-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
An incorherant rant about microtransactions on full priced titles. [Forza 5]
- Thread starter Delusibeta
- Start date
gutterboy44
Member
I think you mean GTAO. I am unaware of micro transactions in GTAV.
This has nothing to do with DLC cars. For one, controversially, you cant just buy a DLC car pack and own the cars. You still have to buy them with earned, in-game credits after you buy the DLC. So this is not something that is designed to encourage DLC sales at all.
Two, I will not defend the DLC practices. That is an entirely different discussion and one where I've posted my [angry]thoughts about quite a few times already in other threads.
I'm really not just blindly defending Forza like a fanboy or anything. I'm just trying to be fair since I see a lot of people overreacting about this microtransaction thing.DrROBschiz
Member
Microtransactions are ruining games and game design in the AAA space
I stand by this notion despite the majority of people finding the compromises acceptable/reasonable
Regardless of well intentions the hunt for whales bleeds into the design of the game and taints it in my eyes and I just cant turn it off.
Suck because its not going away anytime soon. Even Nintendo is on board
I stand by this notion despite the majority of people finding the compromises acceptable/reasonable
Regardless of well intentions the hunt for whales bleeds into the design of the game and taints it in my eyes and I just cant turn it off.
Suck because its not going away anytime soon. Even Nintendo is on board
Should be written on the game cases: "Your fun must be approved by other superior gamers who know better "
Since when GTAO isn't included in GTA V? I am unaware of ever picking up GTA: Online from the retail stores.
I can't help but feel that the protest would carry more symbolic moral weight if you didn't actually purchase and play the game at all.
This all depends on the tuning of it. People screamed their heads off about this for Dead Space 3 and the game was just fine. I'd say that you kitted out your character in it even faster than in the previous titles and I didn't touch the store.
Of course, if they've made it take longer to unlock stuff in order to squeeze more money out of people, then that's a fine reason to complain.
Of course, if they've made it take longer to unlock stuff in order to squeeze more money out of people, then that's a fine reason to complain.
Could you elaborate on this? I don't see how microtransactions are inherently anti-consumer.
flyinpiranha
Member
Uh, sure? But why the fuck would you buy a sim racer for your needs if your needs are cutscenes and super flashy cars handed to you like candy?
Play it any 'fucking' way you want. But with ANY game there is a progression. Sim racers are pretty straight forward with having to 'race cars' in order to win and earn money to get that coveted car.
You don't have to get approval from other players, but if the way you want to play the game isn't inherent to the game you purchased, why the fuck are you trying to play it that way, or better yet, why the fuck are you expecting it to play that way?
It's a sim racer, you aren't going to get 150 supercars to choose from at the beginning. It hasn't been that way in GT or Forza since they've been games. Why are you expecting it now?
The ONLY complaint I have with this practice is the LeFerrari being DLC. That is a complete bullshit move. But it wouldn't keep me from the franchise (other things are doing that)
Is this a slipper slope? Sure, we've been balancing on this slope for 20 years ever since "expansion packs" were invented. But I don't think DLC is a bad thing, it can be used to exploit, but in and of itself, it isn't a bad thing. I've purchased tons of DLC that I have deemed worthwhile.
60% is several hundred cars, man! lol
Gotta keep that in mind. Owning all the cars isn't really the intent of the developers because there's just sooo many and a lot more than Forza 2 had. The point is mainly to have a ridiculous variety available to you so it caters to everybody's tastes. No car fan could say, 'oh well, they really didn't have any 60's muscle cars, so I didn't want it', ya know?
A game with so much content would of course be a completionist's nightmare, but that cant really be blamed on the developer too much.
I wouldn't put Gold in the same category with tokens whatsoever. Gold, for me, was pretty essential. I would agree that without it, Forza definitely loses a lot of what it does best. But the tokens? Completely insignificant.
Gucci Messiah
Banned
Either way they don't make any money off of me so I'd rather not deprive myself the experience of playing the game just to make a symbolic gesture. The end result is the same either way.
MoGamesXNA
Unconfirmed Member
.
I do have a problem with it, but not from the standpoint of expenditure. I'd just regard that as a poorly-paced game and consider it in that light.
As a frame of reference: How many hours of play would you expect to have to do to unlock a given high-level car in a prior Forza? The implication from the Eurogamer review is that we're looking at 9 hours.
This is part of the reason I think the current hate for F2P games is hilarious. Retail games now have the same microtransaction hooks, but also charge you up front. With increasing frequency, the choice is not between a game that you pay for once and a F2P game that keeps nagging you for money; the choice is between a retail game that keeps nagging you for money and a F2P game that keeps nagging you for money.
To be fair, so is selling a game commercially when it could be given away for free. Where do you draw the line, philosophically?
Come on man: ... you can do better than that.
You might have heard of a thing called "cost", and another thing called "price".
Well: the line comes after...
It just comes across a bit as "I don't want to reward them for putting something I dislike into a game I want to play, but I still want to play the game".
It strikes me as a rationalisation which puts the negative of the parts you dislike as more significant than the positive of the fact that they made a game you want to play. But if that's genuinely true, I'd be comfortable with not playing the game at all; I find the dichotomy between the sentiments confusing.
If I wanted to express that, I'd buy the game and not the DLC.
Ah, so you're arguing in favour of a smaller-scale, smaller-budget Forza? That makes sense then.
Yeah, it's not pay-to-win. It's pay-to-not-suck. One of the most toxic game design approaches ever.
In my mind, it's about feeling like you got sixty-dollars-worth of game after you paid $60. If you do, I don't care what additional DLC or microtransactions are available on day one. I'll still feel like I got my moneys worth, and I'll buy more if I feel like there's more fun to be had.
This is of course provided that the microtransactions aren't applied in a way that makes you feel like they've deliberately made the game less fun until you pay more.
This is of course provided that the microtransactions aren't applied in a way that makes you feel like they've deliberately made the game less fun until you pay more.
I can see that point to a degree, but not many games just offer up whatever content they want without having to work for it. I don't think having some rewards for longer-term players is such a bad thing at all. I think its much more meaningful to reward people with a super rare and valuable car for playing a lot than some useless Xbox achievement, ya know?
That's a bit of a complicated question to answer. And a weird way to look at things from a Forza standpoint. Again, I wish people here knew something about the franchise to understand this stuff.
But yea, you could unlock a prototype racer in about 9-10 hours or so. That's really not how things work, though. Its not like you sit there and spend 9-10 hours 'grinding' to get a car. You can, but you don't need to. The class system means you can often take lesser cars and upgrade them into higher classes and in general, the time you spend just normally playing the game will net you lots of money to spend how you please. Nor do you absolutely NEED to buy any specific cars in the game at all. It all depends on what you want to do.
Again, I think if you actually gave it a chance, you'd see how its a weird question to ask and how me answering it doesn't really explain how people play the game at all.
Shortt Sirket
Member
Actually, in Forza, buying the cars does absolutely nothing to help you in the game. If you aren't a good driver, then no car in the game will fix that. It literally has ZERO bearing on your ability to be competitive.
But I may be biased because I don't have a problem with these microtransactions. I don't mind them in Forza, or in Gran Turismo, or in any other game as long as they are done with at least a modicum of restraint.
I am at the point in my life where I frequently have more money than time and I love being able to spend a bit of money to move myself along the game quicker. I bought plenty of tokens in F4 to grab the super expensive cars, just because I wanted to. I plan on buying plenty of credits in GT6 so I don't have to spend countless hours grinding.
Seriously, do you guys not remember what it was like playing GT2/F1? I remember spending hours and HOURS doing the same race over and over and over again just to afford some super car I wanted. I have no problem with being given the option to spend real money to reduce that grind and I am not sure why so many people do.
As long as it doesn't fuck with the online balance, who gives a shit if someone wants to spend money to speed through the game faster?
Edit: I am also one of those who don't mind DLC either. If I love the game, I will gladly buy the DLC because I want to keep the game fresh. I bought all the DLC for Borderlands 2 and I bought ALL the car packs for F4 with no regrets. I love adding more content to a game I enjoy. Do some companies do it badly? Of course! Does that make the idea horrible? Fuck no.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
SpinningBirdKick
Banned
Blame all those dumb horse armour buying mofos, it's all their fault.
Wrong again. Just completely and utterly wrong its not even funny.
Buying car tokens in Forza has nothing to do with giving you a better chance of doing well.
As you say though, they are new to it.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
You can still get all from Forza without buying, that's not the point.
FE 3ds on hardest mode was grindy, unlike the incredible FE GBA, which had 10 additional chapters for hard mode and was properly balanced.
There wasn't a lot to do in FE 3DS after beating normal mode of you didn't want to pay extra, that's a fact.
The game was great and I enjoyed it btw.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Same here. Glad I don't know the time I spent souping up and racing a Nissan 240 in GT 2 before I could get a Skyline. Ah, simpler times.
In NCAA Football 2014 (RIP), you can buy what EA calls euphemistically 'timesavers' so it's easier to recruit better players. But to the game's credit, there is an easy way to disable those for online dynasties.
I'm fine with DLC if it offers value for money. Some forms of DLC definitely don't, but if a $5-$10 DLC adds a couple hours of new content to a game that I already found enjoyable, I'm glad to hand over the money. I buy and play DLC all the time.
On the other hand, (non-cosmetic) microtransactions can go straight to hell.
F2P is probably the single worst thing to happen to gaming over the last decade. We've seen a shift from 'gaming as entertainment' to 'gaming as a continuous source of ongoing revenue' (more of a shift back, I suppose - arcades were all about the latter, but at least arcades were giving a superior experience to home gaming in exchange for that money...). At least when microtransactions and stamina bars and all the other bullshit from F2P games was confined to second-tier Asian MMORPGs and shitty mobile games, many gamers could simply ignore them. Now that it's creeping into AAA titles, I'm starting to find myself less and less excited about playing them. Going forward, if I play a game and it feels grindy, is that just my mind second guessing the game, or have the developers modified the mechanic in an attempt to force me toward the (real money) item shop? Constantly second guessing the game design and waiting to get to the point where you hit the wall (and then either settle into the grind, or head to the item shop) makes a game a whole lot less fun.
The funny thing is that I seem to be nearly alone among people I know in this regard. Lots of my friends play games like Candy Crush Saga, and even the ones who don't buy anything are constantly defending the practice by telling me that 'oh, you don't have to buy anything to win!' while playing the same level they've been stuck on for 3 weeks yet again. Amusingly enough, support for F2P mechanics seems to be inversely proportional to how much money my friends have to spend on entertainment -- my broke friends *love* F2P games, while my (far fewer) professional, salary earning friends mostly hate them. I guess that some people just love being able to install 20 different games on their phone or PC without having to buy them, even if they can only enjoy playing them for 5 minutes at a time (and in the case of online F2P games, generally being second-class citizens to the whales that have money *and* enjoy F2P mechanics...)
On the other hand, (non-cosmetic) microtransactions can go straight to hell.
F2P is probably the single worst thing to happen to gaming over the last decade. We've seen a shift from 'gaming as entertainment' to 'gaming as a continuous source of ongoing revenue' (more of a shift back, I suppose - arcades were all about the latter, but at least arcades were giving a superior experience to home gaming in exchange for that money...). At least when microtransactions and stamina bars and all the other bullshit from F2P games was confined to second-tier Asian MMORPGs and shitty mobile games, many gamers could simply ignore them. Now that it's creeping into AAA titles, I'm starting to find myself less and less excited about playing them. Going forward, if I play a game and it feels grindy, is that just my mind second guessing the game, or have the developers modified the mechanic in an attempt to force me toward the (real money) item shop? Constantly second guessing the game design and waiting to get to the point where you hit the wall (and then either settle into the grind, or head to the item shop) makes a game a whole lot less fun.
The funny thing is that I seem to be nearly alone among people I know in this regard. Lots of my friends play games like Candy Crush Saga, and even the ones who don't buy anything are constantly defending the practice by telling me that 'oh, you don't have to buy anything to win!' while playing the same level they've been stuck on for 3 weeks yet again. Amusingly enough, support for F2P mechanics seems to be inversely proportional to how much money my friends have to spend on entertainment -- my broke friends *love* F2P games, while my (far fewer) professional, salary earning friends mostly hate them. I guess that some people just love being able to install 20 different games on their phone or PC without having to buy them, even if they can only enjoy playing them for 5 minutes at a time (and in the case of online F2P games, generally being second-class citizens to the whales that have money *and* enjoy F2P mechanics...)
Polioliolio
Member
It's patently horrible, if just because there is no legal system in place, no consumer support legislation that prevents paid content systems from being anything other than a mass consumer raping.
Sure, there may be some examples of additional paid content done right, but at the very least, it encourages a plan for minimum content in a base game, discouraging bonus content to be included in the base product that could easily be sold separately at a premium cost.
The most baffling thing of all is how the sheeple just can't stop themselves from supporting the practice. Remember Horse Armor? Well now that's the standard for all mainstream games, except now, the armor actually contributes to your game performance.
If you want the best game you can get, regardless of price, you should NOT support additional paid content. It's a slippery slope, and even at it's most harmless, it's subtracting content that would have been included from the start, or added later at no cost to you.
Sure, there may be some examples of additional paid content done right, but at the very least, it encourages a plan for minimum content in a base game, discouraging bonus content to be included in the base product that could easily be sold separately at a premium cost.
The most baffling thing of all is how the sheeple just can't stop themselves from supporting the practice. Remember Horse Armor? Well now that's the standard for all mainstream games, except now, the armor actually contributes to your game performance.
If you want the best game you can get, regardless of price, you should NOT support additional paid content. It's a slippery slope, and even at it's most harmless, it's subtracting content that would have been included from the start, or added later at no cost to you.
DoYouEvenLift?
Banned
This. This right here. I happily bought all the Skyrim DLC (on the PS3 version no less) because, at the end of the day, through all the bugs, slowdown, and whatnot, I ABSOLUTELY got my $60 worth of enjoyment out of the game. On the base package alone I'd estimate we put between 300-400 hours into the game. With all the DLC it's probably close to 500. Hell, it might be more. Point being, I never once hesitated or felt slighted about buying the Skryim DLC. They gave me $60 worth of game, so when they were offering more of it for $15 or $20 or whatever the hell it was, I didn't feel like I was being nickel and dimed.
Same thing with GTA V. When they release the "Episodes from San Andreas..." type content, I'll happily buy it. I've put 70-80 hours into that game already, so I'm ok with paying more.
Call of Duty? No. I stopped buying CoD two iterations ago because the base game became nothing more than a way to sell you DLC. When I spend $60 bucks, the last thing I want to feel is like I'm shortly being harassed for more money.
Couldn't you already buy "tickets" or something like that in Forza Horizon?
Microtransactions themselves aren't the problem. It is how the developer implements them.
What are those games doing? I think one of the most annoying things about the microtransactions is that you usually just learn about them when you play the game. Reviewers somehow never mention this stuff.
LiveFromKyoto
Member
I have now read Rob Ford and microtransaction defence force posts in the same day.
Made me laugh cause its true.
JinjoUnchained
Member
DLC has always been a way publishers to hide the true cost of a game. Somehow the market has established that AAA games should cost no more than $60 at retail. Since that standard was established, development costs and inflation have gone up, so the price of AAA games should rise in accordance. But, because we refuse to pay more than $60 for a complete game, publishers instead sell us 80% of a complete game and then upcharge for the rest via microtransactions and DLC; the theory being that we're more likely to pay, say, $60 up front and then make three smaller payments of $20 than we are to pay $120 up front (the true price needed to make a profit on some of these games).
The longer we hold onto that $60 requirement, the more dishonest and abusive these DLC and microtransaction practices will be. I agree it sucks that these practices are ruining game balance, but OP and the other people complaining about this can only fix it if they show they are willing to pay more than $60 for a complete game.
The longer we hold onto that $60 requirement, the more dishonest and abusive these DLC and microtransaction practices will be. I agree it sucks that these practices are ruining game balance, but OP and the other people complaining about this can only fix it if they show they are willing to pay more than $60 for a complete game.
Eh Crimson Dragon has a progression system + micro transactions shoehorned into it? Damn is nothing sacred? With the Kinect crap gone It was the one mainstream next gen console game I was looking forward to playing eventually.
I won't get into the argument as to why FP2 is bad. Done so in the past, never got anywhere.
BTW kudos to whoever posted that Blow vid. puts up a great point as to why some traditional games + F2P don't mix
This probably isn't going to be a popular answer, but you're right. AAA titles are costing at least 3x what they did to make 10 years ago, but retail game prices have stayed constant (or even decreased very slightly, adjusting for inflation) over the same time period. Publishers have to make AAA games profitable somehow, while maintaining ever-increasing demands for better graphics and more features, and DLC is one possible way to do that.
We're getting to a point where the demands for AAA titles are outstripping the ability of developers to make those titles at prices that gamers are willing to pay (without driving the developer out of business), if we haven't gotten there already. Developers need to create (and we need to support) more smaller budget, A or AA-level games that aren't as pretty, or feature filled, but cost less. Think games like Puppeteer on PS3 - it wasn't a big-budget game, but looked and played nice, and had a reasonable MSRP to boot. We need more releases like this.
phosphor112
Banned
Buying the E21 with Tokens would cost you 32.50 GBP or $50.00 USD.
http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/99944/Lotus+E21+costs+%A332.50+in+Forza+5/
http://www.gamereactor.eu/news/99944/Lotus+E21+costs+%A332.50+in+Forza+5/
DoYouEvenLift?
Banned
Honestly I think publishers need to experiment more with lowering the price of a feature-complete game. Nobody has the balls to try it (and I don't necessarily blame them), but I'd love to see what would happen if someone released a AAA game like The Last of Us or Call of Duty at $20 instead of $60. I buy very few full-priced games because $60 for a married father of two is a lot... but $20 is in my "Ahh, fuck it... I want to try this game" price range. For instance, this year I've bought GTA5 and FIFA 14. But for $20, I'd have bought TLoU, Call of Duty, maybe Assassin's Creed, Madden, Lego Marvel, Arkham Origins, Diablo 3, and the new Need for Speed. So I've spent $120 this year on games, but I would have spent $160 minimum, maybe $180. How many more are there like me that would probably spent more money on games if they were cheaper?
Also, I don't buy the argument that all AAA games cost $100 million to make. How different is Origins from Arkham Asylum or City? A LOT of the groundwork is being recycled from the earlier games. FIFA 14? Come on, I love FIFA (and am a sucker for buying it every year), but it's BARELY different than FIFA 13. Don't get me started on Call of Duty.
Also, I don't buy the argument that all AAA games cost $100 million to make. How different is Origins from Arkham Asylum or City? A LOT of the groundwork is being recycled from the earlier games. FIFA 14? Come on, I love FIFA (and am a sucker for buying it every year), but it's BARELY different than FIFA 13. Don't get me started on Call of Duty.
phosphor112
Banned
He is? What did he say?
I dunno about balanced around harder difficulties. Hard seems to be the legitimate difficulty level and then the curve goes a bit crazy. I've only played the GBA and Radiant FE games but Lunatic and Lunatic+ require pretty soul crushing "tactics" and resetting for better RNG rolls and even the random encounters on the world map are all maxed stat monstrosities straight away. Free spotpass battles on higher difficulties only give 1 EXP per action/kill so that's not viable as a leveling method either. The older game's Hector Hard mode or Maniac or what not just don't compare.
Though I suppose DLC-free Shadow Dragon was already introducing Lunatic mode? Haven't played that one.
Ugh. I think the problem is that a lot of people just read a quick snippet of something and then respond without understanding the full context of what's being said. Somewhat understandable, because people cant always read through entire threads to figure this stuff out, but it would still be nice if people refrained from commenting when they don't know what the fuck they're talking about....
Which is pretty much what this thread is full of. People just wanting to rant about microtransactions, while laughably using the worst possible example because they have never played that game to know how wrong they are and then everybody just wants to jump in and nod and agree because they are fighting some idealogical battle that isn't really about Forza at all.
That really about sums this up so far. I have no problem with people complaining about microtransactions when it actually hurts a game. I will join in. This just aint one of em.
Why is gaming the only entertainment medium where I can't decide how I want to enjoy the product? If I'm feeling bored in a particular chapter in a book, I can just skip ahead. Don't want to sit through the lovey dovey scenes in an action film? Hit the fast forward button. There are games I've paid full price for that I haven't fully played through, because I'm either bored, stuck, or keep dying in a particular spot. I should be able to skip ahead without being penalised, or in most cases, being blocked from doing so in the first place.
Umm, you can still play GT6 like you've always had with any prior GT game. I'm guessing this credit thing is for people that want the expensive cars almost immediately, and don't want to go through the normal progression system. I agree on that they shouldn't be charging for that ability, it should be a cheat in the menu. Balance it by stopping trophy progression or something.
Umm, you can still play GT6 like you've always had with any prior GT game. I'm guessing this credit thing is for people that want the expensive cars almost immediately, and don't want to go through the normal progression system. I agree on that they shouldn't be charging for that ability, it should be a cheat in the menu. Balance it by stopping trophy progression or something.
The game design is inherently compromised once you set up F2P features.
Similar threads
- Locked