CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

Akalabeth:

Daystar Clarion:

Akalabeth:

It's not a semantics argument, it's about you basing your opinion of a company based on personal experience rather than looking at the situation objectively with you know a reasoned, mature perspective.

Team Fortress 2 was 60 bucks at launch in orange box
Mann Co store opened a year before TF2 became free to play

So to imply that TF2 falls under what is commonly understood as the "Free to play" model is not accurate.

Valve was charging for the game and then later began offering optional people micro-transactions within said game. Just like Dead Space 3 was released at full price, and offers players optional micro-transactions within the game.

This constant grasping at straws by gamers to justify what are obviously skewed perspectives is laughable at best.

Okay, scratch that, I'm not in the fucking mood to get into another fucking argument over the fucking internet, period.

Yes, the game wasn't F2P originally, but it also only charged for cosmetic items, the point is that it's F2P now.

So what if it only charges for cosmetic items? Dead Space 3's microtransactions are for the single player game. Again, you're implying it's "pay to win" which is bullshit. It's "pay to get through the game faster" and completely unnecessary from what I understand.

Charging only for cosmetic items is irrelevant. People are still being charged for a game that some of them purchased (for 60 dollars at launch).

And if you're afraid of being forced to change your mind by arguing, then don't post your opinion.

Yes, well I wasn't aware that a throw away sentence would trigger the Spanish Inquisition 6 hours after I posted it.

So, anything the industry can do to make more money it SHOULD do, because it's an industry?
Seems legit. I guess everyone giving Nike flack for charging $130 for a pair of $4 shoes put together by Indian child labour is just all noise and rabble, right? They just want to make them dollars to pay their employees.

There has to be a point where games as an industry and games as an artform meet in some common ground.
You can't simply see video games as JUST a business industry, because it makes really shitty games that no one wants to play.

Quite frankly, I don't want to pay full price for the privilege of paying you even more money.

When o when will people stop calling foul because their customers have complaints? I've worked in a bar, so I know just how obnoxious customers can get, mind, but first rule of business: YOU DO NOT badmouth your customers, and YOU DO NOT blame your customers for your own shortcomings - not even the worst of the customers.

Devoneaux:
The problem is the underlying assumption that Valve and EA are comparable in this aspect of the industry when they aren't.
Micro-transactions are fine when I didn't already pay box price for a game.

Team Fortress 2 costs 60 bucks to play at launch.
Mann Co store was opened a year before the game became free to play.
In the first year, Mann Co made 2 million dollars.
Team Fortress became free to play FOUR YEARS after it was released.

So I'm sorry, but in the perspective of history they are ENTIRELY comparable.

Daystar Clarion:

Yes, well I wasn't aware that a throw away sentence would trigger the Spanish Inquisition 6 hours after I posted it.

This is the internet guy. What you say here will be available until time immemorial. Just get a top-rated YT comment and see how many people keep responding to you years after you wrote the thing.

I think he makes such a valid point and it has long baffled me that some companies that are seen as "cool" get away with ripping off the consumer whereas some others don't. Bit rubbish really. Especially when it comes to MMORPGs, WoW in particular, £30-40 for a game then however much for monthly payments then microtransactions too?

That being said, I have not to this day purchased a "micro-transaction" not even for my XBL avatar, however they are becoming far more prominent in the game industry so someone must be. So he makes a good point; vote with your wallet.

Anyone else notice that the mindless greed and verbal diarrhea (ie: two faced manipulative half-truths) usually associated with publishers is now spilling into the domain of developers? Corporate assimilation or something...

Valve, for the most part, has earned some trust from the consumer. Valve rarely attempts to nickel and dime their consumer base, there is usually an acceptable degree of value to what they charge for (a fair deal). EA, on the other hand, can't seem to go more than a month without trying to implement some to scam to squeeze a few more dollars out the consumer. They have fully earned their bad reputation.

It is not a logical stretch to suspect that an EA supported micro-transaction system is not of good value to the consumer. It is not a stretch to assume such a system is just one of the many schemes this company has attempted to force on the consumer. IMO, Valve has earned some leeway in this regard.

I tried voting with my wallet, I didn't buy Gears of War and yet he made three of those.. Meanwhile ol Cliffys company screws over PC drops it deadpan and hops on a console bandwagon and I am supposed to do what? Not buy a game he won't release on my platform anyway?

EA gets flack because they've been ruining franchises and ip's for over a decade. They are now quite literally pulling nickle and dime DLC to get you to throw another 20-40$ on a 60$ title. Worst of all it's generally on day 1 ON THE DISC "DLC" If you expect anyone to like them you are flat out ignorant.

Stay out of the industry cliffy, you said you quit. So quit. Maybe EA will give you a job so you can watch them take your franchise and run it into the ground like they've done with every other ip they've gotten a hand on..

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

you clearly have a lack of vitamin C. orange box to be specific..

also:
image
no one expects it!

rhizhim:

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

you clearly have a lack of vitamin C. orange box to be specific..

TF2 was in the orange box this is true. How ever it only went free to play long after the organge box was much cheaper, 10 dollars or so on most store shelves and microtransactions were only added then. I hardly think that is comparable to releasing a 60 dollar title and expecting players to pay microtransactions as well.

I've utterly lost all interest in hearing this man's opinion ever again.
If he wants too tell gamers that E.A isn't the bad guy, I'd like too see some evidence too that effect.
If he wants too tell Gamers that Valve is bad, I'd like too see some evidence too that effect.
If he wants too flap his gums, I'll wait patiently for him too talk all of his credibility away.

I guess CliffyB is butt hurt that noone bought him an engagement ring on TF2.

AC10:
So, anything the industry can do to make more money it SHOULD do, because it's an industry?
Seems legit. I guess everyone giving Nike flack for charging $130 for a pair of $4 shoes put together by Indian child labour is just all noise and rabble, right? They just want to make them dollars to pay their employees.

There has to be a point where games as an industry and games as an artform meet in some common ground.
You can't simply see video games as JUST a business industry, because it makes really shitty games that no one wants to play.

Quite frankly, I don't want to pay full price for the privilege of paying you even more money.

I think what started out as art, later merged with business and now we're seeing the final stage emerging where the art is sacrificed to ensure profit margins.

If you're not in the industry to create awesome games, then you probably don't belong in the industry. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people in the industry who are in it to make money. The game design practices that have appeared in the last ten years are a direct result of that.

Higgs303:
Anyone else notice that the mindless greed and verbal diarrhea (ie: two faced manipulative half-truths) usually associated with publishers is now spilling into the domain of developers? Corporate assimilation or something...

Valve, for the most part, has earned some trust from the consumer. Valve rarely attempts to nickel and dime their consumer
base,

Two million dollars spent on cosmetic items for the Mann Co store during its first year of operation isn't nickle and diming? (This by the way was at a time when TF2 was not free).

their is an acceptable degree of value to what they charge for (a fair deal). EA, on the other hand, can't seem to go more than a month without trying to implement some to scam to squeeze a few more dollars out the consumer. They have fully earned their bad reputation.

Uh, Valve is barely a developer anymore. What have they done recently? A HD update for CS? They release what 1 or 2 games a year, tops, almost all now multiplayer-focused having abandoned their single player fans.

EA on the other hand distributed 39 games on various platforms in 2012 as an example, and people what have a problem with one game this year? Dead Space 3? And one game out of dozens means they're a bad man.

The two are barely comparable. Valve is barely more than a store front now, making money off other people's products. EA is investing and creating new products for people to enjoy. And since as a gamer, I'm in for games, I go with the people who actually make games not the people who made games once upon a time but later gave up because they realize they could make more money on Steam, microtransactions and multiplayer games.

Daystar Clarion:

Yes, well I wasn't aware that a throw away sentence would trigger the Spanish Inquisition 6 hours after I posted it.

A realisation that has more or less stopped me from posting in almost all controversial topics of any kind.

People wonder why simple topics like "List your favourite games" keep cropping up over and over. Well it's because those kind of subjects are the ones people are less likely to deliberately try and start arguments over.

Adam Jensen:
The difference between Valve and EA is that Valve is only selling you shiny stuff that has no impact on the game. All those hats and guns in TF2 don't give you any advantage. And you can acquire most of them with random drops through gameplay alone. They're just cosmetics when you think about it. I would have no problem if EA did the same.

But no. EA is selling integral parts of the game as DLC. They will almost certainly do that with microtransactions. From Ashes DLC for Mass Effect 3 is a HUGE addition to the game. It should have been there to begin with. The game doesn't feel complete without it. And it isn't. I have no problem with EA using microtransactions model in their multiplayer games if those microtransactions don't end up being pay-to-win. But if they are, and on top of that they sneak microtransactions in single player games (and they will) that's where I draw the line. That's where EA definitely is the bad guy.

from ashes was considered "DLC".
and it was the same shit with that random archer guy in dragon age 2.
and the same thing with The Stone Prisoner on DA:O
and the same thing with Disgaea 4:
http://nisamerica.com/index.php?nav=dlc&nav_id=disgaea4
and the same thing with characters in mortal kombat.
and the same thing with Sayuri in Hard Corps: Uprising
and, you get the idea...

and you hardly noticed them in dead space 3. also the suits didnt give you a bonus or anything like in dead space 1&2.
in DE3 they were purely cosmetic. and you could buy them with ration seal you found in game.

Akalabeth:

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.

No it wasn't. It was released with the orange box, which cost $50 back then and it contained TF2, Portal, hl2, hl2ep1, hl2ep2. If you bought it separately on Steam without the other games, it was much cheaper. I really don't know where you get the 60 bucks.

Akalabeth:
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

I'm not saying it's better to spend money on that, I'm saying that cosmetic crap won't change your experience and if people want it they can pay for it. However, weapons can change the experience quite a bit. I prefer it a lot if a FTP game offers unnecessary cosmetic stuff instead of something important and actually useful.

Akalabeth:
Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

Again, wrong. You should do better research before you claim those things. TF2 updates weren't just hates, just look at the newest "Mann vs Machine" update for example, which is completely free. Like all the other important and game changing updates.

Akalabeth:
The Mann Co store generated 2 million in revenue in its first year. Incidentally, roughly a year after Mann Co store was released TF2 became free to play. Coincidence? When players are willing to spend 2 million bucks on useless cosmetic items why charge for the game any further? Why not give the game away for free so more players will spend money on hats.

I never said it doesn't make money and I don't see the point of this argument here.

Akalabeth:
Seriously people think Valve does things for your benefit, it's the other way around.

Why shouldn't Valve do something that benefits them and us? Because that's exactly what happens. They're a company and not a charity so obviously they have to make money. But, you can make money and do good things for your customers, something that EA doesn't seem to realise.
In TF2, people pay for useless things like hats and other cosmetic stuff that won't change the experience in any significant way. Because of that, we get the actual good content for free. Everyone benefits, Valve makes money, we get good and free content and those who want, get cosmetic crap because they simply want, not because they would get a different experience.

Like everyone's else has said: a F2P multiplayer shooter including microtransactions that affect nothing buy cosmetics is a bit different from a $60 game including microtransactions to "get a new level, a new character, a new truck, or gun, or whatever."

Also:

He says that the only way we can actually have any effect on the videogame industry is to get off our soapboxes and "vote with our dollars."

People keep saying this yet I don't understand. Game companies keep track of sales (i.e. people who vote "yes" to something) but I don't know any companies that keep track of the people who pick up a game or view it's sales page online, read about the publishing company's BS they're pulling with the game (being it microtransactions, DRM, constant internet connection, etc.), then put it back saying "nah, that ain't for me." In other words, people keep saying it's a vote but I don't see anyone tallying up the "No"s, only the "Yay"s.

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:

Yes the excuses for Valve are overwhelming.
Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.

No it wasn't. It was released with the orange box, which cost $50 back then and it contained TF2, Portal, hl2, hl2ep1, hl2ep2. If you bought it separately on Steam without the other games, it was much cheaper. I really don't know where you get the 60 bucks.

The world: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/06/15/half-life-2-orange-box-release-date-set

60 bucks on consoles. 50 on PC. Full priced game.

Orange box had three new things.
short 2-3 hour Portal
short 4-6 hour Half Life 2 Episode
Team Fortress Multiplayer

Deadspace 3 has what, 14-20 hour campaign? And multiplayer?

So what's the difference between two short SP games and multiplayer, and one long SP game and multiplayer? Not very much.

Akalabeth:
You saying that spending money on stupid cosmetic crap is better than spending money on items that'll help you finish the game faster? Really?

I'm not saying it's better to spend money on that, I'm saying that cosmetic crap won't change your experience and if people want it they can pay for it. However, weapons can change the experience quite a bit. I prefer it a lot if a FTP game offers unnecessary cosmetic stuff instead of something important and actually useful.

Some people want to change the experience. Unneccesary guns, unneccesary hats, as long as the microtransactions are optional there is no difference. It's like the Gun Runner's Arsenal DLC for Fallout New Vegas, pay a few bucks, get access to more guns. But there's already a slew of guns in the game anyway so it's optional.

As long as the DLC is OPTIONAL, and not necessary, then what does it matter. Let the people who want to spend money spend money.

Akalabeth:
Also you can't directly compare EA DLC to TF2 updates. DLC is made and then sold. Whereas I would suspect in TF2's case, Hats are bought and then updates are created. Those updates are "free" but they'd paid for with microtransactions so they're not really free at all. If no one was buying do you think there'd be as much new content? Of course not.

Again, wrong. You should do better research before you claim those things. TF2 updates weren't just hates, just look at the newest "Mann vs Machine" update for example, which is completely free. Like all the other important and game changing updates.

You don't seem to understand basic revenue ideas.
Mann Co store was opened in 2010
It made 2 million in its first year.
Mann vs Machine was released in 2012. What do you think paid for Mann vs Machine? Did Valve take out a bank loan to make the update? No. Obviously not. The ongoing SALE of items through the Mann Co store is paying in part for these updates. They release free updates, so people keep playing, and keep buying.

Or in other words, people ARE paying for the content. But instead of paying for the maps directly, they're paying for hats, which in turn pay for the maps which are released for free, which in turn keep people playing and keep people buying hats. TF2 is also free in part as a gateway program, it gets Steam on people's computers and gets them spending money on other games (or hats) which contributes directly to Valve's coffers.

Akalabeth:
Seriously people think Valve does things for your benefit, it's the other way around.

Why shouldn't Valve do something that benefits them and us? Because that's exactly what happens. They're a company and not a charity so obviously they have to make money. But, you can make money and do good things for your customers, something that EA doesn't seem to realise.
In TF2, people pay for useless things like hats and other cosmetic stuff that won't change the experience in any significant way. Because of that, we get the actual good content for free. Everyone benefits, Valve makes money, we get good and free content and those who want, get cosmetic crap because they simply want, not because they would get a different experience.

So what, the online auction house in Diablo 3 doesn't benefit people?
Microtransactions in Dead Space 3 don't benefit people?

In both of these games people can either PAY for what they want, or they can play the game and get it the normal way. They're completely optional. If these things were not a benefit to people, people wouldn't be using them.

The only time a thing is not a benefit to people, is when it's NOT optional. Like Steam, REQUIRING to be installed on my computer when I buy a game from a store. Just the way Origin is now doing the same, copying Steam. That's not a benefit to anyone but Valve and EA and both of those programs can get stuffed. My PC gaming is almost strictly GOG-based now.

kael013:

Also:

He says that the only way we can actually have any effect on the videogame industry is to get off our soapboxes and "vote with our dollars."

People keep saying this yet I don't understand. Game companies keep track of sales (i.e. people who vote "yes" to something) but I don't know any companies that keep track of the people who pick up a game or view it's sales page online, read about the publishing company's BS they're pulling with the game (being it microtransactions, DRM, constant internet connection, etc.), then put it back saying "nah, that ain't for me." In other words, people keep saying it's a vote but I don't see anyone tallying up the "No"s, only the "Yay"s.

This is also something that worries me.

As far as I can tell I've been voting "no" to microtransactions and DLC nonsense for years, but it doesn't appear as though anyone is keeping a running tally of that. The best I can hope for is to contribute to a given game's lack of sales, but companies are more likely to attribute that to other design choices rather than connect the dots and perform mind-reading that would let them know that I didn't buy their game because I think their monetization model is offensive.

Where's my option to spend money that tells them "I don't like what you're doing, stop it"?

Akalabeth:

Two million dollars spent on cosmetic items for the Mann Co store during its first year of operation isn't nickle and diming? (This by the way was at a time when TF2 was not free).

Did it cost $60 to purchase the base content at this time? The point I was trying to make (somewhat poorly I guess) was that a microtransaction system from Valve is more likely, based on past behaviour, to be simply a means to sell (worthless) cosmetic options which do not affect gameplay in any meaningful way. Not a terribly manipulative scheme. If these circumstances change so will my opinion of Valve.

However, a microtransaction system from EA is somewhat suspect based on their past behaviour. Are they charging $60 for a game where actual gamplay elements are held at ransom behind a mircotransaction system? Of course EA is going to say that these purchases do not significanly affect the quality of gameplay, but the potential for consumer manipulation is far greater. Even if this did not exactly occur in Dead Space 3, a precedent will have been set and EA can continue to push the envelope further. Charging for gameplay elements is acceptable in a F2P game, but when I have payed $60, I want the full experience right off the bat. Additional priced content better be superfluous crap that is down to personal tastes.

Akalabeth:

Uh, Valve is barely a developer anymore. What have they done recently? A HD update for CS? They release what 1 or 2 games a year, tops, almost all now multiplayer-focused having abandoned their single player fans.

EA on the other hand distributed 39 games on various platforms in 2012 as an example, and people what have a problem with one game this year? Dead Space 3? And one game out of dozens means they're a bad man.

The two are barely comparable. Valve is barely more than a store front now, making money off other people's products. EA is investing and creating new products for people to enjoy. And since as a gamer, I'm in for games, I go with the people who actually make games not the people who made games once upon a time but later gave up because they realize they could make more money on Steam, microtransactions and multiplayer games.

I would gladly take a company that consistenltly releases high-quality games at a slower rate over a company which releases a flood of shovelware and bastardized sequels to once successful franchises. EA has little to no risk tolerance when it comes to funding projects. They are hardly generous to new IPs or original game concepts. They are a major factor in the creative stagnation emerging in the industry over the past decade.

Steam is now an excellent service that is very consumer friendly (it was a f-ing nightmare for quite a while). If the developers have a problem with this thên they should stop releasing their games on steam.

Valve is hardly a leader in this `multiplayer first model`. I believe it is EA who now desires multiplayer elements in every title they release. Valve`s bread and butter has always been single player experiences, just because their rate of production is slower does not mean that they have abandoned single player games.

As silly as the people who hate Valve are in my eyes...Sorry, my point is, You're an idiot Cliffy.

For some reason, this is like the old MMO arguement.

WoW is the equivalent of Steam, and Origin is [Insert MMO here].

Higgs303:

Akalabeth:
Two million dollars spent on cosmetic items for the Mann Co store during its first year of operation isn't nickle and diming? (This by the way was at a time when TF2 was not free).

Did it cost $60 to purchase the base content at this time? The point I was trying to make (somewhat poorly I guess) was that a microtransaction system from Valve is more likely, based on past behaviour, to be simply a means to sell (worthless) cosmetic options which do not affect gameplay in any meaningful way. Not a terribly manipulative scheme. If these circumstances change so will my opinion of Valve.

For some people, yes. Because some people bought the Orange box at 60 dollars. Actually the people who bought TF2 at 60 dollars got screwed by the way, because the 360 version has been updated all of 4 times. Compared to 319 updates for the PC version. I don't think TF2 on 360 even got any of this "free content" even either, even as priced DLC.

Despite that, PC gamers still paid 50 (full price) for the game.
The fact that it wasn't introduced until later doesn't change the fact that it was originally full priced.

However, a microtransaction system from EA is somewhat suspect based on their past behaviour. Are they charging $60 for a game where actual gamplay elements are held at ransom behind a mircotransaction system? Of course EA is going to say that these purchases do not significanly affect the quality of gameplay, but the potential for consumer manipulation is far greater. Even if this did not exactly occur in Dead Space 3, a precedent will have been set and EA can continue to push the envelope further. Charging for gameplay elements is acceptable in a F2P game, but when I have payed $60, I want the full experience right off the bat. Additional priced content better be superfluous crap that is down to personal tastes.

When I say the microtransactions are optional, I'm listening to gamers, not EA, people who have PLAYED the game. A situation which I suspects does not apply to most people who complain about the transactions. The worst I heard from reviewers of the game is that the microtransactions are immersion breaking.

Akalabeth:

I would gladly take a company that releases high-quality games only rarely over a company which releases a flood of shovelware and bastardized sequels to once successful franchises. EA has little to no risk tolerance when it comes to funding projects. They are hardly generous to new IPs or original game concepts. They are a major factor in the creative stagnation emerging in the industry over the past decade.

Oh yes the Valve releases less frequently because they're higher quality. Hahaha. Where's episode 3? What about finishing a game, in the way you intended? What about sticking to what you told the fans instead of slowly spinning the truth and basically abandoning single player for multiplayer only?

And Valve creating original content? Sequel to mod, Portal. Sequel to mod, Counter Strike. Sequel to mod, DOTA. You notice a trend here?

As for EA stagnating the industry?

Mirror's Edge.
Spore.
Dead Space.
Mass Effect.
Dragon Age.
Battlefield Series.

Etcetera

Valve is hardly a leader in this `multiplayer first model`, I believe it is EA who now desires multiplayer elements in every title they release. Valve`s bread and butter has always been single player experiences, just because their rate of production is slower does not mean that they have abandoned single player games.

Dude, you need to google some interviews of Gabe talking about single player gaming. They talk about what a nightmare HL2 was, talk about working on a game for so long then people consume it in a couple days, etcetera.

Valve is becoming the leader in "multiplayer only" model.

When they release a single-player focused game (half of portal 2 is co-op from what I understand), then I'll regard your words with more weight. But the proof is in the pudding.

Akalabeth:

The world: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/06/15/half-life-2-orange-box-release-date-set

60 bucks on consoles. 50 on PC. Full priced game.

You said that TF2 cost that much, which simply isn't true.

Akalabeth:

Orange box had three new things.
short 2-3 hour Portal
short 4-6 hour Half Life 2 Episode
Team Fortress Multiplayer

Deadspace 3 has what, 14-20 hour campaign? And multiplayer?

So what's the difference between two short SP games and multiplayer, and one long SP game and multiplayer? Not very much.

Yeah, with the numbers it might sound similar but the multiplayer in DS3 for example is just the SP campaign with someone else. Not multiplayer like TF2. And the content on the Orange box is much more diverse, than just one game. Also, the amount of time it takes to play through a game doesn't mean much anyway. A shorter game can sometimes give a better experience than a long one.

Akalabeth:

Some people want to change the experience. Unneccesary guns, unneccesary hats, as long as the microtransactions are optional there is no difference. It's like the Gun Runner's Arsenal DLC for Fallout New Vegas, pay a few bucks, get access to more guns. But there's already a slew of guns in the game anyway so it's optional.

As long as the DLC is OPTIONAL, and not necessary, then what does it matter. Let the people who want to spend money spend money.

Yes, some want to change the experience but that doesn't justify the microtransactions. They could also just include those weapons in the game because and people can still change their experience without having to pay additional money to the full price that they've paid already (which again, is simply not the case with tf2, no matter how you try to spin it).

Akalabeth:

You don't seem to understand basic revenue ideas.
Mann Co store was opened in 2010
It made 2 million in its first year.
Mann vs Machine was released in 2012. What do you think paid for Mann vs Machine? Did Valve take out a bank loan to make the update? No. Obviously not. The ongoing SALE of items through the Mann Co store is paying in part for these updates. They release free updates, so people keep playing, and keep buying.

Or in other words, people ARE paying for the content. But instead of paying for the maps directly, they're paying for hats, which in turn pay for the maps which are released for free, which in turn keep people playing and keep people buying hats. TF2 is also free in part as a gateway program, it gets Steam on people's computers and gets them spending money on other games (or hats) which contributes directly to Valve's coffers.

Oh I do understand that very well, thank you.
That was my point. They finance the game by selling things that don't really change the experience but people like to buy anyway. Everyone profits this way. Valve can make money, we get the important stuff for free and those who want, pay for the hats and whatnot. They would pay for the hats either way but unlike EA, Valve doesn't just take the revenue from the hat sales, they give part of it back through free DLC. Which is a much better system imo, than charging for weapons and for dlc.

Akalabeth:
So what, the online auction house in Diablo 3 doesn't benefit people?

When did I ever mention the auction house in Diablo 3?

Akalabeth:

Microtransactions in Dead Space 3 don't benefit people?

In both of these games people can either PAY for what they want, or they can play the game and get it the normal way. They're completely optional. If these things were not a benefit to people, people wouldn't be using them.

You may think that way but I don't want to pay full price for a game and then not get all the content that can change the game experience.
Just because people can benefit from it and it's optional, doesn't mean that EA has to charge for it. They know people will pay for it but that doesn't mean that they have to do it. No one forces them to do that. Yes they're a company but that doesn't mean you should try to wring every little penny out of your customers. I'm so tired of the "they're just doing business" excuse that people always seem to use. You can make money and do good things for your customers, which is what I think Valve does and what separates them from EA.

Also, you don't really seem to be arguing my points but just put things in my mouth that I never really claimed.

I don't really understand the problem with microtransactions. I just see them as a lazy bastard with too much money spending it on something that doesn't really matter. To my knowledge, all of the microtransactions in EAs games have been entirely optional.

EA don't have a cool as fuck trade system.

Andy Shandy:
The reason Valve gets away with it because they sell novelty items, stuff that isn't particularly helpful, just stuff that's sort of neat.

EA's way of doing it on the other hand come across as trying to grab as much money out of people's wallets as quick as they can. So long as EA keeps treating their customers as money harvesters instead of actual people, they'll be seen as the bad guy.

This. This. AND This again!!

Valves items are for "Fun", these items do not change game balance, and if they do they handicap you in another way as to keep the balance the same.

EA on the other hand sold "The Sims 3" as a skeleton game and then charged people though the nose to build it up to the standard of the previous game. This is the difference.

If it works, I have little problem with microtransactions in full priced games. My problem with EA is that they, by policy, force all their games now to have multiplayer and microtransactions, regardless of whether or not they fit. That should be the developer's call, not the publisher. That, and online passes. Those things suck.

DVS BSTrD:

Steven Bogos:
Cliff Bleszinski is tired of EA being seen as "the bad guy," while Valve can "do no wrong."

Well I'M tired of EA BEING the bad guy, so we're even Cliffy.

kinda think we're all tired of EA being the badguy to be honest.

not that Cliffy is missing the point, again, these things have no place in a game you already have to pay for to just play, no siting WoW as an example doesn't help you cause, Blizzard is run or owned by ( not sure which and i don't care enough look) Activision which is usually thought of as worse then EA

Daystar Clarion:
Difference being, Valve didn't charge me 40 quid for TF2.

Microtransactions are fine in F2P models, but when you charge full price for the game, it gets a little sketchy...

That and the fact that EA completely disrespects ANY franchise it gets it's greedy mitts on while Valve has at least some respect for what came before they stepped in makes the statement bogus.

People love valve because they put people before profit while they hate EA because they are willing to grind people to a pulp and sell the result to you via in-game micro-transactions if it means they make a few bucks from it

And of course the Valve defense legion comes out of the wood work to correct this horrible slight against their beloved gabenmessiah. If I can give valve credit, its for two things: one is developing something that is damn near a monopoly on digital distribution and then trying to squeeze the last vestiges of life from brick and mortar sales by having many games "physical copies" be nothing more than steam download codes in a very large box. And second creating the most utterly unquestioning devoted fan base ever, much of it devoted on a level that is less "this is a company that makes games I like" and more some kind of deep personal loyalty, witch is probably how Valve can get away with things that would get any other dev crucified. (i.e: crates, the wedding ring, charging you per round for MvM) Well back to playing Dead Space 3, boy "ruining the industry" by playing the games I like sure is fun.

No, but "original price PLUS microtransaction" is a dirty sentence.
How about you shut up Cliffy B. You seem a nice guy, but I'm really getting tired of you thinking you always know what's what in a still developing industry.
I've not forgot that Steam used to pull all the same crap that Origin is pulling now. How is that an excuse? "Hey!" says EA, "You all love steam, and although it's a great service now, it started off pulling some stupid shit, so that means we're gonna do that too!"

Because people who back steam (so likely focus mainly on PC titles) are going to care what the guy who was responsible for Gears of War thinks?

...... hmmm.

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:

The world: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2007/06/15/half-life-2-orange-box-release-date-set

60 bucks on consoles. 50 on PC. Full priced game.

You said that TF2 cost that much, which simply isn't true.

I'm sorry was TF2 released separately in stores at a separate price point? No, it wasn't. It was only in orange box and that cost 50 and 60 dollars respectively. TF2 also is just multiplayer, with less content then a SP game so if it were released separately later, online, at a lower price point it doesn't change much.

The point is, you're still PAYING for a game, and then PAYING for microtransactions.

Yeah, with the numbers it might sound similar but the multiplayer in DS3 for example is just the SP campaign with someone else. Not multiplayer like TF2. And the content on the Orange box is much more diverse, than just one game. Also, the amount of time it takes to play through a game doesn't mean much anyway. A shorter game can sometimes give a better experience than a long one.

Much more diverse? Three first person shooters? Okay right.
Your "If this" and "maybe this" and "sometimes this" reasoning is pretty weak.

Yes, some want to change the experience but that doesn't justify the microtransactions. They could also just include those weapons in the game because and people can still change their experience without having to pay additional money to the full price that they've paid already (which again, is simply not the case with tf2, no matter how you try to spin it).

You're living in a fantasy world man.
So what you don't think customization should have been in the original TF2? Something like Brink has customization out the ying yang. Unreal Tournament was the same. This is pretty basic for multiplayer-only games. Yet TF2 you need to pay 5 bucks for a knife. What a joke.

Oh I do understand that very well, thank you.
That was my point. They finance the game by selling things that don't really change the experience but people like to buy anyway. Everyone profits this way. Valve can make money, we get the important stuff for free and those who want, pay for the hats and whatnot. They would pay for the hats either way but unlike EA, Valve doesn't just take the revenue from the hat sales, they give part of it back through free DLC. Which is a much better system imo, than charging for weapons and for dlc.

Everyone except XBOX 360 owners who never got any of this content, not even having the option to pay for it. Oh but that's microsoft's fault right? Not valve?

And conversely EA takes the revenue from DLC and puts it into making a new game. You know, new experience, new content? Which is a much better system than selling hats and updating and selling what were once 3rd party mods.

Akalabeth:
So what, the online auction house in Diablo 3 doesn't benefit people?

When did I ever mention the auction house in Diablo 3?

It's an example of something optional which can benefit people. I'm demonstrating that this is widespread, and how EA, Blizzard and Valve are cut from the same cloth. Whereas everyone thinks Valve wears some saintly cloth and EA's cloth is the skin sewn from poor helpless gamers.

People have double standards.
Just look at the recent article about EA supporting gay rights at the Federal level. People's reaction wasn't to applaud them, but to find any reason whatsoever to discount the act. "EA's not sincere, it's just politics" whatever.

EA and Valve and whoever do the same thing.

I don't even like Cliffy B, guy's a dumbass. But I agree with him here. That's the difference between someone who views EA as bad all the time and Valve as great all the time. People need some perspective.

Just because people can benefit from it and it's optional, doesn't mean that EA has to charge for it. They know people will pay for it but that doesn't mean that they have to do it. No one forces them to do that. Yes they're a company but that doesn't mean you should try to wring every little penny out of your customers. I'm so tired of the "they're just doing business" excuse that people always seem to use. You can make money and do good things for your customers, which is what I think Valve does and what separates them from EA.

Oh did I ever mention the fact that L4D DLC on Xbox is like 7 dollars? Do you know how much DLC on xbox for AAA games costs less than 7 dollars? A lot. Yet Valve, despite wanting to be great for customers they don't charge the minimum, oh no, they charge 7 dollars.

Also, you don't really seem to be arguing my points but just put things in my mouth that I never really claimed.

Don't confuse misrepresenting you with introducing new points to support what I'm saying (ie Diablo 3).

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here