Support NeoGAF

[saladine1]

I don't mind grinding in a game. I mean, I bought the game to play it. If it means I need to take a long journey to reach a goal, fine, I'm ready. I have and never will buy in game content.
But, I understand where people are coming from. The fact that it is there as a choice in the first place is stupidly ridiculous. Devs know not everyone has the patience to slog it out for hours on end just to get a particular car, so what the heck, let's put a price on that prize and see if people will bite.
Forza/Turn 10/MS in particular is getting worse with this practice. The micro-transactions and the bullshit priced DLC models are heart-ache inducing.
I love the Forza franchise but man, it seems like direction is becoming misguided somewhat..

 

[Nightbringer]

Tx for your input. I really appreciate when people post just to look smarter than others.
Quick, run to your wife and tell her how you ridiculed someone on the web !

Monetization works because the real value of things is not directly related to the production costs.

 

[Shengar]

I am not sure I get your point here. I know that grinding exists since forever... my problem is when it's coupled with monetization.

I think what he meant that microtransaction could directly tamper with the game design. In a driving without microtransaction, devs can't set a car price too high otherwise it'll just garnered frustation for gamer. But with microtransaction, they could basically set a ridiculously high price since gamer's frustation could turned into profit for them. This sound very paranoid, but for me it's reasonable since there is absolutely nothing that stops publisher to make in-game microstransaction looks appealing by deliberately make the game harder or longer than it should be

 

[michaelx]

 

[mclem]

What we really need are some whistleblowers in the industry to let us know how much publisher 'top down' revenue targets get brought down to the design level, do developers change games / cut content out after the publisher requests it, for example?

I've mentioned this in the context of on-disc DLC: I think the reason there haven't really been any whistleblowers is that once you've *been* in development you get a feel for how content budgeting and revenue is planned for and as such you'll have a clearer picture on where the extra budget ends up benefitting the core game.

I've done development, including on games where we've discussed DLC content (although not on any where we actually implemented any), and from *my* standpoint at the time, it tended to appear negotiating a deal to develop add on DLC or implement microtransactions means we get more resources with which to develop the main game. I guarantee that most developers feel that resources are stretched really thin (often due to game contracts going to the lowest bidder, although that's not true in these specific instances!); anything which gives scope to negotate more resources will be jumped on like a shot.

 

[SeanR1221]

IAP? Sure. But make your game free.

 

[mclem]

I stopped reading the first post when it said that the price of the things are related to the cost. It seems that some people live in 1848.

Well, they are *related*, given that the cost sets a lower bound. It's just that that's the full extent of how they're related

 

[Solal]

Monetization works because the real value of things is not directly related to the production costs.

Ok my friend. Now can you:
1) join the movement or
2) leave this thread (seriouly man: that smartass tone does not make you look cool at all...)

No offense.

 

[mclem]

OT UPDATED.

LET'S FIND A HASHTAG NOW GUYS.

If you want to go through with it: Focus on the lower budget argument, or you'll get nowhere. There's nuance here, and if you're not careful, it'll look to the untrained eye that you're demanding that publishers make a loss on games to sate your demands. It doesn't have to look like that, though, and you start avoiding it by focussing on the budgets.

 

[stalker]

I am thinking that it might be useful to define a short-list of microtransactions, IAP and related practices that most people on GAF dislike and believe can impact negativley on game design and maintain a list of relevant games, listing if they use them or not.

Example: Time Saver DLC (ACIV, as in the picture posted earlier in this thread)

 

[EsotericManiac]

As long as I can obtain it without spending more money, i have no problems with this.

 

[Metalmurphy]

I really don't care about paying for early unlocks as long as the progression remains unchanged.

 

[PedroLumpy]

1. "It's worth the money for me to skip all the grind".

You're paying money to the people who setup the unwanted grind in the first place. The grind should never had to exist in the first place.

2. "Vote with your wallet"

No shit. But why not discuss and raise awareness as to why it sucks too? Might make more people vote with their wallet.

God damn I wish I wasn't working today. I've been waiting for NeoGAF to turn on this shit for awhile.

Remember, don't get sucked into arguing how bad this is (minor inconvenience vs. Worst thing ever). Whatever degree of bad it is, its still bad. There are no positives, that should be reason enough.

 

[mclem]

Ok my friend. Now can you:
1) join the movement or
2) leave this thread (seriouly man: that smartass tone does not make you look cool at all...)

No offense.

With all due respect, he is presenting a fundamental fact of business. Don't base your arguments on the notion that because they cost similar amounts to model, they should cost similar amounts for the player to access them.

 

[michaelx]

Any kind of microtransactions, we are on a turning poin and must have our voices heard.

 

[mclem]

I am thinking that it might be useful to define a short-list of microtransactions, IAP and related practices that most people on GAF dislike and believe can impact negativley on game design and maintain a list of relevant games, listing if they use them or not.

Example: Time Saver DLC (ACIV, as in the picture posted earlier in this thread)

It's less important whether they can impact negatively on game design than whether they do. Games *can* have timesaver DLC yet still be paced perfectly acceptably for people who don't use it; there's several examples in this and the Forza thread. This is absolutely something that needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis, not with a blanket ban.

 

[Solal]

Stalker. Yes indeed.
The main problem I see i that, unlike DRM (where we could sum up the problem as "no more second hand"...which is very efficient), we need to find a very short and easy way of making this whole shit concrete to everybody.

Maybe an analogy? An good example? A metaphore?

Someone, I think it was Gutterboy44 (or was it Ruttyboy?) who compared it to a movie that you would have bought... you find the movie boring and want to fastforward to know the end... but you could not without spending 5€ to unlock the fast forward feature. That's what monetization means: no freedom without spending more money.Captivity.

I found this analogy very accurate. isn't it?

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

I really don't care about paying for early unlocks as long as the progression remains unchanged.

That's the issue imo, in many cases the progression does not remain unchanged. Developers are forced to make changes in the design of their games to allow for microtransactions.

Besides, paying for speeding up activities in a game just sounds totally backwards to me. You're basically paying extra money to not play the game you've already payed for. If the developers think certain activities in a game are tedious, then they should get them out of the game, or make them less tedious, or give players a way to skip them for free (like the "press to win" option in NSMB Wii for instance).

I don't think this shit belongs in full price games. Free to play sure, even if I'm not too fond of that either (payed for and enjoyed PvZ, quit PvZ 2 half an hour in).

 

[Derrick01]

Thank god for cheatengine.

It is all bullshit though, but with game cost rising while games are still $60. What can they do?

Stop making insanely expensive games? I mean if doing something is painful most humans are programmed to understand they need to stop doing it to get the pain to go away.

That doesn't even mean you need to make indie size games, just be smarter in how you make games. Dark Souls was more profitable than Tomb Raider reboot was despite selling something like 2 million less copies.

 

[pr0cs]

DLC made AFTER the release? (like new cars, new tracks/maps expending the experience: that were produced AFTER the release) Ok. It's fair to pay because there obviously is a cost for devs.

This request is flawed and pointless.
I am all for devs releasing a game that adds value through it's DLC, but trying to pidgeon-hole them into releasing DLC only after the game has gone live is dumb, and shortsighted.

 

[mclem]

Someone, I think it was Gutterboy44 (or was it Ruttyboy?) who compared it to a movie that you would have bought... you find the movie boring and want to fastforward to know the end... but you could not without spending 5€ to unlock the fast forward feature. That's what monetization means: no freedom without spending more money.Captivity.

I found this analogy very accurate. isn't it?

The problem here is that games are inherently defined by the restrictions they place upon the player. A game with absolutely no enforced constraints isn't a game at all.

Gaming is wilfully entering a captivity defined by the developers, because that captivity is in itself interesting and you wish to explore the scope of it.

 

[mclem]

That's the issue imo, in many cases the progression does not remain unchanged. Developers are forced to make changes in the design of their games to allow for microtransactions.

I've seen this asserted a lot... yet I haven't actually seen specific examples of major fee-to-play games that people who were enjoying them *actually* feel that the inclusion of microtransactions crippled it. I've seen people in various threads pick up on Tales of Vesperia and Dead Space 3 as examples where they didn't, but no-one really seems to have cited as one where it is a problem.

 

[RpgN]

OT UPDATED.

LET'S FIND A HASHTAG NOW GUYS.

I'm not very good at this, but how does NoConsoleF2P sound? Or NoRetailF2P? Or No60$F2P?The hashtag needs to be short enough and describes what the problem is for it to be clear enough on a first glance.

 

[Solal]

With all due respect, he is presenting a fundamental fact of business. Don't base your arguments on the notion that because they cost similar amounts to model, they should cost similar amounts for the player to access them.

I won't go further. I leave you both the last word on this. It's a debate that could have its own thread (probably not on Neogaf though)

 

[p3tran]

Bravo Solal, I approve 100%

now we may be talking about forza and gt, but its a pandemic if dont act against it.

 

[feint_ruled]

A key way to address this issue would be to lobby government regulators to forbid the sale of in-game proxy currency. All purchases have to be done in real cash amounts. I believe that this will actually come some day as it is pretty plain its only purpose is to obfuscate the real cost.

 

[marrec]

I really don't care about paying for early unlocks as long as the progression remains unchanged.

That's how I feel about it.

BUT

It seems like most developers these days who are tasked with including microtransaction in their games seem to build the game systems AROUND those microtransactions.

So the quality of the game is directly affected by the inclusion.

I'm not very good at this, but how does NoConsoleF2P sound? Or NoRetailF2P? Or No60$F2P?The hashtag needs to be short enough and describes what the problem is for it to be clear enough on a first glance.

#NoPaymium

 

[Mr. X]

edit nvm

 

[Dire]

If you want to go through with it: Focus on the lower budget argument, or you'll get nowhere. There's nuance here, and if you're not careful, it'll look to the untrained eye that you're demanding that publishers make a loss on games to sate your demands. It doesn't have to look like that, though, and you start avoiding it by focussing on the budgets.

I think manipulating game design to coerce players into purchasing is what should be focused on. There are plenty of players who are more than willing to pay-to-win and I think it's a necessary evil to allow them to do so in non-competitive games. However, the problem is when companies start trying to coerce players who have no interest in pay-to-win into the system. The Forza 5 review from Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-20-forza-motorsport-5-review) mentions that some cars will take in excess of 10 hours to grind access to, unlike previous titles. That seems to be a direct attempt to coerce gamers into pay-to-win.

 

[Dance Inferno]

I don't know how sound the OP's economic thinking is, but his heart's in the right place at least. I do agree that providing micro-transactions as a way to alleviate grinding mechanics is pretty shitty.

 

[Shengar]

I think this will be very hard thing to achieve. Microtransaction is a potential revenue for publisher with low risk, and unlike draconia DRM scene, it doesn't garner much heat. We could look not very far as in this very thread we've seen that some people doesn't care about microtransaction in their game, and the number isn't miniscule either. The fact that microtransaction could potentially tamper with game design never across in their mind.

If we want to succeed, first we have to convince that microtransaction within full priced game is potentially harmful to the game design. Let say I'm a pbulisher, and pushed developer to include microtransaction in their games. At first try, the game designed around without having microtrasanction in mind, hence the revenue isn't that big. The game also still sell well since microtransaction is largely ignorable. So, what things should I consider as publisher, scrap microtransaction alone or have the game designed more around microtransaction? The latter option is much more logical step in every sense for a publisher to take. Dumb one would make the game potentially unplayable, smart one would be able to masquerade the change in design as "adding more challenge" to the game.

Am I being paranoid? Maybe, but for what certain is that I'm being sceptical. I wouldn't blindly trust anyone with this kind of shit of monetization model within full priced game.

 

[RpgN]

I've seen this asserted a lot... yet I haven't actually seen specific examples of major fee-to-play games that people who were enjoying them *actually* feel that the inclusion of microtransactions crippled it. I've seen people in various threads pick up on Tales of Vesperia and Dead Space 3 as examples where they didn't, but no-one really seems to have cited as one where it is a problem.

I think it starts becoming a problem when the grinding required to earn items is so unreasonably long, that the majority of the consumers think the investment in time is too long, and that's while the game offers you the option to buy your way out of it. Games like Tales of Vesperia and other examples didn't seem to mess with the mechanics of grinding in comparison to previous games in the series, they added this option as an extra for a minority of people.

It might be difficult to be objective about balance, but at some point, more people will think it's crippled as long as more games are designed around a F2P model in the future.

 

[Shambles]

.

There were lots of disgusting things that pushed me away from consoles last generation but this sort of thing probably had the strongest influence. While the behavior exists on both PC and consoles the openness and freedom of the PC platform still allows you to have options to either hack a game to what it should be, or to give you accessibility to a lot more developers who do not conduct this kind of behavior. I don't care how you try to justify it as soon as you introduce economic elements into game mechanics it destroys the quality of the game because the game is no longer about being fun or interesting, it's about milking you for every last drop. I think the last EA game I bought was Mirrors Edge. I haven't touched anything from them since.

 

[chriskun]

As long as they provide both avenues and the grinding isn't designed to be completely impossible then I'm ok with this. You know OP you could wait for the games to actually come out first and see how they handle this.

 

[Solal]

This request is flawed and pointless.
I am all for devs releasing a game that adds value through it's DLC, but trying to pidgeon-hole them into releasing DLC only after the game has gone live is dumb, and shortsighted.

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?

 

[Prevolition]

Ryse up, fellow gamers! Forza the industry to tearaway from its current path of destruction!

 

[megalowho]

I am thinking that it might be useful to define a short-list of microtransactions, IAP and related practices that most people on GAF dislike and believe can impact negativley on game design and maintain a list of relevant games, listing if they use them or not.

Example: Time Saver DLC (ACIV, as in the picture posted earlier in this thread)

I actually think the ACIV stuff is fairly benign in game - it's cheap, not integral to the design, kept out of the way and the experience is plenty fun without giving them a second thought.

Next gen NBA 2k14 is much worse. Currency is everything in that game, like souls in Dark Souls, and all their major modes require a significant investment (one is just straight up lottery). Here I'm feeling the crunch of not earning enough through play, my player who wants to be an all-star sucks and my GM can't set food prices or lineups because I haven't invested enough in Facilities and Coaching levels. That's not realistic or fun, it's an exercise in frustration. Plus the option to pay real money is always in your face, just a click away.

I don't think it's fair to just say IAP is always bad, protest everything, etc. There is a lot of grey area when it comes to paying more money on top of the initial sale price and people with more cash than time do appreciate a shortcut. But when it's bad, or even just feels off-putting and distracting, games need to be called out on it. Not everyone is walking that line right.

 

[gutterboy44]

The problem here is that games are inherently defined by the restrictions they place upon the player. A game with absolutely no enforced constraints isn't a game at all.

Gaming is wilfully entering a captivity defined by the developers, because that captivity is in itself interesting and you wish to explore the scope of it.

A great point, but countless games have in game systems or cheats that make it fun to break out of those constraints, or modes that impose even more constraints. Why not start charging for hard difficulties? They are typically behind a playthrough lock as it is, might as well give players the "privilege" to pay for their own constraints.

Whether it is a big head mode or infinite ammo, game makers also understand the fun in not being constrained. The "evil" of microtransactions to me is that there is no justifiable reason to charge users for the privilege of that control or want to break out of a system they already paid full price for. A movie is constrained chronologically, but every thing since the days of VCRs had the option to fast forward and rewind at will. No director ever is going to say he intended for 2/3s of his move to be watched in FF. It is not a 1:1 analogy but more meant to highlight an rough equivalent in another medium that would likely cause an unanimous outrage. Moreover, most of these new microtransactions aren't breaking out of the system of gameplay at all, it is simply a FF or "easy" button. Leveling up faster in Ryse or buying all of the cars in Forza 5 within the first minute of gameplay doesn't add shit to the content of the game, you just paid to play what you just paid for.

"It doesn't hurt me, so its fine" is a complete cop out. Apologist shit like that in things much more important than gaming have always invited further exploitation. The concern for gamers who can't be arsed by this troubling trend should take note, because it will catch up to effect something you do care about in gaming and then it will have been too late. Look at the, "give them an inch they take a mile" with MS and the pre-backtrack "future of gaming" that was the XB1 E3 unveil.

 

[Shengar]

I don't know how sound the OP's economic thinking is, but his heart's in the right place at least. I do agree that providing micro-transactions as a way to alleviate grinding mechanics is pretty shitty.

People will see that as extra challenge for being able to get everything without spending extra penny, or say that the game already grindy like that as it is. If it doesn't directly harm them, they wouldn't care.

 

[Mt Heart Attack]

I've seen this asserted a lot... yet I haven't actually seen specific examples of major fee-to-play games that people who were enjoying them *actually* feel that the inclusion of microtransactions crippled it. I've seen people in various threads pick up on Tales of Vesperia and Dead Space 3 as examples where they didn't, but no-one really seems to have cited as one where it is a problem.

Well, judging from what people here are saying, the new Forza game (from which I believe this thread stemmed from) seems to have increased grinding time to obtain premium cars when compared to previous games to allow for the inclusion of microtransactions. I don't know about Dead Space 3, I have avoided it thus far, also due to their choice to include microtransactions, even though I loved the first two. Is the progression/upgrade system about the same as the prequels?

That said, the very idea of selling things that are already present in the game, only hidden behind a (perhaps forcefully increased) "time wall", is inherently wrong imo. You're basically paying for good old cheats.

 

[Polioliolio]

I don't know how sound the OP's economic thinking is, but his heart's in the right place at least. I do agree that providing micro-transactions as a way to alleviate grinding mechanics is pretty shitty.

It's not just pretty shitty, but it's changing the entire marketplace.

Maybe we are a bit too late, but there's no better time to start revolting than now.

OP, can you add all the games we know to have this BS in the first post?

I didn't know you could buy that kind of stuff for Assassin's Creed IV.. I'm afraid I'm a bit oblivious to how bad the situation has already gotten.

We should also list the publishers who are pushing these types of games the most.

 

[nynt9]

I really don't care about paying for early unlocks as long as the progression remains unchanged.

It's not just pretty shitty, but it's changing the entire marketplace.

Maybe we are a bit too late, but there's no better time to start revolting than now.

OP, can you add all the games we know to have this BS in the first post?

I didn't know you could buy that kind of stuff for Assassin's Creed IV.. I'm afraid I'm a bit oblivious to how bad the situation has already gotten.

We should also list the publishers who are pushing these types of games the most.

ACIV does a good job of this. The pacing of content in the game is same as previous games in the series, so microtransactions don't affect the game design negatively. In fact, (in my opinion) hunting and plundering is quite fun, so I don't know why anyone would want to bypass that.

 

[SneakyStephan]

Op you should have limited it to 'developers are taking your time hostage with arbitrary grind and microtransactions'
Your production cost analogies etc only give the defense force ammo to deflect and distract instead of staying on point

(also it's to lose, not to loose)

I agree though, we are going to end up with f2p design in full price games, and the worst kind of f2p (arbitrary inconveniences) , not the dota kind

It's already here and unless we make it stop gaming will never be the same, do you guys really want chores and work to go into your games?
The effort put into a game should be in the form of a learning curve (which ironically developers are conditioning gamers to shy away from... but that's for another thread), not filling bars or ticking boxes, and the reward and drive should be gameplay , not filling bars and removing inconveniences

there is no reason for a game to be designed to not be as pleasant and convenient as possible from a gamer standpoint, and the only reason developers do it is to nickle and dime their fans.

Please, for the sake of everyone, do not support the developers that do this.
We are now a hair's breadth away from paying for bagspace in 60 dollar games as well , and every other f2p inconvenience you can think of, and we've already crossed the line with arbitrary grind
It's almost too late to go back... we make a stink right now and vote with our wallets or freemium will become the standard

 

[LordBaztion]

Last weekend I was playing Mercenaries in RE6, I have 5 characters and already unlocked their alternative costumes. I wanted to play with Ada but I couldn't because I have to play the hideous campaign to unlock her. I would have just preffer to spend a couple of dollars and have access to her.

 

[params7]

i have to admire AC4s honesty here

What's the point of playing a videogame if you are just going to buy the achievements in it? you're skipping gameplay.

Most of all it ruins the reward factor. Devs shouldn't be doing this. "hey here buy our game, and buy the ending level for $15 more". I'll simply not purchase the game in this condition.

Last weekend I was playing Mercenaries in RE6, I have 5 characters and already unlocked their alternative costumes. I wanted to play with Ada but I couldn't because I have to play the hideous campaign to unlock her. I would have just preffer to spend a couple of dollars and have access to her.

Though, unfortunately, there is a market for it.

 

[Solal]

I don't know how sound the OP's economic thinking is, but his heart's in the right place at least. I do agree that providing micro-transactions as a way to alleviate grinding mechanics is pretty shitty.

Tx mate. I don't want to get involved in an economic debate. I took shortcuts (and maybe got lost on the way...) but I hope people will see that it's not what matters.

 

[RpgN]

#NoPaymium

This sounds like a well thought out one, though I'm honestly not sure if it explains the problem to mainstream gamers immediately. So you can make up that we don't agree paying premium, but to what? Random twitter users might not know it's about microtransactions and they might not know it's about 60$ games.

I think it sounds better than my suggestions but I'll leave it to others to come up with more examples and decide on a hashtag.

 

[marrec]

What's the point of playing a videogame if you are just going to buy the achievements in it? you're skipping gameplay.

Most of all it ruins the reward factor. Devs shouldn't be doing this. "hey here buy our game, and buy the ending level for $15 more". I'll simply not purchase the game in this condition.

You know it's not the choice of the Devs. This is being pushed primarily by the Publishers as an alternative revenue stream.

 

[Shengar]

"It doesn't hurt me, so its fine" is a complete cop out. Apologist shit like that in things much more important than gaming have always invited further exploitation. The concern for gamers who can't be arsed by this troubling trend should take note, because it will catch up to effect something you do care about in gaming and then it will have been too late. Look at the, "give them an inch they take a mile" with MS and the pre-backtrack "future of gaming" that was the XB1 E3 unveil.

The very worst of the kind is "it's my money, I can do whatever I want" attitude. Not very much, but they are actually out there or at least use that as argument to justify a game's microtransacton. They are very short-sighted. I don't know what make them so sure that microtransaction doesn't affect game design in any way possible.If such practice continue in the future, video game will be split between game as service and game as product.

 

[params7]

You know it's not the choice of the Devs. This is being pushed primarily by the Publishers as an alternative revenue stream.

Yeah - that is true. Developers risk losing their jobs if they do disagree. Publishers is what all of this effort should be directed to.