Jimquisition: Fee to Pay

[orangeapples]

That awkward moment when you hear someone say something that should be common sense but it feels fresh new and innovative in our modern world.

AKA: When Jimquisition comes on.

Show should be renamed: We're all thinking it, but i guess someone has to say it.

 

[bdcjacko]

So what is the solution? Don't buy Dead Space, I already did that?

To offer a dececenting opinion, I can't help but think thing will balance out. Publisher do have to make money so they will do things to make money. The consumer can only afford to pay x amount and will flock to games that they can afford and satisfy them.

 

[punipunipyo]

Tribes:Ascend is the PC super races' ultimate dream, where F2P is TRUE! though leveling/gaining is slow, but they DID offered a complete package; like $40 bucks to unlock EVERYTHING. This game is designed/executed under the grounds of "Side grade" instead of up grade; "Skills to win" instead of P2W; Classes/load out are designed for play-style/tactic changes, not "winning combo". I loved this game last year, and will go back to it when I finish my stack of unfinished games...

I've always hated when I spoke to my mother about gaming, she claims that games are "drugs", I call them hobby, and they hold nothing over my will. But I can't say that anymore, when games are sold to us like buying drugs off a drug dealer... Much like selling drug, they boast "free to enjoy", but in reality, the moment you exit the first few levels, the game instantly become a "grind fest" or "P2W > F2P". Once they got you in to that mode, you'd either cough up some cash, or be a perma-noob(NOT BY SKILL, but by STATS). MMO-games I stay away from, but shit like EA pulling P2W on AAA titles? nasty, just nasty... good thing my bro and I found a game broken bug where you can quick farm HELLA resource, and generally, we pown this game, (when you ONLY use rocket launcher, the game tends to give you more rocket ammo than not...) and we felt unattached after the DLC, this franchise is now DEAD SPACE in our memories of game titles... the second ending was pure shit...

Over all... F2P CAN happen, but usually not.. P2W games should be avoided by all players... remember... when you buy/pay/play(YES, EVEN WHEN YOU PLAY, or CONTINUES TO PLAY) a game, you are casting a vote, that you support the kind of game mechanics, marketing style, business practices, and how they balance that game...

 

[itsthesheppy]

"A serpent around the neck" is an amazing analogy. Whether its yours or not, well done.

 

[Lightknight]

I really appreciate you addressing this. I've become increasingly more frustrated with this and occasionally even disgusted while playing a game that tries to coerce me into this practice. Great work, Jim. Not that you needed to hear that from me.

 

[MB202]

Haven't we been over this before? Well, it's a consistent problem, so it's work bringing up again. Hell, Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time is supposed to be free-to-play, but as soon as it was announced that, even BEFORE people knew that you could buy stuff in-game, they were already fearing the worst... Which I guess makes sense, seeing as you pay for the additional plants, and they cost, what $3-4 each? That IS grotesque!

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

That's why I don't play free-to-play and will never buy Dead Space 3 for example. I like my games complete and fun experiences. I'm not objecting to optional DLC, more often than not I will buy all DLC for a game I loved, shit like saving time/reducing boring part of game is not optional.
Publishers don't see reason though. Most big ones don't know shit and will go the way of THQ. FFS I've decided to 100% skip/never buy Watch Dogs because Ubisoft confirmed it's being made with sequel in mind.
Death of a big franchise is never instant. But once they kill all the good stuff they had... Well, look at the indies, those will grow into future big studios.

 

[flarty]

Why are the suits and shareholders so hell bent on increasing profits? Is regular income of "loadsa money" not enough? Oh wait, i forgot they cant budget properly can they so they dont make loadsa money, so they try to scrimp on us instead of learning how to spend money proportionately.

 

[klaynexas3]

Like I said, having played both games I sited I can tell you neither are balanced around the grind DLCs. I didn't even know about them on my first playthrough of Fire Emblem and the only reason I can think of that you'd need them in SMT IV is if you wanted to cheese it up with a level 99 Pixie or didn't want to spend the time grinding the money for the end-game super items (that are not necessary, but cool).

Like I said, having played both games I sited I can tell you neither are balanced around the grind DLCs. I didn't even know about them on my first playthrough of Fire Emblem and the only reason I can think of that you'd need them in SMT IV is if you wanted to cheese it up with a level 99 Pixie or didn't want to spend the time grinding the money for the end-game super items (that are not necessary, but cool).[/quote]

To be fair with Fire Emblem, the DLC maps felt more like extra campaigns(or expansions, if you will) rather than just simply "grind here for easy levels," which was already easy enough to do with reeking boxes. Though the one where it was just about getting a fuck ton of gold was nothing more than a blatant cash grab. But, again, to be fair, the island where you get the DLC maps was out of the way, and unless you really knew about it and really felt "hey, this is something I could do which would be fun and add on to the experience after I beat the base game."

I feel like the same could be said about SMTIV, at least with the DLC not being directly in your face. Hell, I only JUST found out about there being DLC. They don't even tell you in game about it, at least not from my knowledge.

 

[TheMemoman]

Short term greed from the higher ups. It's what's eating up the creative industries. Mid level shills just want a promotion and a bonus. How do they get those? Quarterly charts pointing up!

Fuck whatever X industry is about! Show me the money! Who cares if the ship sinks in the mid or long term?

That's why PR bullshitters, CEO's and mattricks get tossed around like hot potatoes among a failing model that is incompatible with creativity. I don't know what pisses me off the most: the cynical bastards in charge or the servient ghouls that eat it up.

 

[DataSnake]

You know, there's another downside to all this. I recently made a mod for Skyrim that adds 10,000,000 gold to one of the chests in Helgen Keep because I hate grinding for cash. Imagine Bethesda introduced a way to buy Septims with microtransactions, that would technically brand me a pirate for modding a game I bought fair and square.

 

[Weresquirrel]

I'm actually curious about your opinion of Guild Wars 2. It matches a similar kind of model... you buy the game at $60, and it has microtransactions all over in it like many F2P MMOs... and yet, it seems to do it right. Most of the items you buy are cosmetics, services, and convenience items. At the same time, however, in-game gold can be purchased with Gems (Money currency), and vice versa.

Guild Wars 2 is an interesting case, especially since it's also an MMO, which brings with it its own set of considerations. On the whole, I feel like GW2 is full of examples of how to both do F2P *and* MMOs correctly. I've not spent one thin dime on anything on GW2, but had a total blast, and if I get back into it, I may well buy things -- not because I feel I have to, but because I want to.

And that's when you know a game has done microtransactions correctly -- when you want to go out of your way to buy a thing, not when you were bullied and funneled into doing it.

Compared to SW:TOR, especially. You have to pay for just about everything. I honestly wish I could get into GW2 more, because it did so much right. I honestly find it hard to put into words why I didn't keep playing it.

 

[Callate]

I'm beginning to think we need a wider array of descriptors for free-to-play games and pay-to-play games with free-to-play-style elements.

The problem with games that allow you to buy advantages that you can get in-game is that they almost always by necessity fall into one of two camps: either you can't really succeed without buying into the real-money aspect (particularly insidious in multiplayer online games) or buying those assets makes the game so much easier that you're effectively paying to shorten and lessen your own experience with it.

By contrast, some free-to-play games only have you spend money on purely cosmetic details, unlocking the full experience of the game for everyone and assuming that the quality of the game itself will be enough to inspire people to pay the creators for the benefit of allowing them to participate in the experience. I tend to feel this is the preferred model, but I also understand there's an enormous leap of faith involved, a leap which will not always pay off. Even good games can get slighted, especially in a highly saturated market.

There's something of a middle ground in games that "rotate in" options you can pay for (character classes, etc.), through the "completely free" playerbase, and this has some benefits as well. I think ideally, barring the aforementioned cosmetic options, it would be nice if one couldn't immediately tell the difference between a free and a paying player- the paying player might have chrome that proudly attests they've contributed to the game's creators, but they aren't firing some kind of explosive minigun the free player will never see in a million years.

As I said, though, as even the border between AAA- and free-to-play- games gets fuzzy, I think we may need more descriptive terms to explain all this stuff.

 

[Rabidkitten]

As this whole freemium market is becoming more established, I get older and become more fringed in terms of game selection. I find myself clinging the niche games, and being very selective of what I play. The games I play tend to be free of these practices and when I do run into Freemuium games on say iOS, I tend to find them very unpleasant experiences. It's as if my brain isn't suspect to these models so I find the core games very drab and uninteresting. I'm 32 years old and I come from a long history of playing games in an established fashion. I wonder if in say 10 years that there won't be anything for me in the new markets, no Dragon's Crown, Dark Souls, Ni No Kuni, Legend of Grimock, classic Nintendo franchisers, and other games that are generally free from these tactics. What will I play? will I have to be upheld by the few indie/niche games that release? Or is there always a market for the gamer demographics that seems to not pay for this shit, but still has dollars they want to spend?

 

[5ilver]

Tribes: Ascend is not a good example of Free to play because you only start out with a tiny part of the content unlocked and have to grind for months or pay for the rest.
Better examples:
Dota 2- you can only buy skins and nothing else
Team Fortress 2- mostly just hats

 

[KaZuYa]

Unfortunately what Jim didn't remark on is the true "Free To Play" games which are free to download etc but then in game utter cripple you to the point where you have to spend money to make it even slightly enjoyable or get you in game and then drop a billion shiny/cool and vastly more effective DLC items on you but you have to pay to have them.

One example of this was Never Winter. I was suckered into this game being such a D&D fanboi, I even bought the Hero of the North pack for $200. Once in game it was shallow, badly made and what you got with THON pack was very obviously worthless. Then the entire game seemed to base its content on player made content and every update was just new stuff for the micro transaction store rather than game updates. Then the entire economy was exploited and the in game currency which was the main selling point for the THON pack was rendered worthless as well.

What I've also noticed is the operating attitude of true F2P games is basically players are ignored or told to get lost and have no right to moan because they aren't technically paying customers and if you do spend money in their store that was for specific items not the gaming experience. The entire F2P model is a con to strip players of their consumer rights while exploiting them to extract more money, basically less risk more gain and to hell with quality.

Subscription isn't a dying model, it's a fairer and more responsible model but only for the customer.

 

[Ukomba]

I bought two copies of both Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 so I could play them with my wife.

Dead Space 3 Micro Transactions are completely unnecessary, I never even considered buying even a single micro transaction. It was never needed and it didn't slow us down at all. I feel bad for anyone who did buy any since I don't think they got even a time bonus out of it.

Mass Effect 3 I must admit I did buy the occasional Multi-player pack. Mass Effect though was kind of insulated from it in that the purchased packs were an optional part of an optional mode. Playing the main game all the way through it wouldn't even come up, it was just for the hard core multi-player crowd. Given where these elements were and how it was done it never bothered me. It was just something to spend left over points on.

More annoying is origins system for buying points. how can they list an item for 7.50, but only let you buy points in 5 or 10 dollar bundles!?!?!?!? That's a scuzzy business practice right there.

 

[linforcer]

Jim hits the nail on the head once again.

 

[Waddles]

The whinging about having to pay 60 whole dollars for a game in some of your videos recently is getting annoying. Aussies pay more than 80 in USD for new releases. You're not ripped off anywhere nearly as badly as you seem to think.