CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh, I got the PC version later, before it went free to play but long after release. It's certainly a step-up.Rachmaninov said:
That being said, finding matches was difficult, but not as hard as you might think, and I do miss the ability to store partial ubercharges, but that's neither here nor there.
He lost me at the "I'm mad at Reddit/ memes". Grow up?
It also seems petty game producers with seven-figure incomes forget that their "hipster" customers aren't endless fountains of disposable income, some unfortunately being smart enough to call out a major publisher for not handling DLC correctly (EA has proven to be a clueless, repeat offender in this regard).Steven Bogos said:CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy
"Those talented artists, programmers, designers, and producers that spent their time building the game you love? They need to eat and feed their families. (Something that the hipster/boomerang kid generation seems to forget all too often.)"
The problem with microtransactions is that they usually don't make games better. Let's go through the individual types of microtransactions and what is wrong with each one:
Microtransactions make single-player games easier: These are the microtransactions that let you skip stages, give you overpowered items, or whatnot. The problem is obvious; if you did the difficulty right, I shouldn't want to make the game easier. If I do, I should have a difficulty setting that doesn't cost anything to adjust. If I don't or it doesn't get the difficulty right, that's the developers screwing up the difficulty - bad game design. Another problem is that buying advantages using out-of-game money is well, cheating - I usually don't want to cheat in a single-player game and if I do, I better be able to do it for free. 90% of the time I cheat in single-player I'm using a console command to fix the consequences of a bug.
Microtransactions that add items or characters: The problem with these is that they never integrate into the game properly. Typically you are just given them, even if they're totally inappropriate for your stage in the game. They're usually overpowered, so it boils down to paying to cheat again. Finally, often, they're there to fill gaping omissions in the original game - a game might give you two rings slots for each of five characters, and then only put 3 decent rings in the entire game with the rest as DLC. That's deliberately broken game design, and everyone hates that.
Microtransactions that add visual only items: Who cares? First, if the game allow character appearance customization, I shouldn't have to pay for it, Second, it's pointless money wasting. See Oblivion horse armor. I guess it worked for TF2, but you know what? The game looked better without the stupid hats.
Microtransactions for small DLC: Not terrible in concept, but never seems to work right. First of all, sticking more levels in the middle of a game overpowers the character for the rest of it and wrecks the difficulty curve. Secondly, they're just so often garbage. Third, there's always the issue of them never really fitting into the game. Honestly I think the games are usually better off without them, even if you have them. It's like throwing more chapters into the middle of a book, that were written by a second, worse author on a deadline.
Microtransactions to cut down on the grind: Similar to reducing the difficulty, if I want to cut down the grind in a game, the developer either made too much grind or made the grind not fun. Either way, it's bad game design. Character development is supposed to be an element that makes games better, but so often, this makes the developer corrupt the process, making it deliberately tedious in order sell ways around it.
And so forth.
I don't object to the concept of microtransactions and DLC, but the concept has literally never improved a game that I know of, except for indy games in which it took the form of large expansion packs (which were cheap because the games themselves were cheap). The thing is, for microtransactions to be a good thing, the game has to be truly complete and fun without them, and they have to integrate well into the game to improve it. This never happens. The game is always released stripped of key elements, or padded out with tons of grind to make the player buy grind-away, or the game is good but the microtransation stuff is poorly-integrated trash. Developers have to do better if they want them to be accepted.
Microtransactions make single-player games easier: These are the microtransactions that let you skip stages, give you overpowered items, or whatnot. The problem is obvious; if you did the difficulty right, I shouldn't want to make the game easier. If I do, I should have a difficulty setting that doesn't cost anything to adjust. If I don't or it doesn't get the difficulty right, that's the developers screwing up the difficulty - bad game design. Another problem is that buying advantages using out-of-game money is well, cheating - I usually don't want to cheat in a single-player game and if I do, I better be able to do it for free. 90% of the time I cheat in single-player I'm using a console command to fix the consequences of a bug.
Microtransactions that add items or characters: The problem with these is that they never integrate into the game properly. Typically you are just given them, even if they're totally inappropriate for your stage in the game. They're usually overpowered, so it boils down to paying to cheat again. Finally, often, they're there to fill gaping omissions in the original game - a game might give you two rings slots for each of five characters, and then only put 3 decent rings in the entire game with the rest as DLC. That's deliberately broken game design, and everyone hates that.
Microtransactions that add visual only items: Who cares? First, if the game allow character appearance customization, I shouldn't have to pay for it, Second, it's pointless money wasting. See Oblivion horse armor. I guess it worked for TF2, but you know what? The game looked better without the stupid hats.
Microtransactions for small DLC: Not terrible in concept, but never seems to work right. First of all, sticking more levels in the middle of a game overpowers the character for the rest of it and wrecks the difficulty curve. Secondly, they're just so often garbage. Third, there's always the issue of them never really fitting into the game. Honestly I think the games are usually better off without them, even if you have them. It's like throwing more chapters into the middle of a book, that were written by a second, worse author on a deadline.
Microtransactions to cut down on the grind: Similar to reducing the difficulty, if I want to cut down the grind in a game, the developer either made too much grind or made the grind not fun. Either way, it's bad game design. Character development is supposed to be an element that makes games better, but so often, this makes the developer corrupt the process, making it deliberately tedious in order sell ways around it.
And so forth.
I don't object to the concept of microtransactions and DLC, but the concept has literally never improved a game that I know of, except for indy games in which it took the form of large expansion packs (which were cheap because the games themselves were cheap). The thing is, for microtransactions to be a good thing, the game has to be truly complete and fun without them, and they have to integrate well into the game to improve it. This never happens. The game is always released stripped of key elements, or padded out with tons of grind to make the player buy grind-away, or the game is good but the microtransation stuff is poorly-integrated trash. Developers have to do better if they want them to be accepted.
No it's actually Free 2 Play. We are talking about SW:TOR here right? Because you can play the entire leveling experience for free in that game. You have to pay to use multiplayer content for the most part, but you are allowed a certain number of dungeons per week, as well as warzones and space missions.Rachmaninov said:
It's not litteral, and I got your point, here is mine.daibakuha said:
If a customer comes to me and says "I want the wiers in the cabinet to have these colours" It does not matter how wrong I think that is, that is what he wants, so that is what he gets.
As long as it does not conflict with the law, and is possible, it is my job to do what they think is right.
I never did care for this guy or his style, and his picture there along with the points he's trying to make really don't help. It's two parts condescension and one part smirk, muddled with misinformation and poured into a filthy glass, and he expects me to take him seriously?
I had a better time imagining it was Borderland 2's 'Handsome Jack' reading me that over the radio. He seems like that kind of a guy.
I had a better time imagining it was Borderland 2's 'Handsome Jack' reading me that over the radio. He seems like that kind of a guy.
I think he's right in some aspects. There are things that EA has pulled off that are for more shady than just microtransaction stuff. Disk locked content, killing old studios like Westwood... but their DLC practices and stuff like online passes aren't nearly the evil shady business practices they're made out to be. Sure they're business practices that people have to pay money for but there's nothing immoral or shady about them.
Valve is held above EA for actual reasons of course, their community interaction is one of the best of all developers out there.
He's right though how many people who would rip on EA, flame and bash their games would also play TF2 and just ignore the microtransaction stuff not seeing it as a big deal. The DLC for EA games functions in the same way as Valve games.
Valve is held above EA for actual reasons of course, their community interaction is one of the best of all developers out there.
He's right though how many people who would rip on EA, flame and bash their games would also play TF2 and just ignore the microtransaction stuff not seeing it as a big deal. The DLC for EA games functions in the same way as Valve games.
Awexsome said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Functions may be similar, but they are not the same thing. People like Cliffy B love to spin the information around to make it seem like it's no big deal, when in fact it is. Though Valve does do micro-transactions, they have a history now of actions that have made their customers happy. EA has no such long history to even try the same thing. It's like comparing your Priest to a homeless man on the street. They are both asking for donations, but you know the history of the Priest so your happy to donate. You have very little to no history with the homeless man, so your skeptical about him.
Just because one company can do it doesn't mean that just any company can do the same. Now if EA made a f2p game with micro-transactions in them, that would make sense to buy them since the game survival is solely based on it. But putting them in an AAA game is like they are now charging you for what Cheat Codes used to do...and that is just sleazy.
Good example, although I'd liken EA more to a homeless ex-convict. I think even the people who don't know EA, will know that in general, people have a strong disliking for them for their previous behaviour.Negatempest said:
But my version of your example would be maybe too polarizing, since it would be coloured by my own disgust with EA.
How is Cliffy B. wrong on this one? I don't find EA to be the CAUSE, they're the SYMPTOM. The most important part, the part gamers as a whole seem to conveniently forget, is the last part; our money IS our voice, not a blog or a petition. You can't bring a bought EA game across the counter with one hand and flip them off with the other.
I think the video game industry (as a WHOLE) is falling prey to so many bad habits that we all need to buy fewer games, or have a real justification for the games we DO buy for a long, long time to come. I'm thinking of buying Journey because it's acclaimed, it's cheap and people I might actually respect are singing the praises of it. If it was also an EA product, I would choose to go without due to my principles. Are we all on the same page here? How many of us are doing this already? I hope it's a lot.
I think the video game industry (as a WHOLE) is falling prey to so many bad habits that we all need to buy fewer games, or have a real justification for the games we DO buy for a long, long time to come. I'm thinking of buying Journey because it's acclaimed, it's cheap and people I might actually respect are singing the praises of it. If it was also an EA product, I would choose to go without due to my principles. Are we all on the same page here? How many of us are doing this already? I hope it's a lot.
This is a subject I've been discussing with people a lot recently.PrototypeC said:
Our money isn't our voice. Let me explain why;
Firstly, the "gaming community" - or, more specifically, the people who care enough about games to discuss them with other people, usually online - are the minority of video game purchases. The majority are people who buy games, but do not join the community. This creates a big problem, if you're trying to persuade people of the "gaming community" to boycott products they don't like, because even if the whole community unites, the impact is pretty insignificant. And that is if you could get the whole community to agree on anything, which is as impossible as herding cats.
Secondly, boycotting products doesn't send the right message. The publisher would never be able to glean the underlying message behind the boycott. The sole product of boycotting is fewer sales, and we have plenty of examples of how the large publishers like EA and Activision react to low sales, for example;
Activision gets incredible sales for Prototype 2, but less than they wanted. So what do they do? Well, they sack the majority of the developing studio, absorb the rest to work on their other projects, and then they cite Prototype 2's "failure to find a broad commercial audience" as the reason.
And this is not helpful to us, or the future of the industry. But this is the only reaction they've ever had, when a game sold less than they expected.
We could never uproot EA, through boycotts, because the only titles we'd be able to damage would be the "risky", unique, niche titles - the ones we least want to hurt - and cause EA to close the development studio, repurposing whatever staff they don't fire to work on their major titles. So EA would just go back to EA Sports, where our boycotts wouldn't make the slightest tickle of a difference, and they'd still be making enough money to buy more studios.
But how we can effect the industry is through complaining, whining and moaning in places like this. In this, the size of the community isn't such a drawback, because despite our small size, we can grab headlines [http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/03/21/did-the-real-mass-effect-3-ending-go-over-everyones-heads/], when we don't like something about a game.
And when gamers manage to complain so obnoxiously that they get headlines on Forbes, EA sit up and take notice. When we complain loud enough that we give EA bad press, we begin to have an effect on that otherwise unreachable majority, by damaging EA's PR.
This effect caused EA/BioWare to change Mass Effect 3's ending, it got Capcom to say it was done with Day One DLC, and it got EA to stop using SecuROM in all of its games. It has EA doing press release after press release about microtransactions, trying to justify them and half-apologizing, because they're worried that the complaints about microtransactions are going to hurt them. And apparently, judging by the article in the original post, CliffyB's worried about EA, too. This is by no means the full list of things the "gaming community" has changed by just complaining, but it's much longer than the list of "good things accomplished in video games by boycotting" because that list is empty.
The best thing we can do, is buy the games we want to buy, and then complain if someone like EA has messed them up. Complaints from someone who owns the game will be taken infinitely more seriously. If so many people hadn't bought Aliens: Colonial Marines then we'd have nowhere near the righteous furor we have now, and that rage extends beyond the gaming community, damaging Gearbox's PR even for people who have never been anywhere near a gaming forum in their lives.
I'll say right off the bat: I'm not reading many other posts. I might just be repeating what's already said, but this EA crap is really pissing me off, so I'd like to just let this out of my system this once. Honest. I swear.
Origin is crap. It has been and will be. No, dispite what a person working for EA will say, origin will not become more popular, even though Steam did. That's because when Steam came out it was innovative, and when Origin came out it was a money grab because Steam became popular and EA wanted a hand in the pie.
Valve made a 100 dollar engagement ring as a joke, and offered a cute feature with it: everyone playing would immediately get a message about it. It's neat. More importantly, it's unnecessary. IT'S NOT CONTENT, AND IT'S BARELY EVEN A COSMETIC ITEM. They can get away with it, because it's really just a donate-to-TF2 device. Pure and simple. If you have a hundred dollars, and don't mind spending it on a videogame, Valve wouldn't mind spare funding. THEY'RE NOT HOLDING GODDAMNED GAME CONTENT BACK FOR THIS RETARDED SUM. What's even better is that they hold sales on it and all of their games! EA puts games on sale when they're becoming unpopular so they can get more revenue. Valve puts games on sale out the door, and on Wednesdays, and summers, winters, falls, and whenever Gabe sees a bluebird out his window, because they know more people buy cheaper games and they don't mind risking lower profits in exchange for more people buying the game.
Origin is crap. It has been and will be. No, dispite what a person working for EA will say, origin will not become more popular, even though Steam did. That's because when Steam came out it was innovative, and when Origin came out it was a money grab because Steam became popular and EA wanted a hand in the pie.
Valve made a 100 dollar engagement ring as a joke, and offered a cute feature with it: everyone playing would immediately get a message about it. It's neat. More importantly, it's unnecessary. IT'S NOT CONTENT, AND IT'S BARELY EVEN A COSMETIC ITEM. They can get away with it, because it's really just a donate-to-TF2 device. Pure and simple. If you have a hundred dollars, and don't mind spending it on a videogame, Valve wouldn't mind spare funding. THEY'RE NOT HOLDING GODDAMNED GAME CONTENT BACK FOR THIS RETARDED SUM. What's even better is that they hold sales on it and all of their games! EA puts games on sale when they're becoming unpopular so they can get more revenue. Valve puts games on sale out the door, and on Wednesdays, and summers, winters, falls, and whenever Gabe sees a bluebird out his window, because they know more people buy cheaper games and they don't mind risking lower profits in exchange for more people buying the game.
As long as you are bemoaning the second, it is a third for all viable intents and purposes.Rachmaninov said:
Your analogy is flawed. Many musicians have run into issues with their catalogues of work, the analogous element here. Prince, John Fogerty and Aerosmith all immediately jump to mind for various reasons. Nobody in this analogy is actually stopping them from playing their instrument(s) of choice. However, their music, their actual work, may well be.Rachmaninov said:
Someone's magnum opus is not their instrument, but their art. Their art can be taken, it frequently is, and it's quite possible to move on. It is, by your own analogy (or, rather, the real-world version of it), quite possible to move on.
Although John Fogerty was once sued for sounding too much like John Fogerty. Even then, that didn't fly in the long run (reference: Fogerty v Fantasy).
CliffyB is in denial. Very, very big denial.
I hate people who are in denial that corporations can't be evil.
I hate people who are in denial that corporations can't be evil.
Can I Just say what is their to hate EA for at least the microtrasnsactions actually do something Valve make hats for Tf2 which are purely cosmetic and cost around £10 which is stupid OK its from a first persons perspective so why buy hats for your chacter and whats with the whole £100 engagement ring bolox yea thanks Valve just what I wanted