Jimquisition: Fee to Pay

Recommended Videos

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
930
0
0
Thus far I've only come across this 'Freemium' scenario once, (DA:O). I'm thinking it'll just come down to having to wait for reviews for AAA games before I buy them, because I'd rather not walk into one of these.

It's nice that Jim clarified that F2P games are what they are - you have to expect it when you go in. Little annoys me more than people in the LoL community complaining that they couldn't purchase every new character on release with their in game currency.
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,355
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Do you have any specific examples to where this principle works really well and where it does not (Dead Space 3 obviously)
Why, and why not?

What would your opinion be on things like League of Legends, TF2 or Dota 2?

To me, optional should really REALLY be very damn optional.
Even "convenience" to some extent i dont believe to be all that optional really especially not in a f2p game like World of Tanks where convenience IS the game and IS a huge part of it, the difference between a standard account and a premium can be like night and day despite all the "optional convenience" that the devs claim has little to no impact even though it very clearly does.
I'm curious about this to. How would you classify these? They're certainly not Fee to Play, but most likely Freemium to an extent. Though, to be honest, I'm typically more tempted to buy skins for my champions in LoL than anything else.
 

Tumedus

New member
Jul 13, 2010
215
0
0
In principle I agree with you, but I disagree with the notion that its not optional because... psychology.

Sticking with the Dead Space 3 example, the game series works and has worked on a reward schedule where you are supposed to be at a certain power level at certain points in the game. In the previous titles, it was only on subsequent playthroughs that you were allowed to break that dynamic by bringing in power from previous playthroughs. Dead Space 3's microtransaction allowed you to circumvent the first playthrough limitation and buy extra power from the get go.

And that is okay. It didn't break the game and it absolutely wasn't necessary. And, most importantly, it didn't offer any power that couldn't be acquired in the game normally.

The place where they screwed up, imo, is that they decided to change the system with which upgrades were performed in order to accomplish this. In the previous Dead Spaces, power was essentially discovered through exploration by finding schematics and power nodes. It was also limited by inventory space and relative ammo cost (although cost was easily exploited to your benefit).

In Dead Space 3, they removed the exploration aspect of power upgrades and hitched them to, at least in part, a time based system. You had a limited number of bots and they always took a certain amount of time to reward their supplies. They didn't remove exploring altogether as there were still the robo hot spots and you could find the big chests of goodies in sub mission but for the most part, you were dependent on those robots to get a lot of the supplies.

If you played the game slow it wasn't a big deal because they would almost all be ready by the next bench. But for anyone who like to play the game fast, the time limitation was an impediment. In the previous titles playing fast didn't prevent you from finding all the power nodes, in this game it necessarily meant less supplies.

That to me is where they crossed the line, not simply at adding a purchasable way to circumvent the power dynamic but by actually limiting the power dynamic to time based rather than progress based.
 

faefrost

New member
Jun 2, 2010
1,280
0
0
Lilani said:
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.
Square? Ummm?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/01/17/final-fantasy-all-the-bravest-a-dlc-laden-abomination/

That doesn't sound anything at all like Square? I mean I'm pretty sure Square's Corporate mission statement is "Do the Opposite of what you just said"
 

Keneth

New member
Oct 14, 2011
106
0
0
I've been playing a lot of Firefall recently. Their F2P model is about perfect in my opinion. You can unlock everything of worth in the game purely through normal gameplay. Of course, you can unlock it faster with "Red Beans" the purchased in-game currency but you really don't have to. The only things you can't get through normal gameplay are cosmetic items that don't have any effect on gameplay.

I have been thoroughly enjoying myself and haven't paid them a penny. I feel like I should though. Not because it would give me any kind of advantage but because the game is just THAT DAMN GOOD. ...and I want a cool looking hat
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,238
0
0
This is why I get annoyed every now and again when I go shopping. I have to research EVERYTHING just to make sure I don't get some annoying form of DRM or for brutal micro-transaction pushing. And of course, a lot of games just being very bland. Why? To copy something else that was popular before.

Can we find all these publishers and put their names on the net so we know who to hate? I know they'll feel the burn then.
 

GonzoGamer

New member
Apr 9, 2008
7,060
0
0
I've been saying this since we started seeing multiplayer in EVERYTHING. I can't help but wonder how many games have had online multiplayer shoehorned into it just so the publisher can have online passes or MS can sell some more gold subscriptions.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,315
0
0
Reyold said:
Same here. I'd rather invest my creative talents in a game I make myself, or at least one I want to get behind, instead of taking orders from a corporate overlord who hasn't a single clue about good games. Creativity and corporate idiocy don't mix.

Also, I don't normally ask this, but... where does that magnificent avatar of yours come from?
I totally agree. Now a days they make you make what they think will sell, not what would actually make the best game. This is likely why games have recently lost a good portion of the color pallet, and most kinds of genres.

Sadly I don't have an answer to that, as it's just an image I found on an image board one time when random animated gifs were being posted. I am guessing an anime of some kind, given the style of animation when seen up close.
 

Lilani

Sometimes known as CaitieLou
May 27, 2009
6,580
0
0
faefrost said:
Square? Ummm?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danieltack/2013/01/17/final-fantasy-all-the-bravest-a-dlc-laden-abomination/

That doesn't sound anything at all like Square? I mean I'm pretty sure Square's Corporate mission statement is "Do the Opposite of what you just said"
Regardless of what the other divisions of Square Enix have been doing to the other Final Fantasy games, everything they've done for FFXIV since it first launched (and failed) in 2010 is to improve the game, and a lot of it was based on player feedback. Hell, they just finished up the third phase of the closed beta and will be entering an open beta of the game in the next couple of weeks.

It also says a lot about their dedication to the project that when the first version of the game failed, they didn't just abandon ship and close up shop. They shut the whole thing down and have rebuilt it basically from its foundations. That is a HUGE undertaking. It sort of makes sense since the profits from an MMO come from long-term customers rather than short-term sales, but still they didn't have to be this thorough. They could have tried to do it in patches, but nope, they shut the sucker down. And during this time as F2P models rose and they were asked about it, the director of the game said they would be sticking to the subscription model because they felt it was the best way to serve the players and offer the experience they wanted.

But the online Final Fantasy games have always sort of been the odd ducks of Square Enix, I think. FFXI was very community-centered, and the players have a huge effect on what sort of events happen. At one point, Square added in more out-of-game tools for in-game communities to stay connected--completely free of charge to players. And FFXIV seems to be gearing up to have the same sort of open relationship with its community as well.

I'm not saying all of Square is like this. In fact, with the shitty mobile games that have come out lately, I'd say the other divisions of Square could learn a thing or two from them. But somehow, the teams that run their online games have been allowed to have free-reign and keep things open.
 

MeChaNiZ3D

New member
Aug 30, 2011
3,102
0
0
Once again hit the nail on the head. Although I will say most F2P games that aren't TF2 have their own disingenuous factors that damage the game even though it's 'free'. But yes, doesn't matter if it's optional, paid-for games should not have these elements in them. Players deserve not to be tempted all the time or encouraged to spend more money than they already have.
 

Aeonknight

New member
Apr 8, 2011
751
0
0
Tumedus said:
In principle I agree with you, but I disagree with the notion that its not optional because... psychology.

Sticking with the Dead Space 3 example, the game series works and has worked on a reward schedule where you are supposed to be at a certain power level at certain points in the game. In the previous titles, it was only on subsequent playthroughs that you were allowed to break that dynamic by bringing in power from previous playthroughs. Dead Space 3's microtransaction allowed you to circumvent the first playthrough limitation and buy extra power from the get go.

And that is okay. It didn't break the game and it absolutely wasn't necessary. And, most importantly, it didn't offer any power that couldn't be acquired in the game normally.

The place where they screwed up, imo, is that they decided to change the system with which upgrades were performed in order to accomplish this. In the previous Dead Spaces, power was essentially discovered through exploration by finding schematics and power nodes. It was also limited by inventory space and relative ammo cost (although cost was easily exploited to your benefit).

In Dead Space 3, they removed the exploration aspect of power upgrades and hitched them to, at least in part, a time based system. You had a limited number of bots and they always took a certain amount of time to reward their supplies. They didn't remove exploring altogether as there were still the robo hot spots and you could find the big chests of goodies in sub mission but for the most part, you were dependent on those robots to get a lot of the supplies.

If you played the game slow it wasn't a big deal because they would almost all be ready by the next bench. But for anyone who like to play the game fast, the time limitation was an impediment. In the previous titles playing fast didn't prevent you from finding all the power nodes, in this game it necessarily meant less supplies.

That to me is where they crossed the line, not simply at adding a purchasable way to circumvent the power dynamic but by actually limiting the power dynamic to time based rather than progress based.
I'll start off by saying that it seems like you've actually played the game, which is a step up from half of the haters around here (that includes you Jim.)

However, I don't view the bots as a ball & chain. The spots were typically more than 10 minutes apart, and in the instances where they weren't you had already found your 2nd one. But even so, that's just a part of the dynamic. You could still find these resources through more traditional means (drops off enemies, co op missions, in someone's locker, etc.)

If anything, the bots were a way to ensure that you were going to be able to procure the resources necessary to get through the game (but without flooding you with resources, hence the 10 minute limit), where the prior installments required you to scavenge for it entirely. If anything the bot was the way for you to guarentee that you never ran out of ammo, health packs, etc. Now when you consider that you're playing Dead Space, a franchise that has made a pretty clear distinction between itself and the "survival horror" genre... it wasn't that bad of an idea.

The only downside is it made it pretty easy, especially when you were experienced with the scavenging aspect, resource management, not missing shots, sharing health with co op partner, and efficient bot use. But for the less experienced who blow through a clip and a half to kill one necromorph, the bot was their saving grace so they weren't screwed for the rest of their playthrough.

In other words, they did exactly what they said they were going to do: appeal to a broader (and less skilled) audience.

My only issue is how Jim once again is trying to spin this whole aspect as being another get rich quick scam by the oh so terrible EA. And the drones who didn't play the game will happily chime in with "herp derp there's mandatory microtransactions."
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
I don't mind cosmetics, additional mission/quest and stuff like that being dlc even when made along side the game for that purpose not made post release unless they are leaving holes where those things are suppose to be and assuming the game you bought is worth what you paid.
However selling convenience items and and intentionally making shit annoying so people buy them has not place in anything outside of games that are actually Free to Play. Certainly not in single player games.

I was a bit annoyed and perplexed when I reading through the dlc list for Tomb Raider and saw "headshot reticule" and "agility skill" (makes you climb faster and fall from greater heights without damage). They want me to pay $1 USD for a fucking headshot reticule?

Chessrook44 said:
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.
Well not completely right IMO. The items are largely cosmetic, you can buy it with in game gold and it is an mmo with continually updated content so the fact that they encourage pay more than the store price isn't so bad but every time they release a weapon skin they don't let you just buy it. They make it limited time and tie to RNG coffers with a very very low chance of actually getting the skin (and they won't tell you what that chance even is) and give you utterly useless crap the rest of the time.
 

Guy from the 80's

New member
Mar 7, 2012
423
0
0
Monxeroth said:
Even "convenience" to some extent i dont believe to be all that optional really especially not in a f2p game like World of Tanks where convenience IS the game and IS a huge part of it, the difference between a standard account and a premium can be like night and day despite all the "optional convenience" that the devs claim has little to no impact even though it very clearly does.
I used to play World of Tanks and never bothered buying gold and I cant see how it "ruined" my experience at all. (I used quotes even though you never used the word ruined but thats the general idea behind criticism of micro transactions) I'm sure I could get get a Tiger faster but so what, I'm still driving around in the same Leichttraktor as everyone else.
 

-Dragmire-

King over my mind
Mar 29, 2011
2,821
0
0
Weresquirrel said:
Sadly, I can believe all to well that the developers don't want any part in this. I used to work for a high street chain who shall remain nameless. Said chain mandates from head office that every customer must be asked whether they want "Any of our special offers" from the till. Needless to say, the customers usually say no. Some are more vitriolic in their dismissal. But when a member of the board was being interview on the radio or TV or something (I forget which), someone phoned in the question on why they insist all cashiers ask that question every time. Their response? "On no, our cashiers LIKE asking you that. They ENJOY it."
Did you have to sign the, "you will not mention the company and their practices when conversing online" too? I have a similar situation with the same rules and I had to sign that recently.

rembrandtqeinstein said:
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.
I don't like buying skins based on a pic or screenshot so the ability to view what it looks like in game from different angles was a benefit to me.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,470
0
0
It's all just price hikes in the end.
They've let their production (and advertising) budgets spiral well out of control, but they know that if they start charging more up front, they will make less. So instead, each game pushing closer and closer towards a loss leader gambit where the point is to hook players in and then twist their arms as hard as possible with microtransactions.

In my childhood, top-bill games cost 40 USD+, which was artificially inflated due to Nintendo having a monopoly at the time. After the market recovered, through inflation, the price eventually hit close to its optimal level in the PS2 era.

Inflation has marched on since that time, along with a near-total economic collapse. Combine that with the fact that AAA games need to sell positively ABSURD numbers of units to remain profitable (up front) and it's clear that the 60 USD priceline is not good enough for AAA anymore. At least, not on its own.

Thus, the price hikes. All of those little schemes, microtransactions and increasingly back-loaded DLC.
All crammed into games with the broadest, "safest" pandering possible.
 

Saulkar

Regular Member
Legacy
Aug 25, 2010
3,140
2
13
Country
Canuckistan
xPixelatedx said:
Sadly I don't have an answer to that, as it's just an image I found on an image board one time when random animated gifs were being posted. I am guessing an anime of some kind, given the style of animation when seen up close.
Shit, I spent several minutes searching for it before deciding to be annoying and ask you but noticed that you had posted twice in the same thread on your profile and correctly assumed that you were replying to someone inquiring as to where your avatar came from, alas to no result. :-(

OT: Mechwarrior: Online has sorta got this thing down but its broken gameplay cannot be recommended to anyone at the moment.
 

xPixelatedx

New member
Jan 19, 2011
1,315
0
0
Saulkar said:
Shit, I spent several minutes searching for it before deciding to be annoying and ask you but noticed that you had posted twice in the same thread on your profile and correctly assumed that you were replying to someone inquiring as to where your avatar came from, alas to no result. :-(

OT: Mechwarrior: Online has sorta got this thing down but its broken gameplay cannot be recommended to anyone at the moment.
Someone was kind enough to send me a private message answering the question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxP5k6KFOO0

OMFG the Dinosaur uses it's tail to!! I need to get an animated gif of that as well XD
I freaking love japan.