127 réponses à ce sujet

[Sasie]

I'm beginning to wonder how/why companies ever put multiplayer into their games before microtransactions if it's truely needed to help with the cost. Personally I find it a repulsive practice, especially with the free to play market where the avarage user might have to pay hundreds of euro just to get a good experiance out of the game. Has anyone seen the trash EA release to the phone market?

At any rate back to Dragon Age. Personally I would think the full priced cost for the game itself would be enough to make it profitable. If they need more to make one feature worth adding perhaps that feature doesn't belong in the game to begin with.

[Zjarcal]

Does that mean I'll get banned if I modify my game or the save files for the single player portion of the game? They really need to clarify this.

 

Honestly, I hate whole "we must have multiplayer for everything" approach. I couldn't even modify my POV in ME3 without worrying getting banned. 

 

You could mod SP in ME3 without getting banned... devs clarified this very early on.

 

Modding SP is fine as long as you don't touch anything that will affect MP.

 

By the time support stops, modding MP is fine too.

[cjones91]

I'm beginning to wonder how/why companies ever put multiplayer into their games before microtransactions if it's truely needed to help with the cost. Personally I find it a repulsive practice, especially with the free to play market where the avarage user might have to pay hundreds of euro just to get a good experiance out of the game. Has anyone seen the trash EA release to the phone market?

At any rate back to Dragon Age. Personally I would think the full priced cost for the game itself would be enough to make it profitable. If they need more to make one feature worth adding perhaps that feature doesn't belong in the game to begin with.

It's all about money and greed,why settle for initial sales when you can make a little extra on the side because of micro transactions.This trend is just like with DLC all those years back."Oh it's optional,it helps pay for game development,you don't have to buy it,who cares if I have to pay 10$ for a single costume and weapon pack?" said the gaming community.Now look where we are.

 

Soon we'll be paying for parts of games because the gaming community can't learn to have self control.

[goofyomnivore]

If they need more to make one feature worth adding perhaps that feature doesn't belong in the game to begin with.

 

I assume MP micro-transactions and DLC will cover its own cost of production ten times over, and in terms of profit will be the most efficient part of the game.

[cactusberry]

Other games can afford multiplayer without micro transactions because the effort of the developers went into multiplayer. Dragon Age's base funds go into Single Player. Using micro transactions to pay for multiplayer in Dragon Age: Inquisition may not make everyone happy, but it makes sense.

[Zjarcal]

I'm beginning to wonder how/why companies ever put multiplayer into their games before microtransactions if it's truely needed to help with the cost.

 
Development costs are bigger now, MP modes are more robust than they were in the old days, server costs are higher because more people play... err, take your pick.

Of course, it's also about the benjamins.
 

Now look where we are.

I like were we are now a lot better than 10 years ago.

[cjones91]

 
Costs are bigger now, MP modes are more robust than they were in the old days, server costs are higher because more people play... err, take your pick.


I like were we are a lot better than 10 years ago.

Ten years ago games weren't divided into pieces,DLC wasn't a cash grab,micro transactions in 60$ dollar games were a joke that got laughed at,multiplayer wasn't shoved in every game that did/didn't benefit from it etc etc;.

 

Things were better in some way ten years ago,the gaming industry has been on a decline since then.

[Sasie]

Other games can afford multiplayer without micro transactions because the effort of the developers went into multiplayer. Dragon Age's base funds go into Single Player. Using micro transactions to pay for multiplayer in Dragon Age: Inquisition may not make everyone happy, but it makes sense.

It makes sense until the day the micro transactions start to bring in more money then the full sale price and focus shift to multiplayer in future titles. At any rate I don't like the idea of being encouraged to pay more and more for full priced games. It's not that I can't afford to but if every title coming out is going to start to cost full price+mico transaction+subscriber costs for multiplayer to the platforms+god knows what the price of gaming is going to spin completely out of control.

Personally I'm not convinced they need these money from us in order to make a profit, I slightly suspect it's more to get the extra money and see how much we are willing to pay.

[Gramatung]

I'm beginning to wonder how/why companies ever put multiplayer into their games before microtransactions if it's truely needed to help with the cost.

 

It's pretty simple, publishers are trying to create multiplayer opportunities in their franchises/games in order to extend their shelf life and keep a strong community alive around the game in addition to other more traditional SP DLCs. The model BW chose to use is relatively smart, make optional microtransactions available in order to fund the additional MP free DLCs, ME3 MP started this trend in the EA portfolio and since has been successfully implemented in the latest PopCap game, PvZ:GW.

 

Now looking at other games, microtransactions has been used in other huge franchises like Assassin's Creed or even the latest GTA, knowing that they were all optional, I don't remember people making a big fuss about it and it even helped publishers create free content for the MP part of their respective games.

[Maria Caliban]

I assume MP micro-transactions and DLC will cover its own cost of production ten times over, and in terms of profit will be the most efficient part of the game.

Yeah. But people are struggling to understand that microtransactions fund the multiplayer portion of the game; I don't think they're ready for knowing that mtx are what fund the singleplayer portion of the game.

I'm beginning to wonder how/why companies ever put multiplayer into their games before microtransactions if it's truely needed to help with the cost.

Ten years ago, I could get gas for 99 cents. Right now, it's $4.10 at the station down the street.

But video games cost the same.

Developments costs are over four times what they once were. Since publishers can't charge $240 a title and generate sales, they need to find other ways of making money.

[Zjarcal]

Ten years ago games weren't divided into pieces,DLC wasn't a cash grab,micro transactions in 60$ dollar games were a joke that got laughed at,multiplayer wasn't shoved in every game that did/didn't benefit from it etc etc;.
 
Things were better in some way ten years ago,the gaming industry has been on a decline since then.

Only thing I'd consider better about gaming 10 years ago is that Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines was being made.

The rest, cash grabs have always existed, I don't mind devs experimenting with MP regardless of the game, and I don't feel like any game I've played lately is incomplete, so meh, hard for me to feel bitter about things.

Well not true, Rise of the TR's Xbone exclusivity crap did make me bitter. Another thing that's better for me today than 10 years ago, exclusives are rarer and rarer.

[Sasie]

Yeah. But people are struggling to understand that microtransactions fund the multiplayer portion of the game; I don't think they're ready for knowing that mtx are what fund the singleplayer portion of the game.


Ten years ago, I could get gas for 99 cents. Right now, it's $4.10 at the station down the street.

But video games cost the same.

Developments costs are over four times what they once were. Since publishers can't charge $240 a title and generate sales, they need to find other ways of making money.

While I dislike/diagree with multiplayer being a good thing in general I can't deny this and it's completely true. I still have the full box for Kirby's Adventure, one of the last games I got for the NES, that came out in 1993. It has the price tag of 499 kr (around 54 euro's) on the box. Prices for games these days are around the same and when I pointed it out to my father and asked him if it wasn't a bit pricey as a gift for a nine year old at the time he did more or less confirm it was pretty a huge deal of money they spent to buy a single game back then.

That said the problem might simply be that studios grown too large. Larian for example was able to make Divinity Original Sin for 4-6 million euro's and make back the entire coast in a month after release so the solution could be smaller development teams instead of making them larger and adding on multiplayer.

[cjones91]

Only thing I'd consider better about gaming 10 years ago is that Vampire the Masquerade Bloodlines was being made.

The rest, cash grabs have always existed, I don't mind devs experimenting with MP regardless of the game, and I don't feel like any game I've played lately is incomplete, so meh, hard for me to feel bitter about things.

Well not true, Rise of the TR's Xbone exclusivity crap did make me bitter. Another thing that's better for me today than 10 years ago, exclusives are rarer and rarer.

I just miss the days I could buy a game without dealing with the bullshit.That's why I said gaming ten years ago was better in some ways compared to right now.

[cjones91]

It's pretty simple, publishers are trying to create multiplayer opportunities in their franchises/games in order to extend their shelf life and keep a strong community alive around the game in addition to other more traditional SP DLCs. The model BW chose to use is relatively smart, make optional microtransactions available in order to fund the additional MP free DLCs, ME3 MP started this trend in the EA portfolio and since has been successfully implemented in the latest PopCap game, PvZ:GW.

 

Now looking at other games, microtransactions has been used in other huge franchises like Assassin's Creed or even the latest GTA, knowing that they were all optional, I don't remember people making a big fuss about it and it even helped publishers create free content for the MP part of their respective games.

GTA Online still hasn't delivered what was originally promised months ago.Not to mention they severely nerfed the payout for most things....all so people will have to buy Shark cards or grind like hell just to buy weapons and ammo or anything else.

 

Bringing it up as a example of micro transactions done right was maybe not the wisest thing to do.

[Wulfram]

Ten years ago, I could get gas for 99 cents. Right now, it's $4.10 at the station down the street.

But video games cost the same.

 

3 years ago, DA2 cost me £25.  DA:I will cost me £40

[Maria Caliban]

While I dislike/diagree with multiplayer being a good thing in general I can't deny this and it's completely true. I still have the full box for Kirby's Adventure, one of the last games I got for the NES, that came out in 1993. It has the price tag of 499 kr (around 54 euro's) on the box. Prices for games these days are around the same and when I pointed it out to my father and asked him if it wasn't a bit pricey as a gift for a nine year old at the time he did more or less confirm it was pretty a huge deal of money they spent to buy a single game back then.

That said the problem might simply be that studios grown too large. Larian for example was able to make Divinity Original Sin for 4-6 million euro's and make back the entire coast in a month after release so the solution could be smaller development teams instead of making them larger and adding on multiplayer.

Though, at this point, it would mean laying off 80% of their studio. :/

[Sasie]

Though, at this point, it would mean laying off 80% of their studio. :/

That would suck.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Other games can afford multiplayer without micro transactions because the effort of the developers went into multiplayer. Dragon Age's base funds go into Single Player. Using micro transactions to pay for multiplayer in Dragon Age: Inquisition may not make everyone happy, but it makes sense.

 

Mass effect's microtransactions went to making the multiplayer dlc free. Which meant getting weapon, characters, maps, and upgrades for free, which as someone who plays a number of multiplayer games is usually where the shafting begins in terms of player wallets. One need only look to COD and its 14.99 map packs to see the outcome of such practices.

 

Given the choice between not having to pay an arm and a leg for the future expansions of multiplayer, while not having to spend money on the microtransactions, and having to spend money on buying packs so you can still take part in matches regularly, I'll take the optional transaction route.

 

Assuming dragon age multiplayer will have the same type of dlc plan as mass effect did.
 

[Shadowson]

it will.

[cjones91]

Though, at this point, it would mean laying off 80% of their studio. :/

A reform of their budgets is in order.A studio going bankrupt from spending absurd amounts of money is ridiculus.

[Shadowson]

is bioware going bankrupt?

[cjones91]

is bioware going bankrupt?

Not that I know of,but the obscene amount of money being spent just to make one game needs to be looked at.It's already a problem when game devs have to make a certain amount of money back on their game.

[Maria Caliban]

is bioware going bankrupt?

As far as I know, BioWare is doing well.

TOR, which many people wrote off as a failure, is one of EA's backbones. The ME series did well. DA II turned a profit. They have ShadowRealm and ??? in development, both of which are new IPs.

It's not like I have access to their books, but BioWare seems to be a healthy studio. EA giving them an extra year of development and them expanding to make different IPs are both good signs.

Not that I know of,but the obscene amount of money being spent just to make one game needs to be looked at.It's already a problem when game devs have to make a certain amount of money back on their game.

That problem exists on an industry level though, and doesn't have an easy solution.

[LinksOcarina]

I think the infamous mobile Dungeon Keeper is a good counter-argument. Luckily, it won't affect single-player so I'm not too worried myself.

 

Actually its an unfair comparison, because the markets are different, as are the designs of how the transactions occurred. Plus Andrew Wilson even admitted that the problem with Dungeon Keeper was the disconnect between the past and present fans, and the value presented in the transactions, which is something people don't really talk about too much, inherent value of what you are paying for. 

[LinksOcarina]

As far as I know, BioWare is doing well.

TOR, which many people wrote off as a failure, is one of EA's backbones. The ME series did well. DA II turned a profit. They have ShadowRealm and ??? in development, both of which are new IPs.

It's not like I have access to their books, but BioWare seems to be a healthy studio. EA giving them an extra year of development and them expanding to make different IPs are both good signs.


That problem exists on an industry level though, and doesn't have an easy solution.

 

BioWare as an entity is what Blizzard is to Activision. The studio is so important to development of games outside the milieu of what is typical for EA (sport, action/adventure, shooter) that it is healthy enough to really get carte blanche within the company.

 

Hell, The Old Republic has turned a profit by this point I believe, or is stable enough to do so with continued support. So it was a failure right? Mass Effect, lets be honest, put BioWare into mainstream more than KOTOR did, Dragon Age is one of the few RPG series to come out of a western studio that is not tied to a pre-existing series in the past 5 years that has been both popular and good too. So I agree BioWare is doing well.

 

Industry-wide, looking at trends on how games are being made now a days, everyone is doing certain things in conjunction with development to keep costs down; in-house engines, viral, slow burn marketing and use of social media, gaming as a service for the model of distribution and consumption of content. EA is in Valve, Nintendo, and to a lesser extant, CD Projekt Red territory moreso than any other big-named publisher in terms of dipping into these markets, while we see companies like Activision and Ubisoft go for the sequel a year model still with mixed results in the service department.