Mr. Enigma
Member
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?
Who has time for games when I have this giant, purple dildo to play with?
-
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.
Cliffy B says things about microtransactions
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Who has time for games when I have this giant, purple dildo to play with?
Well I don't really know how to say it any plainer. I guess a crappy analogy: A building is on fire and he tells someone to throw a shotglass of water on it.
I'm not looking to him for anything. I voice a complaint when I see things taking a new turn I don't like and don't think is good for gamers. Not that I expect anything to come of it, but I think it's better than being docile.
AcceptableGhost
Member
Businesses would grind children into goo to sell if it made them a profit and it was legal.
alexandros
Banned
I agree, his arguments are full of holes but it's not worth risking a ban over. The guy basically contradicts himself in a few lines of text, like so:
-Consumer disagrees with EA's business practices? Well tough luck consumer, suck it up.
-CliffyB disagrees with Gamestop's business practices? I feel offended and I hate them, I'm glad they'll go extinct soon.
I mean even a child could shoot down that argument.
Actually Valve didn't pull out their games from another service and made them exclusive to Steam. They added a client on top of them.
I think you've bought into the meme that people who complain about video games never actually play games. There's no objectivity in any of this debate. Cliff is arguing purely in his own self-interest but begrudges enthusiast gamers for doing the exact same thing.
ETA: The funniest thing is that Cliff basically torpedoed this thread from the jump with his drive-by trolling.
vikingvessel
Member
I get all that. I am just not sure what was so wrong with his initial editorial? He explained how the current campaign against isn't making an impact. He suggested another that may be more effective. Some agreed, some didn't, some were more concerned with attempting to entertain and it became less about what he said and more about challenging all of him. If I am to consider a more logical approach, do I look to the guy who has knocked out quite a career in the industry we are debating or the poster that uses Cliff's bowel movements to attack everyone who disagrees?
WrenchNinja
Member
Yup. Instead they're villainized as pirates, or get stupidly awful DRM, or get even more jacked up prices, substandard ports, or delays, etc.
Sorry but no. If is something wrong with your country, you have to fight to improve it. running away will not change anything.
I'm not sure I understand how his experience is supposed to lend any more weight to arguments if they are built on unreasonable statements. Most of these were brought up in the thread and no amount of industry experience can brush away failed logic.
Clifford Unchained (really?) said:
Shit, I had no idea. I figured Ni no Kuni was selling 30 million copies per hour, because it's being talked about a lot on a video game forum. Thanks for clearing that up, Django.
Dismissing arguments and consumer dissatisfaction on a discussion forum with a sweeping hand of "just vote with your wallet and shut up; you're not relevant" is up there toward the height of stupidity, especially when it's being framed on your blog in between soapboxing about what you think the video game industry should be doing differently. Have some perspective.
The logical approach is to form an opinion based on the merits of the arguments instead of blindly appealling to authority or whatever constructed binary scenario you've made up.
Monocle
Member
On microtransactions and DLC: If they add value to the game, great, but too often they're transparent cynical cash grabs. Practices like charging players for palette swaps in fighting games, day 1 DLC, and cutting finished features and modes only to sell them later on are simply anti-consumer. "Voting with my wallet" won't have the slightest impact on companies that are raking it in by abusing their customers' goodwill. It's a terrible way to do business, and it's only going to get worse.
Games like Bayonetta are so special not just because they're so well made, but also because they don't ask you to grab your ankles and bite your lip every time you think you might be interested in trying out a new costume.
Games like Bayonetta are so special not just because they're so well made, but also because they don't ask you to grab your ankles and bite your lip every time you think you might be interested in trying out a new costume.
I'm not the biggest fan of Cliffy or his games, but the timing of his response was gold.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Where are you reading into that from? I never said that they don't play the games or that they ignore things in a game that they play.
My point was that the majority of people just lack the knowledge outside of their personal gaming/consumer experience and don't bother to improve that. How many people believe that multiplayer and single player are two separate budgets or cut into each other's budget? How many folks could accurately explain why consoles are priced where they are?
Definitely not the majority, and they don't care, because it's easier and, sadly, more acceptable to make a snarky little comments that they know nearly everyone will agree with rather than going against the grain or trying to make the grain finer. And if you believe you're right and everyone agrees with you, why bother looking any further than that?
And you're right, there is no objectivity, but I'm finding a lot of the users here just as bad if not worse than Cliff as an example for that statement. Yes, the way he presented his argument is pathetic (for lack of a better term), but the overall point that the company's aren't going to listen to a bunch of noise as opposed to dollars should be a wake-up call that we need to do better if we want these practices to end or at least find where there is a line that ALL sides can live with. Unfortunately, that's going to take the supposedly more knowledgable consumers to step up for that to happen.
vikingvessel
Member
I am not saying he gets a pass for experience. I also disagree with he can never have an impartial voice due to being a part of the industry. He offered what some may consider pertinent information and then a majority of the attacks had nothing to do with countering what he said and were only because he said it. Where is the potential change in that? Attacking his car, his success, gears of war? I was basing it more on his resume and how as far as industry homers go, I consider him much closer to neutral on the industry scale, whereas a lot of the responses came off as nothing more than tantrums.
You know what, Clifford? I need to eat too. And my need to eat supersedes the "need" to support the companies that you dangerously assume are making the games I love. They're not. They're making garbage flavored garbage and they're charging for additional garbage, and these companies deserve to burn for it.
The last time I bought a game with your name on it was 2003. Your irrelevance is showing.
The last time I bought a game with your name on it was 2003. Your irrelevance is showing.
"Voting with your wallet" isn't what will cause change or alter the landscape of gaming, it's more complex and far too large of a industry now where that message will matter. The game industry will either continue at it's current rate, traditional releases along with F2P games. Both may have micro transactions, both forms will have successes and failures.
Or the market and publishers at large attempts to embrace the micro transaction system as a means to continue releasing high budget games. That dependence eventually causes more failures than successes. Studios either start closing shop or the AAA budget and ambition is diminished greatly.
There will either be a few games that are popular enough to have the micro transaction system, and then everything else will be a few traditional AAA game releases per year and indie/B games.
Or EA attempts to do the micro transaction thing and it doesn't work, concept is scrapped.
Voting with your wallet is not going to be a philosophy that changes the industry, only your own pockets. Doesn't hurt at all to vote with your wallet, doesn't change much either.
Or the market and publishers at large attempts to embrace the micro transaction system as a means to continue releasing high budget games. That dependence eventually causes more failures than successes. Studios either start closing shop or the AAA budget and ambition is diminished greatly.
There will either be a few games that are popular enough to have the micro transaction system, and then everything else will be a few traditional AAA game releases per year and indie/B games.
Or EA attempts to do the micro transaction thing and it doesn't work, concept is scrapped.
Voting with your wallet is not going to be a philosophy that changes the industry, only your own pockets. Doesn't hurt at all to vote with your wallet, doesn't change much either.
NinjaBoiX
Member
Yup. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he gets upset if people think he's being ironic.
He's deadly serious.
He will crush you.
Sweet Baby Roy
Banned
I don't mind micro-transactions in some games, it makes sense for free to play/low priced downloadable games. Seeing them in full fledged retail titles is always off-putting.
It makes me so sad to see good developers defend the negative trends in gaming today. I know if I grew up now, surrounded by the flashy brokenware laughably referred to as 'free to play' I probably wouldn't be a gamer later in life.
Games with microtransactions cater to the worst, most negative aspects of human psychology, and they do it to make a few cents. I find it depressing. They thrive when they create systems that 'fish for whales' with a never ending price tag. They use addictiveness to lock people in, they play on competitiveness to encourage you to use your own social links or links to a game playing community to measure up against each other, hoping to engender a paid 'race to the top'. They encourage highly negative gambling mentalities, for example with close to zero % drop chances of highly desirable in game assets. They create two tier systems to incentivise payers often with disguised, stacked, game mechanics. They work oh-so-carefully to avoid triggering their customers impulse control.
To be honest, I view these sorts of people and their apologists analogous to the tobacco industry. They're selling addictive junk and saying 'hey- if you don't like it, just stop smoking".
As with everything, there are companies who dabble a little, here and there. They might implement a few of the practises described, without the same pressures applied, or be more generous, or slightly less evil. They're selling the menthol cigarettes. You're still learning to light something, put it to your lips and smoke, but they feel a little better about the choices they make, and the behaviours that they are normalising and enabling.
This industry is heading for regulation, like Gree et al. got, because the profoundly negative aspects of this model on people's lives will out. Make your hay while the sun shines, Cliffy. But at least be honest about it.
Games with microtransactions cater to the worst, most negative aspects of human psychology, and they do it to make a few cents. I find it depressing. They thrive when they create systems that 'fish for whales' with a never ending price tag. They use addictiveness to lock people in, they play on competitiveness to encourage you to use your own social links or links to a game playing community to measure up against each other, hoping to engender a paid 'race to the top'. They encourage highly negative gambling mentalities, for example with close to zero % drop chances of highly desirable in game assets. They create two tier systems to incentivise payers often with disguised, stacked, game mechanics. They work oh-so-carefully to avoid triggering their customers impulse control.
To be honest, I view these sorts of people and their apologists analogous to the tobacco industry. They're selling addictive junk and saying 'hey- if you don't like it, just stop smoking".
As with everything, there are companies who dabble a little, here and there. They might implement a few of the practises described, without the same pressures applied, or be more generous, or slightly less evil. They're selling the menthol cigarettes. You're still learning to light something, put it to your lips and smoke, but they feel a little better about the choices they make, and the behaviours that they are normalising and enabling.
This industry is heading for regulation, like Gree et al. got, because the profoundly negative aspects of this model on people's lives will out. Make your hay while the sun shines, Cliffy. But at least be honest about it.
Non pre-rendered Win/10
Castle Doctrine
Member
Vote with your wallet. Don't like goo children, don't buy 'em.
After that shit-tastic Cliffy and Saints Row thread, I guess I can understand why he would immediately start trolling any discussion here. But that's kinda unfortunate.
I don't have a problem with microtransactions in principle, but some uses of them can be more abusive than others, and consumers are right to speak out if they feel they're being given a rough bargain.
I don't have a problem with microtransactions in principle, but some uses of them can be more abusive than others, and consumers are right to speak out if they feel they're being given a rough bargain.
Aquamarine
Member
After all, Goo children producers have to find new ways to stay profitable in the industry. Not only that, but maniacal dictators made Goo children in the past, so it's totally okay to do it now.
What, those art history and philosophy degrees everyone has aren't helping them land jobs?
You know what? These aren't the best times, Clifford, and you should consider yourself fortunate to have experienced life as you have. Perhaps one day you will need help at some important moment and upon extending your hand - I hope people spit on it.
Karma can be a bitch and I hope we all get to watch
Also bringing up Team Fortress 2 as a way for Valve to easily milk consumers is flat out absurd. Team fortress 2 was made free to play because Valve figured if someone wanted in on Team Fortress 2, they probably already bought it. Sales eventually reached a stand still after a few years.
So Valve figured they wouldn't sell that many copies of Team Fortress 2 anymore. So making it free to play was an incredible financial move, anyone with a bit of curiosity but didn't want to buy Team Fortress 2 could give it a shot. The audience grew larger than it would've being a traditionally bought game.
So both the player count and overall audience goes up and with larger numbers comes a larger chance of people buying items or hats for the game. The base game can be played without any monetary transaction, yet the the devoted or just plain consumer could buy an assortment of hats and items.
And the people that got in the game when it was free to play might've been more willing to sink a little money into the game since well, they got it for free.
Everyone won in this instance, there was no mean spirited or overly greedy ulterior motive. Valve made an excellent business decision that fucked no one.
So Valve figured they wouldn't sell that many copies of Team Fortress 2 anymore. So making it free to play was an incredible financial move, anyone with a bit of curiosity but didn't want to buy Team Fortress 2 could give it a shot. The audience grew larger than it would've being a traditionally bought game.
So both the player count and overall audience goes up and with larger numbers comes a larger chance of people buying items or hats for the game. The base game can be played without any monetary transaction, yet the the devoted or just plain consumer could buy an assortment of hats and items.
And the people that got in the game when it was free to play might've been more willing to sink a little money into the game since well, they got it for free.
Everyone won in this instance, there was no mean spirited or overly greedy ulterior motive. Valve made an excellent business decision that fucked no one.
Castle Doctrine
Member
Personally I prefer pulp children but the market has chosen goo, so I go goo.
I'll say that in some ways people are voting with their wallet in this industry. Many uninspired big budget games have flopped. Didn't Medal of Honor: Warfighter flop? That is consumers saying they need more than the same old FPS crap, we already have COD and BF for our military mulitplayer needs. Homefront too. Many other examples. Microtransactions aren't going to save this industry. A paradigm shift and downsizing is needed. Developers need to stop targeting teenagers and believing that all teenage males are idiots or "dudebros".
Personally I believe a big part of the future is open-world games.
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
the face of a murderer:
He should've been a playable character in Hotline Miami. I would've bought him in a MICROTRANSACTION, even.
That's the whole point. If EA did that, everyone would be "fuck EA, microtransactions, blah!"
I agree with the basic premise of people vote with their wallets, and if you agree with that, the simple truth is that micro-transactions are a huge hit. I think one of the biggest money makers is the subscription model, like in World of Warcraft, but there have been so many attempts at MMOs and most of them fail. A lot of subscription MMOs have gone F2P because that's the only way for them to maintain a user-base. I think for the majority of games, subscriptions have failed, so there's an attempt at creating another revenue stream.
This is especially true for MMOs, always online games (DiabloIII), and multiplayer games (Team Fortress II). Those aren't games like Mario Galaxy, where once you ship 'em, the game is done. WoW, DIII, TFII, are all constantly being worked on, they have server costs, they have to be patched and balanced constantly, they have to maintain compatability with new hardware etc.
Microtransactions are a way for a developer/publisher to maintain a revenue stream beyond that initial purchase. What happens when your sales drop by 80% every year, but your playerbase only drops 10%? It's not sustainable.
If every dev could just walk away from the game when they're finished, they would, but if they can't, they'd love the subscription model, but if that doesn't work, they'll accept microtransactions, and if that doesn't work, why maintain the servers?
Femmeworth
Banned
EA hasn't had a game like Team Fortress 2, and any free to play attempts made were all moot. And Valve doesn't treat Team Fortress 2 like a main way to make profit, Steam does that for them.
Laughing Banana
Weeping Pickle
One can argue that microtransactions can flourish not because there are demands for it but because the industry forced it to the players/consumers who have no way/chance of rejecting it without completely distancing themselves from their hobby altogether.
Not the yearly CoD bait, though, I imagine?
Femmeworth
Banned
The Battlefield series is too successful.
I guess it'll take more time to burn that to the ground, sorta like CoD.
I also really don't understand how devs can't see how detracting from their meticulously crafted atmospheric single player game is to have to input your credit card information mid-game lol
AcceptableGhost
Member
But goo children is the most efficient way of processing children, how else is a company in these rough times supposed to make money.
lol, that's a paywall. You literally cannot play the game for a period of time unless you pony up cash.
Give the person who came up with that the
ig
Good piece by GI.biz:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-01-fearing-the-micro-transaction-future
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-01-fearing-the-micro-transaction-future
Putting massive microtransactions in a full priced game says 2 equally bad things to me as a consumer, because you as a company are either:
1) Greedy, and that's a self explanatory point=> You don't deserve my money because you are trying to treat me like a dimwitted fellow who can't see through your "Low value, high pricetag" machinations. The consumer is king, remember this, you have to provide me value, else you aren't seeing a dime anytime soon.
OR:
2) In need of money, because your AAA project costed so much you can't possibly break even/ profit off of sales alone.
This basically means : you are unrealiable, unstable, your management wing is composed of incompetent people, you are wasting money on something useless somewhere, you are going to sink even deeper from here on out. You don't deserve my money, because you are already damned, you cannot be saved.
Smaller, better managed companies are nimbler than you, and don't have to resort to such underhanded practices to earn enough liquidity to finance their next BIG BUDGET low return on investment project, because it is risky, and they won't ever have one.
1) Greedy, and that's a self explanatory point=> You don't deserve my money because you are trying to treat me like a dimwitted fellow who can't see through your "Low value, high pricetag" machinations. The consumer is king, remember this, you have to provide me value, else you aren't seeing a dime anytime soon.
OR:
2) In need of money, because your AAA project costed so much you can't possibly break even/ profit off of sales alone.
This basically means : you are unrealiable, unstable, your management wing is composed of incompetent people, you are wasting money on something useless somewhere, you are going to sink even deeper from here on out. You don't deserve my money, because you are already damned, you cannot be saved.
Smaller, better managed companies are nimbler than you, and don't have to resort to such underhanded practices to earn enough liquidity to finance their next BIG BUDGET low return on investment project, because it is risky, and they won't ever have one.
Goodacre0081
Member
no, gaf backfired.
PedroLumpy
Member
Say some Publisher said they were making some design decision that would result in their games possibly kicking you in the balls when you bought them. Would you wait until you actually bought a game that kicked you in the balls before complaining?
And Jim Sterling has just posted his view on Cliff´s blog.
http://www.destructoid.com/on-cliffy-b-microtransactions-and-electronic-arts-247379.phtml
http://www.destructoid.com/on-cliffy-b-microtransactions-and-electronic-arts-247379.phtml
I find it funny that Cliffy B thinks he has "owned" the internet in general and NeoGAF in particular, when really all he did was to make essentially a low-quality GAF post and put it on his blog instead of starting a thread here.
I'll respond more fully in about an hour.
I'll respond more fully in about an hour.
Zuhzuhzombie!!
Member
I don't mind microtransactions.
I do mind being nickled and dimed.
And I certainly as shit will mind paying 60 bucks for a game and then being nickled and dimed.
The latter is what people fear because it's likely to happen. Telling me some chump in Silicon Valley needs to nickle and dime me because his poor family ain't gonna bring no sympathy. California sucks. Bout time they realized it.
Oh no! The pedos, mouth breathers, panty sniffers and basement dwellers at Reddit and 4chan think little of GAF! What will GAF do?!?!?!?
I do mind being nickled and dimed.
And I certainly as shit will mind paying 60 bucks for a game and then being nickled and dimed.
The latter is what people fear because it's likely to happen. Telling me some chump in Silicon Valley needs to nickle and dime me because his poor family ain't gonna bring no sympathy. California sucks. Bout time they realized it.
Oh no! The pedos, mouth breathers, panty sniffers and basement dwellers at Reddit and 4chan think little of GAF! What will GAF do?!?!?!?