• 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 !

megalowho

Member
I really don't think it's as simple as the big list that's in the OP right now - it's good to highlight the growing trend of full price games with in app purchases, but there's certainly varying degrees to how egregious and intrusive those systems are handled. Assassin's Creed IV for instance has transactions that are easier to ignore and inessential compared to some of the others on there but it's a rather easy target.

I hope we can account for a little more nuance moving forward - what we really need is a place consumers can go to find an honest breakdown of how individual games are monetized past the point of purchase, how much money is required to do X or get Y, and to what degree the minute to minute experience is impacted by its inclusion. The more informed people are, the better off we'll be when this stuff is staring at us in the face.
 

Solal

Member
I see your point and I agree to some extent.

But if we start debating about each game, I am afraid we will need a new thread for each game.

Even if some games are better than others on this matter, I think for now we can stick to a position of principle: no monetization in payed games. No reason to pay for content we already payed 60 bucks (70€ here in Europe), or to buy our time to devs.
 

Clear

CliffyB's Cock Holster
If you don't enjoy the grind, how much do you like the game really?

Personally I don't have a problem with it, its like people who buy currency from grey-market dealers in MMO's. If your e-peen is worth that much to you, go for it. For me, it isn't and will never be.
 

Zing

Banned
There's more media in every form of entertainment and art than any single person could ever consume, so there's absolutely no reason to care about anyone ever producing anything ever again? Stop writing books guys, well never catch up anyway. What a silly argument.
No, it's "I'm fine with you continuing to write books that do not interest me, as I am not reliant on your books to enjoy life."

You folks should be happy that some developers use micro transactions poorly. It immediately informs you of which games to avoid.
 
Hi I'm a game developer. Please buy my iOS game for $20.


Oh, you don't want to pay that much?


Well then you leave us no choice but to add in app purchases and monetize in other ways.

Maybe you shouldn't be releasing your game on such an overcrowded market (being drowned out by tens of thousands of other IOS releases every year)

Maybe you shouldn't release your game on a platform that doesn't allow for a control scheme to make compelling gameplay mechanics that people would want to spend money on.

Maybe you just want your full slice of the pie while there's already thousands of people eating from it and maybe you are willing to step on your users and manipulate them to get that slice.
So maybe you just feel entitled to money you didn't deserve or earn and that just wasn't there to begin with

Maybe you're just mad that you were too late to get on the mobile gravy train when it was still a wide open niche, like a gold digger/oil rusher in the 1800s
Maybe all those mining ghost towns could have taught you 'mobile is the future' guys a lesson
 

SovanJedi

provides useful feedback
A common comparison made is with arcade games of old, which were purposefully made difficult so less able players had to pay more to get further into the game. But the thing is, a better player (ideally) should be able to get through those games through their own developing skills without paying an extra penny. In F2P games, the barrier is a fixed timer which stops EVERYBODY from progressing until the game decides it's okay for you to play it again. Where arcade games reward skill, F2P games reward nothing but patience, or a deeper wallet. And oftentimes, waiting for things to build/load/whatever is literally the entire game experience. The games are essentially telling you that not playing the game is the best thing to do. It's exploititive and disgusting, and seeing so many developers go this route is heartbreaking. And the worst thing is, somebody out there is rewarding them for this through IAPs.

I dread the day when our studio ends up making a game like this. -_-
 

Solal

Member
A common comparison made is with arcade games of old, which were purposefully made difficult so less able players had to pay more to get further into the game. But the thing is, a better player (ideally) should be able to get through those games through their own developing skills without paying an extra penny. In F2P games, the barrier is a fixed timer which stops EVERYBODY from progressing until the game decides it's okay for you to play it again. Where arcade games reward skill, F2P games reward nothing but patience, or a deeper wallet. And oftentimes, waiting for things to build/load/whatever is literally the entire game experience. The games are essentially telling you that not playing the game is the best thing to do. It's exploititive and disgusting, and seeing so many developers go this route is heartbreaking. And the worst thing is, somebody out there is rewarding them for this through IAPs.

I dread the day when our studio ends up making a game like this. -_-

Great input. ;-)
 

michaelx

Banned
These are upcoming/newly released.

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag
Bravely Default: Flying Fairy
Crimson Dragon
FIFA
Forza Motorsport 5
Gran Turismo 6
Grand Theft Auto V
Ryse: Son of Rome
NBA 2k games


Other:
Assassin's Creed 3
Battlefield 3
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Dead Space 3
Diablo 3
Dragon's Dogma
Forza: Horizon
Forza Motorsport 4
Mass Effect 3
Shin Megami Tensei IV
 

RaikuHebi

Banned
This clip from my favourite Simpsons episode drives home the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qause0z-9tM

A common comparison made is with arcade games of old, which were purposefully made difficult so less able players had to pay more to get further into the game. But the thing is, a better player (ideally) should be able to get through those games through their own developing skills without paying an extra penny. In F2P games, the barrier is a fixed timer which stops EVERYBODY from progressing until the game decides it's okay for you to play it again. Where arcade games reward skill, F2P games reward nothing but patience, or a deeper wallet. And oftentimes, waiting for things to build/load/whatever is literally the entire game experience. The games are essentially telling you that not playing the game is the best thing to do. It's exploititive and disgusting, and seeing so many developers go this route is heartbreaking. And the worst thing is, somebody out there is rewarding them for this through IAPs.

I dread the day when our studio ends up making a game like this. -_-

Excellent point. Arcade games are far, far more purer than this.
 

Fishious

Member
Wall of text incoming. You have been warned.

I haven't read every page in the thread because it's gotten pretty long so there's a good change someone has already expressed the same sentiments, only better, but I feel like it bears repeating.

This is an important matter.The fact that there are people not just in this thread, not just on GAF, but everywhere that think exploitative monetization is ok or are otherwise dismissive of the issue is cause for concern. The people who say things like, "if it's a problem, don't buy it" to dismiss the need for greater awareness are missing the point. And just to be clear I'm not pointing fingers at everyone saying "don't buy it" because it is one of the answers to the issue. It's just not a good reason shut up about it. It's actually a reason why awareness is needed.

Posters on NeoGAF are generally more informed and up to date on these matters than most people even on other messages boards who are in turn more informed than players at large. Despite this people on GAF still buy games that are terrible, have game breaking bugs, or exploitative monetization and regret it. Now imagine how much more common this is among video game players in general. Many people do not consider games to be their primary hobby or consider themselves "gamers" and as such don't spend as much time reading about games as playing them. They don't know to wait for the GOTY editions, they don't know that $60 game they bought has a DLC list a mile long.

Another argument I've seen in this thread is that this extreme monetization is a non issue because when it is present in a game, it negatively affects the game to such a point that you give up half way through rather than pay for the XP boost or whatever. While some might consider that a minor victory, they still suckered you into buying a bad game. A game that was bad specifically because the developer/publisher made the game less enjoyable in the hope of getting extra money from people. Like with most bad games you can lessen the blow by renting, buying used, buying 6 months down the line, trading it in, etc, but not everyone knows these trick. In most cases you'll still lose a few dollars and the time you invested, but more importantly a game which could have been good was not because of completely avoidable reasons.

Even in cases where dlc "cheat codes" like xp boosts or extra gold do not affect game balance and are entirely avoidable it presents a different problem. People who buy these things are then essentially spending money on something that is entirely pointless. I expect a rebuttal along the lines of, "But some genres like RPGs have always had grinding! This option just lets people who lead busy lives enjoy the game." Except thought of another way, purchasable xp boosters are encouraging developers not to correct already extent issues found in the genre at large because they can make extra money off people.

All these issues bring us to the last reason we need greater awareness.

Video game publishers are dumb.

So let's say this campaign is a success and we bring greater awareness to the masses and they stand up for themselves by refusing to buy games with exploitative monetization (I can dream, right?). It's all pretty pointless if video game developers and publishers don't get the message. They aren't going to assume, "Oh, our skinner box sold poorly! Clearly people aren't as stupid as we think. I guess we'll have to find a way to make good games that sell well enough to justify their budgets without using people like human cattle." Instead they will think, "Huh, Bob's skinner box on mobile phones is selling like hot cakes, but ours on the PSWiiBoxOne4U isn't. Clearly we didn't make it right. Have the dev team executed and fetch me a new one."

Unless we make it clear why we aren't buying these games it will be attributed to other market factors. I realize the whole thing is awfully optimistic, but it can't hurt to try. If we try and fail then we just fail. I'd hate for the apathy of consuemrs to be the only thing keeping things the way they are.

If publishers cannot make games without exploitative DLC due to rising costs associated with video game development, most of them have themselves to blame. They have pushed graphics as a selling point for so long and put so much focus on "cinematic experiences" which require huge budgets to such a degree that it has pushed many other publishers and developers out of the market. I do not think this was unintended. Unfortunately it has pushed the remaining pubs and devs into a corner as costs continue to rise and they must continue to deliver more in this market they created. They created these consumer expectations. I do not feel the way the market is going that it is sustainable in the long run, but that's another topic.

That said using exploitative DLC to hide the "true" cost of a game and pay for development fees isn't a solution that will save them. The successful million sellers will continue to be just that and will enjoy a nice revenue stream from their DLC while the struggling developers will continue to fall by the wayside.

TLDR


"Don't buy games with shit DLC" is a reason for greater awareness, not less.

Just because the problem doesn't affect you because you are an 3L1T3 G4M3R with refined taste doesn't make it less of a problem.

DLC that is "harmless" shouldn't be DLC at all.

Video game publishers see us as walking wallets and believe we are just as smart as one.

If this kind of DLC is needed to keep the industry alive then maybe it doesn't deserve to.

Above all we should want video games to be good. If some types of monetization stand in the way of that, we should be against it.

And now to burrow into my lurker hole to never be seen again!

(*Disclaimer: I am not against all DLC. There is good DLC. I am criticizing things make games worse and ask for money in exchange. Also if you'd like to argue something with me don't argue the TLDR. It's just an inflammatory shell of my actual arguments.)
 

QaaQer

Member
I posted this is in the other thread, but it seemed to have been forgotten pretty quickly. In regards to my defending this in the case of Forza:

After learning a bit more about how Forza 5 works, I must say, they definitely have made some changes that are, without a doubt, designed to encourage people to buy cars with real money to the detriment of the game experience.

Seems like earning potential and car prices haven't changed. That's the good news.

But these few things all combine to make a pretty big and noticeable difference:

- No cars unlocked as you level. There is no logical, game-enhancing reason this was taken out. Its something that most everyone enjoyed. Some tweaks could have been to the 'progression' of cars you unlocked, but certainly no one wanted the whole system taken out.

- Manufacturer affinity is gone. This was something that also could have used some tweaking, but was otherwise a very good idea. Before, you could basically get free upgrades quite quickly. That could have used changing. It was definitely too quick. But again, people liked the system and it didn't warrant taking out. The fact that you can use tokens to buy upgrades now makes it blatantly obvious what the intentions were here.

- Free Play no longer allows you to drive any car in the game. Before, while some cars were quite expensive, it didn't stop people from the enjoyment of driving them if they wanted to. You just wouldn't own the car, couldn't customize it or race it in career. This was a fantastic compromise, as you could test drive anything you wanted and even if you couldn't afford an expensive car you really liked, you could still get to experience it out on-track. With that gone, it really pushes at the car collector types to pay real money.

- No buying/selling paints/setups/vinyls. You can still make some money off of this, but there will clearly not be any sort of ecosystem built around this like before. No reason for this to have happened. People *loved* the way it was.

- Buying cars and upgrades, the game definitely treats 'car tokens' as an equally viable way of bartering. Every step of the way, prices are given in credits and tokens, with equal font size and all, even going as far as having a little pop-up menu to 'confirm' whether you're going to buy with credits or tokens.

It all amounts to a blatant attempt at encouraging people to spend more money. All at the detriment of the game from several important angles.

So I was wrong here guys for defending this. I didn't realize it was going to be that bad. Its definitely not like previous Forza's at all and is totally shameful.

All that said, I still don't feel microtransactions are inherently evil. Previous Forza's were fine. Other games do ok with it, too.

kudos for admitting being wrong.

I'm glad you can still enjoy these types of games because I cannot. I'm going to miss not being able to play GT6, etc,etc.
 
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.

?

I make something costing £2 and sell it for £4, I sell ten of them, my profit is £20
That's in 1992
I make something costing £3.50 and sell if for £4, I sell thirty of them, my profit is £15
That's in 2013

My profit is down and my cost of living is around double. Just because you sell more doesn't mean you've made more money if you don't increase your selling price.
 

QaaQer

Member
I see your point and I agree to some extent.

But if we start debating about each game, I am afraid we will need a new thread for each game.

Even if some games are better than others on this matter, I think for now we can stick to a position of principle: no monetization in payed games. No reason to pay for content we already payed 60 bucks (70€ here in Europe), or to buy our time to devs.

We will still need a new thread for each game in addition to this one because many people won't read this thread but they will read a thread about [insert game title], like with Forza.
 

Solal

Member
?

I make something costing £2 and sell it for £4, I sell ten of them, my profit is £20
That's in 1992
I make something costing £3.50 and sell if for £4, I sell thirty of them, my profit is £15
That's in 2013

My profit is down and my cost of living is around double. Just because you sell more doesn't mean you've made more money if you don't increase your selling price.

I see your point but I'll stand to mine.

In other circonstamces I would have loved to argue with you but I already spend a lot of time on this thread, reading every post... and I can't answer every point that people raise.

I am not running away from that debate but unless we provide real numbers (which would require to spend time on this), there is no way we find out who is right or wrong. And even then... it's still a tricky question.
 

Derrick01

Banned
I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.

Awesome post. The people who defend this with "you don't have to buy it" miss the point so tremendously that they're not fit to comment on games.
 
microtransactionq7ovg.png
 

bjork

Member
Awesome post. The people who defend this with "you don't have to buy it" miss the point so tremendously that they're not fit to comment on games.

Anyone is fit to comment on games, whether you agree with their view or not. Don't be a hitler.
 

Zing

Banned
Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.
I like your post, but it don't agree with the analogy here.

Imagine you started Super Mario 3D World with only Mario playable. After playing through a few worlds, you earn Luigi as playable. A few more worlds and then Toad, and so on. What if you really only wanted to play the game as the Princess, and Nintendo allowed you to instantly unlock her for $2. In this case, your enjoyment may actually be lower playing though the progression to unlock than if you just started the game as Princess.

Maybe this is how some players see Forza. Maybe for them, it isn't as fun playing if they aren't driving their favourite Nissan.
 
I like your post, but it don't agree with the analogy here.

Imagine you started Super Mario 3D World with only Mario playable. After playing through a few worlds, you earn Luigi as playable. A few more worlds and then Toad, and so on. What if you really only wanted to play the game as the Princess, and Nintendo allowed you to instantly unlock her for $2. In this case, your enjoyment may actually be lower playing though the progression to unlock than if you just started the game as Princess.

Maybe this is how some players see Forza. Maybe for them, it isn't as fun playing if they aren't driving their favourite Nissan.
In that case, make all characters available from the start (which is exactly that Nintendo is doing with 3D World). Why charge for them? It requires zero effort from the developer.

Cheating the game structure in the past was achieved through cheat codes, which were freely available. Now we have to pay for them.
 

bjork

Member
I like your post, but it don't agree with the analogy here.

Imagine you started Super Mario 3D World with only Mario playable. After playing through a few worlds, you earn Luigi as playable. A few more worlds and then Toad, and so on. What if you really only wanted to play the game as the Princess, and Nintendo allowed you to instantly unlock her for $2. In this case, your enjoyment may actually be lower playing though the progression to unlock than if you just started the game as Princess.

Maybe this is how some players see Forza. Maybe for them, it isn't as fun playing if they aren't driving their favourite Nissan.

Right, but they shouldn't need to pay extra to get it if they're already shelling out $60 for the game. Should they? I'm not sure what the solution is, but just having a ton of cars in a game and that was it, sure seemed to work fine for years.
 
This clip from my favourite Simpsons episode drives home the point:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qause0z-9tM



Excellent point. Arcade games are far, far more purer than this.

And the arcade games that did get too cheap or too unfun with their toughness got a rep for that, incintivizing arcade manufacturers to keep it down cuz their competitors could exploit their better reputations. In here, the whales being the target and Generation 7 being Gamer Bribery == good game design, that incintiviation to behave isn't there, only temptation.
 
Still looking for some comprehensive sources but from the Forza forums and an assortment of articles out there I'm seeing some truly insane prices for Forza 5 cars:

For 2,334 Tokens you can buy either a McLaren P1 or Ferrari Enzo. A Token pack costing £15.99 will cover either of those cars (you can buy packs of Tokens at the following prices: 100 is £0.79, 575 is £3.99, 1250 is £7.99, 2700 is £15.99, 8000 is £39.99 and 20,000 is £64.99), so with the 2700 Token pack that's one vehicle for £13.82. But there's much more expensive cars in Forza Motorsport 5, but the more Tokens you buy, the cheaper they are. If you bought the 20,000 pack (costing £64.99) the McLaren would cost just £7.58.

From the same pricing, a Veyron Super Sport will set you back £13.00, and the most expensive car in the game, the Lotus E21 will cost an incredible £32.50. The smaller the pack of Tokens, the more expensive they are, so the worst possible way of picking up the game's most expensive car would be to buy 100 of the 100 Token packs, bagging you the exclusive 10,000 Token Lotus E21 for a cool £79.
(source: GameReactor)

And Turn 10 themselves even explained why they raised the prices:

On the upper end, our goal is to make the truly elite cars feel really exclusive. As a result, the top-end cars in Forza Motorsport 5 will cost significantly more in tokens than they would if you earned them with in-game credits. In the past, expensive cars could be purchased with very few tokens (not in proportion with the amount of effort required to earn the cars through racing), thus allowing players willing to spend tokens to jump straight into the most exclusive cars in the game. Now, we’ve made token prices equal to in-game credit prices. For those who want to spend some extra real money and get those exclusive cars, they’ll have that option, but they will no longer devalue the hard work of those who earned the cars through racing and building up in-game credits. Either way, expensive cars will have real rarity.
(source: ForzaMotorsport.net)

And all of this is after they removed the ability to free drive with any car, as well as most of the ways you'd get cars and money and discounts in previous titles.

This game sounds like pure evil.
 

soultron

Banned
Maybe for racing game developers this allows them to hire the artists needed to model better looking cars. Maybe paying for cars gives better ROI. For all we know, devs at PD and T10 did research using user data from past games and said, "We cannot keep making games with 300+ cars if people are only using 60. Maybe if people are asked to pay for some of the cars they want we can put more in, also ensuring there's a better chance of some player's favourite car being in the game."

Edit: God damn @ the car prices quoted in the post above me though. Sheeiiiiit.
 
Still looking for some comprehensive sources but from the Forza forums and an assortment of articles out there I'm seeing some truly insane prices for Forza 5 cars:


(source: GameReactor)

And Turn 10 themselves even explained why they raised the prices:


(source: ForzaMotorsport.net)

And all of this is after they removed the ability to free drive with any car, as well as most of the ways you'd get cars and money and discounts in previous titles.

This game sounds like pure evil.
Why should anyone pay the 60 € to get the game then?
 

Solal

Member
Maybe for racing game developers this allows them to hire the artists needed to model better looking cars. Maybe paying for cars gives better ROI. For all we know, devs at PD and T10 did research using user data from past games and said, "We cannot keep making games with 300+ cars if people are only using 60. Maybe if people are asked to pay for some of the cars they want we can put more in, also ensuring there's a better chance of some player's favourite car being in the game."

Edit: God damn @ the car prices quoted in the post above me though. Sheeiiiiit.

It's a VERY positive/optimistic/candid way of seeing this.

Especially as Forza (or GT) are successful series that make money (a huge load in the case of GT) and get critically acclaimed too. There was no need to change the economic model...but the will to earn more.
 

Bedlam

Member
Still looking for some comprehensive sources but from the Forza forums and an assortment of articles out there I'm seeing some truly insane prices for Forza 5 cars:


(source: GameReactor)

And Turn 10 themselves even explained why they raised the prices:


(source: ForzaMotorsport.net)

And all of this is after they removed the ability to free drive with any car, as well as most of the ways you'd get cars and money and discounts in previous titles.

This game sounds like pure evil.
My jaw dropped. This is fucking insane.

I hereby vow to never touch a Forza game again. Forza Horizon 2, which I originally intended to buy (and buy an Xbone for) can go fuck itself too.
 
I kind of pity the developers having to come out with those silly excuses/rationalizations to justify the rip-off schemes forced on them by the publisher.

Might as well work my ass off in real life and buy a real Ferrari :p
 

Doffen

Member
Here is a list of games that we should not buy.

Upcoming/newly released.

Ryse: Son of Rome
Forza Motorsport 5

Gran Turismo 6
Crimson Dragon
Bravely Default: Flying Fairy
Grand Theft Auto V
FIFA
NBA 2k games
Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

Already released:

Assassin's Creed 3
Dead Space 3
Battlefield 3
Mass Effect 3
Diablo 3
Battlefield: Bad Company 2

Dragon's Dogma
Shin Megami Tensei IV

I've bought 9/17

Damn. Sorry guys, but I promise to not buy DLC/Micro stuff for them.
 
£32.50 for one car?
wtf is going on?
I thought car tokens themselves were the most brazen in-app purchases schemes I had seen, but holy fucking wow has MS cranked the dial up to 11 with this bullshit. And remember, that is the LOW price, assuming you bought the maximum credits package. Its more than double if you bought the low end credits packages over time.

Probably deserves its own thread but I'd like to find more details.

Edit: Made a new thread here. Maybe that will get some eyes and help provide some more details on this.
 
I hope the EU will ban this stuff. I think this stuff is illegal as it aims at selling stuff to kids.
We haven't banned/regulated F2P games on smartphones so I'm not holding my breath. I really feel governments should activate on this issue, there's people out there wasting hundreds of euros/dollars/pounds whatever on games such as Candy Crush, I'm not asking for an outright ban of coursebut it needs to be better regulated/advertised. How is it so different from gambling (or, hell, drug dealing - extremely hyperbolic talk I know). Same principle, all about shadily profiting off people's addictions and passions.
 
For 2,334 Tokens you can buy either a McLaren P1 or Ferrari Enzo. A Token pack costing £15.99 will cover either of those cars (you can buy packs of Tokens at the following prices: 100 is £0.79, 575 is £3.99, 1250 is £7.99, 2700 is £15.99, 8000 is £39.99 and 20,000 is £64.99), so with the 2700 Token pack that's one vehicle for £13.82. But there's much more expensive cars in Forza Motorsport 5, but the more Tokens you buy, the cheaper they are. If you bought the 20,000 pack (costing £64.99) the McLaren would cost just £7.58.

From the same pricing, a Veyron Super Sport will set you back £13.00, and the most expensive car in the game, the Lotus E21 will cost an incredible £32.50. The smaller the pack of Tokens, the more expensive they are, so the worst possible way of picking up the game's most expensive car would be to buy 100 of the 100 Token packs, bagging you the exclusive 10,000 Token Lotus E21 for a cool £79.

Add up the three I've bolded and that comes to £124.50. Add that to the price of the game (£45 on Amazon) and you get £169.50! Lol, that's a third the cost of my actual car
 
Let's not get caught up too much in the 'I paid full price (60) for this game, so there shouldn't be missing content'..

There are other schemes too... Are you guys comfortable with how Killer Instinct is doing things? Would you like more games to be like that or no?

Personally, when it comes to having weaker base content in general and then charging money for 'the full experience', I just hate that stuff. Make a game that's worth playing, period, and the price will justify itself, whether it's 20 dollars or 60 dollars. You tell me what the game is and what it's worth, and I'll make the decision.
 

drproton

Member
Let's not get caught up too much in the 'I paid full price (60) for this game, so there shouldn't be missing content'..

There are other schemes too... Are you guys comfortable with how Killer Instinct is doing things? Would you like more games to be like that or no?

Personally, when it comes to having weaker base content in general and then charging money for 'the full experience', I just hate that stuff. Make a game that's worth playing, period, and the price will justify itself, whether it's 20 dollars or 60 dollars. You tell me what the game is and what it's worth, and I'll make the decision.

I have less of a problem with that kind of piecemeal distribution than I do about microtransactions, because they aren't as insidious to the core gameplay, and it's easy to make a quick calculation in your head as to what it costs to get "the full game".

But there are bad examples of that like in LoL where the newest characters are always the most overpowered and the most expensive to buy.
 

bjork

Member
Let's not get caught up too much in the 'I paid full price (60) for this game, so there shouldn't be missing content'..

There are other schemes too... Are you guys comfortable with how Killer Instinct is doing things? Would you like more games to be like that or no?

Personally, when it comes to having weaker base content in general and then charging money for 'the full experience', I just hate that stuff. Make a game that's worth playing, period, and the price will justify itself, whether it's 20 dollars or 60 dollars. You tell me what the game is and what it's worth, and I'll make the decision.

The initial free model with payment for more characters/cars has proven to work for specific cases. It isn't universal across all markets, but that seems a little less seedy than paying full retail and then having to buy more.

As far as the full experience goes, it's different for different people. Some people care about having everything, some people care about seeing the ending, and some people will never even touch entire modes of games. So at that point, determining whether a price point is justified becomes difficult, and many of us will just either sit it out entirely and forget the game even existed, or wait for the price drops at retail and only buy add-ons during sales. It's a tricky thing to plan for, and there's ways to make it look a little better than they have, but in the specific case of Forza, it just seems like a cash grab to exploit new system adopters, and that's kind of shitty.
 

Brashnir

Member
Let's not get caught up too much in the 'I paid full price (60) for this game, so there shouldn't be missing content'..

There are other schemes too... Are you guys comfortable with how Killer Instinct is doing things? Would you like more games to be like that or no?

Personally, when it comes to having weaker base content in general and then charging money for 'the full experience', I just hate that stuff. Make a game that's worth playing, period, and the price will justify itself, whether it's 20 dollars or 60 dollars. You tell me what the game is and what it's worth, and I'll make the decision.

I'm OK with the Killer Instinct model. I'm also OK with the Pinball Arcade model, which is more or less the same thing.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
I'm always amazed when someone claims that these kinds of microtransactions don't affect design or gameplay at all, and you can ignore them and have no less lovely an experience than you would have had if this predatory business model had never reared its ugly head.

Sure, right: the designers don't design for microtransactions at all. They don't build in any incentives to spend more money. They tweak progression just perfectly so that the rate at which you acquire new stuff is just perfect, and it wouldn't be any more fun to get stuff faster. They're totally optional, guys! BTW, would any of you gentleman like to buy one of the many fine bridges I have for sale?

There is no such thing as a game with microtransactions whose design is not tainted by them. There is no such thing. Every game with microtransactions builds in incentives to spend more money; every game with microtransactions is designed to ensure that the optimal experience is one in which the publisher gets more of your money. It's just that it's acceptable in games which are free up front because hey, they're free up front. But in a $60 retail game? Come on.

"Pay so that you don't have to play" microtransactions are particularly odious, because they reveal the underlying bad design of any game they're in. If I'm paying so that I don't have to play the game, what does that say about the minute to minute gameplay? It says it's not fun. It says it's a slog, something negative, something I endure rather than enjoy so that I can get the arbitrary rewards I have been conditioned to want. It says that the game has little to offer besides a skinner box, at least past a certain number of hours.

Can you imagine if Super Mario 3D World had microtransactions that allowed you to buy green stars for $1, so that you can get out of the chore of actually playing the levels? Would anyone buy that? Of course not, because playing the level to get the stars is the game, and it's extremely fun. If I'm paying for cars in a racing game because, man, I don't want to race for one more hour, what does that say? It says that the moment-to-moment gameplay is not fun, at least after a certain number of hours, and it says that the game was designed so that I would not acquire cars as fast as I want to, so that I would rather spend real money to get something than actually play the game I already paid $60 for.
Regarding games being designed around micro transactions, in comparison, how long did it take to unlock all cars in for example Gran Turismo 3 and 4? Are there any examples where unlocking everything was much quicker in previous iterations in a serie compared to the sequel(s)?

About Super Mario 3D World, are the green stars something optional, or is it something that you cant avoid collecting when going through a level? If its optional, then i could definitelly see someone wanting to pay to get those, especially if they are hard to get and someone is missing a few stars to 100% complete the game.
 
It's a VERY positive/optimistic/candid way of seeing this.

Especially as Forza (or GT) are successful series that make money (a huge load in the case of GT) and get critically acclaimed too. There was no need to change the economic model...but the will to earn more.



True... It all goes back to this. Shareholders (which really control any major corporate organisms nowadays) have become a LOT more aggressive about wanting MORE profit, so they put more pressure on publishers to achieve that goal no matter how. The latter 2 don't give a shit about the methods involved to achieve this. Whether it's by exploitation of the consumer or other means, it's all fair game nowadays! This is really the root of all these issues and what we are discussing here are merely the consequences and possible ways to tackle the problem, however, as long as the people who are actually calling the shots do not change their ways, i do not foresee ANY major change in the near future. If the F2P+DLC model does not work out for them for whatever reason, then they will simply try even HARDER to nickel and dime the consumer with other methods, there's no turning back i'm afraid :(

The only thing i find solace in these days is when i am playing older games from a bygone era, yet untainted by this gruesome mentality :(
 

test_account

XP-39C²
I've bought 9/17

Damn. Sorry guys, but I promise to not buy DLC/Micro stuff for them.
There is nothing to be sorry about though. If you enjoy the games, that is all that really matters. Whats fun or not is completely subjective. Someone loves to grind for stuff, someone hates it. No right or wrong answer for that.

Personally, i cant think of any $60 retail game that i've encountered that is so much based around microtransactions that it ruined my enjoyment of the game. I've encountered games that requires some bigger grinding to unlock/level up everything where micro transcation option isnt an option either. Sometimes the games are made like this to encourage people to play the game more to unlock the stuff. I've sometimes played games that i quit playing because the grinding was boring, but i've also stopped playing some games after i've leveled up/unlocked everything because some of the fun was in this progression. When i'm on the top level, then this progression is done. Sure, the gameplay itself is unchanged and can still be fun, but then the element of working towards something is gone at least.
 
Regarding games being designed around micro transactions, in comparison, how long did it take to unlock all cars in for example Gran Turismo 3 and 4? Are there any examples where unlocking everything was much quicker in previous iterations in a serie compared to the sequel(s)?

About Super Mario 3D World, are the green stars something optional, or is it something that you cant avoid collecting when going through a level? If its optional, then i could definitelly see someone wanting to pay to get those, especially if they are hard to get and someone is missing a few stars to 100% complete the game.

The Green Stars in Galaxy provided 3 challenging additional levels.

They could easily monetize that, and what we'd have if they did would be the game lacking that content, with the option to purchase more.. This is the kind of crap that goes on now.

I really dislike that we have to scrutinize what is considered a base game, and what is considered additional content. I refuse to label all unlockables as 'additional content'. That stuff makes games great. Can you imagine a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with microtransactions? How about Smash Bros? It'd be a horrible, evil thing.
 

King_Moc

Banned
The Green Stars in Galaxy provided 3 challenging additional levels.

They could easily monetize that, and what we'd have if they did would be the game lacking that content, with the option to purchase more.. This is the kind of crap that goes on now.

I really dislike that we have to scrutinize what is considered a base game, and what is considered additional content. I refuse to label all unlockables as 'additional content'. That stuff makes games great. Can you imagine a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with microtransactions? How about Smash Bros? It'd be a horrible, evil thing.

Nintendo wouldn't pull this kind of crap. That just makes it all the more bizarre that their sales are so bad right now.
 

test_account

XP-39C²
The Green Stars in Galaxy provided 3 challenging additional levels.

They could easily monetize that, and what we'd have if they did would be the game lacking that content, with the option to purchase more.. This is the kind of crap that goes on now.

I really dislike that we have to scrutinize what is considered a base game, and what is considered additional content. I refuse to label all unlockables as 'additional content'. That stuff makes games great. Can you imagine a Goldeneye or Perfect Dark with microtransactions? How about Smash Bros? It'd be a horrible, evil thing.
Thanks for the info :) I dont think there would be lacking any content though. It would serve as a time-saver only if you could pay to unlock some (or all) of those stars. Nintendo did for example offer payed DLC Coin Rush levels for New Super Mario Bros 2, but i cant remember seeing any complain about lacking content in the main game. And Fire Emblem 3DS apparently has DLC that combined cost more than the game itself. I cant recall to have seen any complaints about little content in the main game despite of this.
 
Nintendo wouldn't pull this kind of crap. That just makes it all the more bizarre that their sales are so bad right now.

For all the talk of "how behind the times" they are, this is one instance where im glad they've taken a firm stance against the ridiculous microtransactions the rest of this industry is beginning to get behind.
 
Top Bottom