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
 

Videogames can cost upwards of $100 million to make

Everything that's wrong about modern gaming is in that sentence there.

This is just further evidence of CliffyB being hopelessly out of touch with real gamers

JediMB:

CliffyB:
the videogame industry is just that: an industry, and when a videogame company is trading on the stock market, its bottom line is making enough money to keep the shareholders happy

See, when it's more important to keep your shareholders happy than your customers, the entertainment industry just might not be the right place for you anymore.

This. All of my this. I can't believe that it took 19 posts for someone to mention this.

Oh and by the way Cliffy old boy, EA pretty much are bad guys in my view and Valve really hasn't done a whole lot wrong in my eyes. So there. Another worthless opinion so that yours doesn't get lonely.

Akalabeth:
.

Alright, this is getting tiresome. I don't even know anymore what it is that you're trying to prove. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again without giving any good arguments and you just bring up things that don't have much to do with this.
If you don't offer any good arguments then there doesn't seem to be much of a point to continue this.

Akalabeth:

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.

...

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.

I think you can make a distinction between a microtransaction system for a full price game that sells superfluous crap and one that sells gameplay elements. One model earns money from people who choose to invest more into a game based on their personal preferences and the other model is a rather manipulative practice which uses player enthusiasm/investment to sell a game in piecemeal form at an inflated price.

A similar sort of psychological manipulation can be seen in these bite-sized DLCs which increase a bit in price every year it seems. If I have invested a great deal of time and energy into a game, I am therfore more likely to want to experience more content. So I shell out another $10-15 for DLC that far too often turns out to be poorly executed and far shorter than I expected. Nobody had a gun to my head, but player enthusiasm has been used to essentially increase the price to $80 using content of minimal cost to the developer.

Similarily, a system which withholds gameplay elements uses similar enthusiasm and investment to get people to pay for content which probably should have been part of the base game. Thus the total purchase price increases another $10 or so. The ethics of such a practice is debatable as it is entirely voluntary, but if I ever buy a game only to find much of what I believe to be core content held behind a MT system I am going to feel cheated. I think that this was what most people were concerned about with DS3. I don`t think it was the case in this instance (DS3), but I also think it is good idea to oppose the precedent of MT systems in full price games. The business practices of the game industry have gotten rather slimey, so I wouldn`t put it past them to move on beyond selling superfluous crap.

I think many have been complacent about the Valve MT system because they have earned significant consumer trust (I honestly thought TF2 was F2P when they started the micro-transactions). EA has a bad reputation, so people spoke out against them. I have little sympathy for EA when they point out the hypocrisy of consumer reactions as they have not earned the benefit of the doubt.

Akalabeth:

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?

...

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.

All the single player games I have previously purchased from Valve have been excellent, so I have little reason to think otherwise for future releases unless objective evidence says otherwise. You are speculating using no real evidence other than the long interval since their last release and some grumbling by Gabe. They haven`t exactly been flooding the market with multiplayer games. And if they really are abandoning single player games or game development entirely, why should I be outraged? Such a change will cost me nothing. I recieved content worthy of the full prices I have payed to Valve in the past, I have no reason to hold a grudge if they go in another direction. That said, I am certainly not going to change my tastes because Valve has.

Akalabeth:

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. (The one example that is the exception to the rule)
Spore. (Yea, the extensive funding, enthusiasm and effort put into that game really shines. EA definitely backed it whole-heartedly)
Dead Space. (A horror game that was turned into a shooter with horror elements...breaking new territory with the IP there)
Mass Effect. (An RPG that turned into another shooter when all was said and done...the RPG elements, plot and characterization had clealry taken a back seat by ME3...what pioneers)
Dragon Age. (An excellent RPG that turned into a really shitty action game with some vestige of its former RPG status.)
Battlefield Series. (Yes how many times can you re-release BF2 with newer graphics...they can`t even be bothered to try out different time periods any more)

(see above quote) The vast vortex of dull action games and rehashed shooters is at least partily down to EAs influence on the studios it purchases.

HL, HL2 and Portal were fairly ground-breaking advances in the medium (IMO anyways). Day of Defeat and of course CS were some of the best and most unique shooters of the day. Giving a mod team a retail deal was not a common practice in the industry (still isn`t of course). I wish mod-teams would get green-lighted more often as it they usually show more originality and dedication towards their work (for a while anyways).

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:
.

Alright, this is getting tiresome. I don't even know anymore what it is that you're trying to prove. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again without giving any good arguments and you just bring up things that don't have much to do with this.
If you don't offer any good arguments then there doesn't seem to be much of a point to continue this.

Repeating the same thing over and over?
You mean, like, providing evidence that contradicts what you're saying?
Providing analogies in the industry that illustrate how companies are doing the same thing?
Demonstrating how Valve has left TF2 customers on xbox out to dry with practical ZERO new content? Even purchasable DLC?
Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

Yes. There isn't much point because your mind is closed to the possibility that what you believe is wrong. And since you have no counter for what I'm saying, you abandon the argument instead of owning up the possibility of changing your mind. Have fun.

I don't see micro transactions as a problem right now, they can be ignored in Dead Space 3 (haven't played it). But in the long term, producers are going to be having chats with their designers that games have to be harder in order to 'encourage' people to pay.

If, like Dead Space, they are largely resource mechanic top-ups then the only realistic way to do this late in production is through artificial difficulty (like when hard mode is just enemies having fatter health bars eg; Skyrim). This is not conducive to balanced game design.

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...

Why can people not get this through their heads?

I buy skins on League of Legends all the time. I don't even want to know how much money I've spent on that game, but I'm cool with that. You know why? It's because Riot offers me an awesome product that they ask nothing for in return. Therefore I support them and their business by buying skins, which do not throw off the balance or performance of the game. The skins only affect aesthetics, they don't make it so those who shell out extra cash get an advantage over those who can't or won't.

It drives me insane when people cut things out of the game to sell later for DLC. I also hate it when people do have a free to play, but change it into a pay-to-win.

So he defended EA and smacked Valve?

...

GET A ROPE! Looks like were gonna have ourselves an execution.

Akalabeth:

Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

I have no idea what you guys were arguing over, I didn't take the time to read it, but I do have something to say about this.

Customization doesn't really matter. Every single part of the game functions the same way with or without hats/rings/whatever. You don't pay to access parts of the game, you pay so that you can be a special snowflake and stand out from everyone else. For more on this type of thing, see my earlier post on League of Legends.

Akalabeth:

Repeating the same thing over and over?
You mean, like, providing evidence that contradicts what you're saying?
Providing analogies in the industry that illustrate how companies are doing the same thing?
Demonstrating how Valve has left TF2 customers on xbox out to dry with practical ZERO new content? Even purchasable DLC?
Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

Yes. There isn't much point because your mind is closed to the possibility that what you believe is wrong. And since you have no counter for what I'm saying, you abandon the argument instead of owning up the possibility of changing your mind. Have fun.

You didn't dispute anything. Don't you think that I've considered the things you've mentioned before and still came to the same conclusions? I'm sorry but you only offered a few good points in your initial post to me, from then on I could just copy past my answer to your latest post because you just say the same thing over and over again with different words and flawed analogies.
I'm not as close minded as you think, it's just that maybe, you know, only maybe, your points aren't all that good and it could be you, who's close minded and not all the others.

When was the last time EA ever did a sale? like valve do all the time.

one good thing i took from this; vote with your wallet. i already do, does anyone else?

AzrealMaximillion:

Rogue 09:
"If you don't like EA, don't buy their games,"

I'm more tired of you Cliffy, and I don't buy your games.

Is that all of his games, or is it just Gears of War hate like the majority of people on this site that like to pretend they never played Unreal Tournament.

I'm glad you asked!

I actually played through Gears 1 and 2 and found them acceptable, but they were not really my cup of tea. Nothing against them, but I guess I'm more 1st person and 3rd person.

This was (however) as I was still getting to know the despicable "CliffyB", and now I refuse to purchase any games that he works on as I find him to be (pardon the language) a "ragamuffin".

This is not specific to him, I'll not purchase any product if I do not like their commercials or spokesmen. It's not that they've done anything against me (per se) but I typically get barraged with their commercials, web ads, or seeing their speeches at E3 (or the like). If you're going to force it on me, I'll judge it and let it effect my buying decisions.

Sorry if it sounded like I was anti-Gears!

I don't mind micro transactions so long as they either provide new content post release or offer a quick and dirty way to unlock gear already in the game. Selling a game with disc locked content is shady. I don't remember this being an issue years ago.

Mcoffey:
Team Fortress is free, and not a story based shooter. I don't want to pay 60 bucks for something to have a character or a menu pop up to 'helpfully' remind me I can buy more ammo and guns (Or all the quests they cut out).

And even if games are cheaper now than before, that still doesn't change the fact they're very expensive. Games are cheaper, but gas, rent, and textbooks are more expensive then ever. So yeah, I can say Scum Bag EA for shoving micro-transactions in my face after shelling out full price for a game. And I can say Good Guy Valve for always making quality games (Even if they take a while), not nickle-and-diming-me (Although these days it's more like five-and-ten-dollaring me) and constantly doing sales and allowing me to keep my hobby at all.

While I agree EA shouldn't put micro-transactions in all their games, I don't think it's a horrible thing. I'd be pissed if the MTs were compulsory and I HAD to buy them, but I don't, and if Dead Space 3 is any example, then I actually have quite a bit of faith in EA. As for the argument "TF2 is free, not $60", who cares how much money it does or does not cost, in the end you choose how much you spend on the product you enjoy. I know people who have spent (and I am serious) over 100 dollars on TF2, buying hats, paints, weapons, and other crap. So while it starts off free, they spend more money on the game than if they waited for a period of time before buying the game and all it's DLC/extras. For example, Mass Effect 3 (currently $40 brand new in South Aussie retailers) and ALL it's DLC would actually cost less for me to purchase right now then when it first came out.

So yeah, EA aren't scumbags, they're morally questionable, but Valve isn't the golden cherry either. I can't return my games on Steam, I have to go through a long tedious process to proove my game is faulty just to get my money back and then get told they wont do it again. So please people, stop assuming that EA is going to force the money out of your pocket and into theirs, with Dead Space 3 as an example of how they're using MTs we can assume they're not going to screw over the consumers. Hell, you guys give them bad enough reps as it is, they can't afford to go out and actually become the monster you claim they already are.

Higgs303:

I think you can make a distinction between a microtransaction system for a full price game that sells superfluous crap and one that sells gameplay elements. One model earns money from people who choose to invest more into a game based on their personal preferences and the other model is a rather manipulative practice which uses player enthusiasm/investment to sell a game in piecemeal form at an inflated price.

Since when is visual customization in a multiplayer only game superfluous crap?
Hell look at Unreal Tournament, one of the reasons it was popular I suspect is because people could represent themselves how they wanted. They could even make thier own skins (sometimes cheaterly all-black or starfield skins).
Look at Brink.
Look at Halo.

One of the big failings of COD imo is that you can't customize your look.

A similar sort of psychological manipulation can be seen in these bite-sized DLCs which increase a bit in price every year it seems. If I have invested a great deal of time and energy into a game, I am therfore more likely to want to experience more content. So I shell out another $10-15 for DLC that far too often turns out to be poorly executed and far shorter than I expected. Nobody had a gun to my head, but player enthusiasm has been used to essentially increase the price to $80 using content of minimal cost to the developer.

So play the game later. Never bought FO NV, but bought FO NV Ultimate edition. Got the game and all the DLC for 50 bucks.
Or do your research, see if your favourite reviewers say its worth the price.

Similarily, a system which withholds gameplay elements uses similar enthusiasm and investment to get people to pay for content which probably should have been part of the base content. Thus the total purchase price increases another $10 or so. The ethics of such a practice is debatable as it is entirely voluntary, but if I ever buy a game only to find that much of the content is held behind a MT system I am going to feel cheated. I think that this was what most people were concerned about with DS3. I don`t think it was the case in this instance (DS3), but I also think it is good idea to oppose the precedent of MT systems in full price games. The business practices of the game industry have gotten rather slimey, so I wouldn`t put it past them to move on beyond selling superfluous crap.

Yes it is a bad precedence, but it is a precedence born both in earliest examples of it like the Mann Co store, customizable avatar crap for XBL/PSN, IOS games etcetera. The thing is people are condemning some companies for practices that Valve has basically pioneered years ago. Like having the idea of games limited to your account (no second hand sales) (rumoured console changes/EA Online pass). Or same constraining Digital Distribution system (Origin).

I think many have been complacent about the Valve MT system because they have earned significant consumer trust (I honestly thought TF2 was F2P when they started the micro-transactions). EA has a bad reputation, so people spoke out against them. I have little sympathy for EA when they point out the hypocrisy of consumer reactions as they have not earned the benefit of the doubt.

Valve lost my trust years ago when they sold me a game in Future Shop that didn't work without both Steam and the Internet and as long as their games and their system requires that system to be installed I don't see how it, as a whole, is to my benefit.

GOG on the other hand is to my benefit. Because GOG is optional. So I support them.
Forcing someone to do something is not to their benefit.

All the single player games I have previously purchased from Valve have been excellent, so I have little reason to think otherwise for future releases unless objective evidence says otherwise. You are speculating using no real evidence other than the long interval since their last release and some grumbling by Gabe. They haven`t exactly been flooding the market with multiplayer games. And if they really are abandoning single player games or game development entirely, why should I be outraged? Such a change will cost me nothing. I recieved content worthy of the full prices I have payed to Valve in the past, I have no reason to hold a grudge if they go in another direction. That said, I am certainly not going to change my tastes because Valve has.

That's another problem. People let companies live on the coat tails of past successes. They need to release regular content for me to still care about what they're doing. Valve sold me 2/3rds of a game, never finished the story, so why would I hold their SP in high regard? HL1 was good, HL2Ep were good, but unfinished. HL2 was mediocre.

The vast vortex of dull action games and rehashed shooters is at least partily down to EAs influence on the studios it purchases.

Games are copying Modern Warfare, not Battlefield. Even Battlefield is copying COD4 and its successors.

HL, HL2 and Portal were fairly ground-breaking advances in the medium (IMO anyways). Day of Defeat and of course CS were some of the best and most unique shooters of the day. Giving a mod team a retail deal was not a common practice in the industry (still isn`t of course). I wish mod-teams would get green-lighted more often as it they usually show more originality and dedication towards their work (for a while anyways).

Counter strike is a mod. A team creates something good, Valve buys them and takes the credit. Same with portal.

What has Valve actually done in-house from start to finish besides Half Life? TF I suppose.

Half Life 2 was 9 years ago. They need to prove themselves again.

Compare this to Bethesda, From morrowind to 2011 is roughly the same amount of time as HL2 to now. And since Morrowind they released Oblivion and Skyrim. Two huge SP games, with lots of add ons. Not to mention Fallout 3. A company like that is proving itself all the time through the games it makes.

Akalabeth:
Demonstrating how Valve has left TF2 customers on xbox out to dry with practical ZERO new content?

The updates released on PC and planned for later release on Xbox 360 include new official maps and game modes, as well as tweaks to classes and new weapons that can be unlocked through the game's achievement system.[88] The developers attempted to negotiate with Xbox 360 developer Microsoft to keep the Xbox 360 releases of these updates free,[89] but Microsoft refused and Valve announced that they would release bundles of several updates together to justify the price.[90]

-Wikipedia

Akalabeth:
I'm sorry was TF2 released separately in stores at a separate price point? No, it wasn't.

Yes, yes it was.
http://www.amazon.com/Team-Fortress-2-Pc/dp/B00140S21O

Until it went FTP, you could buy it at my local Target for $10.

TK421:

Akalabeth:

Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

I have no idea what you guys were arguing over, I didn't take the time to read it, but I do have something to say about this.

Customization doesn't really matter. Every single part of the game functions the same way with or without hats/rings/whatever. You don't pay to access parts of the game, you pay so that you can be a special snowflake and stand out from everyone else. For more on this type of thing, see my earlier post on League of Legends.

Your opinion on the importance of customization doesn't change the fact that both Valve and EA are guilty of introducing micro transactions into a game that was sold at full price.

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:

Repeating the same thing over and over?
You mean, like, providing evidence that contradicts what you're saying?
Providing analogies in the industry that illustrate how companies are doing the same thing?
Demonstrating how Valve has left TF2 customers on xbox out to dry with practical ZERO new content? Even purchasable DLC?
Demonstrating how customization that is PAID for in TF2, a game that was sold in a full priced box, is free content in other multiplayer games?

Yes. There isn't much point because your mind is closed to the possibility that what you believe is wrong. And since you have no counter for what I'm saying, you abandon the argument instead of owning up the possibility of changing your mind. Have fun.

You didn't dispute anything. Don't you think that I've considered the things you've mentioned before and still came to the same conclusions? I'm sorry but you only offered a few good points in your initial post to me, from then on I could just copy past my answer to your latest post because you just say the same thing over and over again with different words and flawed analogies.
I'm not as close minded as you think, it's just that maybe, you know, only maybe, your points aren't all that good and it could be you, who's close minded and not all the others.

Considering that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the things I've mention I very much doubt that to be the case

Callate:

Akalabeth:
Demonstrating how Valve has left TF2 customers on xbox out to dry with practical ZERO new content?

The updates released on PC and planned for later release on Xbox 360 include new official maps and game modes, as well as tweaks to classes and new weapons that can be unlocked through the game's achievement system.[88] The developers attempted to negotiate with Xbox 360 developer Microsoft to keep the Xbox 360 releases of these updates free,[89] but Microsoft refused and Valve announced that they would release bundles of several updates together to justify the price.[90]

-Wikipedia

Akalabeth:
I'm sorry was TF2 released separately in stores at a separate price point? No, it wasn't.

Yes, yes it was.
http://www.amazon.com/Team-Fortress-2-Pc/dp/B00140S21O

Until it went FTP, you could buy it at my local Target for $10.

Conceded, except:

From wikipedia:
The game was first released in October of 2007 in The Orange Box, a package with Half Life 2, Portal and Team Fortress 2. It was later released separately for the Playstation 3, Xbox 360, Microsoft Windows, Linux and Mac computers.

From your link:
Release Date: April 8, 2008

So yes, released separately, 6-7 months later.
After all primary sales of the game had been made I suspect. Not exactly the same thing is it?

I get the feeling that this is a storm we're just going to have to ride out. At the moment, I am mostly find with EA's way of doing business, because I buy the games I want and don't bother paying for the extra stuff unless I want it, too.

I can definitely see there coming a time when they push their luck too far, though, (something like releasing a full price game that you have to wait a set amount of real-time hours to keep playing unless you pay money to recharge your character on the spot) and that is, hopefully, when everyone will stop buying into it.

Cliffy B does raise a point, though, that I've repeated to the point I feel like I'm banging my head against the wall: if you have such a huge problem with how a game is being distributed, or the practices a company undertakes, then stop buying their games.

Don't buy the game and then piss and moan when they pull this cloak and dagger shit with cutting missions out and selling you health upgrades.

I agree with everything Cliff said. Some people really do give EA a hard time over things they'd look the other way for if valve did it. I also agree that if you love a product, you'll throw money at it. I love mass effect and while I never bought the gamble packs, I have spent some cash I normally wouldn't have on guaranteed gun packs for single player.

I consider it a sad day when I agree with old Cliffy B, but he is making perfect sense. Everyone is all butthurt that EA is talking about having microtransactions in all there games, but if it's like they did in Dead Space 3, there is no harm. They aren't restricting the game at all, but they are making more resources available for the people interested in not working for them. There will be something to complain about when they start restricting the game into needing additional transactions.

That said, microtransactions with mobile games are what has brought us here. So many mobile games restrict actions and games by requiring them to continue playing. We all know EA has a big concentration on the mobile market and this is a natural extension of that. But we shouldn't be angry till there is something to be angry about.

Couple of things Cliffy:

When Valve launched Steam, it was an wholly new idea. A service no one had really attempted before. So, while it was fucking awful, and believe me I've been there since the beginning so I can attest to that, it was understandably so. However, Valve has since learned from it's mistakes and has been improving the service since.

EA, on the other hand, had services prior to Origin. Not to mention a wealth of industry experience under their belt and a host of other services, all of whom made their own mistakes, from which to learn and adapt. Yet, they're repeating the same mistakes. They're still "screwing up". That's almost inexcusable.

You really don't see the difference Cliff?

And another thing - comparing primarily cosmetic micro-transactions in free-to-play games to game-play altering "pay-to-win" micro-transactions in full-priced games, and claiming they are the "same thing", is as idiotic as it is ludicrous.

I mean, really? Come on Cliffy, seems like you've been hanging out on too many internet "hate" forums. You're spewing forth much of the same bullshit rhetoric and hyperbole we often see in places like that.

Me thinks you have too much free-time on your hands since "retiring". Maybe you should take up a new hobby. Golf perhaps?

Kudos on saying "vote with your wallet", though. However, it's, sadly, the only sensible thing you said. (though it may be sadder that you had to say it at all)

bafrali:
Only thing that I can say is Cliff will get much more support from this site after his claim

Oddly enough, it seems the opposite.

Hell, even people on these forums who often openly criticize Valve for anything are calling good 'ole CliffyB on his bullshit here. That's pretty telling, if you ask me.

Preface: I don't have any dog in the fight, I really don't care about Valve or EA in any way.

Quick points to previous arguments though:

1) Saying TFT cost 60 bucks is disingenuous and purposefully misleading. Orange Box was released with HL2 and Portal as well.

2) There is a big difference between having micro-transactions for a graphic compared to an adjustment to gameplay. A hat changes nothing, and can therefore be avoided except for those who would like to make their character more unique. I think it's a dumb thing to pay money for, but its an option for people.

DLC has become less and less impressive over the years (in my opinion) and I've found that EA's content especially has become less compelling. Things in Mass Effect or Dragon Age typically cost a lot for very little, so I've stopped purchasing them. To be fair, I thought L4D2 should have been DLC for L4D, as I didn't see that it was a huge change. A big problem that I have is with developers who have DLC that comes out maybe a month after release at full DLC price. Obviously, it was in development (and was probably completed) prior to the release or ship date, but it's something else they can sell. In for a penny, in for a pound kind of thing.

Basically, I'm just against DLC at this point. Rarely have I found something worth the cost. (Mojang is an exception)

3) Unless you are suggesting that Dead Space three will be free one year from now, I don't know what your point in comparing the two are. People could pay 60 bucks for several amazing games, or they could get TF2 for free. Until I see something similar from EA, wouldn't the automatic assumption be that Valve is better?

Sorry, just my thoughts on your cases. Feel free to continue.

Akalabeth:

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.

That was then, this is now, the standard has changed. Not. Comparable.

Akalabeth:

Considering that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the things I've mention I very much doubt that to be the case

Yeah, someone clearly has shown a lack of knowledge and last minute research but I don't think that's me.

The game industry is there to make money and so is human trafficking.

Those games cost so much to make because everyone is so invested in technology and not about making a better game. When a game like the walking dead is goty for so many sites, magazines, and individuals it clearly shows, having the best tech doesn't make the better game.

Now to stop buying EA games, well the problem with that is they're a publisher and you may want to support the developer but I do agree, vote with your wallet

Lastly microtransactions aren't bad, I won't pay for em but they're not bad. The problem is that like DLC games are being shipped seemingly incomplete just to get more money

This Gentleman might be delusional.
EA is the "bad Guy" because they have made this option to make money with free to play games and put it in a AAA title.
They say the Budget of the game was so big that they need either 5 million sales or some other thing to make more money.
In normal Companies, the People who calculated that Budget would've been kicked out. With EA, the Customer will have to deal with that.

With TF2, we have this rather old game that is free to play now and the items that have any influence on the gameplay can be found and/or crafted for free, you'll just have to play longer. You want the flaregun for your Pyro? You will get one eventually without paying a penny.

In Dead Space 3, there's this Bug that enables you to totally bypass the micro transaction thing. When there's some Bug in TF2 i expect them to eventually fix that.
With EA, i suspect some kind of play where they'd like People to think that they will eventually fix that bug, which might lead People to think that they better buy the game now rather then later in order to exploit this legal bug.

Devoneaux:

Akalabeth:

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.

That was then, this is now, the standard has changed. Not. Comparable.

Another person who's losing his grasp on the argument and starts clutches at straws.
I'm sorry but the consideration of time was obviously not a part of your original post, you only introduce it now out of an attempt to weasel out of the obvious: That being that your standards have not changed, you do not have a set of standards for 2007 and one for 2012, rather you have a set of standards for EA and a set of standards for Valve.

Because if you for example are someone who holds Valve in high regard for say past games, but does not hold them in contempt for both charging for TF2 and then introducing MT then you have a double standard. Hold all companies to account in the same way. The more you give companies a free pass, the more they'll take advantage of you.

Beryl77:

Akalabeth:

Considering that you've demonstrated a lack of knowledge on the things I've mention I very much doubt that to be the case

Yeah, someone clearly has shown a lack of knowledge and last minute research but I don't think that's me.

No, you've obviously not done any research. I'm glad we can agree.
(Nor provided any direct evidence for that matter, just unsupported opinion)

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.

You mean much like how you do the exact same thing? How, in just about every argument I've seen you make about Valve, it's services, and it's games, your criticisms have been based solely on your personal experiences with them, or lack there of?

I'm suddenly reminded of cast-iron kitchenware, for some reason....

Feel free to quote me, but don't expect a response. I don't want to get swept up into another argument with you. I've countered your points in the past but you usually ignored them or straw-manned me. I'm not in the mood for it again.

Akalabeth:

Devoneaux:

Akalabeth:

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.

That was then, this is now, the standard has changed. Not. Comparable.

Another person who's losing his grasp on the argument and starts clutches at straws.
I'm sorry but the consideration of time was obviously not a part of your original post, you only introduce it now out of an attempt to weasel out of the obvious: That being that your standards have not changed, you do not have a set of standards for 2007 and one for 2012, rather you have a set of standards for EA and a set of standards for Valve.

Because if you for example are someone who holds Valve in high regard for say past games, but does not hold them in contempt for both charging for TF2 and then introducing MT then you have a double standard. Hold all companies to account in the same way. The more you give companies a free pass, the more they'll take advantage of you.

Yes I can, the industry and market were different beasts back when Team Fortress 2 was released, the idea that you could make money off a free to play game had just started to enter people's minds. Now that it's common practice, the things people are willing to put up with have changed, the concept of selling a game and also having micro transactions is now considered tacky and Valve ditched the practice as a result, meanwhile EA continues to do it.

Akalabeth:

Devoneaux:

Akalabeth:

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.

That was then, this is now, the standard has changed. Not. Comparable.

Another person who's losing his grasp on the argument and starts clutches at straws.
I'm sorry but the consideration of time was obviously not a part of your original post, you only introduce it now out of an attempt to weasel out of the obvious: That being that your standards have not changed, you do not have a set of standards for 2007 and one for 2012, rather you have a set of standards for EA and a set of standards for Valve.

Because if you for example are someone who holds Valve in high regard for say past games, but does not hold them in contempt for both charging for TF2 and then introducing MT then you have a double standard. Hold all companies to account in the same way. The more you give companies a free pass, the more they'll take advantage of you.

Valve said from the start that the microtransactions were an experement. That experement succeeded and TF2 went to a fully F2P model. Come back when EA has made a free to play multiplayer game that has been sustaining a thriving online community for almost six years and counting and then your point may have some validity

 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