276 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

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)

No way I'm wading through all of that even if my French was good enough to do it. Anyway, I don't see the relevance. It'd be easier to discuss if you could pull out the specific case.

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.

Yep. Steam and similar services promised cheaper games for PC players. And they have delivered on that promise for us, delivered massively. I don't recall anyone promising anything like this to console players. But again, I don't pay too much attention to console marketing.

As for GoW pricing, you'll be in a better position to come up with eurozone pricing than I am. In USD, the game launched at $60 ($70 in 2015 dollars). Incidentally, this was the first game to hit that now-standard price point. The 360 version currently lists for 30 USD, which is a 53% price cut. Moreover, only an imbecile would actually pay that list price, since Amazon or some such is always selling it at 50% or less of list, which means you can get the game now for something like 20% of the original price.

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

Gotcha. I never knew that "bucks" was used for anything but USD before. Anyway, inflation works the same way and at about the same rate in both zones, though it complicates the calculation above a bit since the Game Gear predates the euro.

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.

That's true. The game publishers aren't willing to destroy the game stores yet. We have the same issue with ebooks; you could sell ebooks for less than half the price of the print editions, but then most of the bookstores would die.

Therefore, they keep the prices for demat and discs in the same band until the initial rush is over.

Plus taxes, though that's not an issue here.

[In Exile]

Right now the problem for me and Sexy Boy is that the Canadian Dollar is $0.76 per USD so our prices are going to be that much higher, now if EA does adjust the prices when the Canadian dollar starts to turn around I won't have a problem with it being higher right now for the prices are basically the same. The problem will arise if the Canadian dollar rises and the price stays the same.

That's not how pricing works. We were getting hosed when the CAD was closer to the USD and our prices didn't fall, but at this point a price difference with the US isn't entirely unjustified. But beyond that the price of a game isn't 1:1 with the domestic currency, because of regularly differences.

Where we get hosed still is online - I'm pretty sure steam and origin make us pay in USD.

[Arcian]

most games seem to have them nowadays.

 

i personally dont mind. i like being able to buy a new costume here and a new gun pack there.

Which sane human being WANTS microtransactions?

[BabyPuncher]

Which sane human being WANTS microtransactions?

 

Microtransactions in a vacuum where the money players spend is sucked into a black hole? Nobody.

 

Microtransactions that are discreet, never shoved in the player's face, never handicap single player, never significantly handicap multiplayer, and earn a truckload of money for the developers, ultimately allowing them to create superior content? I would certainly want that. 

[Fidite Nemini]

 

Microtransactions that are discreet, never shoved in the player's face, never handicap single player, never significantly handicap multiplayer, and earn a truckload of money for the developers, ultimately allowing them to create superior content? I would certainly want that. 

 

That sounds neat as ideal, but in practice ... how can the customer side ensure that truckload of money is used to make more content instead of being put in black on quarterly fiscal reports?

[Deadarth]

That sounds neat as ideal, but in practice ... how can the customer side ensure that truckload of money is used to make more content instead of being put in black on quarterly fiscal reports?

You really seem like someone that is very worried about corporations making money, guess what, it's their goal, people buying microtransaction items are doing it for their own gain, not to fund the game, but part of that money still goes into the game content.

[AlanC9]

One might as well ask if the $60 we pay for the base game is being spent on content or is being used to pad the bottom line. As always, the answer will be a bit of both.

If a game isn't projected to make a profit, it won't be made.

[BabyPuncher]

You can't, but neither can you for any other feature of video games, or for that matter, any business. Pretty much all decisions are going to involve money in some way or another.

 

In any case, video game developers are a business and are perfectly entitled to make money.

[spinachdiaper]

They are going to do it no matter what, so why debate the inevitable.

[Fidite Nemini]

You really seem like someone that is very worried about corporations making money, guess what, it's their goal, people buying microtransaction items are doing it for their own gain, not to fund the game, but part of that money still goes into the game content.

 

You have no idea what I'm talking about. It's not the act of making money. It's how they make money and in what relation to the customer.

Unless you could provide accurate charts on how much money BioWare/EA made with the ME3MP microtransaction, how much the MP DLC creation cost them and where that money came from there's no responsibility for BioWare/EA (or any other business) to offer good value. For all you know they could just release a DLC whose creation cost stand in no relation to the microtransaction revenue. And that is bad.

 

One might as well ask if the $60 we pay for the base game is being spent on content or is being used to pad the bottom line. As always, the answer will be a bit of both.

If a game isn't projected to make a profit, it won't be made.

 

I paid the sixty bucks for the game which I got. That is the transaction and it's completed. Where that money flows to is irrelevant as I got my product. And the same applies for any paid DLC, where I can clearly see what I'm buying before making the purchase. But hypothetical DLC funded as a byproduct by microtransactions do not have that same relationship. I do not pay for a specific product, nor do I know exactly what that product would be, or much much of the generated funds went into it. It's a Blackbox that takes money, does something, and produces something, completely devoid of any customer input other than indirect secondhand funding.

 

The point is the latter isn't an informed purchase, it's gambling. And the house always wins, as the rule goes.

 

And I don't fault the house for winning. But I fault them if they force people into gambling. And this what happens in such a scenario, the developer/publishers basically holds the future of content creation hostage and demands the players to pay up, or else. The fact that any given indivisual can make the decision not to pay and still get future content when it is provided does not change that the business practice is anti-customer, given that if too few people pay, the logical consequence is no future content.

[Cheviot]

The fact that any given indivisual can make the decision not to pay and still get future content when it is provided does not change that the business practice is anti-customer, given that if too few people pay, the logical consequence is no future content.

So what you're saying is that businesses should become anti-employee, and make them create content for no money?  You know, businesses might get on board for that.

[Fidite Nemini]

So what you're saying is that businesses should become anti-employee, and make them create content for no money?  You know, businesses might get on board for that.

 

*sigh*

 

How did you think that is a reasonable argument? Or are you one of those who think that a business can't be making profits without being dicks?

[Cheviot]

*sigh*

 

How did you think that is a reasonable argument? Or are you one of those who think that a business can't be making profits without being dicks?

You implied you want the content that would've been paid for with microtransactions to be free instead.

[KaiserShep]

I don't really see the problem with the way ME3 handled microtransactions. Players who didn't want to pay more money could simply keep playing and generate the game credits to get the exact same things. 

[Sanunes]

I don't really see the problem with the way ME3 handled microtransactions. Players who didn't want to pay more money could simply keep playing and generate the game credits to get the exact same things. 

 

I agree for I believe that if the micro transactions were not part of multiplayer they would have been charging at least $15 per multiplayer content update. So if I had to pick between the micro transaction system BioWare has or the paid multiplayer DLC I would go with BioWare's micro transaction system.

[LinksOcarina]

I don't really see the problem with the way ME3 handled microtransactions. Players who didn't want to pay more money could simply keep playing and generate the game credits to get the exact same things. 

 

See that's the thing: There was no problem with it.

 

People just range and assume there always is one. Take Overkill and Payday 2 lately. That is a problem because they are forcing players to buy unlocks for items that have stats tied to them, in a predominantly multiplayer game. If BioWare did that, then it would be a problem.

 

Optional is fine. Options are good and they allow different kind of players to play the game. BioWare has never forced it; even TOR is fairly accommodating (albeit overly restrictive at times) regarding their free to play model. So long as its optional i'm fine.

[Fidite Nemini]

You implied you want the content that would've been paid for with microtransactions to be free instead.

 

I didn't, read again:

I paid the sixty bucks for the game which I got. That is the transaction and it's completed. Where that money flows to is irrelevant as I got my product. And the same applies for any paid DLC, where I can clearly see what I'm buying before making the purchase. But hypothetical DLC funded as a byproduct by microtransactions do not have that same relationship. I do not pay for a specific product, nor do I know exactly what that product would be, or much much of the generated funds went into it. It's a Blackbox that takes money, does something, and produces something, completely devoid of any customer input other than indirect secondhand funding.

 

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.

[AlanC9]

For all you know they could just release a DLC whose creation cost stand in no relation to the microtransaction revenue. And that is bad.

What's bad about that? I thought the way capitalism works is that you sell stuff for whatever price people are willing to pay for that stuff. I certainly try to get as much salary as I can for my work.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if DLCs didn't have a higher profit margin than base games. My bet is that, in the AAA space, base games are pretty close to breakeven, and all of the profit comes from DLCs and microtransactions. I've worked for academic publishers with this model; the book is a wash, and the profit comes from the upkeep service. Really, it's just a variant of razor and blades, which has been around forever.
 

I paid the sixty bucks for the game which I got. That is the transaction and it's completed. Where that money flows to is irrelevant as I got my product. And the same applies for any paid DLC, where I can clearly see what I'm buying before making the purchase. But hypothetical DLC funded as a byproduct by microtransactions do not have that same relationship.

This is a bit confused. Since we were talking about hypothetical alternate allocations of the base game revenue, those alternate versions of the base game are hypothetical too.
 

And I don't fault the house for winning. But I fault them if they force people into gambling. And this what happens in such a scenario, the developer/publishers basically holds the future of content creation hostage and demands the players to pay up, or else. The fact that any given indivisual can make the decision not to pay and still get future content when it is provided does not change that the business practice is anti-customer, given that if too few people pay, the logical consequence is no future content.

This doesn't make any sense. The content creator always has that power, for any product.

Edit: Oh, wait... so your problem is that there's no market signalling on the free DLCs? I don't think that's true. They can track player interest in the DLCs by tracking MP usage rates rather than cash.

[LinksOcarina]

What's bad about that? I thought the way capitalism works is that you sell stuff for whatever price people are willing to pay for that stuff. I certainly try to get as much salary as I can for my work.

Honestly, I'd be shocked if DLCs didn't have a higher profit margin than base games. My bet is that, in the AAA space, base games are pretty close to breakeven, and all of the profit comes from DLCs and microtransactions. I've worked for academic publishers with this model; the book is a wash, and the profit comes from the upkeep service. Really, it's just a variant of razor and blades, which has been around forever.
 

This is a bit confused. Since we were talking about hypothetical alternate allocations of the base game revenue, those alternate versions of the base game are hypothetical too.


This doesn't make any sense. The content creator always has that power, for any product.

 

Base games actually rarely generate a profit. Break even is also uncommon; most games take a loss.

 

The question is how much of a loss.

 

So DLC fills that gap and generates profit, not to mention keeps a team on payroll longer and adds more content to be created for a studio after a game is finished. DLC is one of the few things that has actually began to change the work-for-hire mentality most studio's have...it's at least keeping teams on a single studio longer.

[Fidite Nemini]

What's bad about that? I thought the way capitalism works is that you sell stuff for whatever price people are willing to pay for that stuff. I certainly try to get as much salary as I can for my work.

Looking at it from the wrong direction. A more fitting analogy would be you working a certain amount of hours and your boss decides to only pay you for a fraction of those workhours and you can't determine if he did that because the way he determines your salary are outside your knowledge base/priviliges.
 

This is a bit confused. Since we were talking about hypothetical alternate allocations of the base game revenue, those alternate versions of the base game are hypothetical too.

What is confusing? It's a simple exchange, payment for product.
Note I'm arguing against the practice of microtransactions funding future free DLCs, so I'm looking at what buying a random loot crate means for hypothetical content creation, not the direct exchange of payment for loot crate. If you could choose where exactly the revenue flows to in terms of content creation, i.e.: sponser a specific product, that would be a different matter.

This doesn't make any sense. The content creator always has that power, for any product.

How so?

I am talking about hypethetical future content. Any content creator can chose to not create content, or create content I don't like, but in those cases neither do I have to pay for it, or have the option not to pay when I don't like it.
That doesn't apply to hypothetical content that isn't planned out yet (or at least I as the customer don't know any plans).
It is not unlike the season-pass concept. You pay for future content without knowing what it is, when it comes and if you'd actually want it.

[Deadarth]

Yes, for multiplayer, they are not forced on you, they give no advantage except saving time for people with money and they give us free DLCs, the lesser evil.

[AlanC9]

Looking at it from the wrong direction. A more fitting analogy would be you working a certain amount of hours and your boss decides to only pay you for a fraction of those workhours and you can't determine if he did that because the way he determines your salary are outside your knowledge base/priviliges.

I don't see how this fits this situation at all.
 
 

What is confusing? It's a simple exchange, payment for product.
Note I'm arguing against the practice of microtransactions funding future free DLCs, so I'm looking at what buying a random loot crate means for hypothetical content creation, not the direct exchange of payment for loot crate. If you could choose where exactly the revenue flows to in terms of content creation, i.e.: sponser a specific product, that would be a different matter.

OK. But as I said in my edit above, they're getting the market data from MP participation rates. That's effectively the same thing as sales because that's where the revenue comes from in this model. Although I suppose a free DLC could theoretically have an influence on microtransaction rates beyond keeping players playing.

[Fidite Nemini]

I don't see how this fits this situation at all.

 
Hmm, let me try and explain my perspective better (please bear with the simplicity, I'm just trying to be as clear as possible, not condescending). The basic chain as I see it is:

 

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.

 

The question now is, is that good value for the players who sponsored Y by paying X for the loot crate?

Since they don't know Y, nor the cost  for Z, they can't judge value.

 

That dilemma established, there are now two basic assumptions you can make.

-Y was a reasonable percentage of X, hence Z had high costs and with the distributed nature of the funding, each individual gets lots of value for their parts.

-Y was not a reasonable percentage of X, hence Z had low costs and each individual gets less value for their parts.

 

And then there comes subjective judgement, was Z good or not? Ergo was the value worth it the expenses as far as a single player's opinion is concerned?

That last part is the crux, since their was no choice made regarding the nature of Z. If it was good, they would've paid for the DLC (especially if the content wouldn't be subject to random drops). Revenue from microtransactions might decrease as they unlock the content immediately without having to grind or buy crates for it, but direct revenue from the DLC would offset that loss.

 

The only major difference for the developers/publisher is the funding. Secondhand funding more or less assures profit, or at least no losses. But if they make the content and then recuperate the costs in direct sales revenue, the chance to not make a profit or even make losses is present. That however also incentivizes to keep an ear closer to what the playerbase appreciates, ultimately being more beneficial for the customers as the need to create a sellable product is ever so slightly diminshed when funding is already secured beforehand.
 

OK. But as I said in my edit above, they're getting the market data from MP participation rates. That's effectively the same thing as sales because that's where the revenue comes from in this model. Although I suppose a free DLC could theoretically have an influence on microtransaction rates beyond keeping players playing.

That is one part of my argument, yes. And it's true that they could possibly extrapolate trends from other data, albeit the accuracy of such is obviously not as reliable as direct feed back.

 

But my main concern is that the customer gets deprived of choice. Getting free stuff is all well, I do not contest that idea. And whilst I evidently don't like microtransactions, a progression system with such isn't necessarily bad in itself if the gameplay isn't touched by it and regular progression is a satisfying, regular if not necessarily linear nature.. But when the progression system devolves into a chore of grinding for hundreds of hours to get what you want, then it all adds up into one giant anti-customer cluster**** that serves only to frustrate players that don't intend to throw money at their screen.

 

And the latter is the problem that ME3MP and DAMP definately have.

 

 

I hope I managed to explain my reasoning, I certainly don't want to have to write another wall-of-text too soon again.

[Deadarth]

Considering ME3MP and DAMP, do they save time?

 

Crates in those examples have no higher droprates for good stuff (or in DAMP's case guarantee dropping something that you don't have already), so the only way to save time noticably is to pay up big and hope the quantity of drop chances means the law of averages graces you with a drop you actually want.

 

Not exactly good. At least not with the pricing we have right now.

Well, even in ME3MP case, if you buy one crate, well that's one crate you won't have to farm for, it seems like you want to be able to pay your way to loot but at the moment it's too expensive for your tastes, I'm fine with the free DLCs that I will get because I highly doubt they will change the store system all that much.

[Fidite Nemini]

Well, even in ME3MP case, if you buy one crate, well that's one crate you won't have to farm for, it seems like you want to be able to pay your way to loot but at the moment it's too expensive for your tastes, I'm fine with the free DLCs that I will get because I highly doubt they will change the store system all that much.

 

Eh, that perspective wouldn't be much of an issue if the pricing were a bit less agressive. What is the exchange rate again, something around two bucks for a Spectre Pack, wasn't it?

Two bucks for a 7.5% chance for an UR is pretty expensive.

 

And it might surprise you to hear that I've bought packs for ME3MP after DLCs got released as thanks, because I did want to fund more DLC. The oh so vain chance to unlock something new (from the DLC even) was an added benefit rather than the purpose.

 

I want to pay for quality content. I just also want to know I'm getting quality content.