Perhaps the press sororunding the microtransactions was partly to blame for this fiasco
- JustPlainLucas
- Rank: Castle Crasher
- Member since: Jul 19, 2002
- Last online: 05/25/13 8:47 pm PT
My Achievements:
see more »
My Friends
-
Jerell_rast online
-
Kevin-V online
-
nunchuk28 online
-
m0zart online
-
Hallenbeck77 online
-
funkadelichika online
-
JordanElek online
-
emirblade online
-
Shame-usBlackley online
-
iowastate online
5Feb 13
Ok, so Dead Space 3 is out today and reviews are coming in. So far, it's a pretty solid game currently sitting at an 80 on Metacritic. We all know by now the game features microtransactions. Dead Space 3 features a crafting mechanic that involves the gathering of different resources to use to enhance your current gun, add an attachment or simply make a new gun altogether. The system practically replaces the need for credits. But as we all know, there is no need to purchase microtransactions, so no need to be bothered by it, right? It's optional, right?
True, you do not need to buy a single resource to play the game, however, the game has been impacted by this new mechanic. To be fair, I'm writing this blog only on what I've experienced in the demo, but I won't go out and buy the game and play all the way through it just for a more accurate impression, so please take what I say with a grain of salt.
So, from what I've played of the demo, I instantly got the feeling that the crafting system was created with the sole purpose of making resources available for purchase through microtransactions. Sure enough, I go online shortly afterward and find John Calhoun saying this:
The entire system of adding enhancements to your weapons feels exactly like a mobile phone app. I've played a few rinky dinky free games on my mobile phone, and they're set up so that you buy whatever points, coins, food or gems you want to progress through the level quicker, and that's essentially what's happening here. I, and many others, have restraint, so if I ever decide to play the game, EA won't see an extra dime from me that I did not spend on the initial purchase. Those other gamers sadly don't have the restraint, so they'll be spending extra to make the game easier. They're practically paying for an easy mode. "But that's them. Let them pay if they want! It doesn't affect your game!" Or does it...
I liked the older games' weapon systems better. I liked being able to pick up a health pack here and an ammo clip there. Although they're still plentiful from what I've seen, the game's now cluttered with resource here and resource there. It's messy to me, and it effects the pacing of the game. Survival horror games are meant to be structured in the sense that when you finally find that shotgun, you let out a deep sigh of relief. Then, you have to deal with item management to not only keep enough space for your shotgun, but the ammo that comes with it. Dead Space 3 has effectively thrown out a long-standing staple of the survival horror genre with this crafting system. Now, you can craft your shotgun (only using shotgun as an example) whenever you want, provided you have the resources for it. "Oh damn, I spent all that tungsten on a flamethrower! Now I can't get my shotgun!" Well, if you want it that badly... *devilish grin* buy more tungsten!
The impatient gamers will succumb to this. There's two enabling phrases that I hate when it comes to microtransactions and DLC. They are "it's only" and "it's just". "It's only 99 cents!" "It's just two bucks!" The more enabling gamers out there that think like this, the more those 99 cents and two bucks turn into a thousand here and a thousand there. It sends a wrong message to the developers and publishers. It encourages them to continue to implement questionable microtransaction and DLC business models, and parts of our games have been excluded from us, being held for ransom and gameplay mechanics have been reworked as a result. And when companies nickle and dime us in this fashion, do they even bother to make the game more affordable to us? No.
Now, normally I wouldn't make a big deal out of this (if you call writing a blog a big deal, then I hate to think what you would call Youtubers screaming and swearing over this), as I try to advocate the ideal of "If you don't like it, don't buy/play it." You might remember my blog when I tried to defend SquareEnix's inclusion of multiplayer in Tomb Raider, but that's a different case. The MP has no bearing on the SP at all (please reread my blog on that subject if you disagree). The microtransactions in Dead Space 3, unfortunately do affect the single player, even you never spend a single cent on them. Do you dislike the fact that the battle field is scattered with resources? Don't like having to spend extra time understanding a crafting system when you much prefered the older games' straightforward method of using nodes? Hate the fact that there's less emphasis on item management as every weapon now uses the same ammo? You can thank mobile gamers for that, and EA's need to cash in on them.
I know I'm being hard on Dead Space 3. I'm sure the crafting system is just fine when you get the hang of it, but I don't want to see any more resource-driven mechanics where the materials can be obtained through microtransactions. I honestly don't want gamers to spend money on "instant gratification", as John Calhoun would say. The whole point of playing a game is to experience it, and you deprive yourself of it once you spend money to make it easier. Yeah, I can vote with my wallet and not support the game, but will that vote matter? EA won't know why I didn't bother to buy their game. All they're looking for right now is to see how many people are buying tungsten. I really hope that number is low enough for EA to stop taking perfectly good gameplay mechanics and break them down to resources in order to capitalize.
128 comments
I wonder if they make more money back on micro-transactions than they spent putting them into the game. Probably now I think of it. Programming is the cheapest thing about games, it's all the art design that gobbles up the money. *sigh*. Nice article though.
I played and beat the game. I didn't see ONE thing that would incite to buy stuff with microtransactions. You have to look for them in the browsing menus. You don't have to buy one thing, this game isn't even designed around it. Sure, you could add some voices to your scavenger bot or reduce the scavenging time, but these are cheat codes. Who likes to butcher their experiences that way? Anyways, it's not like it's IN YOUR FACE. Because it's not. Come to think of it, I completely forgot there were microtransactions in this game.
It's fine to criticize the microtransactions and all, but at least it's really NOT in your face. You won't even see it if you don't look for it. Not once did the game hinted it.
There's already a pretty honorable amount of things obtainable only by traditional unlocks. Hell, Dead Space 3 has more unlockable stuff through its difficulties than most games I've played in recent memories.
Im on my first playthrough,having a rough time on Impossible,but NOWHERE in my mind Ill ever have a thought of paying for tungstens or a stupid voice to my Scavenger bot. The game is awesome the way it is. I like to take my time,I sometimes get stuck at some fights where I have to backtrack a bit to a bench or to collect a few ammos/ressources,but aint that what makes a game longevity and fun/realistic?? I simply LOVE the game and I know ILl have more than for my money from it. Im maybe 15hrs into the game and Im just out of the Tera nova, I have to go through 13 other chapters,then try the game as Carver in co-op. Theres no reason to invest a single penny in DLC stuff like weapons/ressources FFS just play the game. Also this is not a competitive Pay2Win crap,why the fuck would ppl invest money for a single player experience??? The only reason I see to pay more is if they add more story-related content or a expansion to the game.
Microtransactions makes some sense in mobile games, after all, that's how the developers of it gets money... but not in a video games that's already costing me $60 just to get a hold of.
In most cases I'm not concerned about micro transactions, but including them in a game that you pay full retail price for is a bit of a kick in the teeth. My biggest concern is that games will get to a stage where you can't progress unless you grind away for days on end to unlock stuff. There are loads of free to play mobile games where you can unlock everything by playing but you have to play for ludicrous amounts of time to collect the resources/coins/gems etc etc to unlock the next level/weapon/item and end up just paying for it.
The gaming industry will change. It's all about greed. Subscriptions, micro transactions, disc based dlc, banning used game sales, with exclusive titles shrinking into the past. It's all headed toward a place I don't wanna game. Eventually in the future I'll stop buying the "next gen" and stick with the oldies.
@nonfanboygamer1 I've already abandoned hope for the next generation. I just pulled out my old PS2, and I'm probably gonna stick with those games for a while. I recently got some PS2 games that I've been missing out on, too, so I'm set.
EA has said that microtransactions are the future. I will not buy this game to support that theory. Just like bioshock, the first game was the best anyway.
1 Like I spend $50 for a game and now there's micro transaction? Thank god it's optional, but god damn man, EA is money hungry. Anyone foolish enough to support this move by actually making a purchase deserves one hard slap.
3 Like A lot of moronic responses to this post.
First off, neither I nor the OP lives or games in a vacuum. Shifts in gaming design mentality impact the games I play, the community I game in. Even if I never play DeadSpace 3, the inclusion of a microshop and its success (or failure) will determine the likelihood of further such systems and a potential escalation of intrusiveness.
I remember one of the first DLC controversies - the horse armor in Oblivion - and how so many responded, "Just don't buy it and it's no problem!" There were plenty of us who said, Yeah. Maybe. But when will it end? Alas, we were in the minority.
Fast forward years now and we have delightful things like: Day 1 DLC. Practically EVERY competitive online game has some form of Pay2Win (be it guns in Planetside 2 or money in Guild Wars 2). Real-money auction house! No one who has half a brain and any sense of honesty can look at Diablo 3 and suggest that the game was not designed, from the ground up, to require AH usage. Those design changes made the game less fun for me and a great many others.
This argument that it's not absolutely 100% required to use it and therefore there's no beef is a fundamentally nonsensical argument. That's like saying if there were giant robots out destroying cars, you shouldn't complain about it because you don't HAVE to drive a car. Well. Maybe. But maybe I want to. And maybe I don't want to constantly be made to feel that I'm not playing the game the way its meant to be played because I refuse to shell out some extra money.
Even at a deeper level, microtransactions demonstrate a shift away from depth & challenge to a catering of instant gratification (the primary psychological principle on which micro transactions rely). If someone wants to play on ultra easy mode with god mode cheats activated, who am I to question how they play? But when games are designed ONLY with ultra easy mode, then now my desired play style is being negatively impacted.
If you ever played Dead Space 2 on the hardest difficult, you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's not balanced properly. The slight shift from survival horror to actiony gunplay makes a few segments beyond frustrating. The elevator one comes to mind.
So the complaining about microtransactions? It's valid and amusingly enough, almost certainly in the best interests of every gamer.
Srry but every time someone complains about micro-transactions they still sound like nick-picky whiners =/ ... just like with everything else in the market, you don't have to use/or buy it if you don't want/need it. That's common sense at the basic level.
The option is there for pple who do want it, are you saying that others should be denied this service just because YOU don't want it? That sounds kinda' backwards to me.
If I see some DLC that I want, I'm gonna' buy it regardless, because it's an option. I would rather have it implemented than to not have the option at all. If YOU want YOUR challenge, then avoid DLC and micro-transactions.
And the game doesn't force you to buy anything......that example you made was baseless and had nothing to do with the arguement, but here's a better one for you :) EXAMPLE: A grocery store sells oranges, I (a consumer) hates oranges, however I don't rage about it because I don't have to buy them, other pple (other consumers) may like oranges, so the option is there just in case the pple who want them can have them... There! a simple example that explains a concept that even a first-grader can understand :)
@ceromaster @Xenrathe Except your example demonstrates a first-grader's understanding of the issue.
Allow me to retort:
I like apples. Other consumers like oranges. It has been shown that these other consumers will pay 20% more per orange, thus the grocery market -ceases- to sell apples and instead only stocks oranges. Simple fact of the matter is that there is only so much space in a grocery market (or a game's development cycle) for stuff.
If I prefer apples, why would not I complain about this change? Especially because I believe that such a penny-pinching mentality will actually lead to LESS profit (and therefore a weaker gaming industry) in the long run. For example, I was on the fence about Dead Space 3, but after hearing about this? I simply don't have enough time to play as many games as I'd like, so I can afford to allow morality to influence by spending decisions. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Furthermore, yes, that is correct, I believe others should be denied the microtransaction service. It irks me to see companies taking advantage of people's fundamentally lazy or otherwise impatient natures, in much the same way it irked me to see banks and other lending institutions taking advantage of people to make sub-prime housing mortgages. Call me crazy but when I see raw greed on display, I get angry.
So, no, I refuse to stick my fingers in my ears and go LA LA LA. In the gaming industry, just as in other industries, all things are connected.
Also I never said anything bad about DLC except for Day 1 DLC, so I don't know where you're getting that from.
@Xenrathe Some good stuff there. I just hope it's a fad like games in Facebook and will eventually go away. I'm surprised it works at all as I thought PC and console gamers were more discerning but apparently not.
so... dont buy stuff off of the micro shop... and suddenly the problem goes away...
i mean seriously, is it that hard to comprehend? in no way, shape or form does the microshop impact the gameplay or enjoyment of DeadSpace 3... it just doesnt. i have been playing for 5-8 hours and i have yet to see a single reason to even open the micro shop menu. you can literally forget it even exists if you want to.
so much whining and bullshit over nothing. move on people.
Did people even read this? The central point isn't that "microtransactions are cheating, let's not let people cheat!"; the central point is that the mechanics of the game were changed to accommodate microtransactions and JPL thinks the change is a bad one. And it's bad not because it lets people cheat, but because the new mechanics just aren't as fun.
Maybe you like the change or think it's no big deal, but that doesn't change the point of the article from one thing to another.
When JPL is writing about how the mechanics have changed, the worst he can be accused of is bad taste. Even so, it's certainly worrying to see the gameplay mechaincs get changed in order to accommodate microtransactions. I can't say whether the change is a bad one here or not, but if this becomes widespread, bad changes *will* be made to some games.
I don't think you can say that micro-transactions effect the gameplay, or make DS3 a "bad game." But it is kinda tacky :/
I don't see the issue. EA's been doing this for a while, even dating back to Need For Speed: Carbon and probably before. It's NOT REQUIRED to buy any of the online stuff. I know I haven't bought a damned thing in the game and nearly have all RIG, STASIS and KINESIS maxed out.
The game has no shortage of crafting sources and the scavenger bots help that along quite a bit. If you read the article you will see that the micro transactions are targeted at an entirely different demographic. They want Dead Space franchise to appeal to many demographics, so it is easy to have a survival horror game stand as is, with micro transactions for those who can't hack it.
Nothing entirely complicated about this. The game feels no less a Dead Space title to me and I've been a day one gamer. Bring on Zealot difficulty!
Oh I think not buying the game itself matters as well. EA would get a big NO from gamers if they were going to boycott Dead Space 3; I'm sure they would be able to find the reason behind this. If for any absurd practice of the companies consumers showed some character, things wouldn't be like this today.
1 Like Give them an inch & they will walk a mile with it, be prepared for a full on micro transaction for Dead Space 4, need resources oh you're gonna need 100 of that, but through the whole game there's only 25, so you will need to replay the whole game again & again... if 3 is successful. I personally will be giving this one a miss, eventho I like the crafting your own weapon bit.
I fail to see the difference between hating on this form of microtransaction and hating on the people that buy the player's guides. I mean, in both instances you are literally paying to make the game easier, or to SAVE TIME. If you've got the money, isn't your time valuable to you? Mine sure as hell is, so there are times when I'll happily pay a little extra if it shaves time off of slaving to get whatever it is I need for that next item or upgrade. Some people will make the purchases and some won't. Personally, I see this as a brave new world. We're stepping into the world of compact discs and mom's afraid that because it doesn't sound the same as her vinyl records then it can't possibly be as good. If you don't like it, don't support it or play it. No one is forcing you to.
2 Like @yukidaruma33 Strategy guides are more like companions. And well, they're guides. You still gotta do the work. All they do is cut down the time you spend fumbling around a forest looking for that treasure chest, or dying time and again because you have no idea what a boss's weak point is. The difference in a guide and microtransactions is that there's a group of people who actually worked hard to put that guide together, who have played the game for you, wrote a well-organized (in most cases) book (and usually) filled with beautiful artwork and other tidbits about the game, such as stories and characters. With microtransactions, you get an unlock code, and it's pure profit for the publisher, and NO work was put into making that little consumable item available to you. Guides also can be collected, and exist in the physical world. You touch them, feel their weight, put them on a bookcase and share them with your friends. All you can do with a microtransaction is watch your couple of bucks vaporize in cyber space. And again, I already pointed out in my blog that these microtransactions are purely optional. No need to reiterate what I have already said.
Guides are just glorified cheat books anyway =/ ...you're still paying money to make things easier for yourself, so what's wrong if someone decides to buy an item or a tool?
@ceromaster @JustPlainLucas I'm not going to retype to you what I said perfectly before. Read it again if need be, but at least attempt to understand it next time.
I don't have an issue with microtransactions being in DS3, and when I played the demo, I really liked the crafting table. I have never spent money on a microtransaction and don't plan to. As long as the game isn't made in the way where if I don't buy anything, they'll break by back and crush me into submission, then I'm fine. I plan on playing this co-op with my buddy on the harder difficulty, and my only worry is that the game will be too easy, even without buying anything. I like exploring every step on the map and finding off the path loot. Not really bummed about universal ammo, but I don't prefer it. What bothers me is that the day of release they announce some DLC for march that is supposed to contain the "scariest" DS content ever. That made me go wow really?
No coincidence the micros showed up when the game goes online co-op, it's quite sad really, this was such a promising franchise that has basically sold out for the almighty dollar. I mean you can't blame them for trying to make the extra money, but did they really need to?
Any and all retail games with micro-transactions deserve failure.
2 Like I'm going to have to play devil's advocate, so I apologize in advance...
First of, to quote you on ''If you don't like it, just don't buy it'', a similar philosophy should apply to people's tastes in general. That is to say, it isn't yours to judge how others should play their games. Why does it seem to matter so much to some if players have the CHOICE to purchase items, or choose to adjust difficulty to one that they enjoy? I mean it's very selfish to say a game should not offer something optional just because you don't like it and then say ''it's how it should be played''. Whether it's DLCs, micro transactions or an easier difficulty, why does it bother some like yourself so much that those choices exist? I think offering to super size your McDonalds and saying 'yes' contributes to obesity, but so long as you are free to choose for yourself, what's wrong with the picture?
Also, before we keep jumping on the ''EA is evil and greedy'' bandwagon, I would like to invite everyone to take a moment.
Look at every game you've ever enjoyed that made more than one instalment. Look at who financed them and helped make those games the great experiences they were to you. Finally, try to realize that EA and other major gaming distributors are still investing into a very competitive and volatile business despite the risks and despite knowing that they could have chosen or switched to a safer and more lucrative field of entertainment such as movies and music, with relatively easy restructuring . Instead, the people running those companies keep pushing the industry forward however they can in a struggling economy because, like you and me, they are fans.
Of course prices are steep and recent business practice has been less than 'just' for returning customers. Though this is not a phenomenon unique or caused by gaming. We no longer live in a time where quality and longevity are core components of consumerism. I hardly need examples, first generation fridges, microwaves, computers and even cellphones would still work today (if we hadn't replaced them because we needed 'best' one). Nothing revolves around long term anymore. Even the music industry now is all about the instant fame youtube sensations who are forgotten as quickly as they rose to fame. NEWS is now about entertainment value over importance and relevance! We talk about twitter news because the event is hyped, until it no longer is...
Ok I'm going on a tangent here, but I hope everyone gets the point. EA didn't create the competitive model. In order to survive in their business and keep financing the games we love, they need to ''squeeze'' out a few extra dollars from those willing to pay additionally for games they really like. Perhaps practices will adjust in the future generation when people are willing to pay for quality, and producers are confident enough in consumers' buying power to make durable goods and make ''complete'' products at more affordable prices (gaming), when they feel more people will pay for them instead of copy it or turn to cheap/free cellphone/facebook games.
Here's a finishing note: Blame Facebook and cellphone games for fucking up the gaming industry.
@Raphy_Turtle well you are right that the companies need to survive and evolve to thrive so we can get good games , but at what cost? as a consumer if we get dumped with sub standard stuff and we got to accept it. they are looking after their interests and not ours and we need too look at our interests too. they are killing the games , totally ruining the experience for me . they are not asking or waiting for our opinions , they are forcing us to accept their business model. what I like is the freedom to choose ,I just wish in future we have both models co existing , may be the game comes in an option to get the whole experience upfront or to get the torn out part bit by bit cause that's the only way I am going to go , all in or nothing!
4 Like @Raphy_Turtle Sorry, but I'm going to have to play Painkiller.
I lot of people seem to be meddling up the original post. For instance, you began on a rant about how players can simply ignore the transaction thing. This is true. But this isn't what the post is concerned about. The main concern is this, and I quote:
"the crafting system was created with the sole purpose of making resources available for purchase through microtransactions."
This is not about ignoring something. This isn't about gamers being lazy or stubborn. This isn't about someone complaining about the side quests in Oblivion being too lugubrious, because you can obviously ignore doing those and just carry on with the main game. This isn't about ignoring the super size option. This is about a game publisher jamming a gaming mechanic into a game for the sole purpose of making extra cash and how that decision can affect the game's integrity.
For instance, the theory is. The crafting table came into discussion when someone said, "you know, if there was a crafting table in the game, we could make some extra cash, here's how..." Instead of the game creators themselves thinking it up, with no money motivation at all, as a vital, absolute core component of the game. As vital as the sword is in Zelda, or the wall scaling mechanics in Uncharted...
Then you started going on about EA and how the majority of gamers think they're dog doo. Well, this is sort of an unrelated discussion. But how I can tie it in to the post is by suggesting that if EA wasn't the boss of Dead Space 3, then this crafting table would never have existed.
I'm gonna be the Troll here, it's highly conceited and stupid to complain about something optional, by the logic of this blog we should be complaining that we had to buy the game itself, or that we should be ashamed because we bought a game and didn't make our own, or that we aren't creative enough to do anything else besides sit on our asses and be entertained by something that someone else worked hard for.
@ceromaster @Rotondi Again, the horse armor. Sure, it's optional, but look at what followed. Look at all the content in games that followed that was either locked out of the disc or sold as Day 1 DLC. Sure, DS3's microtransactions are optional (and my blog really isn't complaining about that point), but it did affect the way the game's played, for better or for worse. It's not conceited or stupid complain about something that you're legitimately concerned about it, because who knows what EA will try next if enough people buy DS3 resources. I believe I already mentioned this somewhere, but who's to say EA won't increase the amount of resources needed in DS4 to make a shotgun, or increase the amount of XP to level up in Dragon Age 3 or Mass Effect 4? They know the impatient gamers will buy resources and XP, so they can potentially sell more by artificially padding a progress bar. This happens all the time with mobile games, so there is a potentiality that more gameplay mechanics might be altered for microtransactions. I honestly don't care about the fact that buying tungsten is optional; it's the potential impact it has on the game itself, and future games.
@Rotondi Wait, you mean we shouldn't just assume that the post is about something other than what is says its about, and respond to that something other instead? Mind blown.
Lucas, we don't have a great used market here where I live, but we have a huge potential market for new games, it's evergrowing in Brazil. we are dumb to the point of purchasing games for 100 dollars (that's right, 200 reais), and we rarely sell them. Piracy is common here because of this abusive retail practice by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo local representatives. But as online gaming rapidly expands, original games sales tend to proliferate these next years. The question is, with these kinds of cons that EA and the majority of other publishers are following, that's actually a lot of games that I will simply not buy. Not just me. So it seems a big opportunity for games industry that they prefer to ignore. What are your thoughts about it?
@edjos I think unfortunately, the more people pirate, the more companies will feel the need to enact restrictive and exploitative practices in their games. It's like trying to hold sand in your fist; the harder you squeeze, the more you lose.
Great blog as usual Lucas, By the way have you had the chance to play Fire Emblem Awakening yet?
@Drilbit777 No, I haven't. It's on my list to play, eventually. I know it's not necessarily important to play the games in order, but that's just how I want to do it. So, I most likely won't be getting to Awakening this year.
We can say it is a sad thing that kill every survival game ... Prior to RE4 , you praised God for giving you a clip of 9 bullets or a new gun ... in RE4 if your gun isn't powerful enough you could buy a new one or upgrade it ...
it kills that "survival" aspect quite fast.
And this is a new chapter in the DLC world ... a world that seems to kill everything that was once so much fun but you know ... it is EA ... it as to suck at one point or another they can't make a game without killing it with DLC. This is why I stay far far far away from everything with the EA logo
@Coco_pierrot I remember there were a few points in the original RE where I actually had to run past zombies because I was out of ammo.
the future is free game streaming , hardcore gamer is dead .long live the casual gamer(kind of reminds me of gangster rap
@TORCEDOR "Hardcore gamers" is just pathetic title. You are a gamer or you're not. It is just like Hardcore metal ... whatever
@Coco_pierrot well its like metal and rock. my point being that people who game frequently and who pool in a lot of their resources and time into games are now the niche market, they will be in a minority , where as the target player the companies are trying to influence is the person who occasionally plays a party game on the wii or pulls out angry birds or the like on his android on the bus journey home or who is home alone and wants to farm a bit on Farmville. and while he is at it for may be just a bit and without paying a dime , these companies want to extract little by little to get ahead .
This is a huge market and we just have to look around and we are surrounded by them . everyone with 2 dollars in their pockets and 2 minutes to kill is a possible target for these companies in the not too distant future. they don't want 100 dollars from hundred guys they want 1 dollar from a million! when I see around me I hardly know any dedicated gamers , the ones I know buy only a couple of games at max a year were as the other guys i know buy this or that app at times or just end up clicking the wrong button in game to purchase some stupid add on for the price that you could buy the same item in real life at a store .
Another benefit these companies see is "always on always connected" type of gameplay and micro transactions is that it leads to more control and keeps privacy at bay. giving you the entire thing might get you to pirate and move on but if they only game you a part of the game and that too for free , you would probably stick around for the next instalment.
@TORCEDOR I spend a lot of my free time playing video game but I buy only a handful of game a year because I take my time and I always try to have 100%. Yes I do play more than someone who only play a small game here and there but still we are gamers.
Playing video game always been a niche thing, as long as I can remember it the nerd who play games, no matter how much time or money they spend it was a nerd activity. Since guitar hero we see Hardcore and Casual which to me is the same thing, they just not spend their money on the same thing nor they put the same time.
Sure it is sad that microtransaction is starting to plague everything but I don't think it will go that far. Facebook game almost completely died after flooding with too many game and sequel ... the same thing may happen again and you know, playing on a iPhone isn't really the same as playing on a dedicated consol, so I don't think it is the end of consol either.
But it is alarming if the consol gamers market buy too much DLC or microtransaction, that may lead to a lot of damage.
5 Like A very interesting and well written argument. completely agree with it. To appease the mobile public is a sham that EA created to cover up the need to earn more , if they want to please the mobile public they should have made a mobile app , if some one is spending money to buy it on a pc or a console they are not mobile public and do expect a decent game, if EA wanted they could have made an easy mode lie the good old days where easy mode included more ammo , weaker enemy and more lives.
This is one reason I choose to avoid games like these or even if I give in to the urge , I simple restrain from spending any in game credit on them. For a different type of example I was a big fan of Diablo 1&2 but I have not even touched 3, I know it is not about money but about piracy and DRM but my main grouse is that I do not like the fact when companies try and twist your arm one way or another to spend more money or bend to their stupid demands . this is the only good thing about piracy , they remove DRM and don't charge for micro transactions. I try my best not to support pirates , I spend thousands of dollars every year on genuine software and hardware to support developers but if they treat you like a crook or piggy bank , I would not support them. a classic case study is that of witcher and spore. Spore had drm and micro transactions and it was pirated like crazy where as the witcher was open and it sold a lot.
on a similar note, I am hearing a lot of argument on the next consoles to have always on internet connection to prevent used game sales , yes the publisher / developer looses a lot of money on that but if they do block used games they will loose a lot of sale on new games too....this is how...if a person trades a game he/she has spare money to purchase a new game , with less money he will be forced to choose limited amount of games. Also big retailers like gamestop will stop carriying games and if I cannot find a game or store , I might not be inclined to buy it. drop in sales will overall also impact shares being traded and bring the companies value down and also increase modding and piracy for many.so some where they will gain and somewhere they will loose. I would suggest they have a tie up with resellers for a cut in trade in value rather than alienating gamers and sellers.
EA is not the first to try this and certainly will not be the last too. online pass is stupid too but I support it cause it brings a bit of revenue to the makers and does not impact game play , where as this is just plain stupid!
1 Like @TORCEDOR I don't know, I've been playing game for a long time now and the open used market that Gamestop and EBgame created is kind of new. Prior to that, a store only had new game and I don't think it hurts at all. You just buy what is really interesting and I think that a demo will be a higher selling point. Also with the net and all the website like Gamestop/EBgame and Amazon ... you kind find whatever you are looking for.
Alors you speak like it would be all bad if this monster industry shrink a little. I think it may bring back more creative mind, less stupidely high production cost ( for what nice shiny graphics ).
Prior to Guitar Hero everything was fine ... after that we started to get "Harcore" and "Casual" player ... stupid as hell and the beginning of DLC and all that crap which bring so much more people to buy those product.
Also, EA and Activision are bad, I never bought any of their games.
@Coco_pierrot @TORCEDOR I wouldn't say the used market is new. It's been around practically since video games were first created. I remember buying used Atari games back in the 80s.
@JustPlainLucas Yeah, I aso bought used game during the SNES area but it wasn't in a store like it is now. I couldn't go into Future Shop and exchange them for store credit or EBgame. I could buy used game at my local renting videostore or there were some collector store where I could do it too but still it wasn't as easy as it is now
3 Like @TORCEDOR You are right about the used game sales. It's nonsense to declare them 'lost sales' since a buyer's decision to own a game is multifaceted. If someone were to purchase a game with no resale value, then it is essentially a dead end investment with no value beyond replay. This will discourage those with a limited budget from investing in anything remotely risky or worth the shot but without much of a preview factor to bolster consumer confidence.
This is nonsense. Second hard markets are an important market and provide a backbone of sorts to the primary market.
2 Like @KadeStorm @TORCEDOR I agree, what is truly sad is the number of people(consumer) that blame used games, when you use arguments like yours the only thing they say is "But the developer doesn't receive the money, its no different from piracy" like a broken recorder, while for those unaware organized crime tends to profit from piracy, so used sales has an social benefit.
1 Like @Sohereiam @KadeStorm @TORCEDOR Very true. It's highly unfortunate that they use this poor counter argument, which has no factual basis. What happens when we take away the option for a person with fewer funds to buy something worth greater funds? They're not going to rob banks or whatnotelse. Ending the second hand market, or even ending piracy--for just within this context--is not going to magically translate into substatially more sales because some people just won't be able to afford the top stuff. And those that can afford to pay the developer directly will think twice about buying something that has no second market demand. It's an overall faulty assumption and grossly oversimplified.
If only consumers started giving a damn about each other, that means the first and second-hand consumers, and made publishers liable because developers are equally mistreated in this equation. It's the middle man that's a bloated mess. Now if we look at some of these recent kickstarter and greenlight style of funding, we can see how developers are making well beyond their pledge targets by getting whatever money they can receive directly from each individual consumer. This, I consider a positive step in eliminating large publishing bodies that create division among consumers and a false war between developers and consumers when those are the parties with a cause for outrage.
Conversation powered by Livefyre
