Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Man of Paper]

...any company that makes a game that needs a paywall can go fuck themselves.

I am curious. Why?

Because paying for it is expensive, so hopefully cutting costs in their personal lives will lead to less monetary demands from the consumer.

[hemmingjay]

So would it be acceptable if on the box it said Multiplayer available for a fee? I am trying to understand where the line is drawn. If a game is primarily single player, but has multiplayer available for an extra fee, how is it different than DLC? They both cost additional money to develop and if you made games I am sure you would want to be compensated for the cost of all value added features above the primary product.
I am not arguing against your idea, merely trying to understand it and maybe learn from your perspective.

[hemmingjay]

...any company that makes a game that needs a paywall can go fuck themselves.

I am curious. Why?

Because paying for it is expensive, so hopefully cutting costs in their personal lives will lead to less monetary demands from the consumer.

Cost cutting is an issue every company(successful) takes into consideration. However, as games become more complex and additional features and quality(audio, video, writing, programming) are demanded by consumers, it inevitably comes down to consumers paying for their demands. It is similar to taxation. Citizens demand services from their government and those services must be paid for with taxes.

[Man of Paper]

So would it be acceptable if on the box it said Multiplayer available for a fee? I am trying to understand where the line is drawn. If a game is primarily single player, but has multiplayer available for an extra fee, how is it different than DLC? They both cost additional money to develop and if you made games I am sure you would want to be compensated for the cost of all value added features above the primary product.
I am not arguing against your idea, merely trying to understand it and maybe learn from your perspective.

The problem with that, however, is that most big games are getting their single-player neglected. Most games, from my experience, that have both facets of games tend to be focused more on the multiplayer aspect. However, it is my belief (though I may be the minority) that games should be made for single player, with the multiplayer a fun little addition. Instead, I end up feeling like most single-player campaigns are tutorials for the multiplayer. The focus feels like it's on the fence, with big companies like EA pushing toward the multiplayer side. In my opinion, this is ridiculous. But then again I do not have internet access at my own home, and therefore my opinion is based somewhat in spite.

[Criptfeind]

Oh no. People don't mindlessly agree with me! They must be missing the critical thinking parts of their brains! Run away from the intellectual zombies!

[Jopax]

It's also a very sneaky way of marking up the price of a full game while escaping most criticism with "if you don't want to you don't have to" remarks. And really the higher prices are bullshit in most cases, the most obvious one being CoD and it's several almost identical sequels that still charged a full game price where the most you'd be getting could be equated to an x-pack.

[Zangi]

So would it be acceptable if on the box it said Multiplayer available for a fee? I am trying to understand where the line is drawn. If a game is primarily single player, but has multiplayer available for an extra fee, how is it different than DLC? They both cost additional money to develop and if you made games I am sure you would want to be compensated for the cost of all value added features above the primary product.
I am not arguing against your idea, merely trying to understand it and maybe learn from your perspective.

It really depends on how integrated the multiplayer is to the game's experience.

Say for example, Mount and Blade.  I play that exclusively single player without ever wanting/needing it or feeling that I am missing anything by skipping multiplayer.  (Mind you, it does not have a multiplayer paywall and many other players themselves play M&B for the multiplayer.)
The distinction here is that the single player can stand on its own merit.

On the other end of the spectrum, Left 4 Dead. I'd say that it would not be able to stand on its own merits in single player, due to the poor bot AI.  1 or 2 bots are ok, but having all 3 bots really suck.
So yea, the idea is, devs integrate tons of multiplayer to the game for the full experience.  But, it gets locked out when you don't have access to multiplayer. 
Subpar single player game that isn't worth the 'full price'.... and then they ask for more money to access the integrated multiplayer features for the full experience?

>Ninjas, Man of Paper has the same idea as I'm trying to convey.

EDIT: I suppose this thinking does not apply to MMOs and similar that are marketed as 100% multiplayer only.

[miauw62]

So would it be acceptable if on the box it said Multiplayer available for a fee? I am trying to understand where the line is drawn. If a game is primarily single player, but has multiplayer available for an extra fee, how is it different than DLC? They both cost additional money to develop and if you made games I am sure you would want to be compensated for the cost of all value added features above the primary product.
I am not arguing against your idea, merely trying to understand it and maybe learn from your perspective.

If it adds content that wasn't present in the game in the first place (e.g. dawnguard from skrim), I view it as fine (I'd prefer it for free, though).

However, if they add something expected in most/every game, and you had to pay for it...

It'd be kind of like saying 'pay us so you can have these 'dead pixels' that we programmed into the game removed!'

This. Betheseda has my respect for making all three Skyrim DLCs worthwhile additions that shouldn't have been included in the main game. (Then again, the Dragonborn DLC was released for xbox first and shit, but hey, patience is a virtue.)

[Man of Paper]

So would it be acceptable if on the box it said Multiplayer available for a fee? I am trying to understand where the line is drawn. If a game is primarily single player, but has multiplayer available for an extra fee, how is it different than DLC? They both cost additional money to develop and if you made games I am sure you would want to be compensated for the cost of all value added features above the primary product.
I am not arguing against your idea, merely trying to understand it and maybe learn from your perspective.

If it adds content that wasn't present in the game in the first place (e.g. dawnguard from skrim), I view it as fine (I'd prefer it for free, though).

However, if they add something expected in most/every game, and you had to pay for it...

It'd be kind of like saying 'pay us so you can have these 'dead pixels' that we programmed into the game removed!'

This. Betheseda has my respect for making all three Skyrim DLCs worthwhile additions that shouldn't have been included in the main game. (Then again, the Dragonborn DLC was released for xbox first and shit, but hey, patience is a virtue.)

Oh boy you just stabbed one of my most sensitive nerves. All those angry chemicals are shooting off in all directions right now. How is a company going to have someone release their goods on a console before another when the material is non-exclusive? That's very aggressive business practice, I think. Exclusive games are fine. I'll even accept an exclusive series jumping exclusively to another console (I'm looking at you, Ace Combat 6. Not that I missed much. Actually saved me some money...). But forcing people to wait for something that's coming to everyone anyway really grinds my gears. It's like taking half the Catholic children and forcing them to wait until April for Christmas, presents wrapped under the tree within a barbed wire, electric, mined fence, out of reach. And by the time they get the gift, the others have been playing with their toys for much longer.

[Cthulhu]

I'm going to have to side with the "Just don't buy it" people.  As much as monetization annoys me, it's not going to go away.  This isn't the work of John Riccitiello, it's the work of a corporation, and corporations aren't people.  Corporations don't care how mad something makes you, and they can't hear your rant.  They aren't capable of charity.  If you give them money, you're acquiescing, you're saying "yes, I'm okay with what you're doing."  Piracy is the same way, they can't tell the difference between piracy done in protest and piracy done because you're a wastrel.

Put simply, and as has been said before, don't buy it.  If you do, you have no business complaining.  And if you don't, what's the problem?  There's plenty of games still available that aren't corporate.

[freeformschooler]

I have little to say that hasn't been said (especially by Cthulhu since I tend to agree with him on these matters). However, in the interest of not shitposting, I will demonstrate the reason closing your wallet speaks more than words in the gaming industry:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[jocan2003]

I dont support these big company, i dont buy game but i do play them. Do the math.

[Levi]

I have little to say that hasn't been said (especially by Cthulhu since I tend to agree with him on these matters). However, in the interest of not shitposting, I will demonstrate the reason closing your wallet speaks more than words in the gaming industry:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Or the reason why closing your wallet doesn't really work.  There is always lots of other people who will gobble this stuff up regardless of how they actually feel about it.  Even if you stick to your morals, most other people won't.

Hence I won't open my wallet AND not feel guilty about complaining about the state of the industry. 

[coolio678]

Yup, this seems to have fully devolved into a flame war.

No thanks to you. But that's not the intent of my post here. I wanted to say that on-disc DLC shouldn't be part of the deal. If the devs planned the development time to include a piece of content, it should be accessible through my purchase. I'm paying for the disc, so I should gain access to everything on said disc. You don't buy a toaster and then find out that you need to purchase the second slot for toasting.

edit: some wonky refresh thing happened, but I fixed it all up.

[Leatra]

I dont support these big company, i dont buy game but i do play them. Do the math.

I'm following the same road too. Why would I buy a game that punishes the honest purchasers while people who play it without paying for it are playing it without any restraints? I might as well stop being a honest purchaser.

Yeah, it sounds like a stupid excuse to justify something. But I'm not going to throw money at a company and then complain about them. I'm not a hypocrite.