NeoGAF

Feorax · (Yesterday, 08:23 PM)

I can live without GTA, Bioshock and Civ if this comes to pass. The potential to microtransaction the shit out of those particular franchises is horrifying.

New plasmid: $10

Apartment in Vice City: $15

Quick build units: $3 per build.

The worst part? People would fucking pay it...

Originally Posted by Interfectum

Sure but if we are talking traditional games like GTA, Bioshock, etc those games would be severely effected if you eliminated the $60 up-front payment.

I hate micropayments as much as the next person but it's still a hell of a lot better than going F2P.

Think about things like timers in a F2P Bioshock where you would have to wait 10 minutes to use your spells again or pay $1. And you can't complain but you got it free!! Ugh, what a horrid future that would be.

In an ideal world. The problem is that T2 could strip GTA down to essentially a F2P level of content, charge $60 for it, and people would buy it in droves.

Iadien · (Yesterday, 08:23 PM)

Originally Posted by Interfectum

Difference:

Retail w/ micro you are still, generally, getting the traditional game that most of us love.

F2P changes the game completely and it's a model / game type I have zero interest in.

If all of the F2P models were exactly the same, then your statement would make more sense, but they clearly aren't all the same.

Randam · (Yesterday, 08:23 PM)

Originally Posted by Sinatar

Yea fuck this. This industry needs a crash in a big way.

it realy does..

mrdark · (Yesterday, 08:24 PM)

I have no problem going back to pirating, industry. Just thought you would like to know.

Steel · (Yesterday, 08:25 PM)

What happened to the damn games that you paid full price for, and barring 1-2 expansion packs, got the god damned full game?

Is StarCraft 2 the last one?

Interfectum · (Yesterday, 08:25 PM)

Originally Posted by Nakor

That is slowly becoming less true. Retail w/ micro games are increasing the grind, to encourage micro purchases.

There is still a gigantic difference between a true F2P game and a $60 game with F2P influences. (in most cases)

aliencowz7 · 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Blades64

Did people even read what he said? He's basically saying that he wants to charge you the full $60 for a game, but still have certain aspects of the game behind a pay-wall. This is NOT good.

That actually isn't what he said if you take the time to read it in context of the conversation they were having.

"I'm skeptical that for very high-end products, that's the way the business goes. I think you'll continue to sell those high-end products as the entry point, and then you'll have in-game monetization for certain sold items and free items."

That isn't stating his own personal opinion on either model, it is commenting on where he sees the rest of the industry going and that he see's it as more likely we arrive at retail + micro than f2p. He gives his personal opinion on F2P earlier in the article when he says

"That said, our DNA remains these very high end, AAA, immensely immersive experiences, and I don't really see us deviating from that."

And

"I'm not psyched about a business where 3 percent of your customers pay you, which is what you're dealing with," Zelnick said. "But we're flexible. If that's the way the business evolves, as long as we can get paid and make a profit doing it, we're happy to contemplate it."

Within context he is saying they are planning on staying as they are now but would explore whatever direction the industry ends up in. Seems like a pretty logical answer for a CEO to give. He doesn't give his personal feelings about retail + micro in this article so I won't speculate on that.

Finalizer · (Yesterday, 08:25 PM)

lol @ first few posts from people who either didn't read the OP or misunderstood it.

pushBAK · (Yesterday, 08:25 PM)

dragonbane · (Yesterday, 08:27 PM)

We are in for a great gen.

Animefreek · (Yesterday, 08:28 PM)

Originally Posted by Visualante2

Yeah what a scum bag, publishing Grand Theft Auto V, Bioshock Infinite, NBA 2K14, XCOM: Enemy Within and an expansion for Civilization V.

If I didn't know better I'd guess these scumbags were gunning for publisher of the year.

Grand Theft Auto Online has an absolutely horrible microtransaction model that was clearly an afterthought, making it seem like a demand from their publisher. BioShock Infinite didn't need a "season pass".

Daingurse · (Yesterday, 08:28 PM)

Originally Posted by Htown

Why are you cheering this? He just told you he'd rather charge you 60 up front and then also get you on microtransactions afterwards.

Yeah, I was like, am I missing something here? This isn't a good thing, lol.

noobasuar · (Yesterday, 08:29 PM)

Can we please go back to ps2 level hardware where games didn't need to sell 10 million copies to break even and publishers didn't have to think of a million different ways to fuck the customers over?

Pretty please.

Remachinate · (Yesterday, 08:29 PM)

Maybe save the pitchforks for when we actually see a T2 game with this pricing structure? Speculation during a conference to potential investors about the state of the industry doesn't necessarily equate to revelations about business strategy.

Sir Garbageman · (Yesterday, 08:29 PM)

Isn't he basically championing what Forza is doing...? :/

Orayn · (Yesterday, 08:31 PM)

Originally Posted by badb0y

Fucking LOL, did you guys even read what he said?

Translation:
Fuck you, pay me.

Seriously, I'm fucking confused. He's championing Forza 5's monetization, but some people applaud him because they hate F2P even more?

Originally Posted by Remachinate

Maybe save the pitchforks for when we actually see a T2 game with this pricing structure? Speculation during a conference to potential investors about the state of the industry doesn't necessarily equate to revelations about business strategy.

GTA Online, it's already here.

jsnepo · (Yesterday, 08:31 PM)

Originally Posted by Tripon

You mean like GTA Online?

Never really had to pay for GTA$. I haven't even spent the 500K I received.

Z3M0G · (Yesterday, 08:32 PM)

Then I challenge them to never allow the micro-transaction models to impact the natural evolution of the games.

Design the game 100% without micro-transactions in mind. Make it balanced, fair, and completable in a reasonable amount of time with minimal grinding. Only then, figure out a micro-transaction option which has zero impact to the balance of the game, zero impact to competitiveness, etc.

Interfectum · (Yesterday, 08:34 PM)

Originally Posted by Orayn

GTA Online, it's already here.

Please. GTA5 is filled with some much content it's laughable to put that in the same league as a F2P game. There is absolutely no reason you would have to spend a dime in GTA Online either and not once has that game hassled me for paying them more money. That is nothing like a true F2P game or even like Forza 5.

Orayn · 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by Z3M0G

Then I challenge them to never allow the micro-transaction models to impact the natural evolution of the games.

Design the game 100% without micro-transactions in mind. Make it balanced, fair, and completable in a reasonable amount of time with minimal grinding. Only then, figure out a micro-transaction option which has zero impact to the balance of the game, zero impact to competitiveness, etc.

Dota 2 and CS:GO are literally the only games that have done this. (Path of Exile misses the mark by a tiny bit for having buyable bank tabs.)

Originally Posted by Interfectum

Please. GTA5 is filled with some much content it's laughable to put that in the same league as a F2P game. There is absolutely no reason you would have to spend a dime in GTA Online either and not once has that game hassled me for paying them more money. That is nothing like a true F2P game or even like Forza 5.

It's a retail game with microtransactions, which is all the post I quoted was talking about.

Shadow Hog · (Yesterday, 08:37 PM)

Originally Posted by Nirolak

I never knew people would be so excited for full price games with microtransactions on top.

So this is how liberty dies...

Remachinate · (Yesterday, 08:39 PM)

Originally Posted by Orayn

GTA Online, it's already here.

There's no paywalled content there though, just faster cash.

Furyous · 08:42 PM

Let's pre-empt take two by exploring new ways to screw customers:

GTA 6:

MTA properties with pay per unlock missions.

T2 could sell car packs for GTA 6. Five cars for $10 every month two years after launch.

How about 50 cent body customizations in GTAO 2.0?

Authentic clothes with real world prices. I want the A&F pants sold in-game for $45.

They could sell MTA clothes. That's right, clothes packs! Still with me?

What about mission packs for GTAO? Does five missions for $15 after two months sound like a good deal?

We talked MTA properties already. However, what about safehouse MTA rooms? Let's say a mansion costs $80 million in game currency. T2 could charge $5 for the bank vault itself. The security room could cost $5. The olympic swimming pool could cost $5. That's $15 off one safehouse for one player. Make 30 safehouses and watch the money pile up. The regular customer sees the house and a few rooms but paying customers get the full experience.

T2 could squeeze another $60 from a third of their customers. Imagine 10 million customers purchasing $60 of in-game on disk content. This is Dat next gen business model in effect. WE NEED TO MAKE MONEY OFF THE SECOND TRANSACTION.

Can someone reply to me with that angry joe gif? I'm talking about the one with "why? BECAUSE GIVE US MONEY".

Orayn · (Yesterday, 08:41 PM)

Originally Posted by Remachinate

There's no paywalled content there though, just faster cash.

I don't think what he said necessarily implies a paywall, it was just a generic description of retail games with microtransactions, which they've already done and will presumably keep doing in the future.

TouchMyBox · (Yesterday, 08:43 PM)

Originally Posted by Dreams-Visions

League of Legends
Dota 2
Team Fortress 2

I don't think the developers at Valve and Riot are begging for bread, nor are their games struggling to compete with anyone. All that's required for F2P to work is for developers to not abandon a game after release or after a couple of DLC packs like most do.

But selling just hats terrifies these companies. While Valve is an example of doing it right, not everyone is in the position where they can experiment less aggressive types of monetization because not everybody has a steam honeypot to fall back on.

Thus big publishers are doing these experiments while falling back on the honeypot of $60 retail titles.

undu · (Yesterday, 08:46 PM)

If he decides to go the full price + micro-transactions he's in for a world of pain.

The games get a much lower player base because of the much higher entry point and the players' aversion to pay for something that follows the same monetization as f2p games.

With the amount of games that are being release gamers are likely to go to another game with a much lower entry price, or go for another one that doesn't have monetization.

Having both is a risky decision that can blow up in his face, making the company to be known as consumer-abusing, eroding the company's reputation and having having long-term repercussions.

Remachinate · (Yesterday, 08:47 PM)

Originally Posted by Orayn

I don't think what he said necessarily implies a paywall, it was just a generic description of retail games with microtransactions, which they've already done and will presumably keep doing in the future.

That's fine, but my original post was in response to the hysterics about microtransactions in full retail games and how they'll warp the pricing of content. I don't really see how the GTA microtransactions are emblematic of such a shift.

Orayn · (Yesterday, 08:49 PM)

Originally Posted by Remachinate

That's fine, but my original post was in response to the hysterics about microtransactions in full retail games and how they'll warp the pricing of content. I don't really see how the GTA microtransactions are emblematic of such a shift.

I have to admit that I'm not really in the know since I haven't gotten GTA V/Online yet. If future patches ever wind up reducing cash payouts for normal gameplay, though, you should get a pretty good idea of where things are heading.

FullMetalx117 · (Yesterday, 08:49 PM)

I like Zelnick but at the same time I think he is an asshole since I own TTWO stock. If you own it you know what I mean.

jaundicejuice · 08:56 PM

Originally Posted by Interfectum

I hate micropayments as much as the next person but it's still a hell of a lot better than going F2P.

Think about things like timers in a F2P Bioshock where you would have to wait 10 minutes to use your spells again or pay $1. And you can't complain but you got it free!! Ugh, what a horrid future that would be.

If they are including free-to-play style microtransactions in full retail releases you can be damn sure that free-to-play game design isn't that far behind if it already isn't being implemented. They aren't just going to add these free-to-play microtransactions and not try to funnel you into whatever economy they're attempting to build. If anything the 60$ retail release is worse than your standard, exploitative, free-to-play game. The thing that your complaining about in a potential f2p version of Bioshock is a very real possibility with the direction the industry is going. Hell, we already have an examples, there's a mode in Jojo All-Star Battle with stamina bars and Bravely Default has a similar mechanic for bypassing random encounters. I wouldn't be surprised if in a year or two people are bitching about f2p design elements in major triple A titles. Not just the microtransactiosn but the underlying design of the game because there is a fundamental difference between game design and free-to-play game design.

Kintaro · (Yesterday, 08:51 PM)

Originally Posted by Htown

Why are you cheering this? He just told you he'd rather charge you 60 up front and then also get you on microtransactions afterwards.

Basically. He just told you that the market will buy $60 and will buy microtransactions on top of it. Guess what?

So far, he's right.

That's what hurts the most, doesn't it? =/

Eusis · 08:57 PM

On one hand GTA:O balance seems to indicate how this can go wrong.

On the other hand not only has the microtransaction model failed to materialize for that game so far, but the core experience (GTAV proper) is still free from it and pretty great, and most other games they published came out alright. Nevermind that maybe the online was going to be botched regardless.

Eh, I'll settle on "better mindset than some out there." He really does highlight what I think is the innate problem with F2P design though: depending on a minority of whales funding the whole thing. Sure, it works great now, but what happens when that 97% is fed up with the shoddy balance and dumps the games, then the whales realize how much they're wasting and either abandon the games or curtail spending? The $40-60 model simply is more stable, especially if you only budget the sure fire hits to require millions and millions of sales to be a success.

Remachinate · (Yesterday, 08:52 PM)

Originally Posted by FullMetalx117

I like Zelnick but at the same time I think he is an asshole since I own TTWO stock. If you own it you know what I mean.

Heh, I don't know if it's possible to like a video game company as both a consumer and investor.

speculawyer · (Yesterday, 08:55 PM)

Originally Posted by anexanhume

I agree. F2P is for those that can't compete in the AAA space. Not saying anything is wrong with that. What is wrong is when people try and add F2P conventions on top of $60 releases (looking at you Forza).

It can but their is much more failure than success.

Alienous · (Yesterday, 08:56 PM)

Originally Posted by CambriaRising

What a scumbag. He'd rather sell you a game then piecemeal the shit out of you.

.

What were you guys seeing?

Eusis · (Yesterday, 08:59 PM)

Originally Posted by Remachinate

Heh, I don't know if it's possible to like a video game company as both a consumer and investor.

Seems to kind of highlight how the stock market seemingly needs to be upended, I'd imagine the ideal before was what made consumers happy = more patronage, ergo profits go higher and investors are rewarded, but now it seems to have dived too far down the "how do we exploit them?" behavior, actively penalizing at times when it DOESN'T happen. But I guess the likes of benefit corporations are meant to be answers to that.

TouchMyBox · (Yesterday, 08:59 PM)

What is so confusing about the quote?

He doesn't like Free-to-Play

He thinks microtransactions on top of $60 games is the future.

speculawyer · (Yesterday, 09:02 PM)

I think GTA V has a pretty clear dividing line between its traditional AAA $60 game part and its microtransactions part.

For $60, you get a great AAA+ single player GTA V game. No microtransactions are involved. End of story.

However, it also comes with the base assets for GTA Online which is a F2P game that you can also play. If you don't want to play it, you don't have to. If you play it, you don't have to buy stuff. But if you want some bling, you can buy the GTA Bux.

Seems fair to me.

Interfectum · (Yesterday, 09:04 PM)

Originally Posted by speculawyer

I think GTA V has a pretty clear dividing line between its traditional AAA $60 game part and its microtransactions part.

For $60, you get a great AAA+ single player GTA V game. No microtransactions are involved. End of story.

However, it also comes with the base assets for GTA Online which is a F2P game that you can also play. If you don't want to play it, you don't have to. If you play it, you don't have to buy stuff. But if you want some bling, you can buy the GTA Bux.

Seems fair to me.

This. I have zero problems with how this is handled on GTA. If people want to buy stupid shit for their character thats fine. I have a tiny apartment and a cheap ass car that gets me to the missions I need to get to. If I see someone who brags too much about their shit I can just ram a helicopter I stole from the airport into them.

AzaK · (Yesterday, 09:09 PM)

Originally Posted by Nirolak

I never knew people would be so excited for full price games with microtransactions on top.

I was thinking the same.

MilkBeard · 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Sinatar

Right in the OP he says he'd rather do paymium then freemium. That isn't awesome, it's the very height of asshole scumbaggery.

Yea fuck this. This industry needs a crash in a big way.

He's basically saying, 'Yeah we WANT people to pay the initial $60, on top of having microtransactions.'

Bo · (Yesterday, 09:17 PM)

Well, this certainly isn't the Dota thread. How embarrassing.

lefantome · (Yesterday, 10:03 PM)

Can't wait to give T2 another 60€ for GTAV on Ps4.

T2 must make more games.

unknownhero · (Yesterday, 10:13 PM)

you see this? this shit is why I haven't bought a next gen console yet.

johnny956 · (Yesterday, 10:20 PM)

Originally Posted by Nakor

That is slowly becoming less true. Retail w/ micro games are increasing the grind, to encourage micro purchases.

It seems to apply to games that have a grind to begin with (hence we are seeing it on racing games). RPG's will be next I'm sure

blackflag · (Yesterday, 10:22 PM)

So many people didn't bother to finish reading the whole op....

dead souls · (Yesterday, 10:24 PM)

$60 plus microtransactions? Sometimes I really hate this industry.

HalfBaked · (Yesterday, 10:33 PM)

My god, how do people still frequent this place and not read the full fucking op. I don't like to resort to base statements without an argument but Get Fucked Take Two. Same goes for any publisher that tries this Paymium bullshit.

Amjad · (Yesterday, 10:38 PM)

Originally Posted by MercuryLS

T2 CEO is awesome. He's had a lot of great quotes in the past.

Bad first post.

He is saying that he'd rather do a full priced game AND have micro transactions...

PedroLumpy · (Yesterday, 10:54 PM)

Video games. Where purposefully making your game worse so you can charge your customers more money is a valid business strategy.

'Optional' micro-transactions mean everyone is getting screwed by shitty design. The 3% are willing to pay money to the people wasting their time.