Jimquisition: The Trap Of Gamer Gratitude

[PuckFuppet]

The idea behind microtransactions isn't inherently bad, EA seems to be trying to sell all of its content as if it adheres to that idea, arguing that all it does is give players options to progress/add to their game experience for money but leave those options reasonably accessible for people who don't want to pay money.

In my experience, it doesn't.

 

[Samael Barghest]

I sitting here with a question: isn't the point of games to waste time? I mean productively waste time. If you just pay extra money to get the content, then you're not gaming properly and wasting time the wrong way.

 

[Trishbot]

EA really is terrible at putting their customers first.

I think the concept of making people LIKE you and being HAPPY to pay you for a satisfying product is alien to them. For a company that wants to be the next Valve, they sure don't understand why Valve's approach works and theirs doesn't.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Was the last part a reference to something? It sounds so familiar, yet it seems like I've never heard it before.

I think it's something to do with Dungeons & Dragons and/or Pokémon or some other nerdy shite.


-----
Great show, btw.; I wish I could believe that it was only children (i.e. everyone under the age of 20) that seem to be confused as to publisher-motivation regarding these business practices within the gaming industry (or any industry, for that matter). Unfortunately life has taught me otherwise.....

But, it is not yet time to become cynical. Fair business practices, respect for the consumer and overall common sense still have a chance in this world.

We can still be saved.

We can still win.

If only there was someone to lead the charge. Someone we should thank god for.

Hmmmmmmm........

Well children, idiots, or not I always look at it as, "what would be fair to me?" And I demand at least that same fairness for everyone else, irrespective of whether or not they would be courageous enough to demand it for themselves. Its an amendment to the Golden Rule I made for myself a long time ago.

 

[Callate]

Jim's my only friend. Jim's not my only friend, but Jim's a little glowing friend. But really, Jim's not actually my friend. But Jim is...

Well, once again, I agree; I think Jim is spot on, and it's rather disturbing the degree to which people start feeling loyalty to things in a way that resembles Stockholm Syndrome. I know I'm not entirely immune to this; the busload of unplayed or barely-played $5 AAA games I have on Steam leaves me a warm and sunny glow that would probably turn into slack-jawed, hollow-eyed betrayal if Valve ever actually pulled the plug on my ability to access their service.

But EA... Ugh. Goddammit, watching them do this to Popcap makes me a little sick. Maybe Popcap would have ended up doing it to themselves, in time; this is the way the market seems to be headed, regardless of the near-certainty that publishers as a whole are poisoning the well, flooding the market with sub-par Skinner boxes that will lead to people thinking even more than they do that all games should be free while simultaneously treating them all like trap-laden witches' gingerbread houses.

And Kotaku, good God, are they trying to become "Your source for editorial content that's self-congratulatory, self-righteous, and wrong...?"

Feh. Feh, I say. I need to gargle mouthwash to get the taste of this dreck out.

 

[Darth_Payn]

And that's why I'm not a regular Kotaku reader. EA and Activision sound more guilty of intentional leaving content out of their games and making them unplayable, while the other examples sound more like accidents and human error.

 

[Hot Madness]

I think it's something to do with Dungeons & Dragons and/or Pokémon or some other nerdy shite.

Says the guy on the gaming website forum.

 

[DrOswald]

They don't deserve your gratitude. You don't give them money to thank them. They should be thanking you for buying their products. They should be grateful every time you shell out some of your hard-earned cash to play their game. They don't own you. They don't give you pennies from heaven. They're here to do a job, and you're the one that ultimately decides if they deserve a payday. If a game is shit, you let them know. If they fix it, you tell them "and don't let it happen again." Don't be their *****. They're YOUR *****. They bark at your command because you have the money to offer. Thank god for Jim.

This is so true, so very true.
Yet, I've seen it happen countless times.... players being grateful to the developers for fixing game problems.

Heck, sometimes I even stumbled into topics saying "thank you for making this game!!". While I appreciate the enthusiasm, they do not deserve any thank you for making a good videogame. Because it's not like they gave it to you completely free as a gift.

Well that's taking it a bit far. The ideal relationship between a content creator and a content consumer is a relationship of mutual benefit and respect. Ideally we should be thanking them for creating great games and they should be thanking us for buying them. This promotes a strong dialog between the two parties that will result in a net gain for everyone. If we don't acknowledge and appropriately reward behavior we like (not only with a purchase but by vocalizing our satisfaction, consumer loyalty, and spreading the word) then there is no reason for companies to behave in a way we want. You should be thankful, you should be loyal - but only when a content creator deserves it.

If our relationship with content creators is based purely on financial transaction how can we expect them to do anything but base all their decisions purely on financial gain?

 

[C.S.Strowbridge]

It is impossible to run a business without making a mistaken every know and then. It is the mark of a good company to fix their mistakes graciously.

On the other hand, as Jim pointed out, a lot of time these are not mistakes but something they did intentionally to screw over the consumer. You are getting screwed and thanking people for the right to screw you.

 

[Rodolphe Kourkenko]

So... EA didn't put any microtransactions at launch to have better reviews and sold numbers and just after put microtransactions and some players thank them (i'm not surprised by the Kotaku article... It's a desesperate site that need controversie to exist).

If it's the new trend for EA, i'll pass any of their games OR wait for some months before thinking buying them. oh wait, the last EA game i bought was Mass Effect (the first)... So i'm good with this, if people don't want to use their brains, it's not my problem.

 

[Racecarlock]

Does anyone remember expansions? You know, you'd pay maybe and extra 20 dollars and you'd get hours of new content? Now it's like "You want this shirt? Fuck you, pay me 10 dollars". All of a sudden what used to be cheat codes are now just paying to unlock things quicker. Nope, no new content for you, pay for the shit that's already there, you just get it a bit faster.

And then they slow down the game to make that shit necessary. And then they call minimum wage workers on benefits lazy while shoving in microtransactions for their games so they don't have to work to earn money.

I have no sympathy here. None. Publishers can go screw themselves for putting in problems intentionally and then fixing them to get praise. And then they take the lion's share of the profits. And THEN they lower developer wages and then say "It's used games fault" and then the developer makes the statement against used games instead of the publisher and then some gamers side with that developer. What the hell, people?

 

[deathjavu]

SMBC has it covered, as it so often does.

Spoiler

Marketers have become extremely adept at exploiting psychological holes in human minds, and this is one of em.

People are happy when a bad thing is given to them, then taken away, even when the bad thing didn't need to be there in the first place.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Remember this.

We, the consumers, have the power through our spending or lack thereof. The game companies WORK FOR US to receive their pay.

Let's say, as a boss, you tell your employee to do certain tasks expected of him in his job and then he doesn't. You then reprimand him and he then relents and does what he's supposed to do. Would you then say "thank you" that he did his job properly? Not if you're an effective boss you wouldn't. Thanking the initially-ineffective employee is taking the attitude that you somehow owe him a debt of gratitude for doing what he did--that is, doing the thing he was supposed to do in the first place with a reprimand--and that's not how it should work. Your attitude should be one of "It's about time you did the job I hired you to do. Get it together." And it's HIS attitude that should be one of gratitude that you gave him another chance and didn't fire his incompetent ass.

 

[Barciad]

Was that an ...Irish accent? I know Aidan Gillen is Irish, but I never thought Petyr Baelish used an accent like... that.

He sounded more Cornish than Irish.

 

[Demonchaser27]

We reached a point where Publishers just became outright disgusting. Most of the people seem so forget about problems so they can become status quo, if the steps the games industry is going are just small enough to provoce no xbox one reaction.
So what is next, do we have to pay for a patch, or per hour of play time? Thank god for jim and other critics that save from buying games like that

My greatest fear is that it's heading that direction. I'm sorry, but why do we think DLC and microtransactions really started? A long time ago Sega, who was being helped by Microsoft with Dreamcast at the time, started that idea, and Microsoft later with XBOX finished it. Then mobile happened and the big boys got in there as well. Anyone could have started this but there is no irony that the biggest money grubbers were the ones to begin these practices. They've likely been working on this plan the whole time. Other money grubbers who didn't think of it first have just been joining in over the years. Just inching people closer and closer to paying for as many little pieces of content/hours at a time. All so they can hike the price of games to astronomical figures overall. Its well known in the psychology of common consumers that someone who sees a lower price will go for that. And before you know it they won't realize that they're actually spending two to three times as much for essentially the same amount of game that they could have (or did have in previous years) had. If you've ever worked in these corporate offices you would be amazed at how horribly evil some of these executives can come across. The meticulously laid out plans they have for the future. It's pretty scary.

 

[MonkeyPunch]

Oh wow. I've had this exhausting argument once already today and it drives me na-na.
I used to be big in to F2P games. Now when I hear that moniker I run a mile in the other direction. It is (bar a very few exceptions) usually just a developer/publisher saying "our game has a really low player count and we're trying to make up dough another way, because no one's interested in it enough to pay for it." or "here's a game that might be worth 60 bucks but we're going to hold stuff back from you so that you will end up paying more than that, and enjoying and seeing a lot less than you're 60 dollars worth."
Feck that. And feck Kotaku. I was almost tempted to go read that post for the sake of information but then I don't want to give them any page hits.

This will really make me look my age...
Aaand just for the sake of reference (because I read posts above this) there used to be a time when a dev/pub would make a game and you got all of it. Yes, the entirety of it. Single player and multiplayer.
Then believe it or not young scallywag, later down the line, they would add content. "DLC" I hear you say? Well, yes. It was. But they were called game patches. And again - please don't spill your milk - they were free. General patches to fix bugs but also entirely new game modes, models, levels... everything. DLC as it is today. But free.
Ah! You think that those developers must have gone out of business for using such practices?
No. No they didn't.
In fact they did quite f'in well for themselves (judging by the size of Cliffy B's Dodge and his extended hiatus from, you know - work) because they garnered good will.
Good night and sleep tight. Dream about your money running down a drain.

 

[Lyvric]

This is why I gave up part way through pvz 2 and never bothered with warfare. This attitude is plastered all over EA and the mobile market. Sadly it's such old news now it's a 'thanks' or ignored response from many people. Not sure what to do at this point though?

When did you play PvZ2? After they revamped it a while back and removed the bullshit gates system it suddenly became a solid game. It's one of the better tower defense games I've played, and although it is very challenging at points, I never felt like I needed to buy the microtransaction cheats. There's not a ton of padding and all the content except a handful of plants can be played for free - And the microtransaction plants are really only needed if you just really really don't want to adjust your tactics from PvZ1.

Seriously, they did a lot of cool stuff that resulted in interesting and challenging levels that make it one of my favorite tower defense games I've played recently. If only they had released it in this state instead of the terrible grind-walled mess it was at launch.

When it had to do with the gates, then a second time with the piñata parties. Throwing time restrictions as a money grab has always been a turn off. Look, you spent several days to get to this last level and by random chance you didn't get what you need. Spend money or you're screwed. It's down right enraging and pvz2 has little pop ups like this regularly, or at least last I checked.

Maybe it's just me, but once upon a time, tower defence and puzzle matching you could spend less than 10 bucks on or free online, have a great game, and not feel hounded.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Does anyone remember expansions? You know, you'd pay maybe and extra 20 dollars and you'd get hours of new content? Now it's like "You want this shirt? Fuck you, pay me 10 dollars". All of a sudden what used to be cheat codes are now just paying to unlock things quicker. Nope, no new content for you, pay for the shit that's already there, you just get it a bit faster.

And then they slow down the game to make that shit necessary. And then they call minimum wage workers on benefits lazy while shoving in microtransactions for their games so they don't have to work to earn money.

I have no sympathy here. None. Publishers can go screw themselves for putting in problems intentionally and then fixing them to get praise. And then they take the lion's share of the profits. And THEN they lower developer wages and then say "It's used games fault" and then the developer makes the statement against used games instead of the publisher and then some gamers side with that developer. What the hell, people?

Yes I remember expansions. They weren't all great but they were almost all better than what we have today. Hell, even the kings of expansions, Blizzard, fell shallow by charging full game price for there "expansions", at least for Starcraft 2.

And I actually genuinely want to know why cheatcodes became such a bad thing. We used to play Goldeneye and Perfect Dark explicitly for the freaking cheatcodes you could activate. Hell its so bad now that if you so much as dare to mention to anyone you've ever used cheatcodes in a SINGLEPLAYER GAME people call you a loser or say "you're just not good enough, casual." I mean for goodness sake. You can't even enjoy a game beyond difficulty anymore. There are even games that won't let you save if you activate cheats. What?!? Just boggles my mind. Who gives a flying fuck.

 

[Legion]

This is another one of those episodes where it is depressing to think that there are people out there who actually need to be told this. It's really worrying how many people feel indebted to the game industry for providing services, especially when such services have already been paid for.

You often see these kinds of people whenever people complain about DLC. Telling people that they should be thankful for the opportunity to give more money to complete the game that they bought. While I am not anti-DLC as a concept, it's not something designed to be nice to us. It's designed to get more money, they could quite easily have released it for free or with the main game if they had chosen to.

Just look at games such as Terraria, Minecraft and FTL. Free updates months and even years after they first come out, some of them adding significant improvements. While it could fairly be argued that no developer should have to do this when it costs them money, this doesn't mean people should be bowing down to them for doing it.

This is so true, so very true.
Yet, I've seen it happen countless times.... players being grateful to the developers for fixing game problems.

Heck, sometimes I even stumbled into topics saying "thank you for making this game!!". While I appreciate the enthusiasm, they do not deserve any thank you for making a good videogame. Because it's not like they gave it to you completely free as a gift.

I do not entirely agree with this. It's still a good thing to show appreciation for something, even if you did pay for it. While it's true they didn't make it entirely out of the kindness of their hearts, they still put in a lot of effort to make it good, and people deserve to be thanked for it.

The problem lies in when people feel like they owe them for it in some way. As if buying the product isn't merely enough. Those kind of people tend to be the ones who attack anybody who doesn't blindly swear adoration to the company for giving us this game. You unfortunately see a lot of these people on the dedicated forums for developers.