276 réponses à ce sujet

[Darvins]

I didn't, read again:

 

Notice the "paid DLC" part?

 

What I want is to make an informed decision on where I put my money. A direct cause and effect relation. So when I say that microtransactions indirectly funding free DLC is bad, I don't say I want free DLC without microtransactions. I say I want DLC and have the choice of paying for it if I thinks it worth it. Either way the developers/publisher gets his money, IF the quality and value is worth the price. And if it's not worth it and sales aren't good, the developers/publisher know they need to step up their game. Contrary to that, revenue generated from a secondary source isn't giving such feedback as the motivation for spending the money there can't be traced to draw conclusions on content quality.

 

Problem is in Multiplayer that model actually damages the experience. Multiplayer DLC is different to single player. In single player you can sell the new mission or quests or storyline. If someone doesn't pick it up, they don't pick it up, the only person affected is that one person. In Multiplayer when you sell maps etc you start splitting your playerbase, between those who bought the latest maps and those who didn't. On the face of it that seems fine, those who paid for it, should play it right? The thing is as the playerbase becomes more and more fractured the experience for everyone is decreased. Since those with the latest map packs and updates might not be able to play with those who don't for many reasons. (Updates to balance or equipment for example).

 

All this means your likely better off giving the updates for free and making your money a different way, that way everyone still has access to all the same assets but your making your money back another way. 

[Chealec]

Problem is in Multiplayer that model actually damages the experience. Multiplayer DLC is different to single player. In single player you can sell the new mission or quests or storyline. If someone doesn't pick it up, they don't pick it up, the only person affected is that one person. In Multiplayer when you sell maps etc you start splitting your playerbase, between those who bought the latest maps and those who didn't. On the face of it that seems fine, those who paid for it, should play it right? The thing is as the playerbase becomes more and more fractured the experience for everyone is decreased. Since those with the latest map packs and updates might not be able to play with those who don't for many reasons. (Updates to balance or equipment for example).

 

All this means your likely better off giving the updates for free and making your money a different way, that way everyone still has access to all the same assets but your making your money back another way. 

 

... which is exactly what they did with ME3.

[Fidite Nemini]

Problem is in Multiplayer that model actually damages the experience. Multiplayer DLC is different to single player. In single player you can sell the new mission or quests or storyline. If someone doesn't pick it up, they don't pick it up, the only person affected is that one person. In Multiplayer when you sell maps etc you start splitting your playerbase, between those who bought the latest maps and those who didn't. On the face of it that seems fine, those who paid for it, should play it right? The thing is as the playerbase becomes more and more fractured the experience for everyone is decreased. Since those with the latest map packs and updates might not be able to play with those who don't for many reasons. (Updates to balance or equipment for example).

 

All this means your likely better off giving the updates for free and making your money a different way, that way everyone still has access to all the same assets but your making your money back another way. 

 

Maps and modes split the playerbase, yes. And in games with several game modes, mode exclusive maps and such that is a huge dilemma (know it firsthand trying to help my clan populate our Battlefield 4 server). But ME3MP and DAMP have only one mode (if that has changed for DAMP, please tell, I haven't been following that closely), so that only leaves maps.

 

And most DLCs only introduced few maps, the major selling point where the new kits, weapons and gear.

So you could say release the maps for everyone, keeping the playerbase unified, but charge for the kits, weapons and such.

 

Now, that leaves the question on how giving away the maps for free impacts the funding, but that's one ad-hoc proposal I would give to solve that particular problem and pricing could be tweaked to account for that. Or in ME:A's case, financial security with the MP not being a risky experiment may already secure enough funding to offset giving out maps for free.

[ExoGeniVI]

No, It would just make multi-player a grindfest and make us pay for gold or weapon packs.

[Il Divo]

 

Buy random loot crate for X amount of money -> get loot crate -> X goes towards BioWare/EA profits -> Y amount of money goes towards DLC Z

 

The only direct cause and effect for the customer is pay for crate, get crate. Everything else is not known. Y could = X, or could be 2/X or 3/X etc. pp..

The decision to make DLC Z is implied, but not guaranteed.

And if DLC Z is made, there is no guarantee the player might enjoy it.

 

That is superficially no concern because on first sight, the content is free (as the original exchange was X for loot crate, which is completed). However the DLC still has inherent cost, that being all the Ys that went into developing Z.

​

 

I might be misunderstanding you, but how does this not apply equally to the base game? Sorry if I missed something critical, but the way you laid out the purchasing process strikes me as something resembling how I purchase full products, only instead of "random loot crate" the product is "unknown game experience".

 

Even in the context of the gambling scenario, I don't really think you can't fault the casino for doing what they believe is in their best interest; we the consumers could always stop gambling. The best example I can think of though is the whole trading card phenomenon. I'm not a fan of it, but if it works on consumers, that's pretty smart business model.

[Fidite Nemini]

I might be misunderstanding you, but how does this not apply equally to the base game? Sorry if I missed something critical, but the way you laid out the purchasing process strikes me as something resembling how I purchase full products, only instead of "random loot crate" the product is "unknown game experience".

 

Even in the context of the gambling scenario, I don't really think you can't fault the casino for doing what they believe is in their best interest; we the consumers could always stop gambling. The best example I can think of though is the whole trading card phenomenon. I'm not a fan of it, but if it works on consumers, that's pretty smart business model.

 

The difference to the base game (or any other finished product you purchase) is that content is already created. You see what you get and you get to make the coice on whether you want it or not.

 

Regarding free DLC funded by microtransactions however, you have neither an outlook on what kind of DLC your microtransactions would fund and you put down the money before the fact.

Plus the whole market obscurement going on with secondhand funding, which is universially beneficial only for the business part of the market. Sure enough, just because the customer side is getting the short end in terms of transparency doesn't mean every developer/publisher will immediately screw them over as much as possible, but as the saying goes: opportunity makes the thief.

What it ultimately boils down to for each individual player is marketing microtransactions. And the store system wherein those are embedded in ME3MP and DAMP results in frustration and unncessary grinding.

[In Exile]

The difference to the base game (or any other finished product you purchase) is that content is already created. You see what you get and you get to make the coice on whether you want it or not.

Regarding free DLC funded by microtransactions however, you have neither an outlook on what kind of DLC your microtransactions would fund and you put down the money before the fact.
Plus the whole market obscurement going on with secondhand funding, which is universially beneficial only for the business part of the market. Sure enough, just because the customer side is getting the short end in terms of transparency doesn't mean every developer/publisher will immediately screw them over as much as possible, but as the saying goes: opportunity makes the thief.
What it ultimately boils down to for each individual player is marketing microtransactions. And the store system wherein those are embedded in ME3MP and DAMP results in frustration and unncessary grinding.

That's not exactly right. You get a sense of the content through previews but you don't actually know what you're buying - there's an information asymmetry problem.

The problem you describe sounds more akin to the issues with, say, Kickstater.

Or really with buying a copy of a game to support a sequel.

[Il Divo]

 

Regarding free DLC funded by microtransactions however, you have neither an outlook on what kind of DLC your microtransactions would fund and you put down the money before the fact.

 

​

Note that this also applies to the base product. Far as I've known, Bioware (and most corporations) don't really outline explicitly on where we can expect your money to be months from now.

 

What you're describing sounds more like investing, which is a little beyond the scope of purchasing power.

 

 

Plus the whole market obscurement going on with secondhand funding, which is universially beneficial only for the business part of the market.

 

 

Just to be clear, what do you mean by second hand funding?

 

 

Sure enough, just because the customer side is getting the short end in terms of transparency doesn't mean every developer/publisher will immediately screw them over as much as possible, but as the saying goes: opportunity makes the thief.

 

 

But what hasn't been transparent? We know in advance what the terms are: known quantity, unknown reward. That's pretty typical of most consumer products. I guess if we'd like Bioware could also tell us the exact statistics of each item. But I think this is a bit like suggesting that the lottery is screwing people over; even if that's true, I'm more inclined to blame the consumers than I am to blame someone for doing what works, in the context of an entertainment product.

 

 

The difference to the base game (or any other finished product you purchase) is that content is already created. You see what you get and you get to make the coice on whether you want it or not.

 

 

And the microtransaction content is also already created. As a consumer, we also have no idea exactly what you're getting for your $60 beyond what's written on the game box (and opinions of others).

[Fidite Nemini]

That's not exactly right. You get a sense of the content through previews but you don't actually know what you're buying - there's an information asymmetry problem.

The problem you describe sounds more akin to the issues with, say, Kickstater.

Or really with buying a copy of a game to support a sequel.

 

But the fact that I can choose to purchase and pick my own time means I can work myself through given informations. If I'm reluctant, I can wait until after the release of a game and read up on reviews, opinions from friends, or watch footage on Youtube.

 

 

And ultimately, isn't using microtransactions to fund free DLC more or less the same concept of crowdfunding as Kickstarter? And that one at least comes with securities where you can withdraw your pledge if the product you're supporting isn't going the way you'd want it, aswell as mandating projects to update their supporters on informations. None of which is given if we'd compare that with the ME3MP or DAMP models.

 

 

 

 

​
Note that this also applies to the base product. Far as I've known, Bioware (and most corporations) don't really outline explicitly on where we can expect your money to be months from now.
 
What you're describing sounds more like investing, which is a little beyond the scope of purchasing power.

 

No, because I purchase the base game with intent to purchase the base game. Where that revenue ends up with is irrelevant to that decision.

 

That stands in stark contrast with some people justifying the microtransactions because they'd fund the DLC. That may be indirectly true, but isn't the point in buying a loot crate via microtransaction ... getting the loot crate?

[Il Divo]

That's not exactly right. You get a sense of the content through previews but you don't actually know what you're buying - there's an information asymmetry problem.

The problem you describe sounds more akin to the issues with, say, Kickstater.

Or really with buying a copy of a game to support a sequel.

 

Exactly. And while we can argue we have even less of an idea of what we're buying via microtransactions, on the other end of the spectrum, we also have a much lower cost associated with that investment (new game prices vs microtransaction prices).
 

[In Exile]

But the fact that I can choose to purchase and pick my own time means I can work myself through given informations. If I'm reluctant, I can wait until after the release of a game and read up on reviews, opinions from friends, or watch footage on Youtube.


And ultimately, isn't using microtransactions to fund free DLC more or less the same concept of crowdfunding as Kickstarter? And that one at least comes with securities where you can withdraw your pledge if the product you're supporting isn't going the way you'd want it, aswell as mandating projects to update their supporters on informations. None of which is given if we'd compare that with the ME3MP or DAMP models.





No, because I purchase the base game with intent to purchase the base game. Where that revenue ends up with is irrelevant to that decision.

That stands in stark contrast with some people justifying the microtransactions because they'd fund the DLC. That may be indirectly true, but isn't the point in buying a loot crate via microtransaction ... getting the loot crate?

Hold on. MTs aren't justified from the company's POV as a way to fund DLC. They're justified as a way of maximising revenue. Their end is to monetize gamers even further.

Free DLC is just a consequence of the absurd sums of money they're making relative to their cost. The ROI is so high that "free" DLC makes sense insofar as it keeps people playing and paying.

I'm absolutely against MTs. I oppose them wholesale because I think they motivate a very different type of design that makes gameplay far more of an aversive Skinner box. While some other people might not mind them, I do. And I find them quite immersion breaking, as they often attack the verisimilitude of the setting AND remind me I'm playing a game when I'm lost in it.

But that's very different from opposing them from financial reasons.

[Fidite Nemini]

Hold on. MTs aren't justified from the company's POV as a way to fund DLC. They're justified as a way of maximising revenue. Their end is to monetize gamers even further.

Free DLC is just a consequence of the absurd sums of money they're making relative to their cost. The ROI is so high that "free" DLC makes sense insofar as it keeps people playing and paying.

I'm absolutely against MTs. I oppose them wholesale because I think they motivate a very different type of design that makes gameplay far more of an aversive Skinner box. While some other people might not mind them, I do. And I find them quite immersion breaking, as they often attack the verisimilitude of the setting AND remind me I'm playing a game when I'm lost in it.

But that's very different from opposing them from financial reasons.

 

 

I'm not opposing them for financial reasons.

 

I'm opposing them because said financial reasons incentivize developers to permeate their games with microtransactions. And as we see it in ME3MP and DAMP, it ends in endless frustration when the progression system is tailored to drive people to pay money to increase their chances (chances only, paying doesn't even improve droprates, let alone guarantees a specific unlock a player wants!).

 

That is the bad practice I'm opposing, albeit I can see that point having dropped in the background as I tried explaining my reasoning, so apologies if that wasn't clear.

[Il Divo]

 

No, because I purchase the base game with intent to purchase the base game. Where that revenue ends up with is irrelevant to that decision.

 

​

But what is the basis of this distinction? Far as I'm aware, I don't think any of us discuss with Bioware or lay out what the terms of our purchase are to the point where we decide where their profits go. Our input begins and ends with exchanging money for product.

 

That stands in stark contrast with some people justifying the microtransactions because they'd fund the DLC. That may be indirectly true, but isn't the point in buying a loot crate via microtransaction ... getting the loot crate?

 

 

 

 

Just so we're on the same page, whom are we referring to when we say "some people"? Because if that's coming from the fan base, I don't think that's the best approach to take if they're suddenly deciding out of the blue that their money was/is/should be going towards more dlc, unless Bioware has been absolutely explicit about that. Being serious, if that's all it takes, can I decide that my money for ME:A has to go to ME:A2? Because that would be in line with the above position.

[Fidite Nemini]

​

But what is the basis of this distinction? Far as I'm aware, I don't think any of us discuss with Bioware or lay out what the terms of our purchase are to the point where we decide where their profits go. Our input begins and ends with exchanging money for product.

Exactly. The distinction is made by others in an attempt to justify the microtransactions.
 

​
 
Just so we're on the same page, whom are we referring to when we say "some people"? Because if that's coming from the fan base, I don't think that's the best approach to take if they're suddenly deciding out of the blue that their money was/is/should be going towards more dlc, unless Bioware has been absolutely explicit about that.

 
I'm arguing against the idea that microtransactions are acceptable in their current form because they fund the developement for free DLC in ME3MP and DAMP respectively. That's a notion that parts of the fanbase propagate.
 
In addition, I also condemn the progression system (store) in BioWare's MP components that's obviously tailored to get people to pay for unlocks via microtransactions.
 
 
That is my stance in a nutshell.

[Darvins]

... which is exactly what they did with ME3.

 

Yeah which is why they did it that way, I may have misunderstood the point I was replying to but it seemed a complaint about that style?

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hard to read but :
https://halshs.archi...012PEST0010.pdf

So we can read that Nintendo was sued because they maintained artificially high prices (they lose and must pay around 170 millions buck)

About the demat market, I hear "steam" at every corner but, no, console game prices are not on the same level. And I talk about Gear of Wars because for a game of the very beginning of the Xbox360 life, staying at 30 bucks is revealing of the business plan.

Oh, and I talk in euros. I'm french.

Last thing : Most of the time, the demat version of a game is at the very same price that the physical one. Sometimes, they are even more costly. But we don't have anything in hand and with the new rules they are even allowed to ripoff a full paided game of our hands if we buy the demat version.

There's no such thing as an artificially high price. There's a price consumers will pay, and a price they won't. Producers benefit from setting the price at the level that generates maximum profit. Given that Nintendo has never had a monopoly on games, I don't see how they could possibly hold prices at a level higher than the market would bear.

Furthermore, the production costs have no direct relationship to the price. Digital games offer some benefits over physical games: they're available immediately, they don't sell out, they have a smaller carbon footprint. Perhaps the digital games should cost more. You know who should decide that? The market should.

People willingly pay extra for less all the time. Look at the recent Volkswagen scandal. People are apoplectic that they were sold cars that perform better than they would if they hadn't cheated the emissions tests. This makes so sense to me - it makes me wish I drove a Volkswagen - but the market insists that Volkswagen did something wrong.

[Il Divo]

Exactly. The distinction is made by others in an attempt to justify the microtransactions.
 

 
I'm arguing against the idea that microtransactions are acceptable in their current form because they fund the developement for free DLC in ME3MP and DAMP respectively. That's a notion that parts of the fanbase propagate.
 

 

OH. That makes more sense, my bad on that one.

[Deadarth]

Exactly. The distinction is made by others in an attempt to justify the microtransactions.
 

 
I'm arguing against the idea that microtransactions are acceptable in their current form because they fund the developement for free DLC in ME3MP and DAMP respectively. That's a notion that parts of the fanbase propagate.
 
In addition, I also condemn the progression system (store) in BioWare's MP components that's obviously tailored to get people to pay for unlocks via microtransactions.
 
 
That is my stance in a nutshell.

They are acceptable for the simple fact that nobody is forcing you to buy them, they could be at 10$ per crate and it would not matter because nobody forces you to throw your money away, if they are not worth it to you then just don't buy them.

 

By the way, at some point you said that paid DLCs would give them some informations about content, etc.... Well I guess you can voice your dislike with the microtransactions by not buying any of them, that'll show them!

[Felps Cross]

No. Just no.

[DanishViking]

Honestly does it really matter WHAT we want

they will do (EA$$$$) whatever THEY want !

[Sidney]

Time, money, people.

If you don't have a lot of time and want to short cut grinding with money....so be it. I have no more issue with than if someone had one account and left their shiftless unemployed brother to play all day while they worked to grind out money. The only thing that bothers me is if you can buy (functional) things with money that someone else can't buy with time or people. If it is just skins and patterns or something don't care a whit.

Those micro transaction types help fund things I enjoy for free in many cases. I salute their lack of OCD.

[TheChosenOne]

Multiplayer?

 

Dont´t give a ****

 

Singleplayer?

 

[AlanC9]

Furthermore, the production costs have no direct relationship to the price. Digital games offer some benefits over physical games: they're available immediately, they don't sell out, they have a smaller carbon footprint. Perhaps the digital games should cost more. You know who should decide that? The market should.

Wasn't there a study showing that the italed isn't true? Apparently the infrastructure to support DD games is so horribly inefficient that you use less carbon by having Amazon put a disc in a truck. Yeah, I had trouble swallowing it myself.

People willingly pay extra for less all the time. Look at the recent Volkswagen scandal. People are apoplectic that they were sold cars that perform better than they would if they hadn't cheated the emissions tests. This makes so sense to me - it makes me wish I drove a Volkswagen - but the market insists that Volkswagen did something wrong.

My understanding is that the thing a lot of those consumers are apoplectic about is not getting the low emissions that they were promised. They bought the cars as a way to feel good about driving them; if they had wanted more performance at the cost of more emissions then they wouldn't have been buying diesels in the first place. And others are mad because now that the first group doesn't want their diesels anymore, the resale value of all of the cars has tanked.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Wasn't there a study showing that the italed isn't true? Apparently the infrastructure to support DD games is so horribly inefficient that you use less carbon by having Amazon put a disc in a truck. Yeah, I had trouble swallowing it myself.

I'd need to see that study.  The manufacturing costs of the disc and packaging alone I would expect to offset the DD infrastructure.

 

 

My understanding is that the thing a lot of those consumers are apoplectic about is not getting the low emissions that they were promised. They bought the cars as a way to feel good about driving them;

This is what I'm saying.  They chose to pay extra for less car.

 

 

if they had wanted more performance at the cost of more emissions then they wouldn't have been buying diesels in the first place.

Not necessarily.  The diesels consume less fuel (and thus emit less carbon).  It was the other emissions where they were cheating.  Also, depending on your local tax structure, diesel might be quite a bit less expensive than petrol (that was true in most of Canada until about 10 years ago, and is still true if you can take advantage of agricultural subsidies).

 

 

And others are mad because now that the first group doesn't want their diesels anymore, the resale value of all of the cars has tanked.

That makes more sense, though I question the sanity of anyone who buys a newish car with an expectation of resale value.

 

Also, I'd happily buy one, so I rather like that decrease in value.

[Keitaro57]

I'd need to see that study.  The manufacturing costs of the disc and packaging alone I would expect to offset the DD infrastructure.

 

 

This is what I'm saying.  They chose to pay extra for less car.

 

 

Not necessarily.  The diesels consume less fuel (and thus emit less carbon).  It was the other emissions where they were cheating.  Also, depending on your local tax structure, diesel might be quite a bit less expensive than petrol (that was true in most of Canada until about 10 years ago, and is still true if you can take advantage of agricultural subsidies).

 

 

That makes more sense, though I question the sanity of anyone who buys a newish car with an expectation of resale value.

 

Also, I'd happily buy one, so I rather like that decrease in value.

In France, we had studies that prove that the big server infrastructures are a big money pit, are very very bad for the environnement and takes so much energy we need to build more nuclear powerplant to feed them. And it is only for our country. It was even aired in the primetime infochannel here.

 

In France, again, we are one of the country with most of the "hacked" Volkswagen.  Here, it is a safe way to buy a new car, keep it 5 years and sale it to buy a new one : Insurance, repair cost and other things make the car more and more expansive if you keep it longer. So yeah, the people that buyed this Volkswagen feel screwed because they know they will have trouble to sell them now and they will lost lot of money.

 

The biggest problem in my country is that the politician want to make the diesel expansiver than other means. It will totally and completely destroy truck transport but they doesn't care!

 

Oh, and about the Nintendo prices, it was because a lot of games studio wanted to sell their games on Nintendo plateformes at cheaper prices and Nintendo raised his marges so the games where at the same prices than others.

 

What I hate with microtransactions is the explanation "If you don't like that you can grind until you get what you want". No, a game that need hours of grinding is a bad made game because it means that the game is build to look boring if you don't pay more.