Jimquisition: Fee to Pay

[mjc0961]

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.

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'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]

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]

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]

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]

Snip

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I think one of the saddest things about the industry is that when it comes to AAA studios I'm now most excited to hear about publisher's failing and Devs pulling an Avelone.

 

[CyberMachinist]

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.

Would you like to use our patented "Brain wiper"? Guaranteed to make you forget the worst images your brain has likely created or seen.

Selective application to certain types of memories are "optional" as separate purchases.

OT: Well Jim it seems the thorns of industry has once again incited you with it's widespread leeching business tactics.

I guess terms like "Gold" and "Gems" or whatever sounds above the standard used currencies in games has, at this point really been cemented with Real money currency as an almost synonymous word. While these practices are appalling their are still people who will overlook this, probably for alot of reasons, most likely they can easily ignore it and think nothing of it in which case good for them, i think, or they really, really! like that game.... or brand to name a few. Of course they think everyone should ignore it like them.

I don't remember the saying "Ignore it until it goes away" as very effective advice on how to fix a problem, at best the people behind this will think they need to increase "appeal" to get people to actually buy stuff from the MT store.....
That doesn't sound very reassuring.

I like to hear exactly how "well" the games industry would progress because of allowing these kind of practices to continue from the people who don't really think much about it.

 

[secretkeeper12]

You're praises of Dynasty Warriors are incidentally the same reason I love Anti-Idle. With the whole game based around grinding, and additions like daily quests or the elusive blue coins, it seems like a recipe for disaster. However, there's absolutely no pay-2-win involved. You're limited solely by how much you "play" it (inasmuch as leaving a computer on overnight counts as playing). It basically takes the premise of most crappy IOS games and makes something beautiful.

 

[Fiairflair]

I understand that, in games you pay for up front, micro-transactions are a corrosive element. Games with a story (the best kind) are worsened by the uncomfortable break in immersion micro-transactions present.

However, I disagree that micro-transactions are always bad. In mobile gaming they are the norm and can actually be fun to use. In some online multiplayer games (good examples are TF2 and DOTA 2) they are mostly just for aesthetic. Sure, I've spent too much money buying paint for my hats. But while there is pressure to do so, that pressure has nothing to do with gameplay. My gaming enjoyment isn't being held ransom. I'm not uncompetitive because I'm using default weapons or locked out of servers because I don't have the right skins. The only pressures I'm tackling are those that affect consumers everywhere.

F2P has psychological studies saying that people are pressured into buying more things. Fine, but consider the gruen transfer at your local shopping mall. Advertising shouldn't be banned because it makes you want things.

Micro-transactions, generally speaking, shouldn't be done away with either. There are times when they are out of place, but those times will be defined by public opinion and sales just like everything else in the market.

 

[Nurb]

The biggest take-away I got from this episode was at the end where Jim talks about how the developers, at least the ones he spoke to, themselves don't like all this stuff but are forced to build it into the games, that the developers are not able to make the kind of game they would like and enjoy making. The developers would prefer to just make a good game and sell it, very simple.

I have sometimes said some not-so-nice things about game developers in my past posts. But, this got me to thinking maybe I should give some apology to the game developers and reserve my ire for the publishers instead.

All those developers which now belong to a few publishers weren't forced into taking their money when they let themselves become owned and taken over by them.

They all saw dollarsigns and ignored the fine print.

 

[crimson sickle2]

I agree for the most part, especially concerning non-free games that are set up around micro-transactions (those can disappear and never return for all I care), but I can't get behind Tribes' FTP model. Back when I played, grinding took days just to unlock one gun. It didn't help that the basic guns were all boring and mostly sucked, but the unlockable guns were stuff like grenade launchers on the stealth class. Shouldn't spending money on a FTP game feel like taking a bite out of the forbidden fruit, rather than grabbing the fruit that everyone else has, and needs, to play somewhat decently?
I still prefer when FTP games only offer some cosmetic purchases or some convenience type carrots.

 

[geizr]

The biggest take-away I got from this episode was at the end where Jim talks about how the developers, at least the ones he spoke to, themselves don't like all this stuff but are forced to build it into the games, that the developers are not able to make the kind of game they would like and enjoy making. The developers would prefer to just make a good game and sell it, very simple.

I have sometimes said some not-so-nice things about game developers in my past posts. But, this got me to thinking maybe I should give some apology to the game developers and reserve my ire for the publishers instead.

All those developers which now belong to a few publishers weren't forced into taking their money when they let themselves become owned and taken over by them.

They all saw dollarsigns and ignored the fine print.

I think you are oversimplifying the complete situation, but I'm too exhausted right now to argue. For some developers, what you say may be true; for others, it may not be or circumstances at the time were more complex.

 

[BQE]

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).

Actually this isn't the case. The expansion to Starcraft 2 was not a full price game just like the expansion to Starcraft 1 not being a full price game.

Both expansions are built on the predication of adding more campaign and more units, however the expansions are entirely optional, you don't have to buy them should you so choose and you are free to play on Battle.net however much you want.