Options

[Add-ons] Are big games being nickled and dimed to death?

24

Posts

  • Options
    Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I remember when Expansions were full on games, like StarCraft Brood Wars. The last DLC I bought (not including WoW) was Destiny's The Dark Below. I beat everything but the raid within two-three hour time frame without really pushing hard. $20 for not even half a days of play time... Then the raid was locked behind Destiny's grindfest of gear grinding that had already made me blazing mad. I did buy the Season Pass with the House of Wolves but I didn't stay around to play it.

    Then we remember the pre-order BS of Watchdogs. I wanted to play that game, but shit kept coming that killed my resolve to play it, from the graphics not being what was advertised, to the fact that to get all the DLC pre-order shit, you'd need to buy the game like 5 times in three different countries, yeah. Fuck AAA gaming. It's not that I won't pay for DLC, it's that I want my money's worth from it. If I'm going to buy an expansion/add-on/skins/ect, then make it worth it. I'm not going to pay $5 for a skin that's on the disc already but locked until their server tells my console it's cool to give me it.

    The problem is AAA gaming is watching the mobile market and seeing people like King make Millions off games like Candy Crush and it's just a match three game. It probably cost them $1,000 to make it and they made bank, and even games that aren't that big are still rolling in $$$ just because someone will pay $.99 for an extra life. And unlike AAA games, where once you've beaten it, unless there is some multiplayer or alt ending stuff, it's just a $60 purchase. The mobile games with their microtransactions will continue to make their people money months or years after they quit updating them. AAA wants that kind of continuous bank flow. So we get this stupid shit. And it's still stupid even for the mobile games. Unless I'm supporting keeping multiplayer servers alive, like with MMOs, I don't want to keep paying a game for another life. Some of these games in the mobile market require you to pay by keeping content behind premium tokens. I know The Sims for the mobile had items that required tokens, which could only be gain through rare quest that had like a 1% chance of coming up, or with real money. However, the more common quests required you to have these items, so you'd go "well, I want to complete these quests and the tokens are $.99 for one, or $4.99 for 5... that's like buying a Big Mac!" and you spend money on their shit. The only way to get rid of this problem is stop buying their shit but there are too many stupid people who will for us to really change things. So get used to having to buy the next mission on a game you paid $60 for. Or getting pwned in Multiplayer because you aren't going to get the Juggernaut Armor DLC and this frat boy did and is teabagging you with every kill.

    Mobile games need to have a gigantic legislative & regulatory hammer come crashing down on their predatory skulls.

    For what? Are we going to make laws on how people choose to spend their money? They are playing the Sucker's Market but that's because there are so many Suckers. What kind of law would you make or use that's going to slow them down?

  • Options
    AistanAistan Tiny Bat Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Erlkönig wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    I imagine having all those ships will give a huge advantage if the game ever comes out

    Except that you can get those in-game without having to pay real-money for them, too.

    yeah but not immediately, you'd have to work long and hard for it. So that's more pay to win than nickel and dime.

    I thought "P2W" was more like being able to buy a special thing that couldn't be otherwise acquired in-game. A fictitious example would be a mech that can only be bought from the online store that will take appreciably less damage (and/or ignores weapon heat) in Mechwarrior Online.

    A less fictitious (but also less egregious) example would be WoT's gold ammo.

    Pay To Win is content you can buy with real money that affects gameplay by giving the purchaser a boost in power, bypassing the time investment that would normally be required to achieve it. It's only used to contrast with cosmetic purchases that don't have an effect on gameplay, and purchases that give things like new levels or quests to play.

    Aistan on
  • Options
    ShadowfireShadowfire Vermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered User regular
    The Witcher is a very different situation though. Being in Poland, they pay devs significantly less.

    A lot of this is growing pains I think. Microtransactions can be done well, and a lot of companies are trying to find out the right way to do them while maximizing profit but also not pissing off their customer base. Some companies clearly don't give a shit (ahem, Konami), but I feel like most are trying.

    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular

    The Ender wrote: »
    I remember when Expansions were full on games, like StarCraft Brood Wars. The last DLC I bought (not including WoW) was Destiny's The Dark Below. I beat everything but the raid within two-three hour time frame without really pushing hard. $20 for not even half a days of play time... Then the raid was locked behind Destiny's grindfest of gear grinding that had already made me blazing mad. I did buy the Season Pass with the House of Wolves but I didn't stay around to play it.

    Then we remember the pre-order BS of Watchdogs. I wanted to play that game, but shit kept coming that killed my resolve to play it, from the graphics not being what was advertised, to the fact that to get all the DLC pre-order shit, you'd need to buy the game like 5 times in three different countries, yeah. Fuck AAA gaming. It's not that I won't pay for DLC, it's that I want my money's worth from it. If I'm going to buy an expansion/add-on/skins/ect, then make it worth it. I'm not going to pay $5 for a skin that's on the disc already but locked until their server tells my console it's cool to give me it.

    The problem is AAA gaming is watching the mobile market and seeing people like King make Millions off games like Candy Crush and it's just a match three game. It probably cost them $1,000 to make it and they made bank, and even games that aren't that big are still rolling in $$$ just because someone will pay $.99 for an extra life. And unlike AAA games, where once you've beaten it, unless there is some multiplayer or alt ending stuff, it's just a $60 purchase. The mobile games with their microtransactions will continue to make their people money months or years after they quit updating them. AAA wants that kind of continuous bank flow. So we get this stupid shit. And it's still stupid even for the mobile games. Unless I'm supporting keeping multiplayer servers alive, like with MMOs, I don't want to keep paying a game for another life. Some of these games in the mobile market require you to pay by keeping content behind premium tokens. I know The Sims for the mobile had items that required tokens, which could only be gain through rare quest that had like a 1% chance of coming up, or with real money. However, the more common quests required you to have these items, so you'd go "well, I want to complete these quests and the tokens are $.99 for one, or $4.99 for 5... that's like buying a Big Mac!" and you spend money on their shit. The only way to get rid of this problem is stop buying their shit but there are too many stupid people who will for us to really change things. So get used to having to buy the next mission on a game you paid $60 for. Or getting pwned in Multiplayer because you aren't going to get the Juggernaut Armor DLC and this frat boy did and is teabagging you with every kill.

    Mobile games need to have a gigantic legislative & regulatory hammer come crashing down on their predatory skulls.

    For what? Are we going to make laws on how people choose to spend their money? They are playing the Sucker's Market but that's because there are so many Suckers. What kind of law would you make or use that's going to slow them down?

    It's basically unregulated gambling. Casinos wouldn't be allowed to run the sort of bullshit schemes you find in energy meter based games, and they aren't allowed to target minors. I don't think the mobile market should get a free pass, and I suspect the only reason they do is because lawmakers don't take the space seriously.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    It's not gambling at all though

    You're not going to get money from the other end of it

    It's no different than an old arcade game suddenly ramping up the difficulty to get another quarter out of you

    And guess what? As a kid, Turtles in Time totally targeted me

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    I remember when Expansions were full on games, like StarCraft Brood Wars. The last DLC I bought (not including WoW) was Destiny's The Dark Below. I beat everything but the raid within two-three hour time frame without really pushing hard. $20 for not even half a days of play time... Then the raid was locked behind Destiny's grindfest of gear grinding that had already made me blazing mad. I did buy the Season Pass with the House of Wolves but I didn't stay around to play it.

    Then we remember the pre-order BS of Watchdogs. I wanted to play that game, but shit kept coming that killed my resolve to play it, from the graphics not being what was advertised, to the fact that to get all the DLC pre-order shit, you'd need to buy the game like 5 times in three different countries, yeah. Fuck AAA gaming. It's not that I won't pay for DLC, it's that I want my money's worth from it. If I'm going to buy an expansion/add-on/skins/ect, then make it worth it. I'm not going to pay $5 for a skin that's on the disc already but locked until their server tells my console it's cool to give me it.

    The problem is AAA gaming is watching the mobile market and seeing people like King make Millions off games like Candy Crush and it's just a match three game. It probably cost them $1,000 to make it and they made bank, and even games that aren't that big are still rolling in $$$ just because someone will pay $.99 for an extra life. And unlike AAA games, where once you've beaten it, unless there is some multiplayer or alt ending stuff, it's just a $60 purchase. The mobile games with their microtransactions will continue to make their people money months or years after they quit updating them. AAA wants that kind of continuous bank flow. So we get this stupid shit. And it's still stupid even for the mobile games. Unless I'm supporting keeping multiplayer servers alive, like with MMOs, I don't want to keep paying a game for another life. Some of these games in the mobile market require you to pay by keeping content behind premium tokens. I know The Sims for the mobile had items that required tokens, which could only be gain through rare quest that had like a 1% chance of coming up, or with real money. However, the more common quests required you to have these items, so you'd go "well, I want to complete these quests and the tokens are $.99 for one, or $4.99 for 5... that's like buying a Big Mac!" and you spend money on their shit. The only way to get rid of this problem is stop buying their shit but there are too many stupid people who will for us to really change things. So get used to having to buy the next mission on a game you paid $60 for. Or getting pwned in Multiplayer because you aren't going to get the Juggernaut Armor DLC and this frat boy did and is teabagging you with every kill.

    Mobile games need to have a gigantic legislative & regulatory hammer come crashing down on their predatory skulls.

    For what? Are we going to make laws on how people choose to spend their money? They are playing the Sucker's Market but that's because there are so many Suckers. What kind of law would you make or use that's going to slow them down?

    It's basically unregulated gambling. Casinos wouldn't be allowed to run the sort of bullshit schemes you find in energy meter based games, and they aren't allowed to target minors. I don't think the mobile market should get a free pass, and I suspect the only reason they do is because lawmakers don't take the space seriously.

    But is it gambling? Games like Candy Crush is more skill than luck. Plus, you can play for free at anytime if you want to wait for your lives to refill. At a casino, I have to pay money to play and it's mostly chance for me to win (Blackjack and card counting not withstanding). I can't just sit there and wait for the dealer to say "Ok, you've earned $5 for sitting around! Congratulations!"

  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    The Witcher is a very different situation though. Being in Poland, they pay devs significantly less.

    A lot of this is growing pains I think. Microtransactions can be done well, and a lot of companies are trying to find out the right way to do them while maximizing profit but also not pissing off their customer base. Some companies clearly don't give a shit (ahem, Konami), but I feel like most are trying.

    I mean, I can tell them the right way:

    Don't put them into the game you sold me for 60 Goddamn dollars (or more). Why did I even pay you for the game in the first place if I don't get the whole thing? I'm not interested in paying someone merely for the privilege of them getting to have a kiosk in my home where they try to offload more wares.


    If you want to do free to play with microtransactions, fine, fair enough. If you want to do less expensive episodic games instead of one big & expensive game, also fine, also fair enough. Your big budget 60 dollar blockbuster doesn't get to have it's cake and eat it too, in my opinion, and personally I think much less of a such a title that includes a shop.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I remember when Expansions were full on games, like StarCraft Brood Wars. The last DLC I bought (not including WoW) was Destiny's The Dark Below. I beat everything but the raid within two-three hour time frame without really pushing hard. $20 for not even half a days of play time... Then the raid was locked behind Destiny's grindfest of gear grinding that had already made me blazing mad. I did buy the Season Pass with the House of Wolves but I didn't stay around to play it.

    Then we remember the pre-order BS of Watchdogs. I wanted to play that game, but shit kept coming that killed my resolve to play it, from the graphics not being what was advertised, to the fact that to get all the DLC pre-order shit, you'd need to buy the game like 5 times in three different countries, yeah. Fuck AAA gaming. It's not that I won't pay for DLC, it's that I want my money's worth from it. If I'm going to buy an expansion/add-on/skins/ect, then make it worth it. I'm not going to pay $5 for a skin that's on the disc already but locked until their server tells my console it's cool to give me it.

    The problem is AAA gaming is watching the mobile market and seeing people like King make Millions off games like Candy Crush and it's just a match three game. It probably cost them $1,000 to make it and they made bank, and even games that aren't that big are still rolling in $$$ just because someone will pay $.99 for an extra life. And unlike AAA games, where once you've beaten it, unless there is some multiplayer or alt ending stuff, it's just a $60 purchase. The mobile games with their microtransactions will continue to make their people money months or years after they quit updating them. AAA wants that kind of continuous bank flow. So we get this stupid shit. And it's still stupid even for the mobile games. Unless I'm supporting keeping multiplayer servers alive, like with MMOs, I don't want to keep paying a game for another life. Some of these games in the mobile market require you to pay by keeping content behind premium tokens. I know The Sims for the mobile had items that required tokens, which could only be gain through rare quest that had like a 1% chance of coming up, or with real money. However, the more common quests required you to have these items, so you'd go "well, I want to complete these quests and the tokens are $.99 for one, or $4.99 for 5... that's like buying a Big Mac!" and you spend money on their shit. The only way to get rid of this problem is stop buying their shit but there are too many stupid people who will for us to really change things. So get used to having to buy the next mission on a game you paid $60 for. Or getting pwned in Multiplayer because you aren't going to get the Juggernaut Armor DLC and this frat boy did and is teabagging you with every kill.

    Mobile games need to have a gigantic legislative & regulatory hammer come crashing down on their predatory skulls.

    For what? Are we going to make laws on how people choose to spend their money? They are playing the Sucker's Market but that's because there are so many Suckers. What kind of law would you make or use that's going to slow them down?

    Would somebody please think of the children!

    Semi more serious, though, most of those microtransactions (well, namely the in-app purchases) are geared at having children click the "Buy 5 more life gems" or whatever and not worrying about the consequences. But then the blame gets shifted over to the parents for allowing their kids to play a mobile game that has in-app purchases and not having parental restrictions placed on their phone. But if the mobile game doesn't abide by the parental restrictions, then the blame can get shifted to either the parent (for allowing the child to play such a predatory game) or the game maker (for having a predatory mechanic built in that would bypass safeguards).

    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    The Witcher is a very different situation though. Being in Poland, they pay devs significantly less.

    A lot of this is growing pains I think. Microtransactions can be done well, and a lot of companies are trying to find out the right way to do them while maximizing profit but also not pissing off their customer base. Some companies clearly don't give a shit (ahem, Konami), but I feel like most are trying.

    I mean, I can tell them the right way:

    Don't put them into the game you sold me for 60 Goddamn dollars (or more). Why did I even pay you for the game in the first place if I don't get the whole thing?

    You do get the whole thing

    Every time, actually

    You don't get to define what "the whole thing" is

  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    The Witcher is a very different situation though. Being in Poland, they pay devs significantly less.

    A lot of this is growing pains I think. Microtransactions can be done well, and a lot of companies are trying to find out the right way to do them while maximizing profit but also not pissing off their customer base. Some companies clearly don't give a shit (ahem, Konami), but I feel like most are trying.

    I mean, I can tell them the right way:

    Don't put them into the game you sold me for 60 Goddamn dollars (or more). Why did I even pay you for the game in the first place if I don't get the whole thing?

    You do get the whole thing

    Every time, actually

    You don't get to define what "the whole thing" is

    Well, yes, this can be pretty nebulous: but the number of games where I feel like I'm having a partial experience in comparison to people who have tossed money into the in game shop exceeds the number of fingers I have. Of course, people will probably disagree per title & have their own tolerance thresholds, but I prefer it when caution is erred as much as possible on the side of the consumer.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Like, for example: I have had a really good time with GTA V, out of the box. Just driving around in that game is a joy. It has a lot of base content.


    But I also feel like I am a liability as a teammate in multiplayer, and that I am not getting the full experience out of the game because I can't afford to buy stuff that is considered mission-mandatory (armored cars in particular). And I don't see any reason why the game has that kind of tiered experience for such an expensive title aside from really naked greed.

    With Love and Courage
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

  • Options
    ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    Buttcleft on
  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • Options
    Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    After paying people, ads, and using that money for next game, you'd run out quickly.

  • Options
    SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    Cosmetic DLC is usually ok with me. Sometimes it's a bummer if a more attractive costume is locked behind $10, but 99% of the time it's very ignorable.

    Content DLC: The price proposition on these often make me doubt. It's usually way more $/hour than the base game. Most of the time it's out of the way stuff, and doesn't fit in the with the story. So I can ignore it. But it does nag at my completionist tendencies.

    Pre-Order bonuses are another side of the same coin, basically meant to get the feeling of "missing out" with players. That you aren't playing the "full" game.

    P2W instances are fairly rare. There are a few "P2Convenience" that sorta suck though, any game balanced around not having to play part of it as much can't ever be designed to be "optimal fun," but instead probably has added grind or a very stingy economy instead.

    The Mass Effect series, and in particular 3, are examples of how to do DLC badly in my opinion. What I consider an integral part of the story (Javik) is locked behind DLC, as are many "best" items, and even though that game is now fairly old, the DLC is pretty much never on sale, and there's no GOTY pack or anything. The base game can go for as low as $5, all the DLC together is $50 still.

    The way DLC cars were on display in NFS: Most Wanted also deserves special mention as terrible, in that game if you spot a rare parked car you can add it to your collection, except if you don't own the DLC, then it pops up a store page when you try. It made me angry every time it happened. I got that game for free for the SimCity disaster, couldn't play for months because of a bug with their video codec, and then when it was finally fixed it made me angry even more.

    On the good side, I want to mention Payday 2. They release low price DLC often, if it contains a map only the host needs to own it for 4 people to play it, they put their old DLC on sale when new DLC comes out, and they release free content too. That game is barely recognisable from launch day.

    The MGS V stuff is dumb, but I don't care too much because a) only unrefined materials and security crew can be stolen/killed, the important part about the FOB is the increased crew capacity b) Konami by all accounts is more or less exiting the industry.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Options
    Commodore75Commodore75 gothenburg.seRegistered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

  • Options
    ButtcleftButtcleft Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    Yeah but they are spending 10 dollars to make 15, when they could be spending nothing and making 10.

  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People can't typically host their own servers on consoles in any meaningful way for the type of content GTAV has.

    No I don't.
  • Options
    dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People hosting servers will expect post-release patch support, updates, etc. This costs, though less than the same plus server hosting. (Though with MS doing things like "sure, free servers!", that changes some.)

    We expect quite a bit more from a developer in terms of post-release game support than we ever did back in the day. Balance updates, bugfixes, general maintenance, compatibility... All ongoing expenses that it's unrealistic to expect a developer to not attempt to cover for the length of time we now consider appropriate.

    ME3 got knocked for its DLC/microtransactions, for instance, but they also kept multiplayer support going for a year+ with regular free DLC releases as part of it. You can STILL play it, though they're not putting out more content. With no add-on income, this would likely not have happened, and expecting it to is unrealistic.

  • Options
    ErlkönigErlkönig Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People can't typically host their own servers on consoles in any meaningful way for the type of content GTAV has.

    I'm just picturing a peer-to-peer system with GTA Online and having the host migrate every 2 minutes.

    | Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
  • Options
    The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    It's not gambling at all though

    You're not going to get money from the other end of it

    It's no different than an old arcade game suddenly ramping up the difficulty to get another quarter out of you

    And guess what? As a kid, Turtles in Time totally targeted me

    No, it's effectively gambling in nearly all definitions of the term.

    Instead of using your money directly, you buy "tokens" (gems/mythril/stones/whatever the fuck they're calling it in their game). You take these "tokens" and put them in the in game "slot machine" and pull the handle. And since these are designed almost exactly like a real slot machine, you very likely won't get what you really want on the first pull. So you pull again. And again. And again. Then you buy more tokens and pull again, and...

    Just because there's no final conversion back to cash at the end doesn't mean you get to throw your hands up and say "It's not gambling! It's totally different!".

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
  • Options
    jclastjclast Registered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People hosting servers will expect post-release patch support, updates, etc. This costs, though less than the same plus server hosting. (Though with MS doing things like "sure, free servers!", that changes some.)

    We expect quite a bit more from a developer in terms of post-release game support than we ever did back in the day. Balance updates, bugfixes, general maintenance, compatibility... All ongoing expenses that it's unrealistic to expect a developer to not attempt to cover for the length of time we now consider appropriate.

    ME3 got knocked for its DLC/microtransactions, for instance, but they also kept multiplayer support going for a year+ with regular free DLC releases as part of it. You can STILL play it, though they're not putting out more content. With no add-on income, this would likely not have happened, and expecting it to is unrealistic.

    I really feel like EA did it right with Mass Effect 3. I loved the multiplayer and never felt like I needed to buy resupply packs to be useful on a team. Those that wanted to buy packs and get cool stuff were able to do so and I was able to cast funky space magic to my heart's content and only open packs that I picked up through free gameplay. And all of the free maps and races kept me (and the paying players) coming back for a long time.

    I also don't mind the way Activision is doing it with Destiny. Yeah, sure, sell cosmetic stuff for paid currency. I'm a casual enough player that I'm almost assuredly going to keep finding new things to put on my guardian on my way to never doing a raid that I won't need to pony up for a new armor shader.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    Basically the way I see it is there is a problem that has to be solved here.

    However, some games aren't trying to solve a problem, they're purely after profit when implimenting microtransactions.

    But games like Destiny, GTAV, Hearthstone, DOTA 2, TF2, LoL are legitimately trying to either do free to play in a fair manner, or find ways to support the games long after release with free new content with other revenue sources.

    These are good things to experiment with. And people need to not confuse all microtransactions with shady or outright malicious ones, because there is a benefit here for gamers in SOME of the cases (it's subjective which ones are actually working correctly).

    No I don't.
  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    It's basically unregulated gambling. Casinos wouldn't be allowed to run the sort of bullshit schemes you find in energy meter based games, and they aren't allowed to target minors. I don't think the mobile market should get a free pass, and I suspect the only reason they do is because lawmakers don't take the space seriously.
    It's not gambling at all though

    You're not going to get money from the other end of it

    It's no different than an old arcade game suddenly ramping up the difficulty to get another quarter out of you

    And guess what? As a kid, Turtles in Time totally targeted me

    No, it's effectively gambling in nearly all definitions of the term.

    Instead of using your money directly, you buy "tokens" (gems/mythril/stones/whatever the fuck they're calling it in their game). You take these "tokens" and put them in the in game "slot machine" and pull the handle. And since these are designed almost exactly like a real slot machine, you very likely won't get what you really want on the first pull. So you pull again. And again. And again. Then you buy more tokens and pull again, and...

    Just because there's no final conversion back to cash at the end doesn't mean you get to throw your hands up and say "It's not gambling! It's totally different!".

    You're right, it is gambling in every sense of the word but one; it's not legally considered gambling. This is a major distinction considering the post Vow was replying to, which I quoted above.

    No I don't.
  • Options
    Ninja Snarl PNinja Snarl P My helmet is my burden. Ninja Snarl: Gone, but not forgotten.Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    The problems with DLC/microtransactions are largely a combination of publishers stripping players of traditional conveniences that kept games alive for years (namely, how rare it is to have a game now where players can run the servers), the huge upswing in publisher greed that labels anything short of a massive success as a massive failure, and publishers desperately trying to monetize anything and everything they can get away with. These days, it's uncommon to be able to get all the actual gameplay content of a game at release, because nearly everything paywalls something. And shitpiles like EA deliberately keep older, better versions of their franchises from being kept alive via player servers by simply denying that feature to players in the name of "convenience" for things like matchmaking (which is obviously bullshit).

    But I think the result is that PC gaming is gaining momentum again, and people are figuring out that the PC game market isn't nearly so restricted as the console side. I'm hoping simple consumer momentum in that direction will push back enough to get some equilibrium back, instead of the current situation where chunks of games are deliberately withheld to squeeze players. As the tendency to wait for game sales to pick up the game plus the DLC becomes more common, publishers will either go out of business for inability to adjust or finally relax and let all the game content stay with the game.

    Also, mobile games are basically Skinner Boxes, often targeted at kids, and absolutely should be regulated. They're even worse than gambling, because at least there's a chance in gambling that you can win money. Somebody mentioned Turtles in Time earlier in the thread and you know what? I can still play that game and enjoy it, because it's a fun game, not something designed entirely to wring money out of parents through their kids. Except for very old arcade games, which were limited by tech more than by greed, most arcade games were definitely beatable.

    But these "games" that never really end and encourage kids to get Sprinkle Diamond Crates with their parent's money? Unethical as hell. Parents should be on top of that, obviously, but if gambling has to be regulated because adults can't handle it, then damn right mobile games should be regulated just as much.

    Ninja Snarl P on
  • Options
    Commodore75Commodore75 gothenburg.seRegistered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People can't typically host their own servers on consoles in any meaningful way for the type of content GTAV has.

    If we're talking consoles,
    I thought the point of us paying money to play online was to pay for the infrastructure to run the games we are playing.

  • Options
    Death of RatsDeath of Rats Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People can't typically host their own servers on consoles in any meaningful way for the type of content GTAV has.

    If we're talking consoles,
    I thought the point of us paying money to play online was to pay for the infrastructure to run the games we are playing.

    Gta online and Destiny aren't typical online multiplayer games. They're doing things that are closer to a mmo than their contemporaries.

    Death of Rats on
    No I don't.
  • Options
    dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    Buttcleft wrote: »
    Because your $60 is not enough to keep servers going years after the fact? That would be my guess

    Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost.

    also your specific 60 dollars might not, but combine that with 5 million other peoples 60 dollars and it is.

    No, it's not.

    Or at least, it's not for the lifespan of the online play.

    Maybe for a year, but what about the second year?

    How about 5 years from now. Is that $300,000,000 - (development costs + marketing + production costs) going to cut it in 5 years?

    "Then let people host their own servers, Then you absolve yourself of all the admin and headache and cost."

    But this is about protecting these developers' God given right to maximize profit, so that isn't really an option.

    People can't typically host their own servers on consoles in any meaningful way for the type of content GTAV has.

    If we're talking consoles,
    I thought the point of us paying money to play online was to pay for the infrastructure to run the games we are playing.

    MS handles connectivity, abuse, and a whole load of stuff ancillary to the actual game server itself, which usually definitely costs money. (I assume Sony does similar.) At this point, MS also has said "hey free servers! Come use Azure for dedicated backend!" but you can't make a developer or publisher use the free thing.

    Regardless, even if the backend infrastructure itself is free, the stuff to run on it and the people to run it don't come from the same place rainbow soft serve does. That's all up to the publisher/dev to fund somehow.


    15 years ago, sure, I buy a game at the used bookstore or wherever, it's mine, it'll just go, no nickel and dime access passes and such, but I also got nothing other than that box. No support (well, maybe a 900 number), no patches to speak of, no servers, nothing. Today, there's a lot of things we take for granted that cost money, and the money's got to come from somewhere. Purchase price, add-ons, sub fees, somewhere. Add in there's still a used game market, so X% of your players may be a drain on your infrastructure and not a revenue source, and it gets a bit worse.

    Note: Obviously, if you sell the game, you're probably not playing it still. But did you have an account? Cloud save? Profile, stats, progress, unlocks? I mean they can't just delete it on you. Storage costs money. But we just expect games to remember us, because obviously it's better that way.

  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    The problems with DLC/microtransactions are largely a combination of publishers stripping players of traditional conveniences that kept games alive for years (namely, how rare it is to have a game now where players can run the servers), the huge upswing in publisher greed that labels anything short of a massive success as a massive failure, and publishers desperately trying to monetize anything and everything they can get away with. These days, it's uncommon to be able to get all the actual gameplay content of a game at release, because nearly everything paywalls something. And shitpiles like EA deliberately keep older, better versions of their franchises from being kept alive via player servers by simply denying that feature to players in the name of "convenience" for things like matchmaking (which is obviously bullshit).

    But I think the result is that PC gaming is gaining momentum again, and people are figuring out that the PC game market isn't nearly so restricted as the console side. I'm hoping simple consumer momentum in that direction will push back enough to get some equilibrium back, instead of the current situation where chunks of games are deliberately withheld to squeeze players. As the tendency to wait for game sales to pick up the game plus the DLC becomes more common, publishers will either go out of business for inability to adjust or finally relax and let all the game content stay with the game.

    Also, mobile games are basically Skinner Boxes, often targeted at kids, and absolutely should be regulated. They're even worse than gambling, because at least there's a chance in gambling that you can win money. Somebody mentioned Turtles in Time earlier in the thread and you know what? I can still play that game and enjoy it, because it's a fun game, not something designed entirely to wring money out of parents through their kids. Except for very old arcade games, which were limited by tech more than by greed, most arcade games were definitely beatable.

    But these "games" that never really end and encourage kids to get Sprinkle Diamond Crates with their parent's money? Unethical as hell. Parents should be on top of that, obviously, but if gambling has to be regulated because adults can't handle it, then damn right mobile games should be regulated just as much.

    No one was beating Turtles in Time or The Simpsons or X-Men on their first time playing it, certainly not if they were going it alone.

    A big LOL to you if you think those games were not designed to wrest quarters from the player's pocket. It's why the home versions of so many of them fall flat - when you can just hit select a few times and give yourself credits, you see how shallow the game really is and it loses its appeal quickly. The thrill comes from the idea of being able to get a little bit farther on just one quarter, even though you likely won't

    And sure, there are some players out there who can run through a game on one quarter - just like there are people that can beat any level on Candy Crush Saga without funneling any money into it. Just like with those old games, all it takes is the right skill set, and the developers are counting on you not having those skills.

    Also I'm sure you'd love to just run back to the "but my games were fun!" but that's just you leaning on subjectivity at that point - regardless of what you feel, plenty of people find mobile games to be fun

    EDIT: Unintentional but I just noticed the three games I listed are all Konami games. Seems like they really haven't changed that much at all!

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    Commodore75Commodore75 gothenburg.seRegistered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    Note: Obviously, if you sell the game, you're probably not playing it still. But did you have an account? Cloud save? Profile, stats, progress, unlocks? I mean they can't just delete it on you. Storage costs money. But we just expect games to remember us, because obviously it's better that way.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have cloud saves, aren't you paying for that service?
    Or are we talking about when the devs design an online solution that's to expensive for them to maintain for more than the absolute minimum amount of time?

  • Options
    dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    The problems with DLC/microtransactions are largely a combination of publishers stripping players of traditional conveniences that kept games alive for years (namely, how rare it is to have a game now where players can run the servers), the huge upswing in publisher greed that labels anything short of a massive success as a massive failure, and publishers desperately trying to monetize anything and everything they can get away with. These days, it's uncommon to be able to get all the actual gameplay content of a game at release, because nearly everything paywalls something. And shitpiles like EA deliberately keep older, better versions of their franchises from being kept alive via player servers by simply denying that feature to players in the name of "convenience" for things like matchmaking (which is obviously bullshit).

    But I think the result is that PC gaming is gaining momentum again, and people are figuring out that the PC game market isn't nearly so restricted as the console side. I'm hoping simple consumer momentum in that direction will push back enough to get some equilibrium back, instead of the current situation where chunks of games are deliberately withheld to squeeze players. As the tendency to wait for game sales to pick up the game plus the DLC becomes more common, publishers will either go out of business for inability to adjust or finally relax and let all the game content stay with the game.

    Also, mobile games are basically Skinner Boxes, often targeted at kids, and absolutely should be regulated. They're even worse than gambling, because at least there's a chance in gambling that you can win money. Somebody mentioned Turtles in Time earlier in the thread and you know what? I can still play that game and enjoy it, because it's a fun game, not something designed entirely to wring money out of parents through their kids. Except for very old arcade games, which were limited by tech more than by greed, most arcade games were definitely beatable.

    But these "games" that never really end and encourage kids to get Sprinkle Diamond Crates with their parent's money? Unethical as hell. Parents should be on top of that, obviously, but if gambling has to be regulated because adults can't handle it, then damn right mobile games should be regulated just as much.

    No one was beating Turtles in Time or The Simpsons or X-Men on their first time playing it, certainly not if they were going it alone.

    A big LOL to you if you think those games were not designed to wrest quarters from the player's pocket. It's why the home versions of so many of them fall flat - when you can just hit select a few times and give yourself credits, you see how shallow the game really is and it loses its appeal quickly. The thrill comes from the idea of being able to get a little bit farther on just one quarter, even though you likely won't

    And sure, there are some players out there who can run through a game on one quarter - just like there are people that can beat any level on Candy Crush Saga without funneling any money into it. Just like with those old games, all it takes is the right skill set, and the developers are counting on you not having those skills.

    Also I'm sure you'd love to just run back to the "but my games were fun!" but that's just you leaning on subjectivity at that point - regardless of what you feel, plenty of people find mobile games to be fun

    Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.

    Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.

  • Options
    dporowskidporowski Registered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    Note: Obviously, if you sell the game, you're probably not playing it still. But did you have an account? Cloud save? Profile, stats, progress, unlocks? I mean they can't just delete it on you. Storage costs money. But we just expect games to remember us, because obviously it's better that way.

    Maybe I'm missing something, but if you have cloud saves, aren't you paying for that service?
    Or are we talking about when the devs design an online solution that's to expensive for them to maintain for more than the absolute minimum amount of time?

    I'm thinking of any game where they maintain my progress on their end. Destiny, for instance, or the Halo profiles. WoW, any MMO, that kind of thing; my progress isn't stored 100% locally. It's not an unreasonable expectation to have, and that feature is a good one; we should have it, and they should implement it. But it does cost a non-zero sum to do per-player to maintain account state indefinitely.

    We don't like it when service is terminated/shut down, and nobody should expect us to. But it's also not realistic to expect a service to run indefinitely at no cost, so it's just that that cost has to be made up somewhere. For a time, the purchase price of the game can cover things, naturally, but not forever.

  • Options
    DhalphirDhalphir don't you open that trapdoor you're a fool if you dareRegistered User regular
    The real difficulty in deciding how to feel about micro transactions and DLC is deciding how much of this DLC we would have got for free "in the old days" and how much of it only exists at all because they can charge for it.

    I don't have that answer, but it's something to keep in mind. I think both apply.

  • Options
    Mr_GrinchMr_Grinch Registered User regular
    I've never really even got on board with DLC. By and large the base game is enough for me, after that I'm ready to move on. The only DLC I've bought is:

    Warhawk expansions
    The last of us

    I'll probably pick up the Dying Light DLC too as it pretty much looks like a new game.

    Never been tempted by in game purchases but I'm certainly not against them. I just ignore them.

    Steam: Sir_Grinch
    PSN: SirGrinchX
    Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
  • Options
    Skull2185Skull2185 Registered User regular
    More rumored Destiny microtransactions

    That's great news if true. A fledgling company like Activision needs to squeeze as much money as they can out of a niche game like Destiny.

    Everyone has a price. Throw enough gold around and someone will risk disintegration.
  • Options
    Magic PinkMagic Pink Tur-Boner-Fed Registered User regular
    For me, it really depends on the game. The Witcher 3, Dragon Age, games like that that release DLC every two months or so... that's fine.

    Games like Dynasty Warriors and the Disgaea/Atelier/Insert Random NIS Game Here that have literally HUNDREDS of dollars of DLC right at launch? No, fuck that shit. Include it in the game.

  • Options
    darleysamdarleysam On my way to UKRegistered User regular
    edited October 2015
    Skull2185 wrote: »
    More rumored Destiny microtransactions

    That's great news if true. A fledgling company like Activision needs to squeeze as much money as they can out of a niche game like Destiny.

    Bungie have straight-up said that's not happening. Like, clearly and in no uncertain terms.

    edit:

    darleysam on
    forumsig.png
  • Options
    jclastjclast Registered User regular
    It's curious that they're in the database. Maybe they are purchasable but not with silver.

    camo_sig2.png
  • Options
    Grunt's GhostsGrunt's Ghosts Registered User regular
    dporowski wrote: »
    Arcade games were absolutely, unquestionably, 100% designed to squeeze quarters out of first adults, then eventually teenagers, then eventually children, to the point that many had a thing inside you could twiddle to make them harder/give fewer lives per credit/etc. Pinball was the same, and just enough a "game of skill" that it didn't get hit by gambling laws.

    Odds were, though, players didn't have the skills, like you say.

    Funny that you say that because pinball machines were banned in New York (and other major cities in the US) from the early 1940s until 1976 when Roger Sharpe testified in April of that year that pinball machines were games of skill. He played two machines, one that he was familiar with and had brought to a Manhattan committee, and another that one of the committee member brought as he claimed Sharpe's original machine was modified to give Sharpe an advantage. While beating the hell out of the second machine, the committee member still claimed it was gambling and not skill so Sharpe called his next shot, did the shot, and turned over the law that banned Pinball Machines. So next time you go to an arcade or play any video games, thank Roger Sharpe for being the Pinball Wizard.

Sign In or Register to comment.