It all started with the horse armour...

johnny_ultimate

...that damn horse armour.
After reading the fine article on gamecentral today about the new fangled profit-making tactics of the games industry, I must admit that I am fairly worried at the way things are go.
EA have started selling cheats for games (and apparantly money for the "Godfather". A half a million virtual dollars will set you back a couple of euro). And episodic content is becoming a bit worringly prevalant. Sure, it was a bit of a gimmick with Half Life 2 and Sam & Max (two games people would buy anyway), but as more and more games take this route (such as Lumines being split into three on Xbox Live at a hefty hunka change per section) it is becoming increasingly irksome. And then the in-game 'spyware' in Battlefield...
So what do y'all think? Are these so called 'microtransactions' a positive or negative? Are you going to buy into them? Do the companies in question actually think we are going to pay for every section of our game (as they seem to think we will)? Personally, this is one aspect of the hobby that could cause me to loose interest as time progresses...

koneko

Episodic content can, IMO, work if done properly. Means you don't have to wait as long for your next "episode", as long as the price is low I don't have a problem with it.

Microtransactions though? Nah. The Lumines stuff has put me off, I'm not paying for a Live Arcade game only to have it stop after 5 levels and tell me to buy more. Paying for ingame money? That's a joke.

The advertising/spyware thing with BF2142 has just given me all the more reason not to buy that game, along with the fact it's essentially an add-on pack, and costs far too much for what it is considering they will be making money on the advertising aswell.

flogen

I think, for the most part, these kinds of transactions should be confined to the realm of optional add-on rather than anything else...

if someone wants to buy horse armour, that's their business but the game will function perfectly well even though I've decided not to.
The GT idea of launching a premium and basic version, one of which will have all extras the other of which will have the bare minimum of everything is interesting, but I'd be a little worried at the idea of buying a game, at any price, that didn't feature everything I needed to enjoy it.
Imagine having to buy the final level of Halo or something, after paying 60+ for the original title? At the same time online games should be careful too; one player shouldn't be at a disadvantage just because they didn't pay as much as the other guy for a new gun, but that's going to happen if it hasn't already.

I've no problem with advertising in-game, just like advertising in a TV show, but only if it fits... using the example of Halo again, I'd have a hard time seeing any justifiable use of ads there because it's not set in the real world... but GTA could easily accomidate adverts without damaging the gameplay (although no advertiser would touch it)

0ubliette

flogen wrote:

I think, for the most part, these kinds of transactions should be confined to the realm of optional add-on rather than anything else...

if someone wants to buy horse armour, that's their business but the game will function perfectly well even though I've decided not to.
The GT idea of launching a premium and basic version, one of which will have all extras the other of which will have the bare minimum of everything is interesting, but I'd be a little worried at the idea of buying a game, at any price, that didn't feature everything I needed to enjoy it.
Imagine having to buy the final level of Halo or something, after paying 60+ for the original title? At the same time online games should be careful too; one player shouldn't be at a disadvantage just because they didn't pay as much as the other guy for a new gun, but that's going to happen if it hasn't already.

Already happening. BF2142 owners who pre-ordered from game (i think) get a different version of the SCAR-L or something. Right now its jsut a different skin and noise, but whos to say that the next game wont have tactical nuke launchers available for gamestop buyers only??
Even people who bought special forces (which sucked) got the F2000 nade launcher and flash grenades, everyone who didnt buy the expansion pack just had to put up with it and get screwed :rolleyes:

thebman

Yeah I think its a disgrace if you don't get a shield or something you need until you pay extra for it.

You shouldn't have to buy stuff. You should be able to earn it in the game and then if you have a busy lifestyle you can buy the locked items so you can play online straight away. That way, you have a waste time option or a buy stuff option.

People will still buy the content because they don't have the time or want to be able to beat everyone who hasn't unlocked it yet etc..

Something has to be done to keep the online fair and to make sure you don't pay 60 Euro and end up with a game engine and not the game until you pay this amount more etc.. because the games industry will likely collapse or suffer a serious set back if they start at that nonsense.

quad_red

was fine. You can complete the game and wholly enjoy without the new fangled horse armour. Same goes with adding extra quests. Oblivion gets away with it cos it's fcuking huge anyway!

However, what I'd be miffed at would be companys charging 70quid for a game 3/4 of the size it would've been before this micro transactions stuff and then putting the final quarter online in segments (for a price).

The BF spyware stuff is incredible though.

um7y1h83ge06nx

It's a worrying development.

Lumines is a complete joke, but I was reading that MS are aware of the negative feedback and the views this has being getting on forums.

What's just as worrying is that developers are releasing bugged, unfinished games for consoles now. Fair enough, patchs are considered part and parcel of PC gaming, but now console gaming.

Now games are being released for the 360 that have hilariously big bugs. Take Doom for example on Live Arcade. People, myself included, complained that the game would freeze if you attempted to exit it. Fair enough the problem is now fixed, but how the fcuk did they not see that prob before release.

Saints Row is meant to be badly bugged in multiplayer. They obviously knew that before release but due to always on broadband for Live, probably decided to keep to the release schedule, and patch it sometime in the future.

But surprisingly this happens also with companies that supply products to other large companies, where huge money is involved. Slightly moving off topic, when I was in college, I ordered a electronics development kit for my final year project. Drivers needed to be installed in order for it to connect to my PC. The drivers were completely broken, Windows refusing to install them. I had to contact their engineers and explain what was wrong and pointers on how to fix it. Admittingly they fixed it quickly, but it shouldn't have occured in the first place, especially considering the target customer for this wasn't a poor joe soap student, but multinationals considering huge bulk orders of the comapnies main chip on the kit.

For all they knew I could have being a senior member of a multinational who may have being evaluating the microcontroller chip that was in the kit, possibly interested in ordering a few million.

All in all, the entire elecronics/computing industry needs to try and tighten up on quality control and re-evaluate their marketing strategies. Sorry for the long post!

sprinkles

I for one want to buy a game and be able to enjoy it to it's FULL extent without the need to connect tot he net and download a oatch or pay for "virtual dollars" or something else equally as ridiculous....

However I think episodes are a good idea. You buy a game (HL2 for example) and you really enjoy it. While you're waiting for the next full sequel you can enjoy the episodes online for a small fee..... charging anything above 1/4 of the price of the original game though is robbery. R&D for the game is already done and the only thing to change level design and perhaps intoduce a few tweaks here and there.

Vegeta

yup i hate this sh1t and would never pay for cheats or in game money.

steviec

I think a lot of this has been overhyped by the press.

Oblivion horse armour - don't want it? Don't buy it. I never bought it and I still thoroughly enjoyed the game.

Either a game is worth the money or it isn't. If you can buy bonus stuff later that's fine. You don't have to.

Don't want to pay for cheats? Then don't. Play the game as it was meant to be played instead. Don't want to pay for in game money? Well then pretend the option isn't there, they're not forcing you to buy it. If someone else wants to pay for it then let them. Developers aren't stupid(mostly), if something like this unbalances an online game then they won't include it, look at the lengths Blizzard go to to try and combat third parties doing exactly this in World of Warcraft. If a developer is silly enough to completely unbalance a game by giving players that pay extra some crazy advantage, then chances are they hadn't made a very well balanced game in the first place because they obviously haven't put proper thought into it.

I'm always hearing 'if they do this' and 'its a slippery slope from here' but in reality I think micro transactions have been a great thing for gaming. If we pretend micro-transactions didn't exist for a minute, it means we wouldn't have to pay for horse armour... great, it probably wouldn't be in the game at all then. Even if it was I can't say I'd really notice. But what else would we lose? Geometry Wars? Marble Blast? Cloning Clyde? There'd be a whole lot less innovative and interesting games at low prices, and there'd be a lot less small developers able to survive too.

The only valid complaint I think I've seen is Lumines, but even in that case if you add up all the different packs they come in at less than a full price game dont they? And lets face it, if microtransactions didn't exist the only way you'd play that game is by paying full price for it on disc, just like PSP owners had to.

So it is a system that can be abused, but if games companies don't offer value for money then their products won't sell. A rip off is a rip off, whether it's on disc or downloaded, I think the extra options we get from xbox live and whatever version of it Nintendo and Sony come up with do far more good than harm.

koneko

steviec wrote:

The only valid complaint I think I've seen is Lumines, but even in that case if you add up all the different packs they come in at less than a full price game dont they? And lets face it, if microtransactions didn't exist the only way you'd play that game is by paying full price for it on disc, just like PSP owners had to.

AFAIK, if you add it all up, for the full game, it would cost more than it did for the PSP version (which is of course full game when you buy it). People go onto XBL now and see Lumines and end up buying a partial game. Not everyone follows the gaming press or forums, not everyone will know it's not a full game. They'll buy it, play, and then be told "oops sorry, no more, you'll have to buy the rest of the game now". I don't think XBL tells you you need to buy more to get the full game, but I haven't checked (no chance I'm buying it).

The PSP version is even cheaper now aswell, I think it's around £15 in the UK. And Lumines II isn't far off.

Vegeta

No sorry i don't agree fully with you.

I would agree on the point of cloning clyde, marble blast etc etc but these are full games and the small fee is worth what you get.

Lets look at say Battlefield on the other hand. 1942 and vietnam, a lot of patches including new maps were free.

Then look at BF2, they charged for special forces, they charged for the euro forces. Someone with Special forces was given distinct advantages over someone who hadn't. If you played special forces you got 2 free weapon unlocks to use. In other words you could unlock better weapons just for playing the game once.

Now EA are bringing that idea to other games.

I do not like games where you are charged for extra maps or levels. That is bullsh1t and is the reason i stopped playing BF2. They used to be free but now they charge and are doing it more often!

steviec

Vegeta wrote:

No sorry i don't agree fully with you.

I would agree on the point of cloning clyde, marble blast etc etc but these are full games and the small fee is worth what you get.

Lets look at say Battlefield on the other hand. 1942 and vietnam, a lot of patches including new maps were free.

Then look at BF2, they charged for special forces, they charged for the euro forces. Someone with Special forces was given distinct advantages over someone who hadn't. If you played special forces you got 2 free weapon unlocks to use. In other words you could unlock better weapons just for playing the game once.

Now EA are bringing that idea to other games.

I do not like games where you are charged for extra maps or levels. That is bullsh1t and is the reason i stopped playing BF2. They used to be free but now they charge and are doing it more often!

Why do you expect extra levels for free? If you buy an album to you expect the artist to send you out new tracks for free?

When you buy a game you get what you pay for. If the developers decide to give you some freebies afterwards that's nice, but it shouldn't be expected. I guess the industry dug itself into a hole by doing this in the past, and now gamers seem to expect something for nothing. I can't think of many products other than games where the consumer expects the manufacturer to randomly make new bits and send them out for free...

The exception obviously is bug fixes, which should of course be free, and in an ideal world shouldn't be needed in the first place.

steviec

koneko wrote:

AFAIK, if you add it all up, for the full game, it would cost more than it did for the PSP version (which is of course full game when you buy it). People go onto XBL now and see Lumines and end up buying a partial game. Not everyone follows the gaming press or forums, not everyone will know it's not a full game. They'll buy it, play, and then be told "oops sorry, no more, you'll have to buy the rest of the game now". I don't think XBL tells you you need to buy more to get the full game, but I haven't checked (no chance I'm buying it).

The PSP version is even cheaper now aswell, I think it's around £15 in the UK. And Lumines II isn't far off.

Well I know I paid about 40 quid for the full game on PSP and didn't feel ripped off at the time. I dunno what the pricing scheme is, if they advertise it as selling the full game for a tenner or whatever the starting price is that's wrong, but as long as the information is there on what you get I wouldn't have a problem.

I wouldn't mind more full sized games to be split into chunks, pay a fiver for the first couple of levels, and buy more levels if you want to continue or leave it if you don't. As long as you know what you're buying to begin with.

um7y1h83ge06nx

If anyone is going to f**k things up, it will be EA. They milk everything to the last, like FIFA, releasing 'normal' FIFA, Road to the World Cup, and World Cup games in the run up to a tournament.

Basically the same game with a few extras, or certain things omitted.

Now they're milking the Godfather.

um7y1h83ge06nx

steviec wrote:

Why do you expect extra levels for free? If you buy an album to you expect the artist to send you out new tracks for free?

When you buy a game you get what you pay for. If the developers decide to give you some freebies afterwards that's nice, but it shouldn't be expected. I guess the industry dug itself into a hole by doing this in the past, and now gamers seem to expect something for nothing. I can't think of many products other than games where the consumer expects the manufacturer to randomly make new bits and send them out for free...

The exception obviously is bug fixes, which should of course be free, and in an ideal world shouldn't be needed in the first place.

The problem being here, is that certain developers could end up leaving out bits of the retail version of the game which they previously might have included, and decide to charge extra for it as a microtransaction.

A dev team could make a game with say 12 levels for €50 intending to make this the retail version. However if they reckon they can cut out say 2 levels, make the 10 level version the retail version for €50, and charge extra after release for the 2 'new' levels, it could become avery attractive option to generate more revenue for very little extra cost.

steviec

Myah Short Octopus wrote:

The problem being here, is that certain developers could end up leaving out bits of the retail version of the game which they previously might have included, and decide to charge extra for it as a microtransaction.

A dev team could make a game with say 12 levels for €50 intending to make this the retail version. However if they reckon they can cut out say 2 levels, make the 10 level version the retail version for €50, and charge extra after release for the 2 'new' levels, it could become avery attractive option to generate more revenue for very little extra cost.

Well a dev team could plan to make a game with 12 levels, decide to cut costs and knock it down to 10, still charge €50 for it and the other two levels never become available in any form. This sort of thing happens all the time, micro-transactions aren't going to change that.

The question is, will Eurogamer for example, give the 10 level game a 7 where the 12 level one would have got an 8? So doing that could hurt sales, it all depends how good the game is and if it's value for money in its own right, I still don't think add on packs really change that.

Vegeta

steviec wrote:

Why do you expect extra levels for free? If you buy an album to you expect the artist to send you out new tracks for free?

Nope but i expect the artist not to release the album again in 3 months time with 4 more songs so I have to go and buy the album again or buy the new songs on itunes.

When you buy a game you get what you pay for. If the developers decide to give you some freebies afterwards that's nice, but it shouldn't be expected. I guess the industry dug itself into a hole by doing this in the past, and now gamers seem to expect something for nothing. I can't think of many products other than games where the consumer expects the manufacturer to randomly make new bits and send them out for free...

The exception obviously is bug fixes, which should of course be free, and in an ideal world shouldn't be needed in the first place.

I don't expect anything for free. Where did I say that.

I'd prefer if the extra levels were included in the original game or not released at all to be honest.

steviec

Vegeta wrote:

Nope but i expect the artist not to release the album again in 3 months time with 4 more songs so I have to go and buy the album again or buy the new songs on itunes.



I don't expect anything for free. Where did I say that.

I'd prefer if the extra levels were included in the original game or not released at all to be honest.

I'm not sure what your point was about the artist... if you're talking about the likes of FIFA that's another matter entirely, nothing whatsoever to do with microtransactions.

You said you refused to pay for extra levels, I assumed that meant you wanted them for free. But if you just don't want them to exist then I dunno what to say to you. I don't like marmite but I'm not calling for it to be removed from shop shelves. Let people who want the extra levels buy them. Nobody is forcing you to buy them! It's as simple as that...

thebman

steviec wrote:

Well a dev team could plan to make a game with 12 levels, decide to cut costs and knock it down to 10, still charge €50 for it and the other two levels never become available in any form. This sort of thing happens all the time, micro-transactions aren't going to change that.

The question is, will Eurogamer for example, give the 10 level game a 7 where the 12 level one would have got an 8? So doing that could hurt sales, it all depends how good the game is and if it's value for money in its own right, I still don't think add on packs really change that.

Most people aren't intelligent enough to read reviews before buying games.

Yeah you can say let the buyer beware or you can put in protection mechanisms for consumers.

You shouldn't be allowed sell someone part of a game if you don't tell them.

Lumines seems like a good example of something people don't want to see.

At the end of the day I agree that this encourages companies to release games with cut levels and charge extra for them later. This is different to add on packs because they had to ship those on CD/DVD so they had to include enough content to make sure it got the sales. Add on packs were also generally released after a game had been a huge success.

The difference is with digital distribution the costs drop significantly so they can take more risks when screwing over the consumer so they could cut levels and say, we'll still sell X amount and then we can charge X amount or the extra levels and it'll pay off more than if we included all the content to begin with. Basically this makes the consumer more vulnerable IMO.

Overall though, I think if you don't like it, don't buy it. It isn't going away and if people are stupid enough to buy an extra level or two for X euro then let them. If it isn't worth it to you then don't buy it. It has the potential to be good if done right. Its up to consumers to ensure that it is done right by voting with your wallet.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Just after seeing this thread:

http://forums.xbox.com/7613363/ShowPost.aspx

A rumour that people will be charged points for the upcoming Halo 3 Demo! A demo?!

I know it's only a rumour, but what's p*ssing me off, is that some people on the forum, and some others in the reader comments of the article would pay for this demo!

In fairness, what a bunch of f**king idiots!

Take this spanner, BrandonAV:

Yes, i am an idiot because i dont mind that demos cost money, because obviously demos on the MP are the same as a harddrive and retail games.. all i said was if you dont like it dont buy it, no need to act out like a immature 12 year old school girl on xmas that didnt get her poney

Another spanner from the articles reader comments:

Halo 3 DEMO
"I would KILL to play that demo A 250-400 pts fee would be ok maybe they could make it so there was an extra incentive ie an extra pic or something rare when you buy the full game"

Theses are the eejits that are causing everyone to be ridden by game companies.

thebman

Myah Short Octopus wrote:

Just after seeing this thread:

http://forums.xbox.com/7613363/ShowPost.aspx

A rumour that people will be charged points for the upcoming Halo 3 Demo! A demo?!

I know it's only a rumour, but what's p*ssing me off, is that some people on the forum, and some others in the reader comments of the article would pay for this demo!

In fairness, what a bunch of f**king idiots!

Take this spanner, BrandonAV:



Another spanner from the articles reader comments:

Theses are the eejits that are causing everyone to be ridden by game companies.

I think its unreasonable because demo's are essentially marketing so now you have to pay for an ad. This is like a movie company charging you to view the trailer for their movie.

uberpixie

brim4brim wrote:

I think its unreasonable because demo's are essentially marketing so now you have to pay for an ad. This is like a movie company charging you to view the trailer for their movie.

Unfortunately nothing is too expensive if people will pay for it...

Damn stupid halo fan boys wrecking market for gamers *shakes fist*

0ubliette

to be honest if someone offered me a demo of gears of war right now for a couple of quid, id be more than willing to pay for it.
Isnt that why people bought magazines with demo discs after all?

koneko

I would not pay for a demo. In my opinion, a demo is there to convince me to buy the product. They're not doing themselves any favours, it'll just make me less likely to buy a product (unless it turns out to be really good, but I'd have to rely on word of mouth and reviews rather than trying the demo).

joe_chicken

I hate the way Half Life 2 has become episodic...

The origianl (HL2) game was unfinished, so they expect us to pay 20 euro per 5 levels after that?

The first episode was disappointing and unless I hear great things about the next one, I won't be buying for a while (saying that, it does look a little better, at least they have some new enemys and weapons)

0ubliette

koneko wrote:

I would not pay for a demo. In my opinion, a demo is there to convince me to buy the product. They're not doing themselves any favours, it'll just make me less likely to buy a product (unless it turns out to be really good, but I'd have to rely on word of mouth and reviews rather than trying the demo).

Id agree here, under normal circumstances i wouldnt pay for a demo....but i just REALLY want GOW

koneko

I do too, can't wait, but I'm not paying for a bloody demo!

jaggeh

the only reason ill be getting episode 2 is to get portals and TF2

as to micro-payments. i think they are fantastic. if i like a game and extra content becomes available which invigorates and refreshes the game then yes ill pay for it. at the end of the day its a choice. pay or dont pay. you dont have to.

As to bf2142, so what if its a mod. the game is better, the graphics are better, the engine runs smoother, load times are lower. in all its worth the €45 i paid for it.

0ubliette

jaggeh wrote:

As to bf2142, so what if its a mod. the game is better, the graphics are better,

jaggeh

you have some artifacts there you might want to invest in a better graphics card or turn down the OC.