2661 réponses à ce sujet

[cronshaw]

Its relevant because its the exact same system out of the exact same" the customer is nothing more then a wallet to us" playbook except this one is red instead of Yellow....................

 

a double post 

that seems appropriate 

[Cyonan]

Do really expect EA/Bioware not to nerf gold payouts for completing dungeons to "encourage" you to buy platinum currency while a few may have the determination to never buy platinum currency packs most are far too susceptible to cave in because they want to be able to compete with their friends in the eternal game of "my item X is better then your Item X because it does +2 more damage", I have heard of naivete but this takes the soggy old biscuit.

 

I have been video gaming since the mid 80's and have seen this con job tried so many times that I can see it coming hidden underneath all the "hyperbole". sadly it seems too many are blind to it either intentionally through misguided brand loyalty or otherwise.I can only hope people come to their senses before being exploited like this though evidently from the replies in this thread its a wasted venture. 

 

It was a terrible time dealing with those continual nerfs to credit payout in Mass Effect 3. I'm not sure how we ever managed to handle it not actually being nerfed and instead being given bonus credits for the completing the extraction wave.

 

Maybe they could get rid of the micro-transactions and instead charge $10 for a DLC that has nothing but 3 maps in it like Call of Duty does. It's a far bigger rip-off but hey, no evil micro-transactions right?

[Vapaa]

Its relevant because its the exact same system out of the exact same" the customer is nothing more then a wallet to us" playbook except this one is red instead of Yellow....................

 

But it's not the same people making it, so just look at how it's been done with ME3.

[cjones91]

But it's not the same people making it, so just look at how it's been done with ME3.

It may not be the same team but the business strategy is there.EA has done this type of thing before in other games since Micro transactions are their new  money scheme.

[Derek French]

We release MP DLC for free because charging for it has the potential for fracturing the multiplayer community in our game due to customers not having certain maps and being unable to connect and play with friends. It is why we did it in ME3 and it is why we are doing it in DAI.

[AppealToReason]

It was a terrible time dealing with those continual nerfs to credit payout in Mass Effect 3. I'm not sure how we ever managed to handle it not actually being nerfed and instead being given bonus credits for the completing the extraction wave.

 

Maybe they could get rid of the micro-transactions and instead charge $10 for a DLC that has nothing but 3 maps in it like Call of Duty does. It's a far bigger rip-off but hey, no evil micro-transactions right?

COD charges 15. Get your facts right, nerdo!

[NextArishok]

We release MP DLC for free because charging for it has the potential for fracturing the multiplayer community in our game due to customers not having certain maps and being unable to connect and play with friends. It is why we did it in ME3 and it is why we are doing it in DAI.

Exactly.  Look at what a waste of money buying Assassins Creed MP DLC is.  terrible.  Still annoyed by it hahaha. I learned my lesson though.

[Degenerate Rakia Time]

Okay, can someone please explain to me how non obtrusive micro transactions are a bad thing?

[Rogue Roxy]

Derek French ‏@bio_derek 16s

We release MP DLC for free because charging for it can fracture the MP community; not having maps then you can't play with friends.

[hoorayforicecream]

Okay, can someone please explain to me how non obtrusive micro transactions are a bad thing?

 

To some people, the very existence is bad. Like how to some, the very existence of MP is bad.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Me, too. I understand why Bioware would feel that bots defeat the purpose of multiplayer, but I'd love it as an option.

I don't understand that. How would bots defeat the purpose of multiplayer? Is there a purpose of multiplayer beyond just being fun?

[Cyonan]

I don't understand that. How would bots defeat the purpose of multiplayer? Is there a purpose of multiplayer beyond just being fun?

 

My guess would be to have multiple players.

 

Sarcasm aside while I wouldn't really be against being able to have bots as allies, wouldn't that just be a watered down SP?

[Beerfish]

I don't understand that. How would bots defeat the purpose of multiplayer? Is there a purpose of multiplayer beyond just being fun?

You have bots in singleplayer, the word multiplayer means what it says, more than one human playing the game.  Also I'm not sure why you would not try true mp as in essence you can treat the other players as bots.  You don't have to interact with people at ll if you don't want to. 

[Vapaa]

EA has done this type of thing before in other games since Micro transactions are their new  money scheme.

 

And they've done it right in ME3, and DAI has improvements on the formula.

[ElitePinecone]

To some people, the very existence is bad. Like how to some, the very existence of MP is bad.

 

I think it's reasonable to be annoyed with microtransactions if their implementation is obnoxious - like in the case of pretty much every free-to-play and social game in the last few years. The game is a structure on which to build monetisation and funnel the player towards microtransactions, and that fundamentally doesn't sit well with me. I've tried a bunch of those games - particularly Heroes of Dragon Age - and ended up disliking them all eventually.

 

But it's a question of degrees.

 

ME3 and DA:I have prioritised a (hopefully fun) co-operative gameplay experience over just getting people to buy MXT packs, and at worst you could call the platinum currency a time-saving way to unlock better gear. Most importantly, full gameplay is entirely possible without touching paid currency, and progress is earned by investing time in the game itself - so better gear is a natural outcome of repeated play.

 

The system is fundamentally more generous and more fair in the way it balances fun and monetization, and I think this is definitely the route that more games should pursue.

[DisturbedJim83]

We release MP DLC for free because charging for it has the potential for fracturing the multiplayer community in our game due to customers not having certain maps and being unable to connect and play with friends. It is why we did it in ME3 and it is why we are doing it in DAI.

So why is it done differently with other EA products then ? Battlefield 3 and 4 both spring to mind, it also does not help that the way its being presented is identical to many other systems like GTA Online where they even use the same "but the currency packs which in their case is Shark Cards is optional all items can be earned through in game play" only recently have they reversed in part some of the more obviously dubious parts like cutting mission payouts in half then cutting them in half again if you had done that mission before all the while increasing the cost of in game consumables all under the dubious cover of "balancing" which was the direct cause of the "modded bounty lobbies" taking off like a wildfire before it too was cracked down on.

 

While I am opposed to the principle of putting MP into a DA game I'd be less opposed if it was done responsibly,that respects those who want MP instead of treating them like a bottomless money pit.

[Sylvius the Mad]

My guess would be to have multiple players.

Sarcasm aside while I wouldn't really be against being able to have bots as allies, wouldn't that just be a watered down SP?

It would be a different gameplay experience, partly because there's no pausing, and partly because there's no real roleplaying angle (though I suspect I would still roleplay it).

[Sylvius the Mad]

You have bots in singleplayer, the word multiplayer means what it says, more than one human playing the game. Also I'm not sure why you would not try true mp as in essence you can treat the other players as bots. You don't have to interact with people at ll if you don't want to.

Because they can see me.

[DisturbedJim83]

I don't understand that. How would bots defeat the purpose of multiplayer? Is there a purpose of multiplayer beyond just being fun?

they can't get micro transaction payments from those bots lol so if 1 player plays with 3 bots that's 3 potential customers(revenue streams) lost for that session   

[hoorayforicecream]

You have bots in singleplayer, the word multiplayer means what it says, more than one human playing the game.  Also I'm not sure why you would not try true mp as in essence you can treat the other players as bots.  You don't have to interact with people at ll if you don't want to. 

 

The immediate thought is the question of how they would behave. Do they actively seek out the treasure rooms? Do they engage the opponents in an intelligent manner? AI programming is not a trivial task. Would you have to set tactics for them? Do they attempt cross-class combos? Do they have other specific behaviors? Suddenly, you have a combinatorics problems as well for scripting.

 

But then you have to go onto second-order questions that also need answering. What happens if they level up? What abilities do they choose? What about gearing? Where do they get their gear pool from? This takes a non-trivial amount of design work as well.

 

Finally, automating things can become dangerous. If you have bot allies, what about exploiting the bots in order to continuously farm for in-game currency and items while afk?

 

In terms of cost-benefit analysis, I would probably rank this fairly low on the priority list. The feature list for MP already seems pretty lean as is. I'm not sure what they would cut in order to free up the resources to create bots, especially since they're rather engineering-heavy.

[wolfsite]

We release MP DLC for free because charging for it has the potential for fracturing the multiplayer community in our game due to customers not having certain maps and being unable to connect and play with friends. It is why we did it in ME3 and it is why we are doing it in DAI.

and this is why we love you guys...... well some people have a skewed way of showing it but we really do enjoy the work you put into everything.

[Vapaa]

So why is it done differently with other EA products then ? Battlefield 3 and 4 both spring to mind, it also does not help that the way its being presented is identical to many other systems like GTA Online where they even use the same "but the currency packs which in their case is Shark Cards is optional all items can be earned through in game play" only recently have they reversed in part some of the more obviously dubious parts like cutting mission payouts in half then cutting them in half again if you had done that mission before all the while increasing the cost of in game consumables all under the dubious cover of "balancing" which was the direct cause of the "modded bounty lobbies" taking off like a wildfire before it too was cracked down on.

 

While I am opposed to the principle of putting MP into a DA game I'd be less opposed if it was done responsibly,that respects those who want MP instead of treating them like a bottomless money pit.

 

Dude, stop obessing over GTA Online and just look at ME3.

[leaguer of one]

Consider this for a second ok Jim. Bioware released multiple multiplayer DLC all of it was free, each one added new classes, weapons, maps and gear. All this new content required them to wait for it....spend time, money and man hours for content that we the MP fans demanded they add. You don't like Micro Transactions I get it, but I don't care if some whale wants to spend money on a chest so be it but it is in no way forced or required to get the best classes or gear.

 All resources, man power and cost are pre planned for each project. Mp has it's own fiances separate from sp. Nothing in any way is taken from the sp teams.

 

And pouring more man power, recourse, and money does not make a better game.

[Sylvius the Mad]

You have bots in singleplayer, the word multiplayer means what it says, more than one human playing the game. Also I'm not sure why you would not try true mp as in essence you can treat the other players as bots. You don't have to interact with people at ll if you don't want to.

Wait, am I identifiable in MP? Or is my identity mutable?

If my identity is mutable, then I could just treat the other players as bots.

This becomes an important question. Does each player, in MP, have a persistent identity across play sessions?

Letting me be anonymous would take way fewer resources than creating bots (though I'd still prefer bots, as they'd behave more predictably).