Jimquisition: Fee to Pay

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,173
0
0
good article about how there is no such thing as a "micro" transaction written nearly 15 years ago: http://www.openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2000/12/19/micropayments.html

tl;dr

the decision of whether or not to buy something regardless of the cost is an economic decision, as such is inherently stressful and has "mental overhead" costs regardless of the amount

I happily paid for a retail pre-order for borderlands 2 and loved the game. I paid $30 for the season pass without reservations and paid $10 for krieg making my total spending $100. And I don't regret it at all.

However what will prevent me from buying any more content is the fact that the motherfuckers running gearbox think it is OK to advertise paid skins in the appearance change machine.

That breaks immersion, makes the game less fun, and will make me go somewhere else for my future entertainment needs.

You want to see micro transactions done right go play DDO, a truly FREE to play game.
 

RJ 17

The Sound of Silence
Nov 27, 2011
8,687
0
0
Fappy said:
Jim, what could they really sell you if they added such elements in a Dynasty Warrior game anyway? An ability to one-shot Lu Bu?
I'd...I'd pay a dollar for that.... >.>

:p Just kidding. Once again, Jimmy my boy, you've hit the nail on the head. To be fair in the case of ME3, the psychological warfare aspect that you bring up really isn't that tempting considering that even if you do cough up some real money to buy a couple extra Specter Packs, all the items are still completely randomized, so it's not like you can put in some money because you want a Black Widow and expect to get it just because you paid. But the overall point of intentionally watering down a game's gameplay just so you can charge a fee to remove a barrier - like in DS3 where you can wait for resources vs just buying them - is pretty disgusting.
 

mike1921

New member
Oct 17, 2008
1,292
0
0
uanime5 said:
This is really a non-issue because if no one buys the optional extras companies will see that it doesn't make money and stop using it. It also has an upside as games are becoming more challenging because there's a mechanic that allows people with no patience to skip the part of the game they don't like.

Also Blizzard is already making games in separate parts, yet charging you the full price for each game (such as a Starcraft 2).
Except that's impossible because some people will buy anything and even a very small portion of people buying the micro-transaction bullshit will likely make it profitable, like how much could it cost to put content behind a pay-wall? Only if people avoid buying games that do that sort of bullshit will they stop, since only then will it actually cause a loss....Too bad gamers are ridiculously horrible at any sort of boycott.

You're sorta confusing challenge with tedium. Having pay features doesn't encourage true challenge it encourages tedium, there's a reason you unlock faster resource gathering instead of easier game modes (which by the way, the people with no patience who want no challenge can easily do)

Games are allowed to have expansion packs. Like, it took three years to make heart of the swarm, and it's not as if expansions are a new thing entirely.
Fappy said:
Jim, what could they really sell you if they added such elements in a Dynasty Warrior game anyway? An ability to one-shot Lu Bu? The ability to climb ladders faster? Mounting horses in midair like in the opening sequence?
Like he said, upgrading your character. He said the new dynasty warriors allows you to spend gold to upgrade your character and he was complaining that he felt the need to say you earn the gold in game.
 

ARCTIC_EAGLE

New member
Dec 31, 2011
51
0
0
Its called cheat engine, you want that stuff use cheat engine. Or purchase the game then torrent it and get the "premium" content. Honestly though consumers just need to decide not to buy this shit, but no people want their shit games, why try and change anything.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
bdcjacko said:
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.
The solution is to keep not buying the Dead Spaces of the world. Yeah, publishers need to make money, but that doesn't mean we should feel obligated to give it to them just because they need it. If their idea to make money is to try and milk us dry, fuck 'em. Let them not make money. Especially if the reason that they need to make so much money in the first place is because they can't budget properly (I can't stress enough how important the Dark Souls and Dark Sales [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7121-Dark-Souls-and-Dark-Sales] episode is).

I've been saying this a lot lately because I've been getting told a lot lately that I should just buy every game that comes out because publishers need money: It's not my responsibility to buy everything every publisher puts out just so they get money. I work hard at my job to earn my money, and if any video game publishers want it, then they too need to work hard to earn it. I am not a goddamn ATM for publishers to walk up to and just withdraw from as they please. If they want my money, they can earn it by putting out products I want to buy with business practices that treat me with the respect that I and every other customer deserves rather than as cows and potential thieves who need to be milked and monitored as much as possible.

As far as I'm concerned, there's two things that the EAs and Square Enixes of the industry can do right now:
1. Wake up and realize that their current strategies aren't making them any money or fans, and change to business strategies and proper budgets that will better allow them to make money.
2. Keep on going the way they currently are and eventually join THQ in death.

Doesn't matter to me either way. The actual talent behind the games will find new jobs or new publishers should #2 happen (see again THQ), so I'm not worried about them. And I damn well don't care what happens to the crappy execs who will be out of work due to their own stupidity beyond hoping that they don't get new jobs within the game industry.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
I agree that Dead Space 3 stuff was a total load of crap. It didn't even make the game scary!
So what did Assassin's Creed have to do with this issue? Was it just having multiplayer? The DLC extra missions and their rewards?

Oh hey, look over here...
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BribingYourWayToVictory
Yes, there's a trope for that.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Here's the core of the problem.

In the old 'Games as a finished product" model. The driving force behind the developers and publishers was "How much could we pack into the game in order to encourage them to give us their money?"

In the new cash shop model it's "How much can we get away with leaving out of the game in order to use that to get them to give us more of their money?"

Does anyone else see the root problem here?
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Ukomba said:
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.
Just want to point out that multiplayer is not an optional mode of Mass Effect 3. It's mandatory if you want to get the best endings, as there aren't enough resources in the single player campaign to get them with the default 50% readiness you have from not playing MP. It's also mandatory if you want all the achievements or trophies in the game.

I have to hand it to BioWare for being so clever about it. The single player is built in such a way that playing the multiplayer just a little is mandatory for anyone who actually cares about finishing their Shepard's story (and most players do). And the multiplayer is built in such a way that trying to earn weapon unlocks by playing is frustrating because you need good weapons to do well and until you unlock good weapons (which are completely random; most of the time you unlock garbage), you don't earn enough points to be able to buy more weapon packs to unlock good weapons quickly. It tries to frustrate you into spending real money so that you can finally get a good weapon that will allow you to earn more points to unlock more stuff with in-game currency. I only played it long enough to get the previously mentioned mandatory multiplayer achievement, I fucking HATED the multiplayer, but even I considered buying a weapon pack or two with real money just so I could try for a gun that wasn't a useless pea shooter. And they've set this all up in such a way to try and trick people into thinking it's not mandatory. And it worked as evidenced by your post. Bravo, Bioware. Bravo.

Now if only they'd directed a bit of that cleverness at the ending. :(

faefrost said:
Here's the core of the problem.

In the old 'Games as a finished product" model. The driving force behind the developers and publishers was "How much could we pack into the game in order to encourage them to give us their money?"

In the new cash shop model it's "How much can we get away with leaving out of the game in order to use that to get them to give us more of their money?"

Does anyone else see the root problem here?
Everyone except for the publishers sees the root problem here.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,651
0
0
I'm surprised that anyone can believe the developers when they claim that microtransactions were their idea and that the publisher gave them full creative control. Game design suffers greatly from the everything that the publishers make developers do in order to make even more money. It's so painfully obvious, only a first class moron would believe that it was all the developers idea.

Javik from Mass Effect 3 comes to mind. Official story is that Bioware didn't have the time to put him in the game. OK, fine. But why didn't they release him as a free add-on? Why did they sell a freakin' prothean character for extra $10? It doesn't take a genius to come to a conclusion that they literally cut that content from the full game in order to sell it.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
This episode kind of made me warm and fuzzy, thinking of the Final Fantasy XIV open beta starting soon and how Square has vowed to stick to the subscription model, for the sake of making sure they can produce a quality game :) I'm just hoping later on down the line they don't go the way of WoW and give that up.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,581
0
0
irishda said:
That's the entire fucking purpose of a marketing company.
It's one thing to make a game, and then market it. It's another thing entire to make a game that is at its core is a tool of marketing. To make a game designed to constantly pressure the player to spend money completely changes the goal of the game and all of its elements. The game is no longer designed to be engaging, or tell a story, or to offer a certain kind of escapism. The game is being designed with the goal of forcing the player's wallet open. Yes marketing forces have always been at work in the video games industry, that's how they've always sold. But now they're resorting to arcade-era tactics of forcing the player to always want more and to willingly shove more money at it. The problem with that, of course, is in cases like Dead Space we aren't paying arcade game prices. We're paying full-game prices, and so we deserve the full game.
 

LordMonty

Badgerlord
Jul 2, 2008
570
0
0
MMOs can get away with it, I like star trek online, not so much neverwinter(both by cyptic/PW) but its not a bad agame, both games work the same all content free bar vanity bits and a few items that walk the tight line of play to win(mainly mounts/ships, crew/followers). Can grind everything if you put time in or get it quicker if you spend real money. Heck the summer event that just finished gave you a ship for 5mins work for 25/35 days(and yes you could get it sooner with real money and yes people did). But with in game gruind you could trade for store currency and not actually ever use real world money but have almost everything anyhow.

Not sure where i was going beyond saying I agree with the Jim Almighty, ftp has its time and place and its not in the $60/£40 AAA games i buy for my ps3. Its for team fortress' hats, the mmo scene and a few others.
 

halfeclipse

New member
Nov 8, 2008
373
0
0
martyrdrebel27 said:
Jimothy Sterling said:
I have found one Free to Play game that actually feels like spending real world cash is just an option. Spartacus Legends. Although not a great game, it is servicable enough for an F2P. What they get right though is the money system. Without exception, F2P games are built on a dual currency mechanic. One currency that you get as a reward in game, and another currency that can only be obtained with real money (after the obligatory first small lump they give you to show you how great it is to have that currency.)

However, Spartacus Legends GIVES you that secondary currency everytime you level up, and the gear that was available for the paid currency eventually becomes purchasable through the standard in-game currency.

This method should be recognized more for it's consumer-friendly approach. Too bad it's just attached to such a sub-par fighting game.

Star Trek Online. You can pay to win it if you really want, but it hits diminishing returns very fast. All the gear in the world will do nothing if you can't pilot, and you'll still need a full team do to end game content.

Even then, no content is inaccessible to anyone geared with the remoteness amount of competency, and skill is every bit as important(gear goes white, green, blue, purple, and maxes out at Mk XII, I've seen good players do endgame content with white Mk IX gear, just because) the free ships are just as good as the pay for ones (If missing the gimmicks) and you can earn a steady income of the paid currency though ingame actions without serious grind.
 

Sheo_Dagana

New member
Aug 12, 2009
966
0
0
Just another example of how potentially great games are getting destroyed by their publishers. We all give EA a lot of shit for this, but almost all of the major publishers do this to their games now. I feel like the only ones that don't shorten the leash at all are 2K and anything from Konami that's Kojima Productions related.

Take Metal Gear Rising for example; this game really came out of left field for me. It would be so simple to add micro-transactions the same way Dead Space and Mass Effect did. Pay a certain amount and get a certain about of BP (the points necessary to purchase Raiden's skills, bonus costumes, and upgrades) to spend in the game as use see fit. But because they let Platinum do pretty much whatever they want (outside of story getting approve and what not), the game turned out pretty amazing for my part.

I didn't mind when you could pay a certain amount and get like a bonus costume or something, but making me pay for shit that I should be able to get in game is pretty weak. It's a shame - I bet Dead Space 3's crafting system would have caught a lot of praise if left alone. But... who knows.
 

WWmelb

New member
Sep 7, 2011
702
0
0
Free to play done right is path of exile. It's the first F2P game that i have WANTED to give the devs money for their hard work.. and surprisingly enough, i ended up giving them about what you would pay retail for a game. None of the items change gameplay AT ALL. The closest thing to game changing is buying a bigger stash to keep items in. Not needed, unless you are a hoarder. But it's convenient.

Everything else is cosmetic. The game is just that good and enjoyable that i wanted to support a small dev and help them help me by being able to keep updating content, and give me more game.

I'm constantly amazed by the amount of people that buy the "Diamond Supporter Packs" that are $1000. You get some neat stuff with it and it was a great idea.

Anyways, F2P is not a bad thing if done right. But fuck paying full price for a game, and then being manhandled into paying more in game for shit to make the game fun. If the game isn't fun straight out of the box, it's broken and not worth my time.
 

Arppis

New member
May 28, 2011
84
0
0
Hm, I didn't actualy notice the "pay to get stuff" system in Dead Space 3.

Then again, I had pre-order guns with me, so they were pretty powerful. But I could craft the things I wanted in DS3 anyhows... so that system wasn't really needed imo.
 

Nurb

Cynical bastard
Dec 9, 2008
3,078
0
0
The whole point of "free to play" games is that they fight you. They're designed to test your patience against the tightness of your wallet
This is why I can't stand any free-to-play game. No matter how "right" people seem to think some games do it, the fact is the developers have to put thought and resources into making the games frustrating enough to get you to pay something. I've said similar things and always got nasty responses from the f2p fanboys about how "untrue" that is.

The "Fee to pay" crap is even worse. This macro is increasingly prophetic.

 

Colt47

New member
Oct 31, 2012
1,065
0
0
Gah! Stop taking Final Fantasy The Bravest out of the chained up trunk we sent off the side of the Brooklyn bridge! Just seeing it does mental damage.
 

Varya

Elvish Ambassador
Nov 23, 2009
457
0
0
I love the fact that Jim refuses to call himself a "videogame journalist", yet is one of the few people who actually do some critical digging in the industry, has stopped doing previews and refuses to play ball with shitty publishers. (Ok, I don't wanna insult other journalists, a lot of the escapist people and a few others scattered around the wed are doing great, but Jim's a gem)
You might not call yourself a journalist, but you are raising the standards of videogame journalism non the less.