Since the PS4 and XB1 release, paymium games have become a thing.
i.e. you buy the game, and you can either grind in game, or you can pay for credits to reduce the grind - at rates comparable to existing F2P games.
In GT6's case - one of the priciest cars will cost 120 GBP worth of credit... one car out of thousands.
But the reality is that the ability to buy credits (at least in GT6) - will simply an additional option, on top of grinding the game as was par the course for GT5.
Of course the fear is that by going in this route, games will be balanced towards grinding, ensuring that would otherwise end up spending money on the pay to reduce grind elements.
Which is understandable - because it potentially negatively affects the existing dichotomy of buying a game and having access to all the content. Technically yes, you still get access to all the content - but you can no longer be sure that the content hasn't turned into an obscene carrot/stick arrangement to benefit the pockets of the people making these decisions.
But would you be as pissed off if developers this generation decide to go the direction of the 'Freemium'?
i.e. a F2P game that allows players to buy the single player component with bonuses to the F2P elements (Airmech is a good example of this, although i'm sure there are others) - usually in the form of premium account for X months (increases the rate of credits earnt, reducing grind, while sometimes providing other bonuses), credits and unique bonus items. This solution has the added bonus of making the game available to players sooner; before official launch as well.
The main difference is that players would have automatic (F2P) access to the multiplayer portion of the game - but the results would be largely the same for anyone that wanted to play the full game - i.e. singleplayer + multiplayer components.
Personally, it seems like a fair trade to me. Even if the multiplayer components do become more grindy as a result of this change - the bonus is that you have access to a far wider variety of big budget games to try without purchasing.
As a gamer that bought hundreds of games last gen, and then ignored a good portion of those games, such a business model would likely save me money - even when I do whale out on some of the games I'm especially in to.
But what about the rest of you? Would you prefer this solution? Or just remove the idea of pay for anything in your multiplayer at all - and go back to a pre PS3/X360 era of multiplayer gaming? What if the trade-off was significantly fewer titles on the market, because the rigidity of the $60 game developer to publisher model simply meant that not as many developers could succeed?
Last edited by Zaptruder; Yesterday at 06:44 PM.
I refuse to play F2P or F2P elements in a paid game.
Just sell me the complete thing without this crap in it
Just sell me the complete thing without this crap in it
Really that kind of stuff should not be in a single player game at all. Like you said it drastically distorts the design of the game behind a huge grind wall and it becomes so ridiculous that the stupid argument of "but you can still get everything yourself" becomes complete nonsense because 99% of people cannot invest 17,000 hours into playing 1 game.
What should happen is kind of what you said if I understood it correctly. A game should get a normal release at a normal cost and then if they want they can make the multiplayer F2P so people who don't want to buy the game can still play MP, and then you shoehorn all those microtransactions in. But a single player game should not have microtransactions at all. It's poison to good game design.
What should happen is kind of what you said if I understood it correctly. A game should get a normal release at a normal cost and then if they want they can make the multiplayer F2P so people who don't want to buy the game can still play MP, and then you shoehorn all those microtransactions in. But a single player game should not have microtransactions at all. It's poison to good game design.
I'm ok for a "Pay to unlock", like EA has been done years ago. You don't want to grind? Pay X and you get all your cars unlocked. A fixed value, all unlocked, for lazy people.
But not messing the economy messing with the ingame money and trying to lure people to get a ingame money package to get the next car Seems the same, but it's not at all.
But not messing the economy messing with the ingame money and trying to lure people to get a ingame money package to get the next car Seems the same, but it's not at all.
Robbium
Yes - basically split the game into single player and F2P multiplayer.Originally Posted by Derrick01
Really that kind of stuff should not be in a single player game at all. Like you said it drastically distorts the design of the game behind a huge grind wall and it becomes so ridiculous that the stupid argument of "but you can still get everything yourself" becomes complete nonsense because 99% of people cannot invest 17,000 hours into playing 1 game.
What should happen is kind of what you said if I understood it correctly. A game should get a normal release at a normal cost and then if they want they can make the multiplayer F2P so people who don't want to buy the game can still play MP, and then you shoehorn all those microtransactions in. But a single player game should not have microtransactions at all. It's poison to good game design.
Where they can entice players of the F2P to buy SP by letting them unlock unique cosmetics F2P items and options from SP (e.g. unlock the skin of the SP hero for use in MP).
I will re-post this here.
Well, the regular F2P is not okay. In mobile gaming it has become an abomination in many cases.
One example is AB:GO and their $100 cars which Sterling does mentions. Another egregious example is Dead Trigger 2, which has a ridiculous amount of timers:
If you want to upgrade your weapon, which is necessary since the zombies grow stronger the more you play, first you need to grind (or buy) a very high amount of in-game currency to unlock the tech upgrade. Once you pay the upgrade itself is locked on a timer that can last for days. The only way to get rid of timer is to spend high amounts of a second currency which can only obtained by spending real money. After grinding and waiting for many days (or spend $20+ bucks) to upgrade the tech, you need to repeat the process in order to upgrade the guns tech. One you upgrade the guns, you need to pay for the gun upgrade itself. This upgrade is also locked on a timer.
But it not stops there! The basic weapons have a diminishing upgrade power, the will eventually become infective even if you upgrade them! You need to unlock better weapons by collecting pieces that drop on randomly or buy them with real money.
And all this is only for the guns. Healing items, trinkets and explosives are on separate upgrade paths! It's fucking ridiculous... Oh, but all this "is optional and you can unlock everything without spending money"...
This game is made by the same company that developed fan's favorites Dead Trigger, Shadowgun and the Way of the Warrior Samurai series... Free2Play is killing my interest in mobile gaming.
We deserve what we get. We bitch and moan about wanting better graphics and with that comes rising development costs.
You reap what you sow.
You reap what you sow.
I think you can definetly find some publishers and developers experimenting with some truly abhorrent ideas.I will re-post this here.
But I don't see how a few of them behaving badly nullifies the entire concept of F2P - especially given that larger and more successful examples in the PC gaming space like LoL, TF2 and DOTA2 show that you can make financially successful games without destroying the gameplay balance in favour of pay to play customers - and in the case of TF2 and DOTA2, even leverage off and reward fan enthusiasm and creativity by allowing them to sell cosmetic items for the game on the market.
Eh, that's pretty short sighted. Thrusting more money into pushing the limits of visual fidelity opposed to spending the same amount of money on hiring people with unique artstyles that don't require cutting edge realism would probably be money better spent. Valkyria Chronicles still looks absolutely amazing to this day, which Call of Duty: Modern Warfare has uncanny valley wrinkles with each year that passes.Originally Posted by noobasuar
We deserve what we get. We bitch and moan about wanting better graphics and with that comes rising development costs.
You reap what you sow.
I'd say trying to make games as realistic as possible is a fools errand unless you're pulling in those call of duty numbers, and even then, that sense of realism of the time is lost so quickly as someone does the next best thing 3 months later.
This is also true, which is why I find it bewildering that most game developers even consider using hollywood actors for anything. It's such a boneheaded decision that usually results in people not even realizing that people were in the project in the first place.Originally Posted by The Janitor
Better graphics is hardly the cause of rising development costs. It's stuff like mocap, hollywood actors and advertising.
Michelle Rodriquez was in Halo 2. Did anyone notice? Did anyone care? Would that role have been better served by someone who has made a living doing voice acting?
Better as learn-to-realistically-fucking-budgetium. I have no interest in games as a "platform" or "service." And I don't give a shit that game budgets are out of control. Not my fault, not my problem. If it needs to be fixed, it's the responsibility of the publishers and developers to control scope and costs and bring things in at a reasonable price.
I will pay $60 up front on release day for a complete, working game that isn't trying to psychologically manipulate me into spending more on it, or I will spend $0 on one that does try that Skinner Box shit.
I will pay $60 up front on release day for a complete, working game that isn't trying to psychologically manipulate me into spending more on it, or I will spend $0 on one that does try that Skinner Box shit.
I'm a believer that the best games don't offer resource DLC
I want to buy a single unit and experience that. I don't want to buy piece meal. I don't want to be pestered to buy credits. I don't want to even know you can buy credits
I want to buy a single unit and experience that. I don't want to buy piece meal. I don't want to be pestered to buy credits. I don't want to even know you can buy credits
better as not existing.
As if all these grinding mechanics werent stupid enough, now you have the option to pay extra to avoid it.
How about games with no grind or filler and no macrotransactions.
How about games with no grind or filler and no macrotransactions.
I think freemium is obviously better but it's the lesser of 2 evils for me.
Honestly, I can't see myself ever paying for typical micro transactions (unlocks, xp doubler, skins etc) in a game, be it free or full price. I'm just too stubborn to do it if they are giving me the option to save money by grinding is there, even if it makes me not enjoy the game.
The whole thing is just a big turn off to me. Even if a game is well balanced without micro transactions, I think just the presence of them makes it worse. For whatever reason associating a real world price with unlocks devalues them in my mind and makes me not care, it turns the concept of earning xp or whatever from fun to work. Charging money to save you time implies that the player would want to save time because such and such part of the game is just filler or grinding. It might be irrational but that's just how my brain sees it. I'm sure there are some people that don't have a problem with and good for those people I suppose.
Honestly, I can't see myself ever paying for typical micro transactions (unlocks, xp doubler, skins etc) in a game, be it free or full price. I'm just too stubborn to do it if they are giving me the option to save money by grinding is there, even if it makes me not enjoy the game.
The whole thing is just a big turn off to me. Even if a game is well balanced without micro transactions, I think just the presence of them makes it worse. For whatever reason associating a real world price with unlocks devalues them in my mind and makes me not care, it turns the concept of earning xp or whatever from fun to work. Charging money to save you time implies that the player would want to save time because such and such part of the game is just filler or grinding. It might be irrational but that's just how my brain sees it. I'm sure there are some people that don't have a problem with and good for those people I suppose.
Last edited by AngryMoth; Yesterday at 06:52 PM.
All those are eSport games. I can't see the model being appropriate for other kind of games. Specially single player games, unless the model reduces to buy the game in parts up to a certain limit.Originally Posted by Zaptruder
I think you can definetly find some publishers and developers experimenting with some truly abhorrent ideas.
But I don't see how a few of them behaving badly nullifies the entire concept of F2P - especially given that larger and more successful examples in the PC gaming space like LoL, TF2 and DOTA2 show that you can make financially successful games without destroying the gameplay balance in favour of pay to play customers - and in the case of TF2 and DOTA2, even leverage off and reward fan enthusiasm and creativity by allowing them to sell cosmetic items for the game on the market.
Oh... single player and F2P are as oil to water. That shit's whacked yo. Go shareware if you want to do F2P SP.All those are eSport games. I can't see the model being appropriate for other kind of games. Specially single player games, unless the model reduces to buy the game in parts up to a certain limit.
At this point I am ready to say just screw the microtransaction crap. I will pay $80 bucks for the two or three AAA games a year that interest me.
I think they should just sell the game at the price they think it's worth. If you're making a crazy expensive game, have the balls to just say "hey, it's $70".
This concept of selling a $60 game and then having all sorts of surprises within that fuck with the experience in hopes of you spending more are just obnoxious and dirty.
This concept of selling a $60 game and then having all sorts of surprises within that fuck with the experience in hopes of you spending more are just obnoxious and dirty.
I'm okay with paid content as long as they're cosmetic or convenience enhancements and not game unbalancing. Placing unnecessary grind in a game to accommodate paid content is ridiculous.
The problem is that all the greedy publishers who made a $40 game will try to sell it for $80 too. We saw the disappearance of alternate price points at retail last generation. It's self defeating because they've become too greedy. A solid profit isn't enough. Publishers and investors somehow expect every game to make the profit of a cultural event like CoD.Originally Posted by BruiserBear
I think they should just sell the game at the price they think it's worth. If you're making a crazy expensive game, have the balls to just say "hey, it's $70".
This concept of selling a $60 game and then having all sorts of surprises within that fuck with the experience in hopes of you spending more are just obnoxious and dirty.
This.I'm okay with paid content as long as they're cosmetic or convenience enhancements and not game unbalancing. Placing unnecessary grind in a game to accommodate paid content is ridiculous.
I'm only okay with it if it doesn't warp how stuff like unlocks and upgrades are handled in the game--i.e. making it extra grindy to do anything for free, to incentivize paying for the same shit. It's not free when you paid for the base game, and it can still be overdone even in F2P titles anyway.
Things that would've been a cheat code in PS2's generation but now cost money is bad. imo
Content made as day one DLC along side the game before the release is bad. imo
Cosmetic stuff that has no affect on game play is alright. imo
Episodic or expansions created after the game is a good use of DLC. imo
Content made as day one DLC along side the game before the release is bad. imo
Cosmetic stuff that has no affect on game play is alright. imo
Episodic or expansions created after the game is a good use of DLC. imo
Not all f2p and paymium games are created equal.
That is all.
That is all.
But it's the future and we just have to deal with it!
If there is a way to earn everything through playing and it doesn't give any advantage in multiplayer (outside of decreasing the time to earn a particular item), then I am totally on board with freemium. In fact, I prefer the option. Some F2P games have terrible models though.
Look at PC Diablo 3.
The temptation to balance towards $$$ is too strong.
This generation will suffer and die if this model continues.
The temptation to balance towards $$$ is too strong.
This generation will suffer and die if this model continues.
I just want to pay for a game one time and have it have everything in there for me to unlock or automatically have without jumping through monetary hoops. This means not having to grind forever where they push you towards getting a "pay $5 to get this thing now" rather than "play with this car for 100 hours". <- exaggerated example
I can only condone microtransactions when the effects are purely cosmetic. When it starts to influence the actual game mechanics, I consider it to be a problem, especially in competitive games. If I am going to be paying for game content, I want a flat rate. Whether it's a subscription or a single purchase, I just want a straightforward figure of how much I have to pay for the complete game. After that, I don't want any pressuring or advertising to spend more money for an "improved" play experience.
If being F2P makes the game worse (which it usually does) then I don't want it. I value a game being good over it being free.
I'm truly getting sick of microtransactions period. It doesn't matter if it's F2P or a $60 retail game with stuff stripped out to sell to you. It would only be OK for devs to add in transactions for cosmetic stuff like skins for your character, guns, etc. But NO! Forza 5 stripped out lots of cars so you have to pay another $20 on top of your original $60. This is becoming too much. And those who actually pay for it are making us all pay for it, cause the publishers and devs see that they made an extra million or so just on the "DLC" (which isn't DLC cause it was stripped). Everyone should have to grind / spend time in the game equally. Getting to pay to win is simply cheating, straight up. It's like using a Game Genie or GameShark and having to pay for the individual codes. I hate playing an online game and some n00b is kicking my arse cause he dropped $20 on better equipment. It's like when you modded your original Xbox and could use trainers and play online Halo with infinite health / never die. They put ads in sports and racing games, I know they get money for that and that is fine. I'd gladly take ads in games like that over having to shell out money. SO EVERYONE STOP!! Stop giving them your money and maybe, just maybe (a BIG maybe) we will all see a decline in microtransactions in full $60 retail games. At least one can hope.
Once again boys and girls vote with your wallets and tell them your opinion.
I will not be playing Deep Down because Capcom has added F2P options.
But I bought Dragons Dogma: Dark Arisen for 30$.
Voting with my wallet.
Also Diablo 3 pulled out the real money auction house after everyone quit and told them they hated it.
I will not be playing Deep Down because Capcom has added F2P options.
But I bought Dragons Dogma: Dark Arisen for 30$.
Voting with my wallet.
Also Diablo 3 pulled out the real money auction house after everyone quit and told them they hated it.
Forza looked awesome, but after hearing about the micro transactions I was turned off immediately. I don't mind DLC, content packs released at a later date are fine. If I'm paying 60 bucks for a game and have to pay to unlock content, fuck you.
It's still somewhat upsetting though.Originally Posted by LouisaFerre
I can only condone microtransactions when the effects are purely cosmetic. When it starts to influence the actual game mechanics, I consider it to be a problem, especially in competitive games. If I am going to be paying for game content, I want a flat rate. Whether it's a subscription or a single purchase, I just want a straightforward figure of how much I have to pay for the complete game. After that, I don't want any pressuring or advertising to spend more money for an "improved" play experience.
Cosmetic bonuses, like additional costumes, used to be bonus content straight off the disc, and all you had to do was play the game.
Dead or Alive had some 20 or more costumes for several of its characters. It was great.
People that argue "It's a time saver" , "People have jobs and lives", ect.. Seem to forget this little thing we used to have called cheat codes.
I will not buy pay to win games. I made a mistake with NBA 2k14, moving forward I'm going to avoid them. I don't condone the practice and want to 'vote with my wallet'. I don't want this trend to become the norm like DLC did last generation. I'll probably miss out on some really good games. But I can wait and get them second hand if at all.
I will not buy pay to win games. I made a mistake with NBA 2k14, moving forward I'm going to avoid them. I don't condone the practice and want to 'vote with my wallet'. I don't want this trend to become the norm like DLC did last generation. I'll probably miss out on some really good games. But I can wait and get them second hand if at all.
I wouldn't mind more $5-15 DLC and $20-30 expansion packs instead. I will pay for more content if I enjoy the game (unless it's required to play online competitively), but I don't like to see existing content locked behind stuff if I already paid a pretty hefty premium for the game at launch.
I'm fine with "pay money to circumvent a grind" options in non-F2P games if they're presented as a convenience rather than the only way to get the stuff in a way that doesn't make you want to kill yourself (or worse, allow you to completely trivialize the game by throwing more money at it, though that's obviously not a factor when you're just talking about unlocking content.)
AC4's resource pack DLC is a good example of this- for $2 you get a bunch of resources that you'd otherwise have to plunder a lot of ships for. Not enough that you can buy every upgrade and steamroll the entire game (and you can only buy it once,) but more than enough to be worth the $2 if you're having a hard time with some parts and don't want to have to stop and grind some money for upgrades.
The funny thing is, these companies would probably make at least as much money and get a hell of a lot less animosity if they made the in-game grind more reasonable and sold a "unlock all the things" DLC pack for $10-20. People will happily pay money to save time as long as they feel like they're not getting ripped off.
AC4's resource pack DLC is a good example of this- for $2 you get a bunch of resources that you'd otherwise have to plunder a lot of ships for. Not enough that you can buy every upgrade and steamroll the entire game (and you can only buy it once,) but more than enough to be worth the $2 if you're having a hard time with some parts and don't want to have to stop and grind some money for upgrades.
The funny thing is, these companies would probably make at least as much money and get a hell of a lot less animosity if they made the in-game grind more reasonable and sold a "unlock all the things" DLC pack for $10-20. People will happily pay money to save time as long as they feel like they're not getting ripped off.
Why does the answer to all Publishers/Developers monetary issues constantly have to be resolved with us paying them more?
Seriously, I'm having a bit of an issue trying to comprehend the reason why I should be forced(yes, they are TRYING to force us by artificially slowing down progress, so don't even try to damage control that you corporate slaves) to pay more when the industry is growing, when the industry is making record profits, when the industry is constantly breaking entertainment sales records and then brags about it! Why can't the Publisher give us more?
It is absolutely sad state of affairs in our gaming community when we have people that are willing to defend these companies when they are screwing them.
/s Like OMG those guys at Turn10 are totally fucking the consumer with no lube! At least Polyphony gave us a reach around!
Seriously, I'm having a bit of an issue trying to comprehend the reason why I should be forced(yes, they are TRYING to force us by artificially slowing down progress, so don't even try to damage control that you corporate slaves) to pay more when the industry is growing, when the industry is making record profits, when the industry is constantly breaking entertainment sales records and then brags about it! Why can't the Publisher give us more?
It is absolutely sad state of affairs in our gaming community when we have people that are willing to defend these companies when they are screwing them.
/s Like OMG those guys at Turn10 are totally fucking the consumer with no lube! At least Polyphony gave us a reach around!
freemium is better because i know to avoid it upfront
a regularly priced game with shitty grinding/microtransation-pushing mechanics might come out without being duly torn apart by reviewers
a regularly priced game with shitty grinding/microtransation-pushing mechanics might come out without being duly torn apart by reviewers
Dark Souls Durante May Die Edition looks fantastic to me. How much did that cost to make, as opposed to 100mil+ Bioshock Infinite or Tomb Raider 2013?Originally Posted by noobasuar
We deserve what we get. We bitch and moan about wanting better graphics and with that comes rising development costs.
You reap what you sow.
Not the main reason that costs are rising right now. Next gen is all about art assets, not extensive programming which is a much cheaper cost. Publishers just have absolutely ridiculous expectations when it comes to sales and feel the need to put in microtransactions to counter the fact that the games won't do CoD numbers. The industry needs to learn to budget appropriately, advertise effectively instead of expensively, and have reasonable expectations.Originally Posted by noobasuar
We deserve what we get. We bitch and moan about wanting better graphics and with that comes rising development costs.
You reap what you sow.
On top of that, cosmetic DLC is a perfectly acceptable alternative that won't upset anyone and is more likely to be successful. Hell, I'm even fine with some of these "shortcut" payments as long as the game isn't clearly designed to make it take an unacceptable amount of time to achieve the unlocks in game without paying.
So, you are fine to pay to not play the game? Is the game is a bore to play is not well designed. Paying to get rid of a boring grind then is one of the worse F2P schemes out there.Originally Posted by Suzushiiro
I'm fine with "pay money to circumvent a grind" options in non-F2P games if they're presented as a convenience rather than the only way to get the stuff in a way that doesn't make you want to kill yourself (or worse, allow you to completely trivialize the game by throwing more money at it, though that's obviously not a factor when you're just talking about unlocking content.)
AC4's resource pack DLC is a good example of this- for $2 you get a bunch of resources that you'd otherwise have to plunder a lot of ships for. Not enough that you can buy every upgrade and steamroll the entire game (and you can only buy it once,) but more than enough to be worth the $2 if you're having a hard time with some parts and don't want to have to stop and grind some money for upgrades.
The funny thing is, these companies would probably make at least as much money and get a hell of a lot less animosity if they made the in-game grind more reasonable and sold a "unlock all the things" DLC pack for $10-20. People will happily pay money to save time as long as they feel like they're not getting ripped off.
There's also the fact a lot of those games will take as long as they do BECAUSE they count on this logic, even if they could've been perfectly enjoyable experiences balanced without them. The solution here is to not waste any time with the game then, besides doesn't it undermine the point of even playing some of these depending on the microtransaction model? Ones that are just about resource management, it's like you can just get "free" bailouts whenever the hell you want, and unless the intent is to be meta with the design that just makes such games seem like a waste of time with or without "time saving" microtransactions.Originally Posted by WhatRobEats
People that argue "It's a time saver" , "People have jobs and lives", ect.. Seem to forget this little thing we used to have called cheat codes.
Last edited by Eusis; Yesterday at 08:14 PM.
I understand the potential need for some games to have micro transactions
But micro transactions should be for items that are 100% cosmetic
Absolutely NO exception
But micro transactions should be for items that are 100% cosmetic
Absolutely NO exception
xcom enemy unknown with micro transactions would be mind blowingly awfulThere's also the fact a lot of those games will take as long as they do BECAUSE they count on this logic, even if they could've been perfectly enjoyable experiences without them. The solution here is to not waste any time with the game then, besides doesn't it undermine the point of even playing some of these depending on the microtransaction model? Ones that are just about resource management, it's like you can just get "free" bailouts whenever the hell you want, and unless the intent is to be meta with the design that just makes such games seem like a waste of time with or without "time saving" microtransactions.
Last edited by Sanke__; Yesterday at 08:16 PM.
| Thread Tools | |