AZ Greg
Member
lol
-
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
lol
CharlesSurge
Member
I read what he wrote. I think his points were: 1) games cost money, 2) he posits that people buy enough microtransactions that the general belief is they are worth implementing, 3) he posits that those complaining about it are the vocal minority, and finally 4) vote with your dollars.
The tone seems to be against those complaining about microtransactions.
I can't find any arguments against actually complaining about microtransactions, though.
So-called "raging" about microtransactions can serve a purpose. It actually INFORMS the potential consumer about them! (Oh, the tragedy of it!) Such as: how they fit into the game, how invasive they are, etc. This is absolutely, indisputably vital so that consumers and CliffyB can achieve one of their mutual goals of properly voting with their dollars.
Edit: I feel I should add I am speaking about the games I play, which all cost an "entry fee." Cliffy's hypothetical "[...] can I spend a buck to go to the top of the leaderboard? Can I buy a bigger gun?" are exactly what I want to be asked about and complained about enough so that I can be informed before purchasing a game.
The tone seems to be against those complaining about microtransactions.
I can't find any arguments against actually complaining about microtransactions, though.
So-called "raging" about microtransactions can serve a purpose. It actually INFORMS the potential consumer about them! (Oh, the tragedy of it!) Such as: how they fit into the game, how invasive they are, etc. This is absolutely, indisputably vital so that consumers and CliffyB can achieve one of their mutual goals of properly voting with their dollars.
Edit: I feel I should add I am speaking about the games I play, which all cost an "entry fee." Cliffy's hypothetical "[...] can I spend a buck to go to the top of the leaderboard? Can I buy a bigger gun?" are exactly what I want to be asked about and complained about enough so that I can be informed before purchasing a game.
Completely agreed on this point which really negates a lot of what he said in his post.
It's interesting watching businesses develop in unregulated fields as an example of what happens when you 'take the reigns off'. Take online poker for instance where most all of the sites operate in legally grey offshore tax havens with the only regulation being choose-a-regulator and opt-in. The companies in that field did as many large companies seem to do. The winners in the industry got to the top by providing the best product, or more accurately providing the best service in that industry, but slowly let making the most money become more important than providing the best service. And that goal imbalance continued to grow until that industry is where it is today which is fetid and dying with practically every major site under criminal indictment, now or previously, for financial or other crimes and with the quality of service at what is probably the lowest point of all time.
Playing the business game to just make the most money can lead to some really terrible products and stall innovation. What makes more money - a product that lasts forever or a product with a failure rate? What makes more money - treating victims of a disease or curing said disease? What makes more money? Providing complete games or incomplete games where you have to pay incrementally to get the rest of the game?
And the worst part is is that as the minority slowly turns into the majority and people become more and more fed up with getting nickled and dimed, the companies invariably refuse to accept responsibility. It's not that demand for the products, as they offer them, is declining but rather 'the global market is in a slump' or our sales are down 'due to general decline in the interest of gaming' or a poor economy or any reason other than: "Hey, maybe people are just getting sick of getting screwed by us without so much as a reach around."
you're like the guy who refers to a girl as "whatshername?" after she rejected your leerings on a daily basis at school.
being a cranky old man screaming at kids in their girl pants doesn't mean he didn't put in his time.
So Cliff is unhappy at EA being criticised for acting as a free market business, but also admits to being unhappy at Gamestop for acting as ... a free market business?
Oh, but they will go the same way as Tower Records, so that's ok.
And EA will go the way of Atari if they piss off too many people.
Oh, but they will go the same way as Tower Records, so that's ok.
And EA will go the way of Atari if they piss off too many people.
I bet this happens a lot in the industry. Developers bloviate condescendingly about capitalism 101 as a way of explaining away the odious DLC practices that sprang up with console digital distribution. Oh, if only these forum posters had paid attention in economics they'd realize how futile their protestations are; money talks, don't you know. Thanks for the lesson, Professor Bleszinski.
PedroLumpy
Member
Well suffice to say I think we've driven the proverbial truck through the holes in his argument.
Still, nice to have vocal developers.
Still, nice to have vocal developers.
TheGreyHulk
Member
does the market really want micro transactions?
or is is just the whales inflating micro transaction revenue. we know people will buy small cheap shit, but then there's those group of whales that go nuts and literally spend thousands of dollars a month because they got money to burn like that.
or is is just the whales inflating micro transaction revenue. we know people will buy small cheap shit, but then there's those group of whales that go nuts and literally spend thousands of dollars a month because they got money to burn like that.
But do you have an economics degree?
LightofRohan
Member
CliffyB is wrong. I post on Neogaf and therefor I'm qualified to say this. Game companies are fine, they just want extra money to buy more cars. Also, a Skullgirl character only costs ~100 bucks to make... I've never worked at a game developer, dealt with character creation or managed company finances. But I play games and talk on Gaf, so I know the most.
yea, Im bitter!
Femmeworth
Banned
Another thing, the "vote with your wallet" advice is a crock of shit. People acting independently is partly what got us into this mess in the first place, along with a lengthy history of economic and political issues. Not to mention he is speaking to a minority and we don't all have an equal say.
velociraptor
Junior Member
As long as the microtransactions don't detract from the game's core experiences, then I couldn't care.
Dead Space 1, 2 and 3 had relatively inoffensive microtransactions or DLC. i.e. weapon packs.
Dead Space 1, 2 and 3 had relatively inoffensive microtransactions or DLC. i.e. weapon packs.
Well money does talk and this forum has been wishing for the "video game crash", don't expect it anytime soon.
PedroLumpy
Member
Unfortunately no, but at least I'm not an Art History/Philosophy Major! <rimshot>
Man I kill me.
While in essence I can't disagree with what Cliff is basically saying, I have to come back with this: As consumers, our only tools to change the industry that we're a part of is feedback, and patronage. We can give good and bad feedback, and we can choose to buy or not to buy. But ultimately, we have to accept what the industry delivers unto us, or else we're out of the loop.
You can criticize, but just realize that these opinions aren't completely worthless, it's not all the screams and shouts of a vocal maladjusted and obsessive minority. Yes even if it's on the internet, and every other word is "fuckshit", these are the informed masses telling you that something is wrong. You may have to attach a plumbing filter or something, but this is part of the problem. If you just cast the opinions you know are valuable out of hand, and then you end up going with market research you pay for, no wonder the microtrans model isn't ever as effective as game makers predict it will be.(As evidenced by the price-gougey like cost range of some of these things.) And it's also no wonder many games end up being marginally successful ventures, because people do end up voting with their dollars. They don't get experimental or try different genres because 1)everything is so expensive and 2)the reward for trying something new isn't there with all the derivative and paint by numbers offerings. You can just save your money for the next sequel to your favorite franchise. That does the industry no favors. I.e. killing everything.
Finally, yes, games are a business, but they're also art. Congrats. And we all want to experience the art, but the industry keeps giving us the business. Oh well. That was the simplified version anyway.
You can criticize, but just realize that these opinions aren't completely worthless, it's not all the screams and shouts of a vocal maladjusted and obsessive minority. Yes even if it's on the internet, and every other word is "fuckshit", these are the informed masses telling you that something is wrong. You may have to attach a plumbing filter or something, but this is part of the problem. If you just cast the opinions you know are valuable out of hand, and then you end up going with market research you pay for, no wonder the microtrans model isn't ever as effective as game makers predict it will be.(As evidenced by the price-gougey like cost range of some of these things.) And it's also no wonder many games end up being marginally successful ventures, because people do end up voting with their dollars. They don't get experimental or try different genres because 1)everything is so expensive and 2)the reward for trying something new isn't there with all the derivative and paint by numbers offerings. You can just save your money for the next sequel to your favorite franchise. That does the industry no favors. I.e. killing everything.
Finally, yes, games are a business, but they're also art. Congrats. And we all want to experience the art, but the industry keeps giving us the business. Oh well. That was the simplified version anyway.
The insinuation that the main difference between Valve and EA is one of PR is laughable.
Let's see, the last Valve game I actually paid money for (IE wasn't given away for free) was Portal 2. There where no micro-transactions. There was no dlc. Unless you count the free additional multiplayer levels they released. Or the free level editor.
Before that, I bought L4D2. Again no micro transactions. No dlc. Instead they made all L4D 1 campaigns available. For free.
Yup, pretty much indistinguishable from EA.
Let's see, the last Valve game I actually paid money for (IE wasn't given away for free) was Portal 2. There where no micro-transactions. There was no dlc. Unless you count the free additional multiplayer levels they released. Or the free level editor.
Before that, I bought L4D2. Again no micro transactions. No dlc. Instead they made all L4D 1 campaigns available. For free.
Yup, pretty much indistinguishable from EA.
I don't understand your argument. How did people acting independently get us into this situation? How could we have acted to not get us into this situation?
Aquamarine
Member
Wrong answer, Cliff, wrong answer. That's quite a childish argument.
Good post, I was thinking the same thoughts.
Other relevant points:
-According to Valve's economist no one really wants to do any marketing
-Valve is known for operating under democratic socialist principles, as opposed to the standard sort of totalitarianism at most other companies (including EA)
LightofRohan
Member
Eh?
Everything anyone says gets a thread here. Even if it's some off handed commented made in person, spoken about on a podcast and then transcribed to text and then misquoted on gaf.
True. Better to talk about it on GAF
The entirety of the internet -> Wario64 -> NeoGAF
Thread interest x Wario64 OP = Thread interest x 10
Thread interest x famous poster = Thread interest x 100
If Wario didn't post the OP and Cliffy didn't post these threads would die quickly.
So, for some time, I was getting the same message as you guys. Then, I came to this part:
Maybe the way he wrote gave a bad idea of his point, which is: companies will try to make as much money as they want and try many methods to do that. If we don't like it, not buying is the answer to not go to this path. To be clear, I'm not trying to defend CliffyB here, I'm just seeing the point above. I'm also a developer and I don't like microtransactions in the way that make the player buy. But the best way to communicate this is what he said: don't support them, because if you do, they'll continue doing it.
Maybe the way he wrote gave a bad idea of his point, which is: companies will try to make as much money as they want and try many methods to do that. If we don't like it, not buying is the answer to not go to this path. To be clear, I'm not trying to defend CliffyB here, I'm just seeing the point above. I'm also a developer and I don't like microtransactions in the way that make the player buy. But the best way to communicate this is what he said: don't support them, because if you do, they'll continue doing it.
digoutyoursoul
Member
Well if EA are not making money with their strategy because of people not buying surely that is better than forum opinions?
Mystic_Wanderer
Member
Femmeworth missed the main point - people who obsess on message boards are the 1%, or .01% of the industry.
If microtransactions/DLC were not successful, they wouldn't be growing. The majority, or a very rich minority has made them economically viable, so they keep getting bigger.
That's an interesting point relating microtransactions and the old coin-op arcade games. It made me realize those games sucked and good riddance arcades are dead. I can't think of more than a handful of game experiences that would be in my top ten originating from arcades other than Street Fighter 2.
Exactly. Cliff is simplifying it down to a case of "vote with your dollars otherwise we don't want to hear from you". In doing so, he is dismissing the opinions of people who say "I didn't buy products X, Y and Z and here's why".
Femmeworth
Banned
Being divided allows us to be more easily conquered, so to speak. If we don't guide ourselves as a group, the businesses will. Of course, it's not quite that black and white, because businesses influencing consumers isn't always a bad thing and we do influence each other.
This too.
Aquamarine
Member
It's always childish to deflect criticism in such a manner instead of addressing it. For example:
"YOU DIDN'T LIKE DUKE NUKEM FOREVER!?? WELL LOL ITS JUST YOUR OPINION. IF YOU DIDNT LIKE IT JUST DONT BUY IT AND SHUT UP LOLOOLOLL"
Or:
"YOU DON'T LIKE MS'S ANTI-USED GAME SENTIMENT? IF U DONT LKE IT JUST DONT BUY IT LOLOLOL"
Good points by Cliff in that blog post.
Cliff is right about many things but at the same time when DLC destroys integrity of game i just roll my eyes.
Day one DLC is probably the worst offender. I get that since gold people need to do something but how about make that content free ? and then after release of first "gold to premiere" DLC do some other DLC.
1. People will be happy because developers is supporting people
2. There won't be "cut content" comments everywhere.
For example i really really really really love DLC support for Fallout New Vegas. All 5 DLC are easly above 60$ (were) and i would gladly pay that because each of those DLC feels like real expansion pack.
Answer is: DLC are not evil from start. They need just to be civilized and be fair to your customers.
That is why people rage about it especially when they choose to buy deluxe edition of your game to support you.
And one more thing:
FUCK RETAILER DLC for DLC which change gameplay. That is the worst shit ever created by traitors of human race.
"No i can't drive Nissan because it is fucking KFC exclusive"
Cliff is right about many things but at the same time when DLC destroys integrity of game i just roll my eyes.
Day one DLC is probably the worst offender. I get that since gold people need to do something but how about make that content free ? and then after release of first "gold to premiere" DLC do some other DLC.
1. People will be happy because developers is supporting people
2. There won't be "cut content" comments everywhere.
For example i really really really really love DLC support for Fallout New Vegas. All 5 DLC are easly above 60$ (were) and i would gladly pay that because each of those DLC feels like real expansion pack.
Answer is: DLC are not evil from start. They need just to be civilized and be fair to your customers.
That is why people rage about it especially when they choose to buy deluxe edition of your game to support you.
And one more thing:
FUCK RETAILER DLC for DLC which change gameplay. That is the worst shit ever created by traitors of human race.
"No i can't drive Nissan because it is fucking KFC exclusive"
Exactly. And making such a childish argument based on fallacies whilst espousing a condescending lecture on economics 101 makes the author look incredibly obnoxious and disingenuous. He wants to teach people about 'free markets' but doesn't want disaffected consumers to participate in it.
But you either purchase a game or you don't. It's binary. And as pointed out a few times the "us" you're talking about accounts for a very tiny number of people relatively speaking.
Agreed. Also, I just can't take the guy seriously if he's going to enter a threat acting like a five year old. Get some class instead of "TOO BAD MOTHERFUCKER". It's like talking to Marcus Fenix himself. Oh, wait...
killdatninja
Banned
I didn't read his shitty blog entry, I guess that's how free market works huh?
That makes perfect sense. They should just release the whole game for free too. It'd be totally sweet for gamers.
Femmeworth
Banned
Well, I'm speaking about the majority too.
I'm not being as clear as I should be, this issue kind of gets my blood boiling.
But the majority is just a large number of people doing the same thing - buying the game. They made one of two possible choices. I guess I just don't understand how acting less individually, however you might define that, impacts this.
I'll just say this: It's reached a point where I feel a legitimate sense of relief whenever I get to play a new game that has no DLC, tacked-on multiplayer, or any online implementation whatsoever -- a game that I can experience fully even if I didn't have an internet connection. It's sad how rare that's gotten these days.
I'm not against games as a service if the idea is being used for the right kind of game. I would probably even buy Aaron Griffin if he was offered as a microtransaction. I just don't think the idea of games as content in and of themselves should be carelessly tossed aside.
Maybe my problem is the realization that most people only really have time to engage in one "game service" at a time, or at most a handful. Most people don't have the time to afford for every damn game to be a multiplayer-oriented service.
I'm not against games as a service if the idea is being used for the right kind of game. I would probably even buy Aaron Griffin if he was offered as a microtransaction. I just don't think the idea of games as content in and of themselves should be carelessly tossed aside.
Maybe my problem is the realization that most people only really have time to engage in one "game service" at a time, or at most a handful. Most people don't have the time to afford for every damn game to be a multiplayer-oriented service.
BlastProcessing
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?
I drafted your ass in a keeper league; get back to making games you lazy bum!
You mean that thing I can't read until after I buy the game?
He is just joking around a bit dude. If he took things as seriously as you would have him do, (or as you do, it seems) he wouldn't last long here.
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?
What an awesome way to treat an audience that actually reads what you write on tumblr, "your average joe" may have no clue about what you've done as a designer nor would they seek out your opinion.
Antagonizing forum posters is the lowest denominator of trolling or showboating is what I'm basically saying. You're pretty good at being a president of a company or thinking of design philosophies, but you are terrible at actual discourse and debate with other people.
I think that having micro transactions are only a good short term strategy . At the end of the day your going to drive away people like us that prop up the video game industry. In the long term most of these companies will go out of buisness because of thier greed.
So keep fucking yourselves over game industry. Well see how far you get with your anti-consumer bullshit.
So keep fucking yourselves over game industry. Well see how far you get with your anti-consumer bullshit.
Really narrow view of things.
Why is complaining about something wrong? Why should people put up with shitty business practices that remove content from games to sell them separately? Why should we not hate on EA if they have brought down pretty much every license they've touched?
Valve is not devoid of shitty moves, I've been hating on their milking of TF2 day one, but at least they're not a cancer like EA that rots every IP it touches.
Also complaining helps combating these things as much as talking with your wallet because it educates people.
I'm so tired of people complaining about complaining (that's is some Inception type shit right there).
Why is complaining about something wrong? Why should people put up with shitty business practices that remove content from games to sell them separately? Why should we not hate on EA if they have brought down pretty much every license they've touched?
Valve is not devoid of shitty moves, I've been hating on their milking of TF2 day one, but at least they're not a cancer like EA that rots every IP it touches.
Also complaining helps combating these things as much as talking with your wallet because it educates people.
I'm so tired of people complaining about complaining (that's is some Inception type shit right there).
Boom.
VibratingDonkey
Member
The problem I have with microtransactions is the potential for them to negatively affect the games they're in, the experience for players who don't pay and the general notion of manipulating players into parting ways with their nickels and dimes becoming a more prominent part of game design. Should be about making good games, you know?
Here's EA's CEO.
And here's EA's game Real Racing 3.
Aye.
Here's EA's CEO.
And here's EA's game Real Racing 3.