22 réponses à ce sujet

[Majestic Jazz]

I am trying to do a comparison between Bioware's approach to Multiplayer with Mass Effect 3/Dragon Age: Inquisition and that of Rockstar Games with GTA: V. In the GTA realm Rockstar has been neglecting single player DLC in favor of online content because the argument is that "the future is online" so therefore R* will favor where the profits are. Basically, R* releases free online content (cars, clothes, weapons etc....) but they charge money for ingame cash that can be used to purchase these new items. I think $5 USD would get you like $100,000 in GTA Online cash. So because R* has been making a ton of money selling these Shark Cards, some people including myself believes that R* no longer cares about releasing SP DLC because the online component has been making the profits.

 

Now back to Mass Effect 3, like R*, Bioware also released free maps and such for Mass Effect 3 and I believe the same with DAI. However, how does Bioware make their money online? Or do they even make any profit out of this and that online is purely a bonus/gift/appreciation to their fans? Are there any microtransactions for online?

[Dio Demon]

Play it and you'll see.

[Majestic Jazz]

Play it and you'll see.

 

Wow your reply was very helpful....

[Dio Demon]

Wow your reply was very helpful....

All it requires is field research.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q...crotransactions

 

One google away my friend

[KotorEffect3]

Yeah there are microtransactions, you can pay for requisition packs which unlocks weapons, mods, playable characters, consumables etc...

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

In the GTA realm Rockstar has been neglecting single player DLC in favor of online content

 

There aren't going to be any new story missions via DLC, and there never were. It's not "neglect." I'm not aware of any GTA game having additional missions by DLC, and that's a good thing. It's actually respectful to the fans to give them the entire story with their purchase, instead of making them pay extra for it.

 

 

the argument is that "the future is online" so therefore R* will favor where the profits are.

 

Every Online DLC has added its outfits, weapons, and cars to the single player component at no additional cost to the player. Did you do any research on this at all?

 

some people including myself believes that R* no longer cares about releasing SP DLC because the online component has been making the profits.

 

When did they ever announce SP DLC? You'll be waiting a long time for something they never intended to do from the beginning. And again - everything released for MP was also ported over to SP at no additional cost, or did you not bother to check that?

 

 

Now back to Mass Effect 3, like R*, Bioware also released free maps and such for Mass Effect 3 and I believe the same with DAI. However, how does Bioware make their money online? Or do they even make any profit out of this and that online is purely a bonus/gift/appreciation to their fans? Are there any microtransactions for online?

 

It is exactly the same profit model as GTA V. All of the content is released free to avoid splitting the player base. A supplementary form of cash to purchase items can be bought with real money in the form of microtransactions.

 

So your comparison is this: They're using exactly the same model. No one has to pay for anything. People who choose to spend extra can short-cut their way to buying in-game items with real money, but the content itself is free in both cases.

[Nitrocuban]

EA making money with multiplayer games?

Nah, man, they just do it for the greater good, worldpeace and charity.

[xassantex]

My uneducated guess is with ME4 's release pushed to sometime in the 21st century they keep the servers up hoping  the world won't utterly forget about BW.

[Han Shot First]

ME3 had three single player DLC release, not including the Extended Cut, so multiplayer doesn't seem to have impacted the single aspect of the game. Or it least it didn't have an impact on the development of DLC. Hopefully that remains true for ME:Next.

 

Having said tha the success of multiplayer with GTA has almost certainly had an impact on the development of single player DLC. Compare GTA 5 to previous titles. It's been out for over a year and has pretty much f-ck all for additional single player content. GTA 4 had a full expansion within the same time frame.

[BabyPuncher]

If it didn't, I don't think they would have put multiplayer in Inquisition.

 

I wouldn't worry about it too much. GTA online has a niche that no other game really fills. There are plenty of online co-op shooters, though.

[Tonymac]

I wonder how much they made off of the MP micro-transactions - I doubt it was a heck of a lot.  

 

For me, ME3 Single-player was a flop.  I thought it was too dark, too hopeless, and I really despised the endings.  Why would the Reapers ever let organics decide their fate?  Its implausible, and completely not in line with what or how Sovereign and Harbinger acted in ME1, 2.  I know its a dead horse, that just my 2 cents - besides, its not my overall point.

 

For me, ME3 Multi-player was one of the most fun video games I've played in a bit.  It's dynamic, fast paced, and technical - as some builds / weapons and squadmate combos are just off of the chart.  For me, MP was made too good, because there was no way I was paying for anything.  The more you play, the more creds you get - the more stuffs you upgrade.  Yes, the RNG God and its demanding sacrifices did indeed get tedious - but I was still having fun.

 

Next game i hope that the RNG will not be there so much - or at least  not so harsh.  MP should be in the next game, but they should ease up on the RNG - if they didn't really make that much money off of it. If anything, I would pay more for the game upfront if there were more weekend ops and that fort of a thing going on.

[L. Han]

^Dark and hopeless? That's the point of the narrative. If the Reaper threat was all sunshine and rainbows there wouldn't be much reason to fear them.

 

On topic: The multiplayer must have made some profits, otherwise they wouldn't keep the servers running. While the multiplayer focus helped add a more fleshed out combat system, it did take away other aspects of the game (dialog, ambiance, etc.)

[Madcat 124]

There aren't going to be any new story missions via DLC, and there never were. It's not "neglect." I'm not aware of any GTA game having additional missions by DLC, and that's a good thing. It's actually respectful to the fans to give them the entire story with their purchase, instead of making them pay extra for it.

 

They might have said that there will be Story DLC at one point. Also, GTA4 received 2 big DLCs/Expansions. Lost and the Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony.

[Tonymac]

^Dark and hopeless? That's the point of the narrative. If the Reaper threat was all sunshine and rainbows there wouldn't be much reason to fear them.

 

On topic: The multiplayer must have made some profits, otherwise they wouldn't keep the servers running. While the multiplayer focus helped add a more fleshed out combat system, it did take away other aspects of the game (dialog, ambiance, etc.

 

Dark and hopeless to the point where I don't get to win.  No matter what choice I make, its a loss - and the death of my Shepard.  That's the whole game - a giant bucket of suck with some tearjerker scenes and then you die.  I never wanted sunshine and rainbows, I just wanted to win - NOT to spend so much money on a game I could only play once.

 

Your second point is interesting - ME3 SP had a lot of incompleteness to it.  A lot of the game not finished, 8-bit running pedestrians - the game felt rushed to me.  I wonder if the budget spent on MP should have gone to SP.  But then, MP was the only good part of ME3 to me.

 

What a conundrum.  

[Han Shot First]

^Dark and hopeless? That's the point of the narrative. If the Reaper threat was all sunshine and rainbows there wouldn't be much reason to fear them.

 

 

 

I fully agree with this. ME3 had some flaws, but the atmosphere wasn't one of them. That is one aspect of the game the devs absolutely got right. No other atmosphere would have been appropriate considering the backdrop was a galaxy-spanning war where billions of people were dying, and where civilization itself was in peril. The backdrop of the game required a dark and somewhat grim atmosphere.

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Dark and hopeless to the point where I don't get to win.  No matter what choice I make, its a loss - and the death of my Shepard.  That's the whole game - a giant bucket of suck with some tearjerker scenes and then you die.  I never wanted sunshine and rainbows, I just wanted to win - NOT to spend so much money on a game I could only play once.

 

Your second point is interesting - ME3 SP had a lot of incompleteness to it.  A lot of the game not finished, 8-bit running pedestrians - the game felt rushed to me.  I wonder if the budget spent on MP should have gone to SP.  But then, MP was the only good part of ME3 to me.

 

What a conundrum.  

 

But Shep doesn't die if you Destroy and EMS is high enough. The breath scene and the hopeful squad with happy music are huge, huge red flags that Shepard isn't dead in that ending.

[CronoDragoon]

Mike Laidlaw (from the DA team) said in their PAX panel that ME3's multiplayer was profitable.

[Tonymac]

But Shep doesn't die if you Destroy and EMS is high enough. The breath scene and the hopeful squad with happy music are huge, huge red flags that Shepard isn't dead in that ending.

 

I get you, Daft - but as far as I am concerned its a copout.  And since I have about 30K EMS, I did get the supposed 'good' ending.

[Malanek]

Dark and hopeless to the point where I don't get to win.  No matter what choice I make, its a loss - and the death of my Shepard.  That's the whole game - a giant bucket of suck with some tearjerker scenes and then you die.  I never wanted sunshine and rainbows, I just wanted to win - NOT to spend so much money on a game I could only play once.

 

Your second point is interesting - ME3 SP had a lot of incompleteness to it.  A lot of the game not finished, 8-bit running pedestrians - the game felt rushed to me.  I wonder if the budget spent on MP should have gone to SP.  But then, MP was the only good part of ME3 to me.

 

What a conundrum.  

You permanently stopped an ancient civilization, billions of years old with incredibly advanced and superior technology, from destroying all advanced life in the galaxy. How can that conceivably not be a win?

[cap and gown]

There is not just the micro-transactions to consider (though a person who would plunk down actual cash for a random piece of gear might as well just give BW money for the heck of it, no way I would pay for something unless I knew what it was). Having a decent MP component might attract customers for the game who might not otherwise buy it if it were just SP.

[PatrickBateman]

For many of us the MP part is the main motivation for even buying these games, so yes I'd say they earn money from MP.

Never really liked the MP part of DA:I but love ME3MP, I have spent ten times more time on MP than SP.

For ME4, the MP part will be my only reason for even buying it.

[Tonymac]

You permanently stopped an ancient civilization, billions of years old with incredibly advanced and superior technology, from destroying all advanced life in the galaxy. How can that conceivably not be a win?

 

I dunno - probably because I got shipped home in a pine box with an Alliance flag draped over it?  Actually, I didn't even get that.  No heroes funeral, nothing.  They left Shepard alive (maybe) out there, abandoned.  How is that for closure and a win?

 

Prop up the endings any way you want to - I thought those endings were the most appalling POS I have ever had to endure.

 

The funny part of it all is that I got the game for the SP, and had no interest in the MP at all.  It turns out the SP sucked, and the MP was an insane blast.  Go figure.