Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

EA and Micro-Transactions

Options
1235

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    It was actually one planet, hidden behind a paywall. At least partially attributable to Bioware missing the point.

    And yet even with such a ludicrous misstep they remain by a considerable margin the most progressive of the bigger publishers.

    So it was pay to be gay?


  • Options
    #123
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    SB2013 wrote: »
    Was that event after it emerged that there was only one homosexual in the entire galaxy of knights of the republic?
    The event was announced today, so I doubt it.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    What they are doing to gaming is a disgrace as far as I am concerned. The Sims is the worst of it. There's €500 of dlc for that, targeted at children for the most part. Battlefield 3 is pay to win. Mass Effect 3 required extra payment for the full story to be unlocked. Dead space 3 and Sim City are just the latest attack on consumers.
    The Sims, the last time I played it, was chock full of content on release. I don't see anything wrong with producing more content for those who want to pay for it after release. The fact that t sells a bazillion copies is proof that there are plenty of people who want this content.

    Battlefield 3 is not pay to win.

    In Mass Effect 3 Javik was not required for the full story to be unlocked. That's not to say I agree with him being DLC-based of course.

    The micro-transactions in Dead Space 3, as many above have already attested, are entirely optional.

    The Sim City thing is still on-going but outside of the server issues the general reaction to the actual game has been, generally speaking, extremely positive, including the online functionality.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    And that's just the financial side. They have quite the rep for franchise killing. Remember a game called Command and Conquer? Dragons age?
    They also have a rep for franchise creating. The actual problem is that they then want those franchises to become massive when they really can't and in doing so dilute the original experience to appeal to a broader audience. It doesn't, however, stop those original entries being great as is the case with the likes of Dead Space, Mirrors Edge and Dragon's Age.

    There's nothing wrong with criticising companies, and hell EA do deserve a lot for some of things they do, but it's important that said criticism be both valid and constructive, otherwise it'll simply be dismissed as vitriolic bile being spewed by people who will never really be happy with anything they do.


  • Options
    #124
    Retr0gamer
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,991 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    EA were just copying Capcom and their progressive representation of the LGBT community:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpoomycJFIQ
    Untitled Image




  • Options
    #125
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    SB2013 wrote:
    What they are doing to gaming is a disgrace as far as I am concerned. The Sims is the worst of it. There's €500 of dlc for that, targeted at children for the most part. Battlefield 3 is pay to win. Mass Effect 3 required extra payment for the full story to be unlocked. Dead space 3 and Sim City are just the latest attack on consumers.

    This post fails.

    What you say about the Sims is like saying there €5,000 additional cost to playing Lego which is entirely targeted at children (which I'm not sure the same can be said about the Sims). Like if a child gets one kit of lego then logic concludes he needs to get it all right otherwise he can't enjoy the base product right, because thats what your implying here?. So what Lego should do is release one Lego pirate ship and not release any other type of Lego product, because its immoral and greedy.

    No its just standard business sense. Its all entirely optional. And some people really do like expansions to their games. Myself and many others greatly enjoy expansiosn to the Street Fighter 4 series. Keeps the game getting from getting stale and I'm far from the only who thinks that.

    Mass Effect 3 story segment was entirely optional. Had no bearing on the overall main storyline but I did enjoy the additional lore it brought about the ME universe.

    Dead Space 3 is perfectly fine, no one has any business being offended by the microstransactions in that game. 110% entirely optional. While I strongly dislike EA's always on DRM with Sim City, I can simply choose not to purchase said product. I'll with hold condemming EA on its possible DLC plans until the DLC actually exists.


  • Options
    #126
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,220 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    gizmo wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with criticising companies, and hell EA do deserve a lot for some of things they do, but it's important that said criticism be both valid and constructive, otherwise it'll simply be dismissed as vitriolic bile being spewed by people who will never really be happy with anything they do.

    Exactly. And I'm not exactly sure how a commercial company offering a customer choice is anti-consumer now? I must have missed that memo.

    As for Sim City? Well it was undoubtedly a poorly handled launch - but then again it's hardly the first game to be completely crippled by server issues on a busy launch day (Diablo III, Half-Life 2 etc...).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    SB2013 wrote: »
    Battlefield 3 is pay to win.

    It isnt as the microtransactions only came into play 3-4 months in so people who bought unlocks gained no unfair advantage and most of the unlockable weapons are as good as the starting

    EA/DICE dlc strategy has been mostly well accepted their DLC packs have offered a lot more than other games (a bf3 pack usually includes a few weapons 4 new maps and a new game mode)
    And that's just the financial side. They have quite the rep for franchise killing. Remember a game called Command and Conquer? Dragons age?

    Command and conquer has been mismanaged since most of the development team left when westwood turned into EALA and they havent been able to get designers from an rts background since its not exactly easy when blizzard and others such as CA are hiring and are dedicated to RTS games

    DA:O wouldnt exist without EA. 2 wasnt great but thats biowares failure not necessarily EA's and DA3 is out this year (?)


  • Options
    #128
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    gizmo wrote: »
    The event was announced today, so I doubt it.

    Why do you doubt it? It sounds pretty definite if what you say is correct. perhaps you misread my comment.
    gizmo wrote: »
    The Sims, the last time I played it, was chock full of content on release. I don't see anything wrong with producing more content for those who want to pay for it after release. The fact that t sells a bazillion copies is proof that there are plenty of people who want this content.

    It's not the production of new content. It's the marketing of it that I object to.
    gizmo wrote: »
    Battlefield 3 is not pay to win.

    Premium membership grants you access to xp boosting which makes you a better soldier faster.
    gizmo wrote: »
    In Mass Effect 3 Javik was not required for the full story to be unlocked. That's not to say I agree with him being DLC-based of course.

    He was a central part of the story. He had inbuilt interactions for many missions and locations which explained stuff.
    gizmo wrote: »
    The micro-transactions in Dead Space 3, as many above have already attested, are entirely optional.

    Of course. But they are a cynical attempt to get more and more money from people. It's a bad indication of what is in store for the future of EA games.
    gizmo wrote: »
    The Sim City thing is still on-going but outside of the server issues the general reaction to the actual game has been, generally speaking, extremely positive, including the online functionality.

    I disagree. For those who have managed to play there have been complaints about the limited size of cities and resouce usage, which strikes me as strange as a portion of the game appears to be serverside. It's also been pointed out that the game tries to force multiplayer interactions on people and is not great for people who like single player
    gizmo wrote: »
    They also have a rep for franchise creating. The actual problem is that they then want those franchises to become massive when they really can't and in doing so dilute the original experience to appeal to a broader audience. It doesn't, however, stop those original entries being great as is the case with the likes of Dead Space, Mirrors Edge and Dragon's Age.

    No they created a good game, not a good franchise. They then tried to make a good game into a franchise and failed. The titles you quoted are evidence of that.
    gizmo wrote: »
    There's nothing wrong with criticising companies, and hell EA do deserve a lot for some of things they do, but it's important that said criticism be both valid and constructive, otherwise it'll simply be dismissed as vitriolic bile being spewed by people who will never really be happy with anything they do.

    I'll give EA credit where it's due. But they are not due any when it comes to their treatment of consumers.
    Azza wrote: »
    This post fails.

    OK
    Azza wrote: »
    What you say about the Sims is like saying there €5,000 additional cost to playing Lego which is entirely targeted at children (which I'm not sure the same can be said about the Sims). Like if a child gets one kit of lego then logic concludes he needs to get it all right otherwise he can't enjoy the base product right, because thats what your implying here?. So what Lego should do is release one Lego pirate ship and not release any other type of Lego product, because its immoral and greedy.

    No it's nothing like lego. I don't even see what you are trying to say with that comparison.
    Azza wrote: »
    No its just standard business sense. Its all entirely optional. And some people really do like expansions to their games. Myself and many others greatly enjoy expansiosn to the Street Fighter 4 series. Keeps the game getting from getting stale and I'm far from the only who thinks that.

    But is it still an expansion if it exists from the start?
    Azza wrote: »
    Mass Effect 3 story segment was entirely optional. Had no bearing on the overall main storyline but I did enjoy the additional lore it brought about the ME universe.

    Javik had a massive influence on the story and game.
    Azza wrote: »
    Dead Space 3 is perfectly fine, no one has any business being offended by the microstransactions in that game. 110% entirely optional. While I strongly dislike EA's always on DRM with Sim City, I can simply choose not to purchase said product. I'll with hold condemming EA on its possible DLC plans until the DLC actually exists.

    It's all very well to say you simply won't purchase it but what happens when they keep doing it? And when others start doing it. Do you stop buying games altogether? I don't think you are looking at the long term affects of the Dead Space situation. My general approach to a game will be to replay it if i miss out on stuff. I think a lot would do the same. So replayability is a big thing for me. But now i don't have to. I can purchase upgrades and stuff to help me do it all first time. So the demand for replayability drops and it becomes less important in development. Perhaps I am not explaining it well but i see it as a dangerous precedent.
    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Exactly. And I'm not exactly sure how a commercial company offering a customer choice is anti-consumer now? I must have missed that memo.

    As for Sim City? Well it was undoubtedly a poorly handled launch - but then again it's hardly the first game to be completely crippled by server issues on a busy launch day (Diablo III, Half-Life 2 etc...).

    So they should have known better. The fact is they probably did. They knew how many people would be playing at launch and they knew how many their servers would support. The numbers obviously didn't match but they went ahead anyway because it wouldn't be financially viable to allow everyone to play. if you are going to do an always on DRM like they did, then that kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. The fact that people are writing it off and saying "Ah well, it's not the first time" is a complete cop out.


  • Options
    #129
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    SB2013 wrote: »
    Why do you doubt it? It sounds pretty definite if what you say is correct. perhaps you misread my comment.
    What I meant was the anti-gay controversy involving Mass Effect and SWTOR originally erupted over a year ago, this event was just announced today and isn't the first time they've been publicly pro-LGBT.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    It's not the production of new content. It's the marketing of it that I object to.
    I've actually never seen marketing for The Sims expansions myself outside of ads in speciality publications. As it stands I don't see how it's any different to the LEGO example Azza gave.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    Premium membership grants you access to xp boosting which makes you a better soldier faster.
    NTMK dealt with this above and coming from the perspective of someone who played BF3 a lot, I never had any issues dealing with Premium marked players. :)
    SB2013 wrote: »
    He was a central part of the story. He had inbuilt interactions for many missions and locations which explained stuff.
    He was only central due to his race, as an actual character he wasn't. I had him on my crew but rarely used him and didn't take him on the Thessia mission, the one which was supposedly his biggest contribution to the game yet, upon completion of the game, I didn't feel I was missing anything.

    To give my own take on it, Javik felt like a bonus character, something akin to a love-letter to the fans of the game. As such, he would have been the perfect Cerberus Network-esque addition to the game, something that people who bought the game new could get as a thank you. Having him as PDLC on launch however was never going to end well.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    Of course. But they are a cynical attempt to get more and more money from people. It's a bad indication of what is in store for the future of EA games.
    It's not cynical in the slightest. Games cost lots of money to make. Their budgets are only getting bigger. Game prices have not increased in years. Sales for the non-massive franchises are pretty stagnant. All of this combined means it's utterly unsurprising for a publisher to look to alternate revenue streams from their titles. As others have stated, as long as this doesn't effect those gamers with no interest in them, let them at it.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    I disagree. For those who have managed to play there have been complaints about the limited size of cities and resouce usage, which strikes me as strange as a portion of the game appears to be serverside. It's also been pointed out that the game tries to force multiplayer interactions on people and is not great for people who like single player
    While there have been negative comments made about the city side, as I said, the general critical reaction to the game has been positive, this is evident by the myriad of positive review scores out there and the large amount of positive feedback from fans. It's not perfect nor does this excuse the server issues at all but the above are the facts as they stand.
    SB2013 wrote: »
    No they created a good game, not a good franchise. They then tried to make a good game into a franchise and failed. The titles you quoted are evidence of that.
    Creating a franchise begins it creating a good starting game, my point was that the failure of subsequent instalments doesn't have an impact on those games and if their continued desire to create new franchises results in new IP then I'm all for it. My own personal hope from all of this is that EA realise that not everything they create needs to be a franchise and even if it does, it doesn't need to be a massive seller.


  • Options
    #130
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    SB2013 wrote:
    No it's nothing like lego. I don't even see what you are trying to say with that comparison.

    What I'm trying to say is when people like a product like they do with say the Sims or Lego they want more of it. Its perfectly normal.
    It makes good business sense to provide what people want. You make money and stay in business that way and the consumer gets what he wants, more product.
    There is nothing wrong at all with selling expansions or DLC.

    As for selling to children, thats who Lego is aimed at. I'm sure children nag there parents into buying them more Lego/toys all the time. Its up to the parent, usually the one who's the one purchasing it if want to buy it for their kid. Same applies to Sims expansions/dlc.
    SB2013 wrote:
    But is it still an expansion if it exists from the start?

    In the Sims case most of the cotent was developed after the core game was released but yes its still an expansion if it exists before the release of the game.

    I've explained why this is the case in previous posts in this thread. Post 68 in this thread for example, and a few others but I can't remember off the top of my head.

    Developers/publishers don't make a game then go back to it and start removing into segements so they can sell it as DLC. Game development does not work like that and there is no evidence of that being done.
    SB2013 wrote:
    Javik had a massive influence on the story and game.

    No he does not. Javik gives some background detail into the Protheans and the there war against the Reapers and its nice lore and all but its all completely irrevelant to the overarching story. Reapers coming to destroy galaxy, Cerberus up to no good, both must be stopped. Get allies to stop them.

    He's got some good dialogue whens your teammate too. But it did not affect the overall story. No missions played out different because of him, just some minor dialogue variations. You do not need him to defeat the reapers, he tells you nothing you need to know to stop them. He's just an optional character.

    Not playing as Javik is simply like not playing as one of the other squad mates. For example I didn't use Kaiden at all outside of missions I was forced to use him. It makes about the same difference to the story as not using Javik.
    SB2013 wrote:
    It's all very well to say you simply won't purchase it but what happens when they keep doing it? And when others start doing it. Do you stop buying games altogether? I don't think you are looking at the long term affects of the Dead Space situation. My general approach to a game will be to replay it if i miss out on stuff. I think a lot would do the same. So replayability is a big thing for me. But now i don't have to. I can purchase upgrades and stuff to help me do it all first time. So the demand for replayability drops and it becomes less important in development. Perhaps I am not explaining it well but i see it as a dangerous precedent.

    Its all very well saying EA or whoever else are going to do this that and the other but I'll only condemn them when they actually do it. With regards always online DRM valve aren't going this way. Capcom aren't going this way, Ubisoft have gone away from this. CD Project Red aren't going this way. Gog is DRM free all its old games. The slew of Kickstarter games are not going this way there all DRM free. We don't know how many EA games will use this system in the future etc.

    With regards microtransactions they do not affect your general approach to gaming. You still have the replayability option in Dead Space 3. You do not have to purchase upgrades. 100% entirely optional.
    Your just looking at the worst case scenario. A scenario which there is no evidence to suggest will occur.


  • Options
    #131
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    As mentioned before, a lot of the flak EA get is uncalled for. They're the big bag boogeymen of the gaming industry at the moment, alongside Activision, but the truth is that they put out some great games, and they're not the big money grabbing entity that doesn't care about the quality of games that people think they are. I've met and spoken to a load of people in there, from Peter Moore down, and they're all very passionate about the games they make


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    This discussion is pointless. We all know where the other stands at this stage and we aren't going to agree. The shape of things to come in the industry over the next few years will prove who was right in the end, either way.

    Let's just agree to disagree and move on until that time.


  • Options
    #133
    SB2013
    Closed Accounts Posts: 805 ✭✭✭SB2013


    Seems EA have come up with a solution for unhappy customers.

    http://i.imgur.com/K3KFAI3.jpg


  • Options
    #134
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Nothing new there. He's talking to a talking monkey. It's the job. I used to do that job. If he tries again tomorrow he will likely get his refund as the monkey will have been told to allow the refund by then.


  • Options
    #135
    COYVB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,660 ✭✭✭COYVB


    EA's online customer support is the worst I've ever encountered


  • Options
    #136
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    Kirby wrote:
    Nothing new there. He's talking to a talking monkey. It's the job. I used to do that job. If he tries again tomorrow he will likely get his refund as the monkey will have been told to allow the refund by then.

    Yeah I expect EA to reverse that position and possibly issue an apology about the ban threat.


  • Options
    #137
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    Honestly think EA are really taking a backwards step here in terms of the Game Industry. Like the SimCity debate about always online DRM, they really have compromised the longevity of games by restricting content that can be user created and setting up road blocks for legitimate gamers with archaic DRM. Look at the SteamWorkshop for Skyrim and how well it works. None of this is possible with EA's new stance of providing an "online service" and restricting user content.

    I am not against micro-Transactions per say but EA's implantation of them so far have been less than satisfactory and have legitimately annoyed paying customers who are not seeing the full picture when they buy their fully priced game. Look at Guild wars 2 for a good way to implement micro transactions. The last two points on this Reddit post about the always online nature of SimCity seem to indicate EA's new business direction and I would not be surprised to see systems like this become more common for Single player EA games.


  • Options
    #138
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    _Puma_ wrote:
    Honestly think EA are really taking a backwards step here in terms of the Game Industry. Like the SimCity debate about always online DRM, they really have compromised the longevity of games by restricting content that can be user created and setting up road blocks for legitimate gamers with archaic DRM. Look at the SteamWorkshop for Skyrim and how well it works. None of this is possible with EA's new stance of providing an "online service" and restricting user content.

    Well first of all I'll say I don't support EA's use of always online DRM. I hope the Sim City debacle puts them them off implementing it in future games.

    As for not releasing mod tools and restricting the ability to mod the game because of server requirements, its dissapointing but understandable. Mods could possibly hinder sales of DLC. Yes some people will scream its pure greed but its just a business decision. This does create an opportunity for other developers to offer the ability to mod the game as a bonus and reap the potential benefits. I don't begrudge developers/publishers who don't do it, I just appreciate it when they do.

    Some developers sell DLC and allow mods others don't its always been the case. I'd still reckon the online DRM primarily exists as a counter measure to piracy. Like it or loath it, it is quite effective at stopping piracy. Far more effective than Steamworks which only stops day zero piracy. I'd imagine EA weighed up the pros and cons of the system and said we are willing to annoy a few of our customers temporarily and loose some revenue from canceled pre-orders and refunds but overall win out finically be increased sales due to reduced piracy. They didn't factor in that the launch would be so disastrous.
    _Puma_ wrote:
    I am not against micro-Transactions per say but EA's implantation of them so far have been less than satisfactory and have legitimately annoyed paying customers who are not seeing the full picture when they buy their fully priced game.

    If your referring to Dead Space 3 and I assume you are because I'm not aware of another full priced EA game that uses microtransactions, none of that applies. Nothing is held back, you totally get the full picture when you buy this game. You can pay for shortcuts if you want, that is all.

    Funny that not one person critized Square Enix for doing the exact same thing with Sleeping Dogs.


  • Options
    #139
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,220 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    It was possibly quoted earlier in the thread, but everyone knows that Dead Space 3 has an infinite resource farming spot, right? One that EA has gone on record as saying was 'intentional' and won't be patched out? Even if it was a mistake their response to it shows that their microstransaction system isn't based about crippling the main game.

    http://www.joystiq.com/2013/02/09/dead-space-3-resource-farming-glitch-wont-be-patched-is-intent/


  • Options
    #140
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    Dead space 3 for me would just about be on the limit of what I would accept as micro transactions. The fact that they removed all the weapon specific ammo and introduced the generic ammo just before release is just an attempt to monatanise the game without putting any real effort or creativity in introducing optional content.

    Mass effect 3 is another attempt at monatanising the game by cutting content. I fully believe that the optional character was in the game from the beginning but after a meeting it was decided that he would be cut and introduced as a DLC to try and claw back more money.

    In fairness I have never played Sleeping dogs or have heard much about it's micro transactions. The reason EA is getting such a slating is because they have taken successful franchises and tried to introduce their own way of doing business into the game and limiting players to what they can experience unless they shell out more money.


  • Options
    #141
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    _Puma_ wrote:
    Dead space 3 for me would just about be on the limit of what I would accept as micro transactions. The fact that they removed all the weapon specific ammo and introduced the generic ammo just before release is just an attempt to monatanise the game without putting any real effort or creativity in introducing optional content.

    The news article that made the claim that generic ammo was introduced to help flog microtransactions in Dead Space 3 along with the canning of Dead Space 4 was strongly rejected by EA. There is no evidence to support that claim. It most certainly can't be said to be a fact.

    Also there is a DLC campaign coming out this week I believe entitled "Awakening", perhaps thats will be the real effort and creativity you expected?
    _Puma_ wrote:
    Mass effect 3 is another attempt at monatanising the game by cutting content. I fully believe that the optional character was in the game from the beginning but after a meeting it was decided that he would be cut and introduced as a DLC to try and claw back more money.

    Again no evidence to support your claim. Game's development isn't this monolothic structure where every programmer, artist, level designer, voice actor etc are all finished at the exact same time. I don't think anyone could seriously think that. So why not put at least of these otherwise idle resources to use while the game is being finished up.
    _Puma_ wrote:
    In fairness I have never played Sleeping dogs or have heard much about it's micro transactions. The reason EA is getting such a slating is because they have taken successful franchises and tried to introduce their own way of doing business into the game and limiting players to what they can experience unless they shell out more money.

    Well its not only there way of doing business as Square Enix have done it. THQ did similar with Saints Row 3. DLC and microtransactions are here to stay. I personally don't see how they have limited any of their games. Yes they don't provide mod tools but their under no obligation to do so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    Azza wrote: »
    The news article that made the claim that generic ammo was introduced to help flog microtransactions in Dead Space 3 along with the canning of Dead Space 4 was strongly rejected by EA. There is no evidence to support that claim. It most certainly can't be said to be a fact.

    Also there is a DLC campaign coming out this week I believe entitled "Awakening", perhaps thats will be the real effort and creativity you expected?



    Again no evidence to support your claim. Game's development isn't this monolothic structure where every programmer, artist, level designer, voice actor etc are all finished at the exact same time. I don't think anyone could seriously think that. So why not put at least of these otherwise idle resources to use while the game is being finished up.



    Well its not only there way of doing business as Square Enix have done it. THQ did similar with Saints Row 3. DLC and microtransactions are here to stay. I personally don't see how they have limited any of their games. Yes they don't provide mod tools but their under no obligation to do so.

    The ammo thing is a contentious issue, Dead space 1&2 had weapon specific ammo, however with the introduction of the generic ammo in DS3 it certainly incentivised the use of micro transactions to further the gameplay elements.

    Now the DLC in ME3 was day one DLC, a bit different to Awakening. It is perfectly feesable that work was done on Awakening after DS3 was out of production.I have no problem with this and is how most expansions/DLC work. Not so for the DLC for ME3. It interacts seemliselly with the core game and adds some plot elements that are almost "essential" to the core plot of the original game. I have no problems paying for DLC for the multiplayer aspects of ME3 or even stand alone Missions, like the ones recently released but the day one DLC was not a good move for gamers.


  • Options
    #143
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    _Puma_ wrote: »
    Now the DLC in ME3 was day one DLC, a bit different to Awakening. It is perfectly feesable that work was done on Awakening after DS3 was out of production.I have no problem with this and is how most expansions/DLC work. Not so for the DLC for ME3. It interacts seemliselly with the core game and adds some plot elements that are almost "essential" to the core plot of the original game. I have no problems paying for DLC for the multiplayer aspects of ME3 or even stand alone Missions, like the ones recently released but the day one DLC was not a good move for gamers.
    Awakening and its contents were announced before the release of Dead Space 3 so we have no way of knowing when development was carried out. My bet would at precisely the same time as the ME3 DLC was being created in the context of the development cycle.

    As for Javik, his supposed importance to the story (outside of his race) has been rejected by many people on this thread already. Personally I'm of the opinion that if he had been in the game until the end of development and then "cut" out, as so many attempt to claim, then I think that would open them up to even more criticism as he's woefully under developed and under used given his lineage. He feels, as I said above, like a bonus character and I only wish he had been treated that way as some form of Cerberus Network type content rather than PDLC.


  • Options
    #144
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    _Puma_ wrote:
    Now the DLC in ME3 was day one DLC, a bit different to Awakening. It is perfectly feesable that work was done on Awakening after DS3 was out of production.I have no problem with this and is how most expansions/DLC work. Not so for the DLC for ME3. It interacts seemliselly with the core game and adds some plot elements that are almost "essential" to the core plot of the original game. I have no problems paying for DLC for the multiplayer aspects of ME3 or even stand alone Missions, like the ones recently released but the day one DLC was not a good move for gamers.

    I'm pretty sure at least some of the Awakening DLC would of been developed before the release of the core game.

    Back on "From Ashes" ME3 DLC. The fact that it was seemliselly implemented with the core game just means Bioware where doing there job, just as they seemlessly implemented the Citadel DLC only last week.

    It was completely a side plot aside from the core plot of the orginal game. I simply can't see how any of it could be considered "essential".
    Flashbacks to the Protheans last stand in the previous cycle are not essential to the core story. Nore is the plot strand of the Protheans guiding Asari development, nor the tidbits about wars the Protheans fought during there time or how they could communicate memories and emotions. All of it was just separate side plot and some lore tidbits. I had Kaiden surive the first game in place of Ashley. I never experienced Ashleys appearance in ME 2 or 3. Thats the equivelent of what you miss out on without having Javik.


  • Options
    #145
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    Again with "Awakened", work being done after Initial production and released as DLC is perfectly acceptable. Sometimes Release and Production finish could end up being months apart and the team is kept on to generate some new content. I dont think that playing DS3 again with the DLC unlocked will see any difference to the main story. In fact Awekened is being billed as a campaign add-on and the producer Fattouh "calls Awakened a continuation of Dead Space 3's story". Fine in my book.

    However I don't see "From Ashes" as this, and is why I differentiated it from the other DLC for ME3. If Javik was like the Kaiden/Ashely split why was there not a similar character to Javik developed where a decision between the two is given so you are not being deprived of content/lore. I would consider the events you described in the spoiler tags pretty essential to the plot given the events of Mass Effect 1 but again that is my opinion and there is no need to reopen that argument.


  • Options
    #146
    Gunmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 4,067 ✭✭✭Gunmonkey


    _Puma_ wrote: »
    The ammo thing is a contentious issue, Dead space 1&2 had weapon specific ammo, however with the introduction of the generic ammo in DS3 it certainly incentivised the use of micro transactions to further the gameplay elements.

    How? Can you elaborate a bit more than "because micro-transactions"... Listing the MT that this was switched to try ship, how much it costs, how much ammo that would buy you, this kinda stuff would help with the argument!

    My 2 cents? Its to do with the crafting system, far as I know the Plasma Core can be built into the Plasma Cutter, Line Gun and the Contact Beam. So how would ammo work with the vast difference between the Cutter and Contact Beam? Thats like 12 vs 4 shots at one time, would you be given dozens of Plasma rounds and therefore OP you if you used a Contact Beam, or UP you if you only got 2 or 3 per pickup and used a Plasma Cutter, needing 4 or 5 pickups just to reload it fully. Same for the Military Engine, builds the Pulse Rifle and Shotgun with a difference of around 50 vs 8 shots in both.

    And how would drop rate work, these games are usually based off what weapons your carrying, so if you have 3 Plasma Core based weapons and 1 Military Engine based weapon, is it a 3:1 drop rate between Plasma vs Solid rounds? Or does it just jump to a 1:1 chance based on having any class of weapon?


  • Options
    #147
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    Gunmonkey wrote: »
    How? Can you elaborate a bit more than "because micro-transactions"... Listing the MT that this was switched to try ship, how much it costs, how much ammo that would buy you, this kinda stuff would help with the argument!

    My 2 cents? Its to do with the crafting system, far as I know the Plasma Core can be built into the Plasma Cutter, Line Gun and the Contact Beam. So how would ammo work with the vast difference between the Cutter and Contact Beam? Thats like 12 vs 4 shots at one time, would you be given dozens of Plasma rounds and therefore OP you if you used a Contact Beam, or UP you if you only got 2 or 3 per pickup and used a Plasma Cutter, needing 4 or 5 pickups just to reload it fully. Same for the Military Engine, builds the Pulse Rifle and Shotgun with a difference of around 50 vs 8 shots in both.

    And how would drop rate work, these games are usually based off what weapons your carrying, so if you have 3 Plasma Core based weapons and 1 Military Engine based weapon, is it a 3:1 drop rate between Plasma vs Solid rounds? Or does it just jump to a 1:1 chance based on having any class of weapon?

    I see your point Gunmonkey. In DS 1&2 there was upgradable weapons but not to the extent of DS3 so I suppose the ammo type can be linked to this. In 1&2 resource management added to the suspense of the game and trying to decide what to spent your limited upgrade drops on was critical. With the Micro Transactions this is not really the case as you can always just buy the Resources and upgrade anyway. Crude but again I would like it if the micro transactions were more limited to asthetic differences. As I said the MT's in DS3 is just about at the limit of what I would deem acceptable.


  • Options
    #148
    Azza
    Moderators Posts: 5,554 ✭✭✭Azza


    _Puma_ wrote:
    In 1&2 resource management added to the suspense of the game and trying to decide what to spent your limited upgrade drops on was critical. With the Micro Transactions this is not really the case as you can always just buy the Resources and upgrade anyway. Crude but again I would like it if the micro transactions were more limited to asthetic differences. As I said the MT's in DS3 is just about at the limit of what I would deem acceptable.

    You don't have to use microtransactions in Dead Space 3. Its entirely up to the player. So it doesn't have to effect the suspense of the game.


  • Options
    #149
    _Puma_
    Registered Users Posts: 971 ✭✭✭_Puma_


    But if ya do it will, making the game easier as a result. If Dead Space 3 was impossible to finish without the MT's then I would be completely against them, but the fact that they are not compulsory is why I deem them borderline acceptable. If they were more aesthetic based it would be better still.


  • Options
    #150
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    EA dismisses Real Racing 3 micro-transactions furore, declares "the market has spoken"

    Inflammatory headline aside, it seems Real Racing 3 has gone on to do some pretty good numbers despite the micro-transactions issue. While large sales for a free title of this stature aren't exactly surprising, outselling both the first two games combined is still something to take note of. That's all meaningless of course unless there's some actual financial data to go with it and unfortunately, we've yet to see any. The figure that will be most important come EA's quarterly financials will be the titles ARPU, a rather unsavoury abbreviation of average revenue per user which has grown all the more important as F2P gained momentum.

    Personally, I don't like micro-transactions, never have and never will. Give me a free demo and a full game with a price tag and I'll decide whether the game is worth it for me. What has happened though is that people have gotten used to paying either sweet **** all or nothing at all for a whole host of games at varying quality levels and now we're faced with titles like RR3. When I saw the above link, however, the first thing that came to mind was the recent release of Ridiculous Fishing, one of the first mobile games I've come across in awhile (in fairness, I don't play that many) which, despite having an in-game store for upgrades and such, doesn't have any micro-transactions in sight. Amusingly enough, later that day a story popped up on Develop mentioning something the developers of said game, Vlambeer, had said during their recent Reddit Q&A:

    Vlambeer: Mobile devs mustn't be scared of charging more

    Personally I can't agree with this enough. If people want to see higher quality titles, whether they're at the level of RR3 or simply striving to look better than the average mobile game, but without the micro-transaction nonsense, then they need to be willing to pay for them. That doesn't mean the usual 69p or £1.99 either, we need to see prices which reflect the amount of work that goes into the higher quality ones rather than an automatic assumption that a game should be cheap because it's on a mobile platform. A compromise would be fine too I reckon, a cheap entry point of one of the above prices along with some non-intrusive micro-transactions for people who want to get even more out of the game would, I guess, be the best of both worlds for most folk. Either way though, unless EA see some pretty dismal ARPU numbers come the end of the month, I have a feeling we're not going to see the end of MTs anytime soon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,220 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Mobile games are a difficult one - I really agree that developers and customers need to be more willing to charge / pay upfront, but at the same time most smart phone users I know will rarely if ever pay upfront. Ridiculous Fishing is one of the best games of the year so far on any format, along with Year Walk, but I know there's no point recommending it to friends I know would like it because they'd be so reluctant to pay a mere two euro for it. I don't know how willing they'd be to pick up microtransactions, although it seems on a non-anecdotal level it has been a successful model for lots of developers (games like Temple Run only truly took off when they became F2P). Then again the fantastic The Room also did gangbusters at a more expensive price than the usual 99c successes, while CAVE seem to be doing well off their premium apps too. I still think Square Enix are ripping the piss, no matter the quality of the core game, with their iOS ports.

    That was a too long, didn't read version of a simple point: there's no real 'right' answer when it comes to microtransactions and initial entry cost for mobile games as there's success stories with all models (although more at the rock bottom pricing scale). It's a shame so many are set in their ways and don't pay for apps, though: some of the more imaginative, clever games are out there for a couple of euro. There's a probably majority audience out there who simply never step beyond F2P and 79c titles.


Advertisement