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

[Tradjus]

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.

 

[CriticalMiss]

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

 

[cidbahamut]

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.

 

[Legion]

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.

 

[Beryl77]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[kael013]

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: [quote/]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."[/quote]

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.

 

[cidbahamut]

Also: [quote/]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.[/quote]
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"?

 

[TotalerKrieger]

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.

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.

 

[l3o2828]

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

 

[VoidWanderer]

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

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

 

[Beryl77]

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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

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.

 

[w9496]

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.

 

[SextusMaximus]

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

 

[KelDG]

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.

 

[DragonStorm247]

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.

 

[Lunar Templar]

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