EA to include microtransactions in ALL future games.

ZombieFan said:
So we can agree that microtransactions are okay if they get the balancing correct? I.e. TF2? ;)
Click to expand...

Yea, Valve are, like, for the PC gamer and stuff. You know, like hats and guns and whole bloody episodes of HL2. They are kings of DLC and have half of the basement community waiting for it!
 
ChrisJSY said:
The problem is people will pay for it showing devs/pubs they can go further and further with payment systems until we're both 40-50 years old(or lets say, 20 years later I don't know how old you are not that it matters) and all the people our age now will be like "yeah so what, you've always had to pay for this/that/other"
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head there. People will pay for it. And you know what? People pay for it because they want it. You can't blame a dev for producing a product which people want.

It's the way the market has always worked. What about three gamers who want to buy their way through a game? Why prevent them from doing that of they want to?

All the way through the history of having there have been ideas which people have reacted to, declaring that it will kill the industry or things will never be the same again, and guess what? The unpopular ideas lose and the popular ideas win. And in the end the gaming market just keeps on going. I feel that you are getting annoyed because this latest idea clashes with your idealistic view of the video game market.

I repeat. The consumer controls this market. Developers produce what the consumer will buy.
 
Dlc I don't mind like extra map packs etc but in games where you can just buy an advantage that you can use over other people online I don't like.

Not ea but I can only visualize what they will do to coh 2 after they had coho... being able to buy better units and perks just isn't on for online ranked gaming.
 
Im actually glad i lost a lot of interest in gaming over the last few years with the way things are and seems to be going, i just can't understand how so many put up with so much when it comes to questionable business practices, like somehow it's ok to be greedy or do pathetic things for the sake of profit. :rolleyes:
 
ZombieFan said:
You've hit the nail on the head there. People will pay for it. And you know what? People pay for it because they want it. You can't blame a dev for producing a product which people want.

It's the way the market has always worked. What about three gamers who want to buy their way through a game? Why prevent them from doing that of they want to?

All the way through the history of having there have been ideas which people have reacted to, declaring that it will kill the industry or things will never be the same again, and guess what? The unpopular ideas lose and the popular ideas win. And in the end the gaming market just keeps on going. I feel that you are getting annoyed because this latest idea clashes with your idealistic view of the video game market.

I repeat. The consumer controls this market. Developers produce what the consumer will buy.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying, but in addition to that is that when you cater to the masses it's usually a bad thing for those of us looking for quality products.

While this isn't the case for all games, it shows in many.
I'm glad to see most people in the thread also aren't really for this.

You say the consumer controls the market, the consumer is ruining it.
I'll say it outright, I dislike that people are so frivilous with purchases in games, it's disgusting how en masse it happens. Silly hats, pets, mounts, clothes, glasses, weapons, skins etc.

Publishers KNOW people are this consumerist, brand clothing, gadgets, people in modern society buy a lot of over priced crap and they know this, to think it's the consumer alone is ignorant. They're playing at the flaw of many of us.

You say people have reacted to a lot of ideas in history of gaming, but I can't think of any of real substance. The source of "popular ideas win and unpopular ideas lose" is awful. Niche markets still exist, indie devs are sprouting up all over, many still give you well made, singular priced games with no extra fluff. Fluff they could easily add to increase income, but do not.

Popular, does not always mean good; you could take that in many aspects of life. Greed is also a big part of this.
Only time will prove either of us wrong but there are all too many gamers I see bitter how things have turned already let alone how far it'll go. I never once said it would kill the industry, but I do imply it'll ruin it in some areas for many older gamers.
 
Last edited:
Radiation said:
Im actually glad i lost a lot of interest in gaming over the last few years with the way things are and seems to be going, i just can't understand how so many put up with so much when it comes to questionable business practices, like somehow it's ok to be greedy or do pathetic things for the sake of profit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

They would argue that a price of a game has barely changed in the last 20 years, yet inflation and production prices have soared massively. That was ok while more and more gamers started buying games, but that has reached saturation point, where the growth in people buying games is unsustainable. Therefore developers and publishers are look for ways to diversify and obtain revenue other ways.
 
Just realised this is really going to suck for BF4.

Being able to pay for all unlocks from day 1..i know this was available in BF3 but i dont think it was that visible when it came to market. I also wouldnt class the expansions as 'Micro' transactions. Intresting to see what will be announced at E3 :D
 
arknor said:
microtransactions are fine if the game is free.

paying for a game and then being expected to compete with micro transaction users is a joke
Click to expand...

Well the guy you quoted said "So we can agree that microtransactions are okay if they get the balancing correct?"

If MT users have a genuine advantage in a competetive format then that's not balancing it right.

Single player:
If the game is free or normal price (£30-40), then microtransactions are IMO fine PROVIDED THE GAME IS COMPLETABLE WITHOUT THEM. (i.e. no bloody "pay £10 for the rest of the story" removed-content-that-you-pay-to-restore ********). Cosmetic changes? Fine by me. Convenience improvements (bigger inventory/stash; temporary XP booster etc)? fine by me, as long as it's increased convenience, not removing deliberately inconvenient bits added to the main game. In-game adverts for microtransactions? Depends a LOT on how they are presented - Dragon Age's 'bloke in your camp' ****ed me off no end. ME3 having prompts on the login screen was fine (though the nature of some of the DLC annoyed me).

If the game is premium priced (£50-60) then frankly I expect the full game including all the gear, extra levels, full stash tabs, 'optional characters' etc etc. At this price point I feel that cosmetic options are the only acceptable microtransactions.

Multiplayer:
As above, but with the enormous proviso:
If the purchase of any microtransaction gives a real and otherwise-unattainable advantage in multiplayer, then it's not on. End-of. Early unlocks are (IMO) fine, assuming we're not talking about something absurd that would otherwise require 100+ hours in mutliplayer to unlock and makes a BIG difference to player power. (e.g. I don't mind people who paid for MT's having access to a better assault rifle in a shooter if I can get it by playing for a few evenings and spending my 'player points' earned from games; but if I'm limited to pistols only for the first ~40 hours and they buy a rocket launcher day 1 I think that's clearly a different matter)

As much as I dislike them, I think multiplayer map packs released well after launch fall into the 'acceptable' bracket. The complexity of levels in modern games means that adding (and distributing) these additional levels is not comparably costed compared to the older generation of games where extra levels were considered an expected freebie over time. I didn't buy any of the COD map packs that were charged for because I thought they were too expensive, but that's a pricing decision not a fairness one.

This is (I think) the crux of the matter - if it's an optional extra then charging for it is fine, the consumer can decide if it's worth it. If it's a core gameplay element or required for multiplayer to be fair, then charging for it just makes the purchase price a lie, and should be a reason for annoyance.

The only kinds of DLC/MT I find encroach on 'unethical' territory are those that blur the line between those two points. When is it a bonus level that's optional to buy, and when is it main-game content that's been cut to make an extra buck by adding it back in?
 
Its greed, pure and simple, DEV`s have seen the i s h ite market apps and how people are willing to pay £3 for a 100 extra coins in coindozzzzer for example and transfer this to every game under the sun.

The consumer doest not drive the market. Hell if there was a click this pay 5$ and you will be ill for a week it would still sell. The consumer drives choice which are totally different things.

As for microtransactions why on earth would you want to spend XXX of money on a virtual item, that due to the licencing agreement you will never own but rented. You would be better of buying dolls house and selling it on ebay.

I bought one DLC pack for a COD game years ago, never again. One thing is for sure GOTY additions and piracy will be on the rise, here is hoping.
 
They've obviously just seen how well Simpsons tapped out has done, $25m in Q4 2012.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom