Trogdor1123
Member
Guys, its ok to buy the games with microtransaction. Its not ok to use the microtransactions though.
Fullgamesforfullprice
Cutpriceforcutgames
like character customizations and things of that nature. i'll never purchase them but I can see others getting into it. it's something extra that will allow them to get more enjoyment out of their game
The problem is not about adding extras. It's about adding burdens and "fun pain" in $60 games and then asking the player to pay more to remove them.
A lot of people are completely overreacting.this is a ridiculously bold statement. what would ever make you think that?
The keyword is "enjoyment". Of course publisher can sell anything their user will buy, but the thing is this crap is very explotative in nature. There isn't any regulatory that keep it control. This is why whales in F2P games are still there.i don't have a problem with game publishers trying to "sell more stuff"
like character customizations and things of that nature. i'll never purchase them but I can see others getting into it. it's something extra that will allow them to get more enjoyment out of their game
Crash is hyperbole, split will be the right word. SE pushed their games as service is a proof that trend.this is a ridiculously bold statement. what would ever make you think that?
Yes not all microtransactions are like that. But without regulatory boards shit will go out of controlNot all games with microtransactions are like that, though. That's what you're not getting.
People get freaked out and paranoid that the game is being balanced towards encouraging people to pay more money instead of being able to play normally and unlock content/progress that way.
A valid concern, but a lot of people just make this assumption that it basically automatically hurts a game when it doesn't have to.
How can you be that naive? The hourse of tedious grind are (in many cases) artificially built into these games to make you pay for skipping them. The fact that people are actually falling for this is making me lose faith in human intelligence.
So right now: here are the options:
#mytime!=yourmoney
#NoF2P60$games
#noconsoleF2P (but i think it's not good as the problem is not F2P, it's F2P we paid 60 bucks)
#NoRetailF2P
#NoPAymium
Come on men. Give me more.
Fullgamesforfullprice
Cutpriceforcutgames
Good to see that the first post in GAF threads continues to be thread-ending.Should have bought the Wii U, dumbasses.
So right now: here are the options:
#mytime!=yourmoney
#NoF2P60$games
#noconsoleF2P (but i think it's not good as the problem is not F2P, it's F2P we paid 60 bucks)
#NoRetailF2P
#NoPAymium
Come on men. Give me more.
I am lacking time (kids coming home) and would appreciate some help completing the OT.
We need to name all the biggest games that use F2P model.
Please describe what kind of monetization we are talking about for each.
Can someone do that? And then I ll add it to the OP?
this is a ridiculously bold statement. what would ever make you think that?
At some point more and more gamers will get fed up by this crap (or may also just be unable to afford all this crap anymore). Maybe they will also notice that games aren't really fun anymore, but either a money grab, a grind-fest or both. And then it will go boom. Never think that it will stop at some point. If this here gets through, the next one will get even worse. Just look at the season-pass-crap, the DLC-crap and the overall game quality from last gen.
Or well maybe I think too highly of most gamers. Maybe most gamers will really accept any crap possible for getting allowed to play the latest shiny shooty shooty game.
I am actually getting annoyed at this. A lot of people LIKE the f2p model. Why are you trying to take this away from them? Lay off the fucking Twitter campaigns, you sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.
If you don't want, don't buy.
Answer me this, why are you trying to take this away from people who like this model?
I am actually getting annoyed at this. A lot of people LIKE the f2p model. Why are you trying to take this away from them? Lay off the fucking Twitter campaigns, you sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.
If you don't want, don't buy.
Answer me this, why are you trying to take this away from people who like this model?
Because it changes the way games are designed/played for people who do NOT like the model. And it's not FREE to play when the base game is $60, so it's a pretty big difference here.
Because it changes the way games are designed/played for people who do NOT like the model. And it's not FREE to play when the base game is $60, so it's a pretty big difference here.
The disgusting practice is increasing the grind for the sole purpose of increasing sales of the micro transactions.
I am actually getting annoyed at this. A lot of people LIKE the f2p model. Why are you trying to take this away from them? Lay off the fucking Twitter campaigns, you sound like a bunch of spoiled kids.
If you don't want, don't buy.
Answer me this, why are you trying to take this away from people who like this model?
Overall game quality of last-gen? What exactly are you comparing here?y
I honestly think it's a learning cycle. Scamming people the first time, maybe even the first few times, is easy but eventually many of these people realize that they've thrown way too much money at something so trivial. Zynga and facebook games in general are already seeing the backlash of consumers who've woken up.Microtransactions were something companies tested the waters with and it came back extremely lucrative for them. Of course they will become more creative with how they are implemented. I assume they'd try anything they can get away with. The real question is how will you respond?
If a game is littered with micros that are ridiculous and no one buys them, the game won't be very successful. The community would decide for itself if it's necessary. We will basically put our own limits on our games and we'll respond with our dollar.
Uhm, yes it did, because the game design was negatively influenced by the auction house.Diablo III had a real auction house. People could just buy top merch and be top tier without going through the grind. That didn't make the game any less enjoyable for people.
F2P games are inherently different than your $60 with micros.
GW2 adding micros to get uber weapons really doesn't affect your experience except your bragging rights will have diminished slightly
this seems like a legitimate argument, but I have yet to see examples that really illustrate this
I don't think anyone minds giving the option to buy upgrades, money, etc in-game for those that want to.
The disgusting practice is increasing the grind for the sole purpose of increasing sales of the micro transactions.
I honestly think it's a learning cycle. Scamming people the first time, maybe even the first few times, is easy but eventually many of these people realize that they've thrown way too much money at something so trivial. Zynga and facebook games in general already see the backlash of consumers who've woken up.
I imagine that people who realized that they've spent 300-400 dollars on Forza 4 are not likely to do it again in Forza 5 or 6.
Uhm, yes it did, because the game design was negatively influenced by the auction house.
Microtransactions were something companies tested the waters with and it came back extremely lucrative for them. Of course they will become more creative with how they are implemented. I assume they'd try anything they can get away with. The real question is how will you respond?
If a game is littered with micros that are ridiculous and no one buys them, the game won't be very successful. The community would decide for itself if it's necessary. We will basically put our own limits on our games and we'll respond with our dollar.
Diablo III had a real auction house. People could just buy top merch and be top tier without going through the grind. That didn't make the game any less enjoyable for people.
Sure there super-magical-mace-of-destructionary-powers-deally wasn't as cool to brag about, but it wasn't a problem
edit : A regulatory board sounds infinitely worse than the micros you are condemning
I wanna agree with you here, but eh, my time is more valuable than my money. I bought the $10 "DLC" to skip having to grind out all the upgrades in NFS Rivals. It's not like it gave me some competitive advantage, just saved me from having to perform the exact same actions over and over and over again to max out every single vehicle.For me, that's worth $10.
Speaking of EA I just remembered Dead Space 3. Also an example of how microtransations clearly influenced the game design.That's the thing. Of course, you can be naive and imagine that the fact that these features are implemented didn't influence the balancing/game flow/etc., but for that you have to trust that EA, MS, and co. have good will and give total liberty to their creative teams. But then, why ask for these monetization features in the 1st place if you didn't want to really make sure there would be a use for them? Good for you if you believe these features are only designed to give more flexibility to some users!
this is exactly what I'm talking about
and another example of the saturation point i touched upon
how did this affect game design? previous iterations had an auction house, but didnt use real money. people selling items had to use a third party trader site to turn this into cash for the same transaction. blizzard just wanted their cut, really
You are factually wrong, as the Auction House directly influenced drop rates.
Ease of use honestly. It legitimized the act and made it easy/reasonably safe for people to do it.
wouldn't the price of the item be inversely proportional to the drop rate of that particular item?
how did the auction house do what you suggest?
idk, that seems like a good thing to me. they know people are going to do it. let's just accept it and move on
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is one such example I just recalled.this seems like a legitimate argument, but I have yet to see examples that really illustrate this
Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is one such example I just recalled.
http://kotaku.com/the-new-jojo-fighter-is-a-social-game-in-disguise-1281086643
Not sure if that's been addressed by a patch or something. The game's sales plummeted in week 2, so it's fair to say people did not appreciate its model.
Also, even though there might not be evident examples of this for now (I haven't played DS3 myself, but apparently Jim Sterling thought microtransactions did have a strong negative impact on the design, and the game did underperform commercially compared to the others in the series), I don't think it takes a clairvoyant to see how developers might exploit this practice and ruining their games for people not willing to spend further money in the process were this to become commonplace in full priced games.
Now that Blizzard was actively involved with the auction house, they designed the mechanics in a way that would push players to use the auction house. They did this by over-emphasizing the importance of items compared to character attributes and with the fucked up droprates compared to the previous Diablo games. Even Blizzard themselves have admitted that those changes did hurt the game.how did this affect game design? previous iterations had an auction house, but didnt use real money. people selling items had to use a third party trader site to turn this into cash for the same transaction. blizzard just wanted their cut, really
that's exactly the point. there is no reason the grind has to be so stretched out other than to push gamers into spending money to ease the burden. it's a f2p mechanic and it sucks. it's getting worse.