Support NeoGAF

[Xenon]

Voting with your wallet and vocalising your opinion are both acceptable.

Nothing wrong with highlighting an issue so other people can vote with their wallet.

 

[Lysander91]

Maybe the publisher should stop hiring 300+ people teams, spending tons of money on marketing hoping it's the next hit, and wasting resources on unneeded features to save some money instead of trying to make it back through the sale of stuff a lot of people don't buy.

Some do buy it and enjoy it, but that shouldn't be the method of making back money or making a profit.

Firstly, I think it's pretty obvious that 300+ people teams and spending tons of money on marketing are pretty much necessary to have a hit game. I'm not sure what you mean by unneeded features though.

Secondly, a lot of people do buy dlc and spend cash on micro-transactions. Look at the top grossing iPhone games. Almost all of them are free. The very fact that this model has become so prominent should be an indicator that most people don't mind micro-transactions, and they are a great way to raise revenue.

Thirdly, I hope you have some sort of ethical framework that comes to the conclusion that even if people like the micro-transaction model and it is a profitable route for publishers, it's still wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think that you actually have this ethical framework, but that you have simply concluded "I don't like it so it's wrong."

 

[GraveRobberX]

TOO BAD MOTHERFUCKER!

Now I know where Gears of War get's it's Dialogue from

Who Knew?

Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry?

Sup'

 

[Zeal]

Using expletives for attention on an internet forum. Try to be more subtle and classy with your insults. Your post is the equivalent of the dildo in saints row.

Oh boo-hoo.

 

[Boss Man]

Don't like EA?

Don't buy their games.

Like the games that they publish?

Too bad. Don't buy it. Also don't talk about it. Shut up.


It's the "Love it or leave it." line of reasoning. On the surface, it's so simple. But deep down, it's also simple in the bad kind of way.

 

[BrokenEchelon]

I think the biggest problem with the "Don't like it, don't buy it" solution is that these publishers just don't get it.

If a product like Dead Space 3 doesn't sell, and people speak out against the DLC, 6 months down the line EA will still blame it on pirates and second hand sales and ancient aliens rather than reevaluate the value and quality of the product they are shipping.

I'm not saying EA is the sole culprit of course, it's just one example.

I feel like if I continue to vote with my wallet, I'll soon be swimming in money because I won't be buying anything anymore, while the market continues to contract as it has this entire generation until only 5-6 types of games that are "safe" to make continue to be released.

That's what voting with your wallet really seems to accomplish: It reaffirms incorrect notions about why a product isn't performing to publishers, and scares publishers further and further into the arms of safe cash cows.

 

[Omnistalgic]

Now I know where Gears of War get's it's Dialogue from

Who Knew?



Sup'

Impressive GraverRobbersan

arigato sensei...

 

[AlexBasch]

Now I know where Gears of War get's it's Dialogue from

Who Knew?



Sup'

Have you been planning on monetize your platinum-getting skills with the new features of the PS4? Think about it.

 

[Femmeworth]

But the majority is just a large number of people doing the same thing - buying the game. They made one of two possible choices. I guess I just don't understand how acting less individually, however you might define that, impacts this.

Actually there are two primary decisions to be made by the consumer. Whether to buy the game and whether to buy any of the DLC. Then there are sub-decisions, like which DLC to get, whether to buy a season pass, etc. All of them give feedback to the producer, unless they don't keep tabs on things.

 

[Lysander91]

They are not entitled to my money, but they should probably try to please more people so they feel like giving them money instead of being scum bags and creating systems to bleed the ones who don't care to make up for the ones who do.

Do you understand how trade works? It is a mutual agreement between two people. Person A values the game that Person B has more than his $60 and Persona B values the $60 more than the game. If person A agrees to the trade then he obviously believes he will be pleased by the game. (Whether he is or not is of no consequence in this analysis.) Obviously, A would prefered to get more to less for his $60, and he would be more pleased if he did. That is what most of you are arguing. Even though you are "pleased" buying a game at $60 you want more for your money, but getting more for your money is Person B's loss. THAT is a feeling of entitlement.

 

[Yagharek]

Do you understand how trade works?

Holy condescension batman.

 

[Haunted]

Sup'

That doesn't seem like playing anymore, that's something else entirely.

 

[MormaPope]

Firstly, I think it's pretty obvious that 300+ people teams and spending tons of money on marketing are pretty much necessary to have a hit game. I'm not sure what you mean by unneeded features though.

Secondly, a lot of people do buy dlc and spend cash on micro-transactions. Look at the top grossing iPhone games. Almost all of them are free. The very fact that this model has become so prominent should be an indicator that most people don't mind micro-transactions, and they are a great way to raise revenue.

Thirdly, I hope you have some sort of ethical framework that comes to the conclusion that even if people like the micro-transaction model and it is a profitable route for publishers, it's still wrong. Unfortunately, I don't think that you actually have this ethical framework, but that you have simply concluded "I don't like it so it's wrong."

1. Wrong. I'm not going to turn this into a list war, but Minecraft and The Witcher 2 prove that haphazard theory wrong. Both were successful games (Minecraft especially) and the budgets for both were very modest.

Also throwing people into development and money into marketing don't guarantee success at all, it never will. Games being made into a "hit" have a high risk of disappointing sales, AAA game development is high risk and high reward. Thinking anything else is delusional.

2.Comparing iOS/Android markets with console and PC gaming markets is foolish. There is an audience cross over with all those markets, but claiming that micro transactions will be more favored for products that cost $60/$70 in the future is a bold statement. Not to mention people are going to have to pay $400-$550 for new consoles.

EA is the big proprietor for micro transactions at this point, we'll see who else does the same with full priced products.

3. I have no clue what you're saying in this assertion. I don't like the concept of micro transactions because it's another bet or gamble that some publishers are willing to make. I have no negativity towards the people that indulge on micro transactions, but if publishers are willing to gamble development studios hoping a number of consumers buy $10 worth of dragon armor, I don't see that ending well for a lot of studios.

 

[Lysander91]

Holy condescension batman.

It's a bit frustrating holding a minority opinion on this board and watching the majority of people spew confused opinions that they back up with half formed economic and moral ideas.

 

[Dibbz]

Now I know where Gears of War get's it's Dialogue from

Who Knew?



Sup'

But seriously those numbers are bloody crazy.

EDIT: Wipeout HD 19%. So you are mortal after all.

 

[Yagharek]

It's a bit frustrating holding a minority opinion on this board and watching the majority of people spew confused opinions that they back up with half formed economic and moral ideas.

Maybe if people didn't carelessly throw the word 'entitled' around as a pejorative you might find others more receptive to your argument.

 

[friskykillface]

Hi Cliffy


why did you kill Dom

 

[EmCeeGramr]

If person A agrees to the trade then he obviously believes he will be pleased by the game. (Whether he is or not is of no consequence in this analysis.)

moderngamesindustry.txt

 

[CambriaRising]

Do you understand how trade works? It is a mutual agreement between two people. Person A values the game that Person B has more than his $60 and Persona B values the $60 more than the game. If person A agrees to the trade then he obviously believes he will be pleased by the game. (Whether he is or not is of no consequence in this analysis.) Obviously, A would prefered to get more to less for his $60, and he would be more pleased if he did. That is what most of you are arguing. Even though you are "pleased" buying a game at $60 you want more for your money, but getting more for your money is Person B's loss. THAT is a feeling of entitlement.

No it isn't. You have invalidated your entire argument by saying that. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is wrong.

 

[Eusis]

Remember, if everyone bought their games used there would be no more games.

But if everyone buys used games where would they come from with no new games?

Seriously though (mainly because I still wonder how big of a difference NOT having those really makes) a lot of it is true, like it or not. Businesses are there to make money, we just have to hope we can reach something of a compromise with them and try to work for that. To me buying up piles of in-game money is bullshit, especially if the game's balanced around that. At some point it's not a game, just something to throw money at to get a brief thrill that you're "winning" without trying, IE Theme Park iOS from what I heard. But paying for gaining EXP a bit faster? Or especially doing it like Fire Emblem Awakening where you buy MAPS you have to actually play and get the EXP and Gold from? I actually kinda like those, because it means you still have to work for your reward rather than straight up paying to win, even if it's not really hard. So I still get the satisfaction of growing Donnel from dumb farmer kid to God of the battlefield, but don't wast the time dragging him along to slowly level up through battles. I'd rather see more of the "pay to win" DLC being like that, it greases the wheels but you still have to put actual effort forth, not to mention FEA rewards you with flavor text and silly little stories to make it more interesting than buying that pile of money in a freemium iOS game.

 

[Sponge]

But nobody thought the $100 ring in TF2 was cool, his whole argument is dead right there.

 

[Klocker]

go Cliffy


Supply and demand baby...

 

[Htown]

The sense of entitlement that some of these posters hold is ridiculous. Some of you are basically arguing that game developers, publishers, stockholders, etc. should take less profit because you are entitled to having a micro-transaction free existence. Have you ever thought that some consumers LIKE the micro-transaction model?

Lemme counter your question with another question.

What do you think a customer is entitled to when they put 60 bones down on a video game?

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

The sense of entitlement that some of these posters hold is ridiculous. Some of you are basically arguing that game developers, publishers, stockholders, etc. should take less profit because you are entitled to having a micro-transaction free existence. Have you ever thought that some consumers LIKE the micro-transaction model?

Do note the corollary to yours is they are entitled to our money for whatever reason they want (read: forced by bad decisions over the course of the last 10 years), and that is Holy Writ that it will succeed, then dribbles out into "put words into the mouths of my debate opponent" potboiler.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

Lemme counter your question with another question.

What do you think a customer is entitled to when they put 60 bones down on a video game?

A storefront where they are asked to pay an extra $100 in order to play the goddam game.

 

[GraveRobberX]

If DLC had guidelines and well thought out mechanics, most wouldn't balk at them like we do

DLC was suppose to extend your game, keep the consumer satiated by keeping your title rather than selling it back and the second-hand sale scenario come to play

Rather than plan out DLC accordingly, most just go for the easiest available crash grab possible

Hell games haven't been even Fucking released yet, but there's PR of such and such title getting DLC in the future, 3-5 packs to move the story along/help flesh out the story

That shit looks disingenuous
Release the game for fuck sakes, let people at least eat through the content before you announce seconds

SE with Human Revolution and that turd that was DLC for $14.99 almost felt like it was ripped out of the fucking game
Again SE with fucking Tomb Raider, MOTHERFUCKERS announced close to a year in advance that DLC is being created and 360 first

They are already shooting themselves in the fucking foot, and no I'm not an expert

Seriously the Industry harms itself, then runs around asking to be stitched up by the wounds it created itself
Somehow their missteps = consumers fault

Have you seen the insane shit Naughty Dog is experimenting with and UC3 MP
Holy Fuck, that shit has disaster written all over it
The MP is getting piece mealed out of it's ass, while the complete disc package is almost $20-$30 cheaper than buying the DD format
That is not how micro-transactions work, the key word being "MICRO"

mi·cro
/ˈmīkrō/
Adjective

Extremely small.
Small-scale.

Most of EA's micro-transactions aren't even following the damn term
They are bloated prices, hoping to sucker in some consumer to cover their bottom line

When you charge $19.99 for Class Unlocks in Battlefield 3, that shit isn't micro-transactions anymore, they are transactions, nothing fucking micro about them
Morsel worth of content for morsel worth of the price

 

[Vaporak]

But the majority is just a large number of people doing the same thing - buying the game. They made one of two possible choices. I guess I just don't understand how acting less individually, however you might define that, impacts this.

Are you seriously not comprehending how individual action en mass can lead to worse outcomes than collectively decided action? All he's saying is that collective action problems exist in the video game market, which is so completely obvious that I can't believe you are actually being honest.

 

[Lysander91]

1. Wrong. I'm not going to turn this into a list war, but Minecraft and The Witcher 2 prove that haphazard theory wrong. Both were successful games (Minecraft especially) and the budgets for both were very modest.

Also throwing people and money into marketing don't guarantee success at all, it never will. Games being made into a "hit" have a high risk of disappointing sales, AAA game development is high risk and high reward. Thinking anything else is delusional.

2.Comparing iOS/Android markets with console and PC gaming markets is foolish. There is an audience cross over with all those markets, but claiming that micro transactions will be more favored for products that cost $60/$70 in the future is a bold statement. Not to mention people are going to have to pay $400-$550 for new consoles.

EA is the big proprietor for micro transactions at this point, we'll see who else does the same with full priced products.

3. I have no clue what you're saying in this assertion. I don't like the concept of micro transactions because it's another bet or gamble that some publishers are willing to make. I have no negativity towards the people that indulge on micro transactions, but if publishers are willing to gamble development studios hoping a number of consumers buy $10 worth of dragon armor, I don't see that ending well for a lot of studios.

1. Look at Sony vs Microsoft exclusives. Sony exclusives get very little marketing and sell poorly. Microsoft exclusives get a lot of marketing and sell well. Are you really trying to argue that marketing doesn't help products to sell better and that companies are spending money on marketing that isn't them money? Of course word of mouth CAN also increase a game's popularity, ad marketing doesn't necessarily mean success, but when there are millions of products for consumers to spend money on, NOT advertising is far riskier and will lead to far less profit than advertising.

2. I don't see what is wrong with comparing iOS with console games. It shows that there is a market for micro-transactions. The only difference is that people buy games at $60. They wouldn't if they didn't value those games more than their $60. Then they will pay for a piece of DLC if they also value that piece of DLC more than what the DLC costs. People also need to buy new phones for $200-300.

3. You are basically saying that you believe that these companies aren't using their capital correctly. I guess that you might be right, but I find it highly doubtful that all of these large publishers that do a lot of R&D are all wrong about the prospects of putting DLC in retail games, especially since it has been so successful so far. I also don't see how they are "gambling" developers any more or less than they would be if they were developing a new game.

 

[squidyj]

Another thing, the "vote with your wallet" advice is a crock of shit. People acting independently is partly what got us into this mess in the first place, along with a lengthy history of economic and political issues. Not to mention he is speaking to a minority and we don't all have an equal say.

What mess?

Are you seriously not comprehending how individual action en mass can lead to worse outcomes than collectively decided action? All he's saying is that collective action problems exist in the video game market, which is so completely obvious that I can't believe you are actually being honest.

do you think the weatherman is lying to you when he tells you it's sunny too?

 

[Zephyrus]

It's pretty funny how you go off about devs not being able to feed their families and are insanely unappreciative to the audience that allows you to be unemployed while owning a fucking Lambo.

Keep it up.

Why is it funny?

He was successful. Others weren't.

There might be a reason for that.

 

[Doubledoubt]

Hilarious.

GAF: STFU CLIFFY IM TIRED OF HEARING YOUR SHIT.

Cliffy walks in.

GAF: Oh hiiii LMFAO You're so hilarious. Will you talk to me?

Grow a pair.

 

[Lysander91]

Lemme counter your question with another question.

What do you think a customer is entitled to when they put 60 bones down on a video game?

When you buy a game, you have already determined that you value the game more than your money. Not only that, but you value the game more than the other uses you could have put that $60 to. If you didn't you wouldn't buy the game. You aren't entitled to anything at any point. You merely engage in mutually beneficial trade. If you don't think that you will get value out of your purchase, then don't make the purchase.

 

[TheD]

You can not compare the shit hole that is phone gaming to full price PC and Console gaming.

The phone gaming market does not support full priced games, that is why microtransaction based models are so common, PC and Console gaming on the other is based around selling full priced games, thus people want the full game.
We are not sold extra scenes in movies via microtransactions, Full priced gaming should not be different!

PC and Console gaming is a full blown hobby to people, mobile games are not, they are just a time waster and thus people don't care about it as much.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Just because I don't have a job and I'm sleeping until noon every day doesn't mean I no longer care about my first love...video games.

You better wake up and start looking for a job or soon enough you'll end up sleeping in your Lamborghini!

 

[Lysander91]

No it isn't. You have invalidated your entire argument by saying that. I understand what you are trying to say, but it is wrong.

No I didn't. You invalidated your entire argument by saying that. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but how about you actually try to argue my points next time.

To help clarify things, you are basically saying that you are entitled to a gain at another persons loss.

 

[Dash Kappei]

You can not compare the shit hole that is phone gaming to full price PC and Console gaming.

The phone gaming market does not support full priced games, that is why microtransaction based models are so common, PC and Console gaming on the other is based around selling full priced games, thus people want the full game.
We are not sold extra scenes in movies via microtransactions, Full priced gaming should not be different!

PC and Console gaming is a full blown hobby to people, mobile games are not, they are just a time waster and thus people don't care about it as much.

You're stuck in 2009 dude.
Currently playing The Walking Dead, Sonic CD, Ghost Trick and Bug Princess on my iPad Mini.
No microtransactions.

Then if you wanna go F2P here's something that blows any racer ever appeared on handhelds by a long shot, yep mobile gaming:

Real Racing 3 Website!

Launch Trailer on Youtube!


App Store Link!
Google Play Link

 

[CambriaRising]

When you buy a game, you have already determined that you value the game more than your money. Not only that, but you value the game more than the other uses you could have put that $60 to. If you didn't you wouldn't buy the game. You aren't entitled to anything at any point. You merely engage in mutually beneficial trade. If you don't think that you will get value out of your purchase, then don't make the purchase.

This only works if I can play the game through fully and see all of the content before I purchase it. If they are selling me a game through marketing material and promising things, I have the right, the entitlement, to voice my dislike after I spent MY money on the product, or if the product seems incomplete because of systems built into the game to extract more money from me.

Yes, I do have that entitlement. I can also choose to come here and bitch about it if I want.

No I didn't. You invalidated your entire argument by saying that. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but how about you actually try to argue my points next time.

To help clarify things, you are basically saying that you are entitled to a gain at another persons loss.

I am entitled to gain every ounce of what is being sold to me. I am entitled to bitch about it if I don't feel satisfied with my purchase, or feel like I am being ripped off.

 

[papercamm]

You (the royal you) should try to make a digestible version of it and present it in a manner that encourages people to read it when you know 99.9% of people won't.

But then they would.

 

[nomis]

Hilarious.

GAF: STFU CLIFFY IM TIRED OF HEARING YOUR SHIT.

Cliffy walks in.

GAF: Oh hiiii LMFAO You're so hilarious. Will you talk to me?

Grow a pair.

Yeah GAF's ballwashing mode was definitely set to quick rinse today

It's not every day I get to avatar quote Cliff motherfucking Bleszinski.

Thanks for making my day.

 

[TheD]

You're stuck in 2009 dude.
Currently playing The Walking Dead, Sonic CD, Ghost Trick and Bug Princess on my iPad Mini.

Games like that are very few and far between.

 

[Lysander91]

This only works if I can play the game through fully and see all of the content before I purchase it. If they are selling me a game through marketing material and promising things, I have the right, the entitlement, to voice my dislike after I spent MY money on the product, or if the product seems incomplete because of systems built into the game to extract more money from me.

Yes, I do have that entitlement. I can also choose to come here and bitch about it if I want.

Anyone can make a wrong decision or have unrealistic expectations. That doesn't mean that you didn't value the game more than the $60 when you bought it. I might buy a horse and expect it to go 50mph. Just because it disappoints my expectations doesn't mean that the trade wasn't mutually beneficial at the time.
Everyone has a RIGHT to voice their opinion. I don't really see what that has to do with this though.

 

[squidyj]

This only works if I can play the game through fully and see all of the content before I purchase it. If they are selling me a game through marketing material and promising things, I have the right, the entitlement, to voice my dislike after I spent MY money on the product, or if the product seems incomplete because of systems built into the game to extract more money from me.

Yes, I do have that entitlement. I can also choose to come here and bitch about it if I want.



I am entitled to gain every ounce of what is being sold to me. I am entitled to bitch about it if I don't feel satisfied with my purchase, or feel like I am being ripped off.

Great, other people are entitled to think ill of you for it and speak their minds on the subject. WE'RE ALL SO VERY ENTITLED.

You're bitching about people bitching about your bitching by trying to say that bitching is just something you're allowed to do, I don't see how this helps your case.

 

[Mr.Green]

Someone is desperately in need for attention...

Yeah you, obviously.

 

[MormaPope]

1. Look at Sony vs Microsoft exclusives. Sony exclusives get very little marketing and sell poorly. Microsoft exclusives get a lot of marketing and sell well. Are you really trying to argue that marketing doesn't help products to sell better and that companies are spending money on marketing that isn't them money? Of course word of mouth CAN also increase a game's popularity, ad marketing doesn't necessarily mean success, but when there are millions of products for consumers to spend money on, NOT advertising is far riskier and will lead to far less profit than advertising.

2. I don't see what is wrong with comparing iOS with console games. It shows that there is a market for micro-transactions. The only difference is that people buy games at $60. They wouldn't if they didn't value those games more than their $60. Then they will pay for a piece of DLC if they also value that piece of DLC more than what the DLC costs. People also need to buy new phones for $200-300.

3. You are basically saying that you believe that these companies aren't using their capital correctly. I guess that you might be right, but I find it highly doubtful that all of these large publishers that do a lot of R&D are all wrong about the prospects of putting DLC in retail games, especially since it has been so successful so far. I also don't see how they are "gambling" developers any more or less than they would be if they were developing a new game.

1. Did I say marketing shouldn't occur? Some publishers are willing to put more into marketing than development hoping they reach out and grab a large group of consumers. All the marketing money in the world wouldn't help the Devil May Cry reboot.

As far as the Sony vs. Microsoft assertion, Sony has dropped the ball on latest releases but they they still marketed previous titles heavily. Gran Turismo beats Forza sales wise in every way, Forza is always heavily marketed. Halo beats most Sony properties as far as sales go, Resistance or Killzone having more marketing money wouldn't dethrone Halo sales.

2. People are far more wiling to participate in micro transactions when the starting price is $0 or $3, $60 or $70 makes further investment more questionable and divisive. Also phones and gaming consoles/PC's are entirely different playing fields, you buy a phone based on a set number of reasons.

People buy consoles for game use and any bonus services, people don't base their phone buying decision on game software.

3. Too bad game developers don't get paid for simply making games. Developing another game won't matter if sales for the previously developed one were poor, one potential slip up and it's adios. The developers that make free to play iOS and android games bet on micro transactions for profit, as that's the only way to actually make profit.

If EA decides to go balls out and use a lot money on their next game, whose to say sales and DLC will be enough for them to make a profit. Micro transactions could either be used as a safety net or a way to make profit, that's a very risky way to manage a videogame company that deals in console and PC development.

 

[mbmonk]

I am entitled to gain every ounce of what is being sold to me. I am entitled to bitch about it if I don't feel satisfied with my purchase, or feel like I am being ripped off.

No your not. You aren't entitled to anything after you make the exchange. So by this logic if you complain about con men and scams your just a whiner, and you feel entitled to something that isn't owed to you.. apparently.

 

[Lysander91]

Maybe if people didn't carelessly throw the word 'entitled' around as a pejorative you might find others more receptive to your argument.

Maybe you shouldn't carelessly throw around the word carelessly.

 

[CambriaRising]

No your not. You aren't entitled to anything after you make the exchange. So by this logic if you complain about con men and scams your just a whiner, and you feel entitled to something that isn't owed to you.. apparently.

I thought you were serious for a second and my jaw almost touched the floor. Good show.

Anyone can make a wrong decision or have unrealistic expectations. That doesn't mean that you didn't value the game more than the $60 when you bought it. I might buy a horse and expect it to go 50mph. Just because it disappoints my expectations doesn't mean that the trade wasn't mutually beneficial at the time.
Everyone has a RIGHT to voice their opinion. I don't really see what that has to do with this though.

If someone told you that the horse you bought could go 50 mph and you bought it, only to find out that it only goes 35mph. But wait, they will sell you 5 more mph for that horse for a nominal fee. Yeah, you are pretty much entitled to be pissed about that and feel ripped off.

 

[Dash Kappei]

Games like that are very few and far between.

No they are not. The fact there's a new million games every day doesn't make the good ones "very few" just like a ton of shovelware crap didn't negate Mario Galaxy's existence or any other good game on the platform.
You just look very uninformed, speaking without any knowledge whatsoever.

 

[nel e nel]

The best part of this thread is everyone who thinks that is actually Cliff posting:

Read the gaf thread as it unfolded. Considered responding. Decided it's a pointless fight. Many there are just so convinced they're right.

https://twitter.com/therealcliffyb/status/307328767230099457

 

[EmCeeGramr]

why on earth would you ever want to debate someone who thinks that they're correct? you're only supposed to debate people playing devil's advocate.