Jimquisition: Fee-to-Pay and the Death of Dignity

[Thanatos2k]

While I agree that microtransactions in already paid for games are dumb, I'm not entirely sure "psychological manipulation" is the correct term there. Saying companies are "psychologically manipulating" you is just saying "I can't control my spending habits". It completely removes any sort of responsibility on the consumer's part to not just blindly throw money every time the game say "Press X to spend more money." It's not "conning" if it says "give us this much money for this." That's just called "charging for a product", and if you feel that amount is too much (and I agree $100 is a lot of money for most anything), that still only makes it a gross example of overcharging.

I just don't understand it. The companies aren't stealing your credit card number and forcing you to buy this. They haven't kidnapped your family and threatened to off them one by one unless you buy the super expensive red rocket racer car. So why does this cross from the realm of idiocy into some sort of evil, horrific, greatest atrocity against capitalism since Stalin? Literally this giant "problem" is fixed by going, "Nah, I'm not gonna buy that."

The con is that you think you're getting the complete game if you don't pay more - you're not. And you've been duped into paying $60 for an incomplete experience that many people will then try to convince themselves and others that it *is* complete, because otherwise they would have to admit they'd been duped, and the mental defenses spring up.

And we aren't as adept at recognizing we're being manipulated as we think we are. That's what they're counting on.
All they need to do is inconvenience you through the gameplay and offer ways to remove that inconvenience. That is psychological manipulation, and the gameplay has suffered for it.

 

[Aikayai]

I think you missed a trick this week Jim. While its not really big news, 505 Games went ahead with publishing Ashes Cricket 2013 this week, a game which was still in alpha (that's right, an alpha stage game released at full price). Since EA, 505 and other publishers seem to have no issue with selling unfinished games, confusing it with the development stage title launches like Planetary Annihilation and War for the Overworld, perhaps there is something to be discussed before it gets out of hand?

 

[veloper]

Don't get your hopes up Jim.

With luck there will remain some small corner in the game section of the future, for gamers who want to be able to just buy a complete game and not be hassled with advertisements and pay walls during their play.

 

[Sabin Felea]

Jim - you should have discussed what happened to THQ, cause I don't watch the industry as closely as you do and I would have liked to know your POV. Thanx mate

 

[irishda]

While I agree that microtransactions in already paid for games are dumb, I'm not entirely sure "psychological manipulation" is the correct term there. Saying companies are "psychologically manipulating" you is just saying "I can't control my spending habits". It completely removes any sort of responsibility on the consumer's part to not just blindly throw money every time the game say "Press X to spend more money." It's not "conning" if it says "give us this much money for this." That's just called "charging for a product", and if you feel that amount is too much (and I agree $100 is a lot of money for most anything), that still only makes it a gross example of overcharging.

I just don't understand it. The companies aren't stealing your credit card number and forcing you to buy this. They haven't kidnapped your family and threatened to off them one by one unless you buy the super expensive red rocket racer car. So why does this cross from the realm of idiocy into some sort of evil, horrific, greatest atrocity against capitalism since Stalin? Literally this giant "problem" is fixed by going, "Nah, I'm not gonna buy that."

The con is that you think you're getting the complete game if you don't pay more - you're not. And you've been duped into paying $60 for an incomplete experience that many people will then try to convince themselves and others that it *is* complete, because otherwise they would have to admit they'd been duped, and the mental defenses spring up.

And we aren't as adept at recognizing we're being manipulated as we think we are. That's what they're counting on.
All they need to do is inconvenience you through the gameplay and offer ways to remove that inconvenience. That is psychological manipulation, and the gameplay has suffered for it.

The experience, as with any experience, is only as complete or incomplete as you believe it to be. I never purchased the Warden DLC for Dragon Age, but did I feel my experience was more incomplete? Objectively, my experience was incomplete only relative to those that had purchased it. But, that too is also a manner of whether or not I decide that's relevant to me.

And if they inconvenience the gameplay in order to make us pay to convenience ourselves, my question would be why would you play that game at all? Why do you have to have that experience? The manipulation is there, of course, but it's not necessarily a deep manipulation. It'll only work on those that have decided they need the experience.

 

[Dragonbums]

Speaking of, I remember playing through Mario 3D World and joking to myself all of the ways they could have worked in microtransactions.

They probably sell maps individually and/or in bundles. What they did for Fire Emblem: Awakening (btw, keep that game away from Jimmy).

True, but not only was FE: Awakening good, the vanilla story was filling and really worth the $35.00 of money I paid for.

Plus the DLC's in question never exceeded $5.00. And with the bundle packs it was worth a lot more than the asking price.

In fact, whenever Nintendo does DLC- with the exception of the New Super Luigi U expansion, all of their DLC mostly stays in the $1-3.00 range. Few ever go above $5.00

 

[DTWolfwood]

So i can now be absolutely certain if i ever buy a game it will not be the full game. It will be the partitioned remains of all the DLC to be released later. Well then, I will cancel my order for the PS4.

Thanks Jim.

...

Off topic: I like your Avatar

 

[Brockyman]

Fee-to-Pay and the Death of Dignity

Jimquisition revisits the subject of Fee to Pay, because Jim's in a bad mood and feels like kicking at unscrupulous, utterly undignified videogame publishers. Again.

Watch Video

I see your point. My question is what do you think is right as far as any kind of fee when it comes to retail releases?

I haven't played Forza (not a racing fan) or Crimson Dragon (didn't look interesting to me), but I did play Ryse, and while I saw the micro transactions, I never felt that any real feature was left out, they were just there for lazy arse holes that didn't want to actually play the game. Making money off of laziness isn't a bad strategy. The game itself had it's flaws but was an overall fun experience and I didn't spend a penny over the initial purchase.

Free to play games like Angry Birds Go (I heard was going to be free to download anyway from a Kotaku article) I do think micro transactions are fair because the game is free and if you like it, it doesn't hurt to pay for the features. Although nothing should cost $100 a pop...

We agree that retail games should be complete fixtures with no on dic DLC and all features ready to go. I also like the model XBox is using for Killer Instinct... free to play, can by characters ala carte or all at once, but the online features and modes are all there! But I do believe in DLC. Games like Skyrim, Fallout 3 and New Veagas, Oblivion,and map packs for Battlefield and Call of Duty seem like fair values for the content. I know I played more then my $60 worth out of each game and more then played through the costs of the DLC.

Bottom Line: If a full $60 game makes you pay extra for core features, modes, and anything other then shiny trinkets then they are full of shite... At least that's my opinion.

EDIT: Also add to the shite list anything that gives you and advantage in an online multiplayer competitive game, like PvP or Call of Duty. Costumes, or skins and such is fine, but to pay for things that give you extra boosts to compensate for skill or lack of playing the game to one up people that do from a competitive standpoint , that ain't cool.
Do you think its ever ok?

 

[TristanBelmont]

While I payed attention to the topic at hand, I couldn't focus all that much. I was mesmerized by the absolute garbage that is Ryse Son of Rome.

 

[TKretts3]

I can't help but to snicker while watching this video, with the glaring advertisements for Ryse all around it. xD

 

[Atmos Duality]

*shrugs*
We, the gaming market are responsible for this. Maybe not individually but collectively.
(I certainly have no interest in these "fee to pay" games. Really, it's just price gouging.)

"For-profit companies only care about money."

Ah, how often I see this. It's quite true, but people who tout this argument forget or casually omit one critical detail: Gaming isn't -just- a business, it's a creative medium. Yes, that sounds sappy, but it really isn't; simple fact is that even in a business sense, at least some of the value of a game must come from creativity which is kept in its content.

Otherwise, why bother with gaming? Why not sell cupcakes, or car washes, or anything else?

Hide too much content behind a pay wall and the game loses not only its perceived monetary value to the customer, but potentially its cohesion. People gripe about product placement and in-situ DLC ads precisely because they make the customer think (or realize) they're been duped.

It's the point where a customer no longer sees a "game", but just a marketing tool or hustle, which is precisely the kind of games Jim is describing, and what AAA wants moving forward.

This is a problem that will correct itself, or expand beyond reason and then correct itself.

I have no further stake in AAA outside of watching its hamhanded attempts to milk money from its naive, foolish customers for my own amusement. If it burns, well, it should make for a delightful show.

Besides, I have better games to play than the derivative drek they offer. Oh, it's not perfect, nor is it of the highest fidelity on the market, but then again I gave up the Magpie mentality years ago.

 

[hickwarrior]

*shrugs*

"For-profit companies only care about money."

What's even worse is how that somehow invalidates consumer's complaints. in a market that is supposedly driven by creativity.

Sometimes, the consumers actually have to write letters to a big company to tell them what they're doing wrong... Otherwise, a certain creative world could be put in the freezer indefinitely. In the middle of a franchise's story. That's something I hate the most.

 

[Atmos Duality]

What's even worse is how that somehow invalidates consumer's complaints. in a market that is supposedly driven by creativity.

They want to pretend that it invalidates consumer's complaints because it's convenient and gives them a catch-all justification for any stupid decision made. Even those that should be indefensible, like broken services, broken promises, and intentional "misdirection".

Stop me if any of these sound familiar...

"Oh, we didn't expect our Always Online game to be so popular that we couldn't provide adequate servers, rendering the game unplayable for a solid week. Even though we claimed we were going to stand up more servers specifically to prevent this."

"Oh, we didn't mention that the final version of our product was going to play radically different, and worse, than the doctored up demo we showed a few months back."

"Oh, we didn't mention that over half of the game's content is locked behind a paywall, even though we're charging full price already."

"It's all the consumer's fault; if they don't like it, they don't have to buy it."

This works when one can assume the consumer is able to make an informed decision.
Except all of those problems described only became apparent after launch, after purchase.
Someone had to buy it to learn the ugly truth.

All of this in a market that largely refuses to offer refunds.

 

[Insideout Ink Demon]

Let's not forget that this ass-hattery being felched upon us by the game manufacturers is so transparently fake and greedy that it will only serve to "legitimize" the illegal pirating industry. I firmly agree that pirating is illegal and cannot be morally or ethically justified - but the more the "legal" options are revealed to be a scam and an inconvenience, the less surprised I'll be when pirating takes over.

careful friend, Escapist is not the place to have that debate, lol

Jim, all spot on, wish more would listen to you.

 

[Requia]

Jim: Did you leave Destructoid for The Escapist just because The Escapist was more willing to indulge you obsession for ruining your own jokes?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

While I agree that microtransactions in already paid for games are dumb, I'm not entirely sure "psychological manipulation" is the correct term there. Saying companies are "psychologically manipulating" you is just saying "I can't control my spending habits". It completely removes any sort of responsibility on the consumer's part to not just blindly throw money every time the game say "Press X to spend more money." It's not "conning" if it says "give us this much money for this." That's just called "charging for a product", and if you feel that amount is too much (and I agree $100 is a lot of money for most anything), that still only makes it a gross example of overcharging.

I just don't understand it. The companies aren't stealing your credit card number and forcing you to buy this. They haven't kidnapped your family and threatened to off them one by one unless you buy the super expensive red rocket racer car. So why does this cross from the realm of idiocy into some sort of evil, horrific, greatest atrocity against capitalism since Stalin? Literally this giant "problem" is fixed by going, "Nah, I'm not gonna buy that."

But the problem is that companies will change the mechanics of games to make them more tedious without paying the microtransaction fee: "Do you want to replay these minigames 50 times to unlock the new level, or pay now to access it instantly?"
"Do you want to drive on the Nurburgring in your new racing game?" Then pay up or get out.
(As Jim said, there are very popular cars and maps that were always in the vanilla Forza games, that have been taken out to be sold only as DLC.) So the customers are getting less content for their money.

Or worse, they will include the gambling microtransaction packs like EA did with Mass Effect 3 multiplayer, where you can either farm games endlessly for the chance to get a random piece of loot, or you could open your wallet and drain your bank account until you get that piece of gear or character or upgrade that you desired (which is not guaranteed, since they also award stackable consumable items that you could just end up receiving indefinitely)

These gambling transactions are very worrying, because I have seen them at work in Free2Play games, where people have spent hundreds of dollars and not received the single item they wanted. It preys intentionally on wringing the money out of your wallet through psychological manipulation.

In these cases just refusing to buy doesn't fix the problem: You still have bought a $60 game (or $70 now) and not received content you wanted to access, or have been given a sub-par experience that makes the game deliberately tedious in order to force you to pay for shortcuts.
That is a big problem, and not one I want to see anywhere near any of the games I am interested in.

There are people who have put hundreds, maybe even thousands of hours into the Mass Effect multiplayer, and still haven't experienced all the content they want to, because the microtransactions have locked it down. That is not fair in a full price game, and it is not acceptable.

 

[Mosesj]

Feel better Jim.

There is a game I play a hell of a lot of, Crusader Kings II, that has more DLC than I care to count (something around 30 different pieces of DLC) and being perfectly honest they could dangle anything infront of me as DLC ("GET A NEW UI!") and I'd probably buy it immediately.

ah man, I do love me some paradox games xp

The thing about their dlc is that the major packs (such as sons of abraham, the old gods, etc) actually do add quite a bit to the game, far more then burial at sea did for bioshock infinite.Crusader kings 2 has one of the most epic soundtracks I ever heard.

And the thing about paradox games is that they actually change shit when they make sequeals. Just look at how much they changed with eu3 to eu4

 

[Old_Bean]

I was waiting to see something like this related to Forza 5, as I am hugely disappointed since the release. I have been a big fan since Forza 3, it was the first game I bought after getting a 360, making the switch to consoles after having been a long time PC gamer and not having the funds for a decent gaming rig. (Have since got the funds and built a gaming rig)

My immediate response was similar to this, and there are definitely practices, such is cash-for-credits, that I find despicable, but I had to simmer down and consider it.

One thing I am always very careful is figuring out where to direct my disappointment, in particular, don't blame Developers for things that were most likely not their decision. Publishers often straight up tell Developers what is going in the games, and the individual devs will fight tooth and nail to keep crap out of their games, whilst trying very hard to keep their jobs, and can't say a damn thing about it because everything they do is covered by NDAs. They're usually in the very worst position and often, very unfairly, receive the backlash. In this case, it's probably not Turn 10, but Microsoft who are sticking their finger in the pie, and it's an important distinction to make, considering my following point.

I read a lot of articles about Forza 5 after release, and one that struck me was from an interview from a Turn 10 exec saying that Forza 5 had fewer cars and tracks because they had set a standard for quality in the beginning and refused to compromise. This meant that all the cars and tracks in the game had to be laser modeled to get the quality. This makes sense as it is one of the few games claiming full 1080 @ 60fps.
They were able to import a few of the models from Forza 4, but for the most part, they weren't up to scratch and had to be modeled again from scratch, which is a long and expensive process. Given that Forza 5 was a launch title, they had an absolutely, concrete deadline for when the game went to print. The Turn 10 exec said that the game would include everything that had been modeled and was ready on the day the game went to print, and the day one DLC was what was still in the works after that.

Now, to me, that seems reasonable. They had a deadline, and a standard of quality to meet, and the amount of content available suffered because of it. I don't think they did anything wrong there, I don't think they held back, they just didn't have the time. This ends up bringing up other issues, like developer overreaching and chasing the best, which is probably more suited to a separate discussion of it's own.

So, after that wall of text, I have just one question.

Are Turn 10 full of shit? Are they actually holding back content and lying about it, or are they simply being unfairly tarred with the brush as far as content goes?


Also, in relation to this:

Eh let me give the game breakdowns I know about.
There is buying tokens along side of buying car packs. Now when you buy a car pack it only UNLOCKS the car, You still have to purchase the car with in game funds or tokens before you own the car.

This might have to do less with gouging and more to do with stopping "Pay to Win". Yeah, you can unlock the car but you still have to earn it. But as you say, there's nothing to stop you from just buying it with real world cash, so it could just as easily be money-gouging, depending on your perspective.