What is malicious now will be common tomorrow.
People used to complain about MMO subscriptions too. Same with paid expansion packs. Times are changing.
-
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.
Monetization of our time is evil. Gamers regroup !
- Thread starter Solal
- Start date
People used to complain about MMO subscriptions too. Same with paid expansion packs. Times are changing.
Well iOS / Android is everything that's wrong with gaming right now and it's spilling over into the console market.
EsotericManiac
Member
I'm not sure what the drop rates were before and after, but obviously decreasing the supply of something can increase the demand of it.
WarMacheen
Member
RMAH was absolutely involved with drop rates, just read through this paying particular attention to the Blizzard reps. It's not about supply and demand, I know how that works. It's about pushing people to the RMAH, which Blizzard gets a cut of, by decreasing drops, plain and simple
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Report-How-Blizzard-Fixed-Drop-Rates-Affect-RMAH-44163.html
DryvBy
Member
Everyone's "budgets" are going up, including their customers. How about cut things in games that don't need to be in there. Like hundreds of songs in a game. I miss original video game music in car games.
Same vote with your wallet people!
SneakyStephan
Banned
You don't seem to understand
Developers have to code the grind into the game, it's not some innate thing to videogames, it didn't even exist 15 years ago outside of rpgs
They code it in either as skinnerbox or to try to scam people into buying a microtransaction that removes or lightens the grind
It's a computer program, real world limitations do not apply, there is no ski slope to walk up before you get to ski down it in a game, unless a developer decides to add that
you should be mad at developers who add one, because they're giving you the finger so you'd give them more money
there is no rationalising or defending it in any other way.
Mt Heart Attack
Member
This is of course an extreme case but I think that proves there are ways developers can ruin people's enjoyment of a game by means of monetization schemes. They might be more subtle at first as people grow accustomed to them sure, but it can only get worse from there.
Spreading awareness as to how this might turn into a serious issue is a good thing, I feel. It would also be nice if someone could compile a list of games which include these practices and the degree to which they make use of them, since reviewers don't seem to pay them any mind for now.
I couldn't believe the monetization in asscreed 4. Buy all abilities and perks in mp,Xp boost, and locate all side quests and secrets in Sp. The list goes on.
NFS Rivals has timesaver bundle which unlocks all techs and enhancments for every car . It's fucking ridiculous for mp focused game.
NFS Rivals has timesaver bundle which unlocks all techs and enhancments for every car . It's fucking ridiculous for mp focused game.
Yup.
But threads like this one are also important. Our voices give those games the reputation they deserve, and their reputation will ultimately affect their sales.
This is bull. iOS gaming is wrong? Wtf?
Think about this: How many iOS games have you played in the last years? How much did you pay? I can almost guarantee you that you got the better end of the deal.
I've only spend about $50 the last year on IOS games. I played DOZENS of games. Freemium and premium. I've had a blast. On PC/Consoles I pay $50 per game for 6 hours of fun.
Please put things in perspective.
WarMacheen
Member
This has to be a mistake right? The "value" purchases actually increase token cost...rofl
From another gaf thread...I sense a merge coming
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719955
From another gaf thread...I sense a merge coming
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=719955
But these are not apt comparisons to microtransactions in full-priced games.
The things you mentioned above are directly related to the creation of new content. MMOs need constant source of income because they have servers and other constant expedures, and expansion packs were developed after the game was released thus their cost wasn't included in the original game.
Now these microtransactions are design choices that could be perfectly avoided since the game is already full priced, but they weren't. This is the core of the issue, not "paying developers more money", because consumers will happily do so if they see value in it.
Is your in game experience compromised by adding monetization hooks? Do they make the player think about weighing further economic transactions over just enjoying the game they paid full price for (not talking about F2P here)? If not congrats, you're doing it right. If so, you've sacrificed something in order to reap the benefit of the in app purchase model, even if it was necessary to turn a profit. Maybe that's acceptable, but frustration from a segment of the player base has to be understandable.
runnin_blue
Banned
Came in to post this, first post wins again.
EsotericManiac
Member
This doesn't necessarily prove your point. Blizzard was saying the changed drop rates for availability reasons, those changing the price of the item and it's frequency in the AH. Any change to drop rates would do the same thing.
This doesn't prove they changed drop rates to make more money in the auction house. There could be countless reason to make changes to drop rates just like any MMO out there.
turnbuckle
Member
I haven't played that game, but it's a tactic I see in a lot of games. even in my beloved mlb the show. unlocking stadiums in 2012 diamond dynasty required beating the cpu in that stadium. it was a bit of a grind bit at least you also earned money for playing those matches. in 2013, you had to use money to unlock them - overall taking either more time or real money ( over $20 worth). and these were just for access to the major league parks that are already freely available in every other mode on the game. they locked them out on the one mode where money and competition with other players go hand-in-hand.
gt5 was already an incredible grind, but it remains to be seen in gt6 if the grind is made worse or not. if it's worse and supplemented by the option to spend real money then I'm cancelling my pre-order. having the option to save time is different than giving a developer the option to artificially inflate time requirements while charging for the illusion of convenience. you used to be able to use codes if you wanted to skip the grind in games, now it's a paid feature and developers have a warped incentive to tack that business model into as many games as possible.
Clockwork5
Member
There are no $60 games with a F2P model.
I am not trying to take anything away from anyone. I am simply stating my opinion on an obscure internet message board. I am not the one scheming a Twitter campaign.
I am the one who sounds like a spoiled brat here? ha.
Again, i am not the one searching for the highest mountain top to shout out my vision for the gaming market. I am not forcing anything, the industry and those who purchase these games are moving in that direction, regardless of how much you pout and stomp.
Again, dont buy them if it is not worth it to you. If these games are as terrible as you all say then they will be $9.99 in no time.
Polioliolio
Member
And how do you regulate this? This echoes the old issue which seems to have been forgotten, about how DLC is okay as long as development on the base game is finished before any extra content is created.
With half a brain, you know the publishers are strategically making DLC part of their product the moment they're in charge of the project. To think otherwise would just be silly..
And now there's this whole new money scheme. it's terrible guys, and since we can't leave it to the publishers to morally constrain themselves, we have to, by default, not put up with this shit.
Clockwork5
Member
By not purchasing the product.
Compare and contrast:
There's someone in the 'incoherant rant' thread who's played a lot of the Forza series saying that the changes as described don't sound particularly crippling given the way Forza is structured, too. He's not played it, admittedly, but I'd be interested to hear his impressions a month or two down the line.
Jojo's the only example I've seen where there seems to be universal agreement that they hurt the game.
That's the thing, I think: I'm unwilling to accept the notion that microtransactions will automatically mean the game is damaged in order . It's a tricky metric to judge given that some people will assume that since the microtransactions are there, the progression mechanics really ought to be smoother than they are. Ultimately, you have to listen to people who enjoy the game and can regard the structure in a dispassionate light, because they'll be the ones who can tell you if it's paced poorly or not.
Ignoring the actual microtransactions themselves, that's what it fundamentally boils down to, in my eyes: How the game is paced. That could go either way; it's important to recall that games can be poorly-paced independently of this (I recall a review of a game - I think it was GT3 - which complained about the amount of time you had to spend proving yourself in slow cars before the fast cars became available), and it's equally valid to suggest that there are games that are perfectly well-paced despite having microtransactions in them (reports about AC4 seem to suggest that's the case?). The microtransactions are an irrelevance in that regard: Just find out how the pacing is.
I've brought up Bravely Default elsewhere, too; that's going to be interesting, because it's a game without microtransactions which is getting an enhanced remake with microtransactions. I'm rather curious to find out if they've changed the balance to make the microtransactions more necessary or if it really is simply microtransactions bolted onto an unchanged base game: strictly speaking, if the base is unchanged, I find it very hard to support people boycotting it on principle, given the reasonable reason for protest is not the case.
From the economical point of view, there's another thing I want to bring up, and it's about a difference between free to play and pay to play games. Free to play games, the entire business model is entirely dependent on the whale; there's two tiers of revenue, with the whales being the top tier and small amounts of revenue coming from people who spend smaller figures. It makes sense to tailor those games entirely to what the whales will focus on.
Pay to play, I would argue, would be a different entity economically, and as such it should be considered in that way when planning microtransactions. First of all, you'll probably have fewer whales - the fact that there's an inherent barrier to entry at the start means people are less likely to get themselves hooked in the first place. Second, and more importantly, there's a third significant revenue stream - the actual income from selling the game. I'd like to see numbers, but my gut says that this revenue stream is the largest of all three.
That's where things get tricky: if that revenue stream is largest, you want to focus on catering to them. But it's a stream of mixed people, some of whom will be willing to purchase microtransactions, others will not. In the interests of balance, it's probably wisest to make a reasonably-paced main game, then offer shortcuts for others if they wish for them.
In short: I think it's a bad long-term business decision to focus on whales in pay to play products. There's nothing inherently wrong with including timesaving microtransactions in them - indeed, I completely support the option - but if you cripple the pacing of the game, you're going to inherently reduce that third revenue stream for future titles in the series as people get bitten and shy away in the future.
Now, it's certainly not beyond publishers to make bad economical decisions, but I'd hope that any microtransaction plan does take the difference in audiences into account.
The economy of games is a subject that interests me greatly, and it's something that's worth debating, but it's too easy to get bogged down with people having strong dislikes about aspects of it.
There's someone in the 'incoherant rant' thread who's played a lot of the Forza series saying that the changes as described don't sound particularly crippling given the way Forza is structured, too. He's not played it, admittedly, but I'd be interested to hear his impressions a month or two down the line.
Jojo's the only example I've seen where there seems to be universal agreement that they hurt the game.
That's the thing, I think: I'm unwilling to accept the notion that microtransactions will automatically mean the game is damaged in order . It's a tricky metric to judge given that some people will assume that since the microtransactions are there, the progression mechanics really ought to be smoother than they are. Ultimately, you have to listen to people who enjoy the game and can regard the structure in a dispassionate light, because they'll be the ones who can tell you if it's paced poorly or not.
Ignoring the actual microtransactions themselves, that's what it fundamentally boils down to, in my eyes: How the game is paced. That could go either way; it's important to recall that games can be poorly-paced independently of this (I recall a review of a game - I think it was GT3 - which complained about the amount of time you had to spend proving yourself in slow cars before the fast cars became available), and it's equally valid to suggest that there are games that are perfectly well-paced despite having microtransactions in them (reports about AC4 seem to suggest that's the case?). The microtransactions are an irrelevance in that regard: Just find out how the pacing is.
I've brought up Bravely Default elsewhere, too; that's going to be interesting, because it's a game without microtransactions which is getting an enhanced remake with microtransactions. I'm rather curious to find out if they've changed the balance to make the microtransactions more necessary or if it really is simply microtransactions bolted onto an unchanged base game: strictly speaking, if the base is unchanged, I find it very hard to support people boycotting it on principle, given the reasonable reason for protest is not the case.
From the economical point of view, there's another thing I want to bring up, and it's about a difference between free to play and pay to play games. Free to play games, the entire business model is entirely dependent on the whale; there's two tiers of revenue, with the whales being the top tier and small amounts of revenue coming from people who spend smaller figures. It makes sense to tailor those games entirely to what the whales will focus on.
Pay to play, I would argue, would be a different entity economically, and as such it should be considered in that way when planning microtransactions. First of all, you'll probably have fewer whales - the fact that there's an inherent barrier to entry at the start means people are less likely to get themselves hooked in the first place. Second, and more importantly, there's a third significant revenue stream - the actual income from selling the game. I'd like to see numbers, but my gut says that this revenue stream is the largest of all three.
That's where things get tricky: if that revenue stream is largest, you want to focus on catering to them. But it's a stream of mixed people, some of whom will be willing to purchase microtransactions, others will not. In the interests of balance, it's probably wisest to make a reasonably-paced main game, then offer shortcuts for others if they wish for them.
In short: I think it's a bad long-term business decision to focus on whales in pay to play products. There's nothing inherently wrong with including timesaving microtransactions in them - indeed, I completely support the option - but if you cripple the pacing of the game, you're going to inherently reduce that third revenue stream for future titles in the series as people get bitten and shy away in the future.
Now, it's certainly not beyond publishers to make bad economical decisions, but I'd hope that any microtransaction plan does take the difference in audiences into account.
The economy of games is a subject that interests me greatly, and it's something that's worth debating, but it's too easy to get bogged down with people having strong dislikes about aspects of it.
molnizzle
Member
That's not what people in this thread are bitching about though. If the game is only a couple bucks (or free) up front then microtransactions are understandable and expected. People start getting pissy when devs shoehorn that stuff into full $60 games.
In my opinion some people here are overreacting a bit, as most of the time these "timesaver" packs are just that. They don't hinder your experience if you don't buy them or lock any content behind a paywall. However, this isn't always the case, and as several posters have already pointed out there are recent examples of full $60 games that basically screw you if you don't pony up extra money. I haven't read much about Forza 5, but it sounds like some of the top vehicles in the game cannot be acquired without paying extra money. In a game with such a large multiplayer focus, that's bullshit.
As I said before, there's a fine line. It sounds like Forza may have crossed it.
FUNKNOWN iXi
Member
I approve of this thread and will do my part by not buying into these shitty tactics. Why should we pay $60 for a new game and be nickle and dimed out of more money? We're not the ones setting crazy budgets on these games..
Here's the problem with this line of thinking: games have pretty much always had grinding. Your RPG character has levels that need to go up before you move on. You need to earn a better car. You need to keep playing The Sims day-to-day to be able to afford a new house. Etc.
The grind didn't come with the fee, it was already there. If the fee to bypass it is removed, it's safe to say that the grind will still be there. If you could bypass the grind for free, everybody would just do that and there would be no real gameplay (press X to level your character up completely!).
It's a delicate balance, and adding a financial incentive could tilt the balance toward extending that grind intentionally, but I haven't seen that in full-priced games. F2P games, however, I find myself wishing I could just pay the $3 or whatever to play without somebody stopping me every 5 minutes (Amateur Surgeon 3, I'm looking at you!).
The grind didn't come with the fee, it was already there. If the fee to bypass it is removed, it's safe to say that the grind will still be there. If you could bypass the grind for free, everybody would just do that and there would be no real gameplay (press X to level your character up completely!).
It's a delicate balance, and adding a financial incentive could tilt the balance toward extending that grind intentionally, but I haven't seen that in full-priced games. F2P games, however, I find myself wishing I could just pay the $3 or whatever to play without somebody stopping me every 5 minutes (Amateur Surgeon 3, I'm looking at you!).
D
Deleted member 126221
Unconfirmed Member
I think it's the only hope. If people stop supporting this, it'll go away. It will happen eventually, I just wonder when.
I recently downloaded Tekken Revolution on PSN fo free.
Never played a FTP game before in my life.
Up on the screen you had the constant reminder: you have to win or you have to pay to play versus, or even 1P arcade.
I felt dirty playing it. I wished I could just buy the damn game.
It didn't feel as a toy, as something fun. It smelled of gamble, of money and greed.
It effectively turned me away from playing it.
I hate this kind of gaming, I hope it goes away.
Never played a FTP game before in my life.
Up on the screen you had the constant reminder: you have to win or you have to pay to play versus, or even 1P arcade.
I felt dirty playing it. I wished I could just buy the damn game.
It didn't feel as a toy, as something fun. It smelled of gamble, of money and greed.
It effectively turned me away from playing it.
I hate this kind of gaming, I hope it goes away.
Disclaimer: it's about the atmosphere I perceived more than anything. It left me a very bad taste in the mouth. I understand the "it's free, so there has to be a catch" approach. I just don't like it, I'd prefer every game was complete at full price.
This is very naïve. You can make such judgements about everything in games.
Fact is, developers need to make money. They even need to make a profit. People get what they pay for. As long as people pay for IAP and enjoy the experience there is nothing wrong going on.
People here are complaining because developers are experimenting with ways to earn more money. This will hopefully get developers more money so that they can make more games.
Sacrificing certain aspects of a game is NOTHING NEW. Most games have a lot of production values in the first few level. But because only a small percentage of players actually make it to the last level, these levels often are rushed. The game is compromised because the developers needed to cut costs. Even Nintendo does this. But we've accepted this.
Now developers are using paywalls to lock away content. You can complain all you want, but if 2% of all players pay for these features it's probably worth it for the developer.
They would never issue a statement like "we wanted to make more money, so we made the game shitty for you." But let's not be naive here. Every single change they did to the formula points in that direction.
Thats the only way out of this.
EsotericManiac
Member
every single change they make would affect the AH
but correlation does not imply causation
Clockwork5
Member
What exactly is "Malicious consumable DLC" and can you provide some examples that have really pissed you off?
They don't need to make more and more money, in any possible, often sleazy way though.
More games, filled with more micro-transactions?
Citation needed.
"Microsoft has decided DRM/always on is the way to go, you can complain all you want but..."
"Nintendo has decided Xenoblade and The Last Story aren't coming to the west, you can complain all you want but..."
molnizzle
Member
Eh, he's right on this one. I played D3 at launch and it was impossible to progress past Act II Inferno without either opening your wallet or mindlessly grinding for hundreds of hours. That sucked.
I'm not clear, are you an iOS developer or was that previous comment just hypothetical? If so I would appreciate more insight from that perspective, even though this thread is about full priced console games.
By the way, I agree with you. It can be worth it for the developer, frustrating for those looking to play games without feeling pressured for money, perfectly fine for many others and harmful long term all at the same time. This stuff is complicated and, as you say, experimental, but it deserves criticism when done without care, much like any other problem a game might have regarding systems or content.
Hyperactivity
Banned
99 cents for a free blue shell during race. $2 for bullet bill
Yes, because they did some estimations and saw that the bad press was costing them money.
A lot more people complain about the price of Xbox live. Did they make it free? Nope. They're making money of it.
I agree. Criticism is good.
Actually I share the frustration about IAP in full priced games. I hate it. But as a developer I also totally get it. This is a very difficult business to work in. Most developers have two choices: make a game and maximize monetization, or do work for hire for the next 10 years (hoping you've saved enough to make your own game).
People are exaggerating the definition of 'grind' as well.
Grinding is something that you do on TOP of your normal playing, and usually involves repetitive farming of something in the game.
In regards to Forza, people are overreacting massively. Most don't understand that the game has had microtransactions like this in the game since Forza 3 and that it never hurt the game before. Its actually an example of a series that includes this without hurting the game. This and Gran Turismo are the type of game that people sink a lot of time into normally. That's the norm. So most people will not have trouble affording the vast majority of content in the game. The microtransactions are for impatient people or people who don't have the time to play normally.
Its a shame there's not more Forza fans around to help make people understand. I guarantee once GT gets it, you will find a lot more people saying the same sort of thing I am.
Hyperactivity
Banned
One day it will crash ala facebook games
Clockwork5
Member
Diablo is a mindless grind game and always has been... Yeah the droprate was off in that game, i will agree. However, I never had an issue grinding gold and purchasing (with gold, not $$) the items i needed. Sure, i was not as beastly as those who paid for gear, but so what.... Good on them...
Look, i am not saying Microtransactions are a good thing, but 99% of the time in full retail games they are not a bad thing either.
Edit: did this DESTROY the Diablo franchise, as the poster who I responded to claimed would be the result of this? no.... The console version is good and has done well.
Truth is, especially after the Xbox One fiasco, the 'anti-consumer' flag has been raised and is in full effect, with a lot of people failing to really consider what that term means and how a balance between consumer benefit and product/service provider benefit is really what is important. People are very touchy nowadays and have very little tolerance for any business practices that they feel might hurt them in any way possible, even if its a necessary compromise in certain cases. It takes a lot for people to be 'understanding'. We are naturally selfish.
Muppet of a Man
Member
Yeah this is some real bullshit. Sony and Microsoft can fuck right on off with this nonsense.
Clockwork5
Member
I like you.
Also just to show that I am not a microtransaction fanboi (haha) i can see how pay to win in COMPETITIVE (PvP) online games could destroy the game. I just haven't seen it happen in a full price retail game. We'll see how the competitive racing community in Forza feels about this in a month or so.
See, I made a concession
Polioliolio
Member
Your angle is to ignore it because it's not a problem, but look, how far microtransactions have come in just a single generation of gaming. DLC was a relatively new thing with the beginning of the 360 and PS3.. Now there are literally the same money grubbing schemes in mainstream games as there are in the shitty mobile games no one likes.
Again, it's a slippery slope. Choosing to be neutral is just as bad as throwing the money down yourself at this point.
And your earlier response of 'Don't buy the game', is exactly what I'm advocating.
you keep saying that, but it is not true. If they wanted to serve the impatient people, just put an easy mode in with a money multiplier for free.
No, these things are put there to make more money for the corporation that owns the IP, that is all.
And if they can make more money by altering game balance, they will alter the game balance. They are businesses after all with a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profitability. And if they can get some people to pay $200 or $300 for the game, they will do that.
Freezie KO
Banned
I'm really against this practice. I've always thought the DLC model just allowed for too much abuse, regardless if 1 out of every 100 developers uses it to give a really meaty expansion.
"Grinding" is not fun and now that you can pay to get around it, that only incentivizes devs to put in poor game mechanics.
"Grinding" is not fun and now that you can pay to get around it, that only incentivizes devs to put in poor game mechanics.
EsotericManiac
Member
I don't understand this stance at all.
SneakyStephan
Banned
JinjoUnchained
Member
I've said this on other threads, but to repeat, if we want to do away with these awful monetization practices, we must first let go of our requirement that all AAA games must cost $60 at retail. We get all of this DLC and monetization crap because $60 is not enough revenue to offset rising development costs and inflation for most AAA games; so publishers split up the costs (through on-disc DLC, F2P elements) to avoid sticker shock and suck us in with a series of smaller payments.
If you're sick of games like Forza and GT being gimped in this manner, put your money where your mouth is and demand a GOTY edition on Day 1 for $80 and then actually buy it. Ultimately, people vote with their wallets and publishers will listen.
If you're sick of games like Forza and GT being gimped in this manner, put your money where your mouth is and demand a GOTY edition on Day 1 for $80 and then actually buy it. Ultimately, people vote with their wallets and publishers will listen.