Support NeoGAF

[marrec]

Same reason for online fees and multiplayer dlc

A lot of people talk about the entitlement issues that gamers have, but Publishers have seem to have a problem as well.

They think they're entitled to more of my money and because of it are making shittier games than before.

I mean, Dead Space was a really good series until 3.

 

[Polioliolio]

I don't understand this stance at all.

Assume the hoards of unwashed casual masses buy into this stuff. If we gaming enthusiasts don't make a stand, the greedy publishers have already won.

If you look at the indie scene, you don't see this microtransaction shit. Why? Because Developers just want to make good games, and the people supporting those indies just want to play good games.

I wouldn't be so adamant about opposing it if I haven't already seen the increased exploitation during the life of the concepts of DLC.

 

[Clockwork5]

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.

I wouldn't say I am neutral. I definitely dont support ripoff DLC/microtransactions (i rarely purchase DLC anyway). However, I can not think of one console game I have purchased where I felt that the retail game was simply a microtransaction market. Or it was in some way a gimped version of the game... As I said, we will see how consumers respond to Forza's lack of content / pay to win (kinda) model.

 

[FaintColt388301]

Yeah, this whole pay for the stuff you could get if you just kept playing thing is so stupid.

If you want to help the gamers and give us the option to skip ahead and ruin the fun in earning stuff then put out a cheat code. We already bought your game. Why should we give you more money just to play with the fun stuff more easily

 

[maniac-kun]

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.

Then make cheaper games. The AAA market could easily collapse with a few bad titles.

 

[marrec]

Then make cheaper games.

Best games I've played this year all cost $20 or less.

Oh, and only one included Microtransactions. And it was F2P so whatever.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

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.

Kind of off topic but that's already the case in Europe, we pay 70 euros for newly released games, which is more than 90 dollars (easily more than 60 even if you account for taxes). So if charging 80 dollars for a game would prevent companies from coming up with these practices, then by all means

 

[Axass]

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.

To the bolded, not really; the anti-DRM movement and the bad press they got has been HUGE. To my knowledge there's never been a movement a la Operation Rainfall or #NoDRM about Xbox LIVE. The comparison doesn't hold.

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).

And so they decide on the more morally questionable route.

You talk as developers were poor souls forced in a job they don't like and didn't choose. Not making enough money doesn't give you the right to act unethically and then not even have your integrity being questioned.

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.

So consumers are selfish for not wanting to give more millions of unwarranted dollars/euros to megacorporations such as Microsoft that already make millions and millions of profit every year, and in doing so giving them the idea that monetizing the entirity of our hobby is a cool idea? Yeah, aren't we selfish, entitled, little baby pricks.

I don't understand this stance at all.

Warning: huge hyperbole ahead.

If someone was about to kill someone else:

1. You help the killer: BAD.
2. You stop him risking your life: GOOD.
3. You do nothing: JUST AS BAD, THE GUY DIES ANYWAY.

Being neutral means not fighting something which is possibly malicious, hence giving it more space to grow.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Then make cheaper games. The AAA market could easily collapse with a few bad titles.

Absolutely. My point is that the market has an expectation that all major retail titles should be $60. In reality, we should have AA/AAA titles ranging from $20 to $120, based upon the amount of content and production values. Then people should buy them at different price points, if they want to end this abusive monetization. This problem goes the other way too; something like Knack shouldn't cost $60 just because it's a Day 1 boxed retail game, it's not worth that much.

 

[maniac-kun]

Absolutely. My point is that the market has an expectation that all major retail titles should be $60. In reality, we should have AA/AAA titles ranging from $20 to $120, based upon the amount of content and production values. Then people should buy them at different price points, if they want to end this abusive monetization. This problem goes the other way too; something like Knack shouldn't cost $60 just because it's a Day 1 boxed retail game, it's not worth that much.

EA already sells BF4 for 120 €. With premium and everything.

 

[Axass]

Then make cheaper games. The AAA market could easily collapse with a few bad titles.

*Ding ding ding*

We have a winner. Not every game has to be a bloated, cinematic, hyperbolic, hyped mess. Also cut down on the draconian marketing of those games, which is going to end up costing about the same of development soon, if this keeps up.

 

[afternoon delight]

I've never purchased a game with it and will continue that trend. If it's getting a GOTY I purchase that version to offset their "fuck you impulsive incentives".

What kills me is the fact that what was once done with cheat codes is now A TRANSACTION. Fuck right off with that bullshit.

 

[gioGAF]

This is a terrible trend. I hope people finally take notice and stop supporting these monetization schemes. I do my part (buy GOTY/complete editions and avoid certain games completely based on principle), but people still seem all to eager to get fleeced :-(

 

[FaintColt388301]

Absolutely. My point is that the market has an expectation that all major retail titles should be $60. In reality, we should have AA/AAA titles ranging from $20 to $120, based upon the amount of content and production values. Then people should buy them at different price points, if they want to end this abusive monetization. This problem goes the other way too; something like Knack shouldn't cost $60 just because it's a Day 1 boxed retail game, it's not worth that much.

That's how I felt about Rayman legends. I liked Origins a lot but when I got around to getting it it was $30 which I felt was a perfect price for what I got. I couldn't bring myself to spend $60 on Legends. I'm sure I would've had fun but sixty dollars wasn't worth it to me.

Devs and pubs need to realize that price point isn't flat. Rayman to me should have been less. Games like TLOU or GTA i'd pay 70 for. Yearly sports titles should be 40ish. The pricing of games needs change

 

[Roto13]

I've never played a game with microtransactions to skip grinding where the grinding was unreasonbly time consuming.

Microtransactions aren't inherently evil.

 

[SneakyStephan]

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.

Haha, NO
I'm not paying more for inflated budgets, managment bloat, massive marketing campaigns etc
As gaming became more mainstream and the audience became bigger you'd expect games to become cheaper, not more expensive
Economy of scale and all that

You are nuts

Developers need to learn to budget their game, that is the real problem
Big publishers made their games flashier with more production value and heavy marketing to drown out the competition from smaller ones, highly anti competitive
and now they want us to keep enabling that? again: haha NO

 

[Furyous]

I disagree to an extent with this argument.

If a publisher like EA wants to place $60 worth of day one cheat codes in a retail release then that's fine. I won't buy the game to support this but someone will. This is fine as long as there is an in-game non patched alternative to this. Dead Space 3 had an in-game workaround that was hard to find. If someone wants to spoil the game for themselves then go ahead.

I have issues when this sales strategy is forced like GTAO. It wouldn't be an issue if you could sell cars without a time limit.

In the case of GT, as long as the grind is the same as past games then this strategy is okay. Restrict the DLC purchasers to their own races for four months or the length of time it takes average racers to procure those vehicles.

If this gives us gamers an option to sell cars online for real money then I'm for it.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I disagree to an extent with this argument.

If a publisher like EA wants to place $60 worth of day one cheat codes in a retail release then that's fine. I won't buy the game to support this but someone will. This is fine as long as there is an in-game non patched alternative to this. Dead Space 3 had an in-game workaround that was hard to find. If someone wants to spoil the game for themselves then go ahead.

I have issues when this sales strategy is forced like GTAO. It wouldn't be an issue if you could sell cars without a time limit.

In the case of GT, as long as the grind is the same as past games then this strategy is okay. Restrict the DLC purchasers to their own races for four months or the length of time it takes average racers to procure those vehicles.

If this gives us gamers an option to sell cars online for real money then I'm for it.

What the hell? You come across it in the actual campaign with no way to miss it. The other drones are also easy to find.

 

[Solal]

I am actually getting annoyed at this. A lot of people LIKE the f2p model. Why are you trying to take this away from them? Lay off the fucking Twitter campaigns, you sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.

If you don't want, don't buy.
Answer me this, why are you trying to take this away from people who like this model?

We have no problem with people getting all the cars, all the tracks, all the weapons, all the whatever... if that's what they want, so be it.
But why make them/us pay? Why take profit from people who already bought your game? Why sanction them? We criticize devs' greed.
And we fear that this greed could change games designs forever.
If devs put cheatcodes in games (not competitive ones of course...) do you really think we would complain?

In GTA San Andreas, only a generation ago, there were cheat codes that gave you everything. Now, in GTA5, you have to buy virtual money with real money. We went from: "Thank you for buying our game. Here are the cheatcodes if you want to have fun with everything we put in the game" to " Wanna see the rest opf the game ? Give me money!Why ? Because I can !"

So, to put an end to the "why take it from other people?" argument, we want them to have it "for free"...because they already payed!

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Assume the hoards of unwashed casual masses buy into this stuff. If we gaming enthusiasts don't make a stand, the greedy publishers have already won.

If you look at the indie scene, you don't see this microtransaction shit. Why? Because Developers just want to make good games, and the people supporting those indies just want to play good games.

I wouldn't be so adamant about opposing it if I haven't already seen the increased exploitation during the life of the concepts of DLC.

It's funny, some of the hyperbolic predictions during Horse Armor-gate is less hyperbolic now and more accurate. That's the exact thing I hope gets stunted: that slow edging up to outrageous by the less ethical/more desperate game makers targeting the less restrained/more impulsive gamers and ignoring most of the rest.

That's how I felt about Rayman legends. I liked Origins a lot but when I got around to getting it it was $30 which I felt was a perfect price for what I got. I couldn't bring myself to spend $60 on Legends. I'm sure I would've had fun but sixty dollars wasn't worth it to me.

Devs and pubs need to realize that price point isn't flat. Rayman to me should have been less. Games like TLOU or GTA i'd pay 70 for. Yearly sports titles should be 40ish. The pricing of games needs change

Well, realize it again, really. This practice used to be defacto during Gen 5 and 6. Then Player Bribery became the norm, then...

 

[Solal]

Ideas for now:
#Free2NotPay
#GameOver
#NotBuyingTwice
#FullPrice4FullGame
#FuckthisIAPnoise
#RageAgainstTheInApps
#ConsolesAreNotATMs
#GamersOpposedToNicklesAndDimes
#GamersAgainstFreemiumDesign
#Fullgamesforfullprice
#Cutpriceforcutgames
#NoRetailF2P
#WeAlreadyPayed
#FreeGamers
#AbusedGamers
#NoPAymium
#NoF2P60$games
#mytime!=yourmoney

the last two are a bit hard to read imo.

 

[dodgykebaab]

I see no problem with paying the skip grind.

If you don't want to pay, or like me want to have the full gaming experience, then just avoid these features

I've been a gamer since the 80's and got my Sega Master System in 1989 when i was nine years old. When I was 13 I got Street Fighter 2 CE second hand for £35, I couldn't afford the new price of £50, so i had no choice but to get a second hand copy of the game. Think about that for a second.
In 1992 over twenty years ago, games cost £50 brand new. What do they cost now? They cost the same amount of money. Now take into consideration just how much more games cost to make. Now add on twenty years of inflation. and really games should cost some where like £120.

But they don't.

If you don't want these things in your games, you are going to have to pay a premium.
Look at the cost of living in 1992 to now (here is a good place to look: hhttp://www.thecostofliving.com/index.php?id=78 )

Before anyone goes on some sort of crusade to change the cost of games, make sure first of all that your actions are not going to end up actually raising the cost.

 

[ArkkAngel007]

We have no problem with people getting all the cars, all the tracks, all the weapons, all the whatever... if that's what they want, so be it.
But why make them/us pay? Why take profit from people who already bought your game? Why sanction them? We criticize devs' greed.
And we fear that this greed could change games designs forever.
If devs put cheatcodes in games (not competitive ones of course...) do you really think we would complain?

In GTA San Andreas, only a generation ago, there were cheat codes that gave you everything. Now, in GTA5, you have to buy virtual money with real money. We went from: "Thank you for buying our game. Here are the cheatcodes if you want to have fun with everything we put in the game" to " Wanna see the rest opf the game ? Give me money!Why ? Because I can !"

So, to put an end to the "why take it from other people?" argument, we want them to have it "for free"...because they already payed!

I really dislike the cheat code argument, as it's doubtful devs would be putting the shortcut in there if it wasn't for the microtransaction model. It's also the weakest as it has little to do with the actual game design consequences. It just comes across as whining about the most ancillary element imaginable.

If the argument is solely on the model dragging down the design of the game or ruining the balance in the online space, then ok, that's something to get behind. That's where it needs to stick to.

 

[JinjoUnchained]

Haha, NO
I'm not paying more for inflated budgets, managment bloat, massive marketing campaigns etc
As gaming became more mainstream and the audience became bigger you'd expect games to become cheaper, not more expensive
Economy of scale and all that

You are nuts

Developers need to learn to budget their game, that is the real problem
Big publishers made their games flashier with more production value and heavy marketing to drown out the competition from smaller ones, highly anti competitive
and now they want us to keep enabling that? again: haha NO

Yup, I am nuts, but that's completely off-topic . Of course there are AAA games that are poorly managed with out-of-control budgets. There are also AAA games that cost $60 but give you more than $60 worth of value (i.e. Last Of Us, GTA V, Pikmin 3). You can't just generalize and lump these two group together. With a variable pricing model, the good devs/pubs that keep costs down would thrive while the devs/pubs you are talking about would have to get leaner or go out of business. If anything, the $60 price point/monetization combo allows inefficient devs/pubs to hide costs and, thus, hide their inefficiencies = if some of these guys had to charge $80 for their shitty games instead of pretending they are $60, no one would buy them!

Also, several people have pointed out that pricing in European markets is more flexible (like 120 euro BF4 package with everything included), so it looks like we already have a good working model for this.

 

[turnbuckle]

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).

The thing you're lamenting as a developer echoes the problem f2p / pay2advance systems shoehorn into games.

"In Game X, players have two choices: spend money on a business model disguised as a game, or spend the next Y hours grinding (hoping you've saved enough currency to unlock the thing you desired)."

 

[sn00zer]

Same reason for online fees and multiplayer dlc

This one actually makes sense as you are paying to use their servers

 

[Solal]

I really dislike the cheat code argument, as it's doubtful devs would be putting the shortcut in there if it wasn't for the microtransaction model. It's also the weakest as it has little to do with the actual game design consequences. It just comes across as whining about the most ancillary element imaginable.

If the argument is solely on the model dragging down the design of the game or ruining the balance in the online space, then ok, that's something to get behind. That's where it needs to stick to.

I don't really understand.
I am answering the argument: it's good for people who don't have enough time to play, or are not good enough.
I say: I have no problem "helping" those people. But not taking money from them. Cheatcodes are just a way, or an easy mode, or a Very easy even (with XP bonus... anything)... i did not want to push for cheatcodes (even if I don't see the problem if someone wants to cheat in the game he payed... not my problem...and it won't affect anyone else)

So: we agree that the most important thing is to produce the best game design, free from all those questions.

 

[Roto13]

This one actually makes sense as you are paying to use their servers

Most games barely use servers at all. Most are peer to peer.

 

[sn00zer]

Most games barely use servers at all. Most are peer to peer.

The ones you pay for?

 

[Bamihap]

The thing you're lamenting as a developer echoes the problem f2p / pay2advance systems shoehorn into games.

"In Game X, players have two choices: spend money on a business model disguised as a game, or spend the next Y hours grinding (hoping you've saved enough currency to unlock the thing you desired)."

You just gamified game development

 

[Roto13]

The ones you pay for?

Considering both Sony and Microsoft charge a flat rate for online play, yes.

 

[turnbuckle]

You just gamified game development

Developers are laborifying gameplay progression.

 

[Bamihap]

Developers are laborifying gameplay progression.

You can put that on the box of any JRPG.

 

[Solal]

I see no problem with paying the skip grind.

If you don't want to pay, or like me want to have the full gaming experience, then just avoid these features

I've been a gamer since the 80's and got my Sega Master System in 1989 when i was nine years old. When I was 13 I got Street Fighter 2 CE second hand for £35, I couldn't afford the new price of £50, so i had no choice but to get a second hand copy of the game. Think about that for a second.
In 1992 over twenty years ago, games cost £50 brand new. What do they cost now? They cost the same amount of money. Now take into consideration just how much more games cost to make. Now add on twenty years of inflation. and really games should cost some where like £120.

But they don't.

If you don't want these things in your games, you are going to have to pay a premium.
Look at the cost of living in 1992 to now (here is a good place to look: hhttp://www.thecostofliving.com/index.php?id=78 )

Before anyone goes on some sort of crusade to change the cost of games, make sure first of all that your actions are not going to end up actually raising the cost.

You did not take into consideration the fact that videogames sell much much much more today than they used to. So, yes, the cost raised enormously. But the market grew too.

I would not go into the whole argument: "why do games cost so much to produce?"...because we would have to talk about mismanagement, bad choices, crappy expensive games, huge marketing campaigns, insane amounts spent in CGI, etc... Many many reasons.

But the price of games ? I don't think so.

 

[Tabris]

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.

I completely put things in perspective.

I'm a jRPGamer at heart, and iOS ports and games of that genre do not match the mechanics of the touchscreen. They are made for a controller. There is no benefit for them to be on a touchscreen. This developer and resource suck from the console market is costing me those 60 hour epic console games, and replacing it with sub par gaming experiences on iOS.

Smartphone gaming is ruining the console market and we're only get inferior gaming experiences. They may be cheaper but they are also inferior experiences.

 

[pr0cs]

I disagree... DLC after the release is a clever way to invite players to not resell their games (that's why they announce them so early). AND you expand your gaming experience. AND that probably what allows Sony to propose free games in PS+ (they "give" their game "for free" hoping to sell you some DLC)

I don't think it's serious to fight every kind of DLC. Good DLC diserve money. Don't you think?

Then you actually agree with me then. My point is, there is no point to try and determine if DLC was done during or after the game was being developed since you are not privy to know when the developers actually completed the DLC.

I am against DLC that is a blatant money grab that takes away from the experience. Stuff like DLC to give advantage to multiplayer for people who buy the DLC is terrible, but saying "I own the disc, thus I am entitled to everything on the disc" is wrong.

 

[Brashnir]

You can put that on the box of any JRPG.

MMOs are far worse offenders.

 

[turnbuckle]

You can put that on the box of any JRPG.

Touche, but is that a knock on RPG elements? If so, why insist in forcing them into games that aren't RPGs? And then charging to get past them?

 

[Clockwork5]

We have no problem with people getting all the cars, all the tracks, all the weapons, all the whatever... if that's what they want, so be it.
But why make them/us pay? Why take profit from people who already bought your game? Why sanction them? We criticize devs' greed.
And we fear that this greed could change games designs forever.
If devs put cheatcodes in games (not competitive ones of course...) do you really think we would complain?

In GTA San Andreas, only a generation ago, there were cheat codes that gave you everything. Now, in GTA5, you have to buy virtual money with real money. We went from: "Thank you for buying our game. Here are the cheatcodes if you want to have fun with everything we put in the game" to " Wanna see the rest opf the game ? Give me money!Why ? Because I can !"

So, to put an end to the "why take it from other people?" argument, we want them to have it "for free"...because they already payed!

I remeber a time when Tetris cost $50 (about 100 2013 dollars) now games come out with incredible graphics, greatly expanded gameplay, complex physics engines, Hollywood voice actors, online multiplayer, and much more developed stories compared to games of that generation. And they are $40 cheaper... I'm sorry I don't see blatant greed.

Also, you don't have to pay for anything in gta. I don't even think you can in single player.

 

[johnny956]

Same.
I'm not supporting this garbage trend. Not only do these developers ship an incomplete/ broken game but also they try to bleed their customers dry. I don't mind grinding if it fits the game but what I don't like is unnecessary grinding to make the consumer pay to get out of the bad game mechanic(Plants vs Zombies 2)

That's funny because I consider Plants vs Zombies 2 to be one of the fairest F2P games out there. I completed the game in a week including all the challenges without paying a cent. The grinding in PvZ 2 isn't really that bad considering the challenges are actually challenging and beatable without paying anything

 

[Roto13]

Some people like to assume that any piece of DLC that was finished in time for launch definitely would have been funded and would definitely exist if they couldn't charge extra for it. Also that work done between a game going gold and a game actually releasing isn't worth anything.

 

[Lum1n3s]

I think this article is relevant with what's going on with F2P and Microtransactions.
Super Mario Bros made in 2013

 

[QaaQer]

I would gladly pay a small fee to skip the tedious hours of grinding in any grind happy game.

You want to grind your life away...
I don't...

Why would you want to take that option away from the consumer?

Microtransactions are fine. If you want more content you can buy it, if it is not worth it to you then don't.

I just don't get these "they are doing us a favor by putting this stuff in games" posts.

 

[Uthred]

Some people like to assume that any piece of DLC that was finished in time for launch definitely would have been funded and would definitely exist if they couldn't charge extra for it. Also that work done between a game going gold and a game actually releasing isn't worth anything.

This stance baffles me, the idea that "Oh theyre charging us for stuff we would have got with the game" when in a lot of cases its "Theyre charging me for stuff that wouldnt exist if DLC wasnt a thing"

 

[ThatChairMan]

Some people like to assume that any piece of DLC that was finished in time for launch definitely would have been funded and would definitely exist if they couldn't charge extra for it. Also that work done between a game going gold and a game actually releasing isn't worth anything.

I very much agree with this. Launch DLC isn't always sliced off from the main game, and very likely is budgeted and developed separately from the main game.

 

[GrumpyOutlander]

Time>Money.

If you don't want to pay, you DON"T have to pay. Some people do, and it's great they have that option.

 

[Clockwork5]

I just don't get these "they are doing us a favor by putting this stuff in games" posts.

Why not? No one has actually provided an example of a retail game that punishes you for not paying (some may say Diablo 3 with the cash ah, but I managed to beat it and I never payed for anything). And if it is included in a way such as SMT4 (basically free xp) or every other retail game that does this, what is the harm? You are not being negatvely affected by this. Who cares?

 

[ArkkAngel007]

I don't really understand.
I am answering the argument: it's good for people who don't have enough time to play, or are not good enough.
I say: I have no problem "helping" those people. But not taking money from them. Cheatcodes are just a way, or an easy mode, or a Very easy even (with XP bonus... anything)... i did not want to push for cheatcodes (even if I don't see the problem if someone wants to cheat in the game he payed... not my problem...and it won't affect anyone else)

So: we agree that the most important thing is to produce the best game design, free from all those questions.

But why is it awful to have the microtransactions? Just because in the past generations that it was not really possible?

Maybe it's because I've never felt the need to unlock everything from the start this past generation, or that these microtransactions offer anything that I couldn't achieve myself. I'm not into racers, so would unlocking everything from the beginning through that purchase be worth it? What exactly do I gain? A good car that is converted to shit by my still poor grasping of the game?

Cheats of themselves would also cause similar design issues. Why pay $60 for the game in the first place if you're just going to put in a button/key sequence to pass all of the game set out. Why bother having unlockables in the first place?

I don't see it essentially as taking money, as it's still the choice of the player whether or not they can't be bothered to play the damn game they invested in the first place, so long as that lies with the player and not game design built in favor of the microtransaction model.

I think for those who will play Forza for quite some time and aren't just looking to ditch it at the first opportunity will be fine and naturally achieve the unlocks. Dead Space 3 handled it well by the resource requirements being very achievable in game and the process being more in the background than butting into the primary gameplay. It also helps when what you're getting is all in the front and clear, and not some lottery system like Mass Effect 3 multiplayer.

There are also a vast amount of resources out there for people to utilize without having to turn to the microtransactions. With forums/communities (GAF, Reddit), wikis, major game sites, YouTube (Let's Plays, walkthroughs), and good ol' guidebooks, 99%, bull number I know, of the issues gamers would have could be solved through these without having to turn to cheats.

It's not a business model that I support with my money, but I don't find it to be inherently wrong either as long as it is contained in its implementation, given that there are so many options now available for players to get a leg up without having to break open their wallet.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

This reminds me of mmorpg grind. When I got to level 60 (out of 75 back then) in FFXI after 6 months of play, the grind for XP/equipment became intolerable.

It became clear at that point that the only reason I needed to perform these boring, repetitive tasks was to maximize the amount of time I would spend in the game, paying my monthly fee. That is a giant "fuck you" from the game designers. I recognized it as such and bailed.

Many people did not. Some claimed they enjoyed the grind (huh? ok..) but I know most people stayed because they made friends and wanted to keep them. This incentive is likely to be (ab)used again to make people pay to keep up with their clan/guild/mates.

In any case, it's a reviewer's job to tell me if a game is good enough to buy, as-is and I'll buy it on that basis. And yes, micro-transactions are a cancer. They are almost never used ethically.

And even if they were, I want my game cost upfront. It's hard enough to manage my finances as it is. Fuck hidden costs.

 

[QaaQer]

Diablo III had a real auction house. People could just buy top merch and be top tier without going through the grind. That didn't make the game any less enjoyable for people.

So why'd they retool the game and remove the auction house?