Jimquisition: Fee to Pay

[Noswad]

Yeah this is why as rule of thumb i don't touch microtranaction games any more, never realised it until it was said explicitly but the testing of my patience brought on by micortransactions just is not enjoyable.

Also i now have to go watch once more with feeling, again.

 

[masticina]

Yeah a worrysome reality :!

The only F2P MMO I put money into is well Furcadia, a social MMO. And even then they say in the shop "It are just pixels". See you can be a horse, a cat, a wolf, a.. a furry! But they also have if you want other avatars that are premium. If you want you can buy those and for a while you are able to look like a DRAGON.

Do these avatars mean anything? Nah! There are no stats connected to things, there are no gameplay elements. It is somewhat between a 3d world and an IRC chat. So you can be a free horse avatar and play as a dragon. Just put in your description that you are a dragon

Why put money in there? Well it is nice, social, and it keeps the servers running. Servers cost money! People programming and running the game costs money.. I don't mind at times, for some pixels [mmm fairies are kewl] to put a bit of my money into there. Again you don't have to and that is nice to play with all those who.. really can't spend money on things like characters. They are decent players to so a fair thing. And in the end "It is just pixels" it is a look.. yes these premium avatars are cute but he.. they are not really super expensive. And they keep the server running so I am happy about that.

But yes so many games out there, so many MMO's really NERF non paying players. It is just sad really, oh yes we have allot of kewl races you can play.. 7 of those are behind a paywall though. Here play a human! What okay we also give you this stinking goblin like thing you can play for free to.

For my big games, I rather pay up front and well then use in game points/credits/gold to upgrade my character. I totally agree!

Furcadia is pretty much the one exception I make

I have followed the Diablo III fallout wow, talk about pay to win!

 

[Merklyn236]

Is it wrong that at this point I think we're going to have a have a full scale video game crash to get any of this sorted out?

Never played the Dead Space series, not my thing really, but I had Mass Effect 3 and saw how this affected the multiplayer portion. The difficulty curve was stacked so that you'd start thinking about buying the weapon/equipment packs to be able to keep up (or you'd be hoping to be in teams that had one member who'd been splurging on them to even the odds a little). Or worse, you'd be the one "free" member of a "paid" squad, which meant you spent a lot of time as dead weight because the game was basing it's attacks on their level - not yours.

What are you talking about? There was no difficulty scaling with N7 number with mass effect. Difficulty was constant and only depended on what difficulty you chose.

I know that you could choose your difficulty, and that the rounds were supposed to be based on that. But as time went by I found more and more that if I was on a squad with players who had either REALLY done some credit-grinding or had purchased extra "rare" equipment, it really did feel like the units sent against us were tougher - sometimes MUCH tougher - than the selected difficulty level. Might have just been my experience, but it really did seem that way to me.

 

[Ishal]

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.

I think the cardinal rule of the cash shop, especially in MMO's, is sell what people WANT not what they NEED.

It used to be that consoles were the place of just paying 60$ and getting a game w/ no bullshit, but as you've said in previous eps, this is no longer the case. I heard a few weeks ago that the next Ace Combat game will be free to play as part of NamcoBandai's new line of f2p games. It's just... unfortunate.

Do you think there is an important point in the argument against ftp games that publishers should listen to? Even the whisper of WoW going ftp starts wars on the WoW forums and other MMO sites. People reacting negatively to the possibility of them NOT giving publishers money. You'd think that would be something publishers would be listening to, but nope they have to nickle and dime everything everywhere, because business...

 

[targren]

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.

I disagree. GW2 doesn't remotely "do it right" and it suffers from the exact problems as console games like Jim mentioned here. The "Gem Store" has unabashedly sold power since day 1, and calling them "convenience items" doesn't change that fact. Paying $3 for an hour of double-XP or $10 for infinite resource harvesting is certainly "convenient."

And it's just as "not optional" as Jim's Dead Space 3 example, especially when you consider the Cash For Gold exchange. Years ago, when they first announced the ability to pay cash for gold (via gems), I knew it was going to be a conflict of interest. Sure enough, I'd called it: NCSoft/ArenaNet don't have the integrity to resist constantly twiddling with the in-game "economy" when they have a financial interest.

 

[kklawm]

The Jimquisition wouldn't be the "Jimquisition" if he wasn't being critical about something, but in this case I think there's no real problem to complain about. The thing about games with both pay walls and micro transactions is they can be done well and really poorly. It's based on the game itself. I don't also buy into the idea of anything above retail spent on a game is a bad thing, optional or essential to the gameplay experience. Some games are free, some cost $10, some $60, some you can spend thousands on.

The only things that matter here: are you willing to pay for it? And are the publishers setting their game at the most acceptable price to be making money? For me a CoD game anything above free in price is too expensive but I think a game like Dota 2 or LoL would be perfectly fine with a $30 initial fee, micro transactions and all so long as it turned out to be a viable business model.

The only time pricing becomes an issue is when the industry has become in any way monopolized. Like Australians and the purposeful control on prices here (although that's easy enough to subvert). In a free market pricing etc naturally equalizes due to competition and bad pricing models tend to die.

 

[Ashley Blalock]

Real free to play is actually a really nice thing. I get to try out the game on the PC and if it's something I really enjoy playing then I don't feel so bad shelling out some money here and there because it feels like I'm giving a bit of money to a company providing me with an entertaining experience.

But I agree there is a good deal of bad free to play out there. Paying $60 for a game and then having to pay to win, screw that money pit. The games where you must pay to have a chance at winning are also games not worth my time.

 

[Ukomba]

Is it wrong that at this point I think we're going to have a have a full scale video game crash to get any of this sorted out?

Never played the Dead Space series, not my thing really, but I had Mass Effect 3 and saw how this affected the multiplayer portion. The difficulty curve was stacked so that you'd start thinking about buying the weapon/equipment packs to be able to keep up (or you'd be hoping to be in teams that had one member who'd been splurging on them to even the odds a little). Or worse, you'd be the one "free" member of a "paid" squad, which meant you spent a lot of time as dead weight because the game was basing it's attacks on their level - not yours.

What are you talking about? There was no difficulty scaling with N7 number with mass effect. Difficulty was constant and only depended on what difficulty you chose.

I know that you could choose your difficulty, and that the rounds were supposed to be based on that. But as time went by I found more and more that if I was on a squad with players who had either REALLY done some credit-grinding or had purchased extra "rare" equipment, it really did feel like the units sent against us were tougher - sometimes MUCH tougher - than the selected difficulty level. Might have just been my experience, but it really did seem that way to me.

I can't see how they could do that since even people who have been playing forever and splurging aren't always all powerful. Even a player with a huge N7 rating and several maxed out guns/mods could enter a game at level 1 with relatively weak weapons. I know I did that a lot when going for the various achievements.

What REALLY effected difficulty was the teamwork. I've seen teams with high N7 ratings wipe on silver and teams with low N7 sail through gold, just because of the teamwork difference. Class choice is important too.

 

[ZexionSephiroth]

My Ideal System for a Game that uses any kind of Micro Transaction system is Theoretically one that is Closer to how a Trading Card game Operates.

Basically almost all the content would be in the cards that cost jack all, and pretty much the only thing you have to pay for is the Cards. (And if its some kind of Skylanders Deal, you also might have to pay for the Card reader. Not really sure how to work around that unless the thing comes Free with a Huge pack of Cards.)

However... You can Also Trade those cards to others, or just give them away, so others have not only a fighting chance to get ahead without Paying, it fosters an urge to form a Community around the Game.

... With that in Mind...

Lets Say I made a Augmented Reality game that allowed one to Create and Train Monsters. And the Entire Monster's set of Levels and what not were stored on a Trade-able e reader Card. Though every Monster would start at Level 1 on Creation, after being Written to the card it would be able to gain Levels.

This would Theoretically allow one to collect on an investment on any given card... Kind of. Since high level cards that you have worked on could be Traded for a profit to Newbie Players. Basically making Second hand Cards worth more than a Fresh Set unless you Plan to create a brand new Custom Tailored Monster suited to their playing Style.

Assuming The Software is Free, and the Card Reader costs jack all, (or maybe have some Public card Reader set ups) then all up this would make a fairly Good way of Almost completely negating the hassles of Micro Transactions.

...Or not... I'm not entirely well versed in how this works.

 

[maximara]

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.

Part of the problem is that in the case of publicly traded companies you are answerable to investors who are looking at quarterly earnings reports rather then the long term.

It certainly doesn't help when said investors listen to the expectations of some Wall street "experts" that odds are know LESS about your company then flying a rocket ship to Mars. And when you don't meet or beat the amazing Wall street number out of a hat said investors tend to start selling your stock and as a result the value of your company measured by said stock goes down.

What we are seeing is not the problem but a SYMPTOM of the whole instant gratification mentality in the public working its way up to the top of companies.

 

[DragonDai]

I do not buy Fee to Pay games. I just don't. If you're gana try to sell me a full price game and then tack on more charges, you're not just going to lose a sale. I'm not JUST going to not buy it, I'm gana take it one step further. Because Fee to Pay games are a giant "fuck you" to the gamer. I need to flip them the bird right back.

 

[Flunk]

Jim, there is always an option. We can just make our own indy games.

 

[Smeatza]

Some games aren't like a serpent round your neck, some games use the carrot instead of the stick.
Like League of Legends.

 

[Instigo]

Somebody PLEASE GIF 2:15 -> 2:21!

 

[cheetahguy]

Jim would really get a kick out of DLC quest, its pretty much a video game representation of what pay to win/fee to play will become
(you don't pay real world money for the DLC in game, you buy it with in game coins)