wtf are you on about?
Is that not the truth?
Which perfectly can with out micro transactions. GTA 5, the last of us even an of beat game like heavy rain makes money.Or want high-budget games to continue to be commercially viable.
I don't, particularly, but these forms of monetisation are a crutch to allow for increased budgets.
Please read some earning reports from ea, blizzard and ubi and ask your self what problem. The biggest problem is that people don't buy shity games that look and play the same as the once they already have so yeah sometimes developers go broke but that is normal in every businessThe audience hasn't grown at a rate to match the increased cost of development; the costs of development are much, much, much bigger. That's a significant part of the problem.
The problem with that is when is it becoming a grind? Most people are okay with having a few hours of grind; I'm not even okay with ten minutes. So I'm not going to trust the reviewers on this one. And then there's the attenuation effect, as more and more games are incorporating grind, we will start seeing people getting okay with it, and the artificial grind extended over time. Heck just look at the amount of players of MOBAs, Warcraft and all the F2P schlock on Facebook and phones.It isn't useful to damn every game that has micro transactions, but rather to focus on the ones that have the progression in those games artificially lengthened or padded out in order to incentivize you to buy DLC to move things along.This concept is the foundation of the F2P model, which is only a few years old really.
It is useful to warn against the games that are proven to have done this to incentivize purchasing virtual currency, because it negatively affects everyone who bought the game.
But it does no good to prematurely damn games that just have the presence of DLC or currency purchases before we have a good idea of if progression is artificially lengthened or not to incentivize those purchases.
Yep. At the end of the day, I'm playing a game because it is fun to play, and I'm not going to bother buying anything extra in a game I don't enjoy. And if a game artificially stretches out the progression in an attempt to get you to buy DLC, then that game is not going to be as fun. If I read about on e of these games, then I won't buy it, and if I bought a game and found out that it did do this, I would likely burn out on the game due to repetitiveness before I went and bought anything.
History paints a picture that is the opposite of what you are claiming. The F2P model of stretching out progression in order to tempt people into spending money has only been popular for a few years now,
One thing I'mcurious about is why reviewers aren't going after this. It seems like Forza 5 is specifically designed to try to annoy gamers into pay-to-win yet of all the reviews currently available only a handful actually mention this. The game is still managing a metacritic 82 overall as well. Not the 90+ of literally every other game in the series, but still. Repeating races for 10 hours to unlock a single car isn't fun. A game that forces that on players isn't an 8/10, it's broken.not really
Which perfectly can with out micro transactions. GTA 5, the last of us even an of beat game like heavy rain makes money.
Please read some earning reports from ea, blizzard and ubi and ask your self what problem. The biggest problem is that people don't buy shity games that look and play the same as the once they already have so yeah sometimes developers go broke but that is normal in every business
Well, it's a small point of order, but:
I'd argue that it's an extremely similar philosophy.
Woah, very good point.
Maybe I've not thought this completely through yet, but goodness, much of my gaming growing up was in arcades. I don't know how many quarters I put into games that I seriously wanted to play, in order to keep on playing. Tons of money. Games like Turtles in time, N.A.R.C., Xmen, etc were pretty much impossible to beat without putting in more money to continue.
There were no evil motives behind the arcade model. Just a matter of survival.
I don't think there were evil motives behind every arcade title, but I have no doubt that many games were designed to be quarter munchers rather than good games.
I'd argue that it's an extremely similar philosophy.
Thank god for cheatengine.
It is all bullshit though, but with game cost rising while games are still $60. What can they do?
Good point.They didn't have vast amounts of player data, psychological consultants, and now biometric feedback upon which to draw.
So that is why Gran Turismo 6 only has 1200 cars, compared to GT5s 1000. His hypothesis is completely off-base.What strikes me (in his hypothesis) is that devs first decide how much they want to earn... and then force it into our throught. .
So that is why Gran Turismo 6 only has 1200 cars, compared to GT5s 1000. His hypothesis is completely off-base.
Lol, I got ony #DealWithIt comments on IGN. This shit is serious and their pragmatism worries me.
And I'm showing you why your example sucks. You use the point of your friend which focusses on Gran Turismo, but Gran Turismo 6 doesn't actually show the point. He says they would take away content leaving about 70% of the content gamers would want. So gamers want 1600 cars? You could just accept his point doesn't make sense and that Yamauchi is still making the game he wants.Well... i don't want to focus on GT specically as i have a story with this game.
Let me just say that - IMO -your point proves nothing. GT6 could not have less cars that GT5 for obvious reasons...
Anyway, GT is not the subject of this thread: just an example.
That's a very good article and I believe a good way to show people asking themselves what the big deal is why we are worried about this trend. Some really grim scenarios open up if this takes hold.http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-23-whens-a-free-to-play-game-not-free-to-play
Eurogamer is talking about it. They share our concerns.
Microsoft's own argument goes that these microtransactions are optional, and an extension of player choice. All of which rings a little hollow: purchasing them certainly is, but for more traditional, sensible people, partaking in a game that's wilfully broken in order to allow for their inclusion shouldn't have to be.
This sums up a lot:
And I pitty anyone who doesn't get it.
Yea that would be useful.Could somebody make a list of games practicing these horrible policies and put it in a "Do not buy these games |OT|? Keep it updated and all that jazz.
Could somebody make a list of games practicing these horrible policies and put it in a "Do not buy these games |OT|? Keep it updated and all that jazz.
Could somebody make a list of games practicing these horrible policies and put it in a "Do not buy these games |OT|? Keep it updated and all that jazz.