162 réponses à ce sujet

[Red Panda]

otis0310 wrote...

Knowing EA they will charge $20 for a new set of armor that it took them 5 minutes to make.

However, I like DLC the way Bethesda makes them. Look at the DLC for Skyrim, those things are like full blown expansion packs. They are easily worht the $20 I paid each. Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 each enjoyed pretty good DLC that was worth the money.

If EA made good quality DLC like that I would buy it. But knowing EA, $20 won't get you a full sized expansion pack, it will get you a single suit of armor.

That is a gross hyperbole. It'll get you an hour long (if you don't run at all, do all sidequests, and idle in game-for a bit)  DLC.

[ghostzodd]

OperatingWookie wrote...

otis0310 wrote...

Knowing EA they will charge $20 for a new set of armor that it took them 5 minutes to make.

However,
I like DLC the way Bethesda makes them. Look at the DLC for Skyrim,
those things are like full blown expansion packs. They are easily worht
the $20 I paid each. Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 each enjoyed
pretty good DLC that was worth the money.

If EA made good quality
DLC like that I would buy it. But knowing EA, $20 won't get you a
full sized expansion pack, it will get you a single suit of
armor.

That is a gross hyperbole. It'll get you an hour
long (if you don't run at all, do all sidequests, and idle in game-for a
bit)  DLC.

You think 20.00 for an hour is better?

Modifié par ghostzodd, 19 janvier 2014 - 06:34 .

[snackrat]

Regarding OP, I don't like the idea of 'real-money exclusive' stuff, because it (1) gates the community and (2) makes players feel only valued for their money. (Which maybe they are, but they don't want to FEEL that way.)

In regards to ME3, it may have worked better if BWP could buy SPECIFIC chracters/weapons, so it was still possible to get them normally but there was still an incentive for them. As opposed to "here have another go at the one-armed bandit".

[Axdinosaurx]

OperatingWookie wrote...

otis0310 wrote...

Knowing EA they will charge $20 for a new set of armor that it took them 5 minutes to make.

However, I like DLC the way Bethesda makes them. Look at the DLC for Skyrim, those things are like full blown expansion packs. They are easily worht the $20 I paid each. Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 each enjoyed pretty good DLC that was worth the money.

If EA made good quality DLC like that I would buy it. But knowing EA, $20 won't get you a full sized expansion pack, it will get you a single suit of armor.

That is a gross hyperbole. It'll get you an hour long (if you don't run at all, do all sidequests, and idle in game-for a bit)  DLC.

20$ for a 1 hour DLC is outrageous. <_<

[Fast Jimmy]

Karsciyin wrote...

Regarding OP, I don't like the idea of 'real-money exclusive' stuff, because it (1) gates the community and (2) makes players feel only valued for their money. (Which maybe they are, but they don't want to FEEL that way.)

In regards to ME3, it may have worked better if BWP could buy SPECIFIC chracters/weapons, so it was still possible to get them normally but there was still an incentive for them. As opposed to "here have another go at the one-armed bandit".

I know the reason they avoided that was to circumvent players feeling that there was a "pay to win" option, but gambling real money for a shot at virtual goods is something that really doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure of a way that you can truly circumvent pay-to-win scenarios without it being something like this, where your real money doesn't result in known tangible benefits, but that may be an inherent problem with microtransactions in general - you can't get around people paying to win unless you make paying an effort in stupidity. 

[LinksOcarina]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Karsciyin wrote...

Regarding OP, I don't like the idea of 'real-money exclusive' stuff, because it (1) gates the community and (2) makes players feel only valued for their money. (Which maybe they are, but they don't want to FEEL that way.)

In regards to ME3, it may have worked better if BWP could buy SPECIFIC chracters/weapons, so it was still possible to get them normally but there was still an incentive for them. As opposed to "here have another go at the one-armed bandit".

I know the reason they avoided that was to circumvent players feeling that there was a "pay to win" option, but gambling real money for a shot at virtual goods is something that really doesn't sit well with me. I'm not sure of a way that you can truly circumvent pay-to-win scenarios without it being something like this, where your real money doesn't result in known tangible benefits, but that may be an inherent problem with microtransactions in general - you can't get around people paying to win unless you make paying an effort in stupidity. 

There is also legal ramifications for that too, namely it would be impossible to legalize that in the U.S and Europe if that was the only way to get  items or weapons. Because BioWare gave the option for both it was ok, but honestly paying money for points to roll the dice on a high level pack is usually not worth the price of admission.  

Modifié par LinksOcarina, 19 janvier 2014 - 06:24 .

[LinksOcarina]

ghostzodd wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

otis0310 wrote...

Knowing EA they will charge $20 for a new set of armor that it took them 5 minutes to make.

However,
I like DLC the way Bethesda makes them. Look at the DLC for Skyrim,
those things are like full blown expansion packs. They are easily worht
the $20 I paid each. Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 each enjoyed
pretty good DLC that was worth the money.

If EA made good quality
DLC like that I would buy it. But knowing EA, $20 won't get you a
full sized expansion pack, it will get you a single suit of
armor.

That is a gross hyperbole. It'll get you an hour
long (if you don't run at all, do all sidequests, and idle in game-for a
bit)  DLC.

You think 20.00 for an hour is better?

What would be optimal then for a DLC, and does time equate quality or no?

[Wheel_of_Fate]

Aulis Vaara wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

Putting prices on purely optional sidequests could get a bunch of money, you know.

Of course, I'd rather see it for getting certain NPC skins and what not.

Are you... cheering... for being ripped off? You should be up in arms over microtransactions in SIXTY BUCKS games. It's in your best interest as a consumer to be against this.

Anyone who thinks microtransactions in a game they already bought and paid for is an idiot.

I realise this game will most likely have microtransactions, but I will never be ok with this, and it will certainly factor in to whether or not I'll buy this game. And I urge everyone here to make their own assessment. Seriously start looking out for your own self interest, or soon, your favourite games might not be completable or enjoyable without investing another hidden sixty bucks on top of the retail price.

This. Some people here are just begging to get ripped off. Spend your pocket money on something really useful for once. 

[ghostzodd]

LinksOcarina wrote...

ghostzodd wrote...

OperatingWookie wrote...

otis0310 wrote...

Knowing EA they will charge $20 for a new set of armor that it took them 5 minutes to make.

However,
I like DLC the way Bethesda makes them. Look at the DLC for Skyrim,
those things are like full blown expansion packs. They are easily worht
the $20 I paid each. Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 3 each enjoyed
pretty good DLC that was worth the money.

If EA made good quality
DLC like that I would buy it. But knowing EA, $20 won't get you a
full sized expansion pack, it will get you a single suit of
armor.

That is a gross hyperbole. It'll get you an hour
long (if you don't run at all, do all sidequests, and idle in game-for a
bit)  DLC.

You think 20.00 for an hour is better?

What would be optimal then for a DLC, and does time equate quality or no?

You must really have a hard on for me huh, is your ego that sensitive?
 

Modifié par ghostzodd, 19 janvier 2014 - 10:00 .

[TeamLexana]

I felt the micro-transactions for the ME3 MP were well done actually. Anyone who paid money wasn't guarenteed to out gear you right out of the gate and all the items were attainable without spending a nickel, all you had to do was play.

Plus, if they did let peeps pay money for specific items like Harriers for example, everyone would have and only use Harrier X's and thus force them to nerf said weapon even harder and faster then before to "force" peeps into spending money on other packs. If it was me and I spent a good deal of real life money to get that Harrier and to X it - I'd be so livid that I'd never play it again. That's bad business. It was bad enough before but at least if the weapon was more or less "free" it wasted time you're time put it trying to get that weapon - not you're real money.

Moreover on that, if I couldn't afford to buy the "Harrier" like item and had to unlock it naturally (assuming that would even be an option), I'd despise the peeps who cry nerf after they spent a bunch of money to get it and max it and use it even more then I hate peeps who cry nerf now, lol. Peeps with more disposable income then me, shouldn't get the right to "police" how I play my own damn game.

[Mirrman70]

I like all forms of paid for DLC, it reminds me of how much more money I have than the people who spend all their time whining about rather than making money.

[ghostzodd]

Mirrman70 wrote...

I like all forms of paid for DLC, it reminds me of how much more money I have than the people who spend all their time whining about rather than making money.

Lol what:O