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

[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

 

[major_chaos]

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.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Videogames can cost upwards of $100 million to make

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

 

[BrotherSurplice]

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.

 

[Beryl77]

.

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.

 

[TotalerKrieger]

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.

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.

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).

 

[teanabowlie]

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.

 

[TK421]

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.

 

[Yureina]

So he defended EA and smacked Valve?

...

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

 

[TK421]

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.

 

[Beryl77]

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.

 

[verdant monkai]

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

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

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

 

[Jfswift]

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.

 

[bug_of_war]

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.

 

[Callate]

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

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

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

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

 

[rob_simple]

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.

 

[Dendio]

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.

 

[Baresark]

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.

 

[Vigormortis]

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)

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.