Xenon
Member
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.
Voting with your wallet and vocalising your opinion are both acceptable.
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.
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.
Impressive GraverRobbersan
Have you been planning on monetize your platinum-getting skills with the new features of the PS4? Think about it.
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.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.
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?
That doesn't seem like playing anymore, that's something else entirely.
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."
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.
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.)
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.
CliffyB said:Remember, if everyone bought their games used there would be no more games.
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?
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?
mi·cro
/ˈmīkrō/
Adjective
Extremely small.
Small-scale.
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not every day I get to avatar quote Cliff motherfucking Bleszinski.
Thanks for making my day.
You're stuck in 2009 dude.
Currently playing The Walking Dead, Sonic CD, Ghost Trick and Bug Princess on my iPad Mini.
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.
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.
Someone is desperately in need for attention...
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.
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.
Maybe if people didn't carelessly throw the word 'entitled' around as a pejorative you might find others more receptive to your argument.
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.
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.
Games like that are very few and far between.
therealcliffyb said:Read the gaf thread as it unfolded. Considered responding. Decided it's a pointless fight. Many there are just so convinced they're right.