 is a better example, it's not graphically fancy, cost significantly less to make and yet sold 2 million within 2 months, it was profitable just from pre orders alone for God's sake! Before it was even released at retail! Yet, it is a very specific game, difficult, requires planning, co ordination between players when making a heist and doesn't cater to anyone that doesn't want to get into it. It didn't need to huge capital investment, and the pay off was proportionately higher than a AAA game like Tomb Raider. 

You are saying that experimentation is impossible because the investment risk is far too high, but as you and I both know through dealing with finance and investement markets, that if the risk is high, any savy investor mitigates the risk by diversifying the portfolio or limiting the exposure in terms of ratios invested in a particularly volitile area. Publisher's haven't done that, they've all gone after the CoD market, trying to capture it with "the new shiny" Yet, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil 6 and Dead Space 3 proved, that increasing capital investment in development with no understanding of the draw of the IP and the underlying market's capacity to absorb the product is doomed to failure, given that the CoD market simply won't buy a Dead Space 3 FPS clone, because it already has a myriad of options. 

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

And if a expansion pack was available day one would that be acceptable? Or would it have to be offered free? Or maybe the company should offer up their books so you could confirm that it was indeed made from a extra budget that might possibly be using code and content cut from the main game?

[Fast Jimmy]

Really? I don't think CoD is a good example at all. There is no experementation because it doesn't need it, it caters to a market that demands exactly what CoD provides, it doesn't want anything "innovative" it doesn't have to as it caters to a very obvious mass market need. The problem is everyone else trying to copy CoD... which is counter productive as everyone already has CoD, so why buy a CoD clone? The market is finite, which is something that publishers seem to fail to grasp in a bid to unseat CoD aka Battlefield 3, as they did with WoW and TOR.

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:14 .