Print

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

[itisnotlogical]

Why even buy the game if you're going to cheat by any other name? I could see buying DLC's that actually add new content, but this just gives you items early. It all goes back to Lucas in The Wizard- he paid the extra money for the Power Glove because he didn't care about the games, he cared about winning. You could save yourself $60 by watching the inevitable let's-plays or longplays.

[alexandertnt]

EA games - DLCs Everything.

The game itself isn't actually bad. It relies too much on jump scares but it's still not bad. Anyway, I have been watching Extra Credits for a while and this caught my attention. It's an open letter to EA Marketing. Since I'm not living in America (or just any country where EA advertises), I never knew EA employed THAT kind of sick marketing techniques. I mean, you don't market Dead Space to teenagers by getting their moms to watch the game. The fake protesters are something else. I have idea what they were thinking. It's much worse after listening to their "we are the good guys" speech.

If you feel like hating EA some more, watch it.

EA's marketing has been terrable. People are trying to push gaming out of the equivelant of the Animation Age Ghetto, and even major companies (including EA) will claim that gaming is a mature platform. But them "YOUR MOM WOULD HATE THIS" and much head to desk contact ensured.

[fqllve]

And is the game still reasonably completable without purchasing microtransactions? If so would they just not make the game easier? If not, paying AAA price for a game that basically requires microtransactions seems ridiculous. (Im assuming/hoping they are going for the former).

Seems like they're all just there to make the game easier or change aesthetics. Which on some level I take objection to, after all the barrier of video games is that they require tactile skill, rather than just interpretive, to enjoy, and this only increases that barrier, now with a toll gate. On the other hand, if someone wants to waste five dollars it doesn't bother me any.

Sure it's crass, EA is basically saying "We're in it only for the money," but I find it hard to get outraged about. It might be because I never intended to play the Dead Space games, but I'm not sure I'd even have a problem if it were a game I'd enjoy. Certainly it commercializes it, but I don't think EA has ever been in danger of releasing a game that wasn't commercialized to some degree.

Why even buy the game if you're going to cheat by any other name? I could see buying DLC's that actually add new content, but this just gives you items early. It all goes back to Lucas in The Wizard- he paid the extra money for the Power Glove because he didn't care about the games, he cared about winning. You could save yourself $60 by watching the inevitable let's-plays or longplays.

So it's not possible to have fun with a game while cheating...?

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a stupid waste of money, but it's not like someone can't enjoy the game if they bought the DLC. Challenge is the big reason why I play games, since they don't really make much of their user input just yet, although that potential is another reason, but to some people they're just toys and I don't see anything wrong with that.

[alexandertnt]

And is the game still reasonably completable without purchasing microtransactions? If so would they just not make the game easier? If not, paying AAA price for a game that basically requires microtransactions seems ridiculous. (Im assuming/hoping they are going for the former).

Seems like they're all just there to make the game easier or change aesthetics. Which on some level I take objection to, after all the barrier of video games is that they require tactile skill, rather than just interpretive, to enjoy, and this only increases that barrier, now with a toll gate. On the other hand, if someone wants to waste five dollars it doesn't bother me any.

Sure it's crass, EA is basically saying "We're in it only for the money," but I find it hard to get outraged about. It might be because I never intended to play the Dead Space games, but I'm not sure I'd even have a problem if it were a game I'd enjoy. Certainly it commercializes it, but I don't think EA has ever been in danger of releasing a game that wasn't commercialized to some degree.

I have nothing against microtransaction/DLC per se, my issue would be with making microtransactions effectively required through difficulty (like free mobile games). It seems that adding microtransactions to make a game easier generally result in the base game itself becomming harder in order to "encourage" people to purchase the microtransactions. The game would be less fun if the difficulty became unfairly hard for this purpose. I expect to be able to reasonably play through the game if I purchase it. (F2P I am a bit more flexable with in this regards though).

I am probably not going to play the game either, I just dont want modern AAA games to slowly turn into mobile games (requiring microtransactions to make the game reasonably completable) except with $80 pricetags.

Aethetics I have no issue with whatsoever though. Go nuts with aethetics-based DLC/microtransactions.

[Levi]

https://www.pathofexile.com/shop

THIS is how you should do F2P games.  Not a single gameplay affecting item here.  All cosmetics or account features.

If this was the norm, I wouldn't hate on F2P games all the time like I do now. 

[freeformschooler]

"Bot Capacity Upgrade - $4.99" Really? I can sort of understand DLC that require actual work to be put into them, but all this is is an increase to an integer/float somewhere. If the game had any form of modding (or even just diddn't go out of the way to stop you) I would just do it myself.

Your paying $5 for zero actual product. Its lazy.

That's something I've wondered about. If you have a game that both:

1) Doesn't require an always-on connection
2) Had DLC that gave you "more gold" or something

Couldn't you just do the same thing by booting up the game, whipping out Cheat Engine (who needs modding?) and giving yourself the keys to the kingdom?

[alway]

So here's a question: Are such things worse than say...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I mean, it's a game which is clearly P2W, has vastly higher prices than you would ever see from P2W microtransactions, inflated further by artificial supply restriction, and yet I've not heard nearly the complaints about this sort of thing as I have F2P games. Does the fact that it is printed on cardboard somehow make it more valuable to you? What if microtransactions came with some little physical trinket; like a keychain or similar?

[SalmonGod]

Really?... I've heard tons of people complain about M:tG's extortionism.  I got into it for a while, but quit because I didn't care to keep up with the endless cycle of cards being released and obsoleted.

[alexandertnt]

I mean, it's a game which is clearly P2W, has vastly higher prices than you would ever see from P2W microtransactions, inflated further by artificial supply restriction, and yet I've not heard nearly the complaints about this sort of thing as I have F2P games. Does the fact that it is printed on cardboard somehow make it more valuable to you? What if microtransactions came with some little physical trinket; like a keychain or similar?

The thread is about video games - that is not a video game. I could point out far far worse things that are not on topic but that does not invalidate nor reduce the significance any discussion on this topic. (It is also one of the reasons I ultimately can't call game companies evil - it trivializes things which are much closer to actual evil).

Plus I do not like trading card games for that very reason anyway (and know of many other people who feel the same way). Spending any measurable ammount of money on printed cardboard confuses me.

That's something I've wondered about. If you have a game that both:

1) Doesn't require an always-on connection
2) Had DLC that gave you "more gold" or something

Couldn't you just do the same thing by booting up the game, whipping out Cheat Engine (who needs modding?) and giving yourself the keys to the kingdom?

You can do it with Android games on rooted phones...

But yeah. It is annoying that they are selling stuff that requires basically zero effort to produce for so much money (Its not a product or a service, it is nothing). I can somewhat understand it for a free game (since the income is used to fund the development of the game itself), but for an $80 (Aus) AAA game it seems like a scam (unless there was a significant increase in the quality/quantity of the base game that is being funded by this with prices remaining the same, but that does not look to be the case at all).

[fqllve]

The thread is about video games - that is not a video game.

It is a game though, and it is an enlightening comparison.

While I see what you're trying to do alway, I think the problem is that little pieces of cardboard are more inherently valuable than digital items because those cards suffer from real scarcity and are resaleable. Even if digital items came with a trinket it still wouldn't be the same because that trinket is not the item of value, so it would never have value equal to or more than what you paid for it.

That all said, I don't really have a problem with "P2W" games. Mostly because no one is forcing me to play them, so I don't. I also find it really surprising when online games are free at all, as there are much higher distribution and maintenance costs than a singleplayer game that you can just distribute through torrents using almost none of your bandwidth. They've got to make money somehow and I don't particularly see the problem with them doing it that way, at least so long as the items also have reasonable methods of acquisition in game.

[SalmonGod]

My main problem with P2W games is they usually feature incredibly unreasonable pricing.  Planetside 2, for example, charges $7 for access to a single weapon on a single character.  I rarely pay more than $10 these days for an entire game on PC, even AAA titles.  How am I supposed to justify that?  Combine that with significant advantages to anyone who does shell out that money, and in-game  methods of acquirement involving dozens to hundreds of hours of trying to compete with those people.  It turns into a rather bittering experience, and fosters an unpleasant game community.  I can understand why people are so negative towards it. 

In the end, the effect is the same as a normal commercial game, because you're not going to want to play without paying.  Except you end up paying much more than you would have if it were a standard commercial title.

[Neonivek]

I forget... are we going with Pay To Win where people who pay money are supperior to those who don't, or at least supperior to everyone who doesn't spend obsessive amounts of time playing?

Or are we going with Pay to Win where people who pay money have any advantage whatsoever such as faster exp or unlocking things earlier?

Because the second I have little issue with... The first I despise.

[alexandertnt]

The thread is about video games - that is not a video game.

It is a game though, and it is an enlightening comparison.

I interperated alway post as a "but but but, this!" post, but now I see that he was only raising a point of discussion, my bad.

at least so long as the items also have reasonable methods of acquisition in game.

When a game does "also have reasonable methods of acquisition in game" then it is generally not considered a P2W game, or at least I would be fine with it. As long as there were also some reasonable restrictions on purchasing powerful stuff so one cannot insert $100 for instant win, for example, although I am reasonably flexable with that (purchase stuff to make you stronger is OK, as long as it does not ruin fun for people who may only have put a smaller ammount of money in the game).

I forget... are we going with Pay To Win where people who pay money are supperior to those who don't, or at least supperior to everyone who doesn't spend obsessive amounts of time playing?

Or are we going with Pay to Win where people who pay money have any advantage whatsoever such as faster exp or unlocking things earlier?

I would be OK with the second, but the first is just not fun.

My main problem with P2W games is they usually feature incredibly unreasonable pricing.  Planetside 2, for example, charges $7 for access to a single weapon on a single character.  I rarely pay more than $10 these days for an entire game on PC, even AAA titles.

It is a similar issue with many free mobile games. You will end up having to spend much more on the game than you would have if it were available in the standard pay-up-front model. This might just be the way "the cookie crumbles" though, since most users do not buy anything and you have to sort of "subsidise" them (these totally-free users cost maintenance).

Games that are only available free are also rather annoying (particularly single player games). Often they are too hard (to force you into the item shop) but how much stuff do you purchase before it becomes too easy? It would be nice if there was a proper version that had balanced items that resulted in a balanced game (paid of course, developers do need to eat).

[fqllve]

Planetside 2, for example, charges $7 for access to a single weapon on a single character.

As far as infantry goes, you're pretty well off with most classes default weapons. Better guns can be nice, but they aren't typically a deciding factor in a firefight. The only place where weapons really come into play is in vehicles and then, in most cases, you can just gun in someone else's vehicle. The game is quite fun, even without spending a dime on it.

When a game does "also have reasonable methods of acquisition in game" then it is generally not considered a P2W game, or at least I would be fine with it. As long as there were also some reasonable restrictions on purchasing powerful stuff so one cannot insert $100 for instant win, for example, although I am reasonably flexable with that (purchase stuff to make you stronger is OK, as long as it does not ruin fun for people who may only have put a smaller ammount of money in the game).

I mean yeah, those games suck. I think most people agree that those games suck and I don't really see them becoming an issue.

[SalmonGod]

Planetside 2, for example, charges $7 for access to a single weapon on a single character.

As far as infantry goes, you're pretty well off with most classes default weapons. Better guns can be nice, but they aren't typically a deciding factor in a firefight. The only place where weapons really come into play is in vehicles and then, in most cases, you can just gun in someone else's vehicle. The game is quite fun, even without spending a dime on it.

Not really wanting to get into a debate about balance issues in that specific game.  It was just the most recent and popular example I could think of where stuff is ridiculously overpriced according to that business model.

It is a similar issue with many free mobile games. You will end up having to spend much more on the game than you would have if it were available in the standard pay-up-front model. This might just be the way "the cookie crumbles" though, since most users do not buy anything and you have to sort of "subsidise" them (these totally-free users cost maintenance).

And I think this is probably their reasoning, but I also think it's completely backwards.  That weapon is worth 50 cents to me, at most.  Their pricing means they're getting nothing from me.  If they brought stuff down to impulse buy levels, they would be getting something from me.  Over the course of a couple years, I could easily see myself spending $15 on a 50 cent item here and there or maybe even some cosmetic stuff, and that is basically the price of a quality game.  If stuff was cheaper, there would be no need for subsidizing.  They could be getting money from the majority of their player base.  Instead, their pricing means that only people who take the game seriously pay for anything, and I mean seriously enough that they will purchase a single item for this game for the same price as an entire AAA title.

I forget... are we going with Pay To Win where people who pay money are supperior to those who don't, or at least supperior to everyone who doesn't spend obsessive amounts of time playing?

Or are we going with Pay to Win where people who pay money have any advantage whatsoever such as faster exp or unlocking things earlier?

Because the second I have little issue with... The first I despise.

Depends on the type and age of the game, I think.  In a new release, that second option is absolutely pay to win.  Also depends on what the faster progression gets you, and the competitive structure of the game.