Micro-Transactions in Fully Priced Games.

_Puma_

Would like to get other peoples opinions on the new wave of games that are being released recently that seem to have embraced the micro-transaction business model , while still retaining the price tag of a fully priced traditional game. This excellent article from Eurogamer provides a bit of context.

We are not talking about Free to Play games here like League of Legends or DOTA 2 but full priced games that also include some sort of Micro transaction model.

This type of business model has been brought to the masses with the recent release of the Xbox One and its exclusive games like Forza 5 and Ryse and apparently the upcoming Gran Turismo 6 on the PS3.

Micro-transactions in fully priced games have been around, in various forms, for a while on the PC. Some games like Guild Wars 2 utilise in them in a non-gameplay affecting manner, by using the real money currency to allow you to buy cosmetic items or quality of life items(Expanded storage etc) while not affecting gameplay. This is ok in my books but a very carefully drawn line must be made on what to charge for in this model for it to work.

However other games like Company of Heroes 2 allow micro transactions to open up new avenues of gameplay. Micro-Transaction to purchase commanders that allow you to play a game in a completely different and sometimes overpowered manner. Certain "Good" abilities,(That are for the majority been in the game already) have been bundled together in these Micro transaction commanders so that they are now the logical choice to win a game if your opponent is using the non micro-transaction commanders. This model has seemed to have driven off most of the community that came over from CoH1 and has driven a wedge between the Developers and their fans. Active players have dropped off significantly since the introduction of the micro-transaction commanders.

I fully appreciate that developers are looking for ways of increasing their revenue stream to offset an increase in costs, but should a line be drawn somewhere when we have already paid the RRP for a game? "Just don't buy them" I hear you say, but when you have no other way to access the content, that you have paid full price for, or large timegated hurdles(Apparently it will take >400 hours grinding currency to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 without the micro transactions) are people annoyed? Do you go ahead and purchase these micro-transaction because you enjoy the game and don't mind forking out more money to experience it in full?

super_furry

It's stuff like this that would put me off buying a game. Seems to be endemic to the Xbox One's new launch titles and I know that someone worked out if you were to pay to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 - a cheat that would have been common in the PS2/Xbox era - it would cost you €2,000 ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91029704#post91029704 )

It becomes a real problem like in Forza 5 when content that you feel you've already paid for is held behind such a high time sink that paying more feels like it's your only option.

Shiminay

I just don't play those sorts of games - it's the only actual way to make your voice heard on these matters.

It sounds like a broken record at this stage, but as long as people keep buying these things and the companies keep making money on them, they won't stop.

Zero-Cool

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGGfwPIykAo

_Puma_

I agree that Forza 5 seem to be one of the most nefarious examples of this model at work, but do people think that games like Guild wars 2(It is a MMO so it may lend itself to the model) are acceptable or simply Micro transactions are out and out bad? Is there a way to provide some sort of micro transaction model in a primarily single player game like Forza 5 without upsetting balance or timegating content?

Danger781

I'm perfectly OK with micro transactions when the game is otherwise free to play. I mean, the developers need to get paid for their work. The ideas you mentioned that have been implemented in games such as Guild Wars are great. Giving people the option of purchasing add-ons that do not affect game play or fairness.

However when it comes to the implementation they chose for COH I think that is terrible. They've made it an pay-to-win game that you must pay-to-play. This sounds like nothing but greed to me. Shame on them.

ancapailldorcha

super_furry wrote: »

It's stuff like this that would put me off buying a game. Seems to be endemic to the Xbox One's new launch titles and I know that someone worked out if you were to pay to unlock all the cars in Forza 5 - a cheat that would have been common in the PS2/Xbox era - it would cost you €2,000 ( http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=91029704#post91029704 )

It becomes a real problem like in Forza 5 when content that you feel you've already paid for is held behind such a high time sink that paying more feels like it's your only option.

You could buy a real car for less!

As Shiminay has said, as long as people support this, the publishers will continue it as well as expand on it. When a game is free to play, it's different. Same principle as a Ryanair flight. It's so cheap I don't mind them flouting tat at me. When I play premium fare, it's just plain annoying.

penev10

Pay 2 Win is annoying in any context whether F2P or full priced games.

Nody

DLC, expansion or micro transaction; all the same as far as I'm concerned and I'll buy it if the combination of game, the new content /benefit is worth it for the price charged and I don't care if it's free to play or fully priced (from my experience free to play games tend to end up more expensive vs. fully priced once with micro transactions anyway as the F2P style allows more justification for inclusion).

Personally I'd not bother in a PvP game if the additions have significant impact on the game (Word of Tanks have Tier 8 tanks that are weaker then a fully researched Tier 8 tank but make more money; as the game goes to Tier 10 tanks so the premium tanks don't have a PvP impact of note) but pure PvE games I don't mind them at all.

sarumite

If the games like Forza and GT were simply to remove the content from the main game and sell it as DLC would that be better?

(obviously you get into the whole DLC discussion but that is perhaps for another thread)

ShadowHearth

The whole way how MS treated day one dlc and micro transaction in triple A titles put me off Xbox one completely. If I would have bought 500eu console and 65eu game, then pop it up and be greated with 60eu dlc, then I would be pissed off. On top of that I would have payed 120eu for a game, which is built around free to play model and have even greater treadmill mode then it would normally would.

I know some people will say - well, don't buy micro transaction stuff. Well all is good and nice with that stratememt, up until you see that developers start making 60eu games around free to play model. The design of game it self suffers. So even by ignoring micro transactions you get lesser product and paying 60eu +.

It is scary for me where gaming model is going. Day one rip off dlc, horrible free to play models, 65eu games with micro transaction models.... Scary...

_Puma_

Here is how I see it. Forza 5 and Ryse seem to have the Micro-transactions as an after thought, forced on the game by publishers to increase revenue potential.

Company of Heroes 2 was a great game, although missing some features that would be considered essential for this type of game. Maybe it was time constraints that led to them been omitted. It seems they have been slowly adding in these features(through patches) and the development work is being funded for by these Micro-transactions, but the hard truth is that game will not remain balanced with these commanders and the game was incomplete when it was released. A pity because if the game was released as a finished product I would have no problem paying more money for traditional expansion packs opening up further gameplay options while keeping them balanced with the content already there.

Guild wars 2 seems to have the Business model well thought out and allows for the game to be expanded on while retaining the core experience without having to put in more money.

The question can the new wave of games with Micro transactions allow for this expansion through traditional expansion content? Is there even a need for the micro transactions and is it simply price gouging to increase Revenue potential or are these funds going to be used to expand the game in future? In my opinion I highly doubt it for the likes of Ryse and Forza 5, we will just simply see another full priced sequel in the future and the first iteration will cease to be supported.

_Puma_

Nody wrote: »

DLC, expansion or micro transaction; all the same as far as I'm concerned and I'll buy it if the combination of game, the new content /benefit is worth it for the price charged and I don't care if it's free to play or fully priced (from my experience free to play games tend to end up more expensive vs. fully priced once with micro transactions anyway as the F2P style allows more justification for inclusion).

Personally I'd not bother in a PvP game if the additions have significant impact on the game (Word of Tanks have Tier 8 tanks that are weaker then a fully researched Tier 8 tank but make more money; as the game goes to Tier 10 tanks so the premium tanks don't have a PvP impact of note) but pure PvE games I don't mind them at all.

I tend to agree to a point on this, it comes down to value for money at the end of the day. But for a pure PvE Single player game you could argue that you are merely paying full price for an incomplete version of the game. Day one DLC screams content that was cut to increase revenue potential. You now have to ask is the original game complete without it? Mass effect was another example of this, entire missions and characters cut out from the original game and added in as DLC.

COYVB

Once the game isn't broken without microtransactions I'm fine with it. I've never bought, nor will I ever buy, DLC, so anything that's not on the disc, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist and I treat the game as is. Cars in Forza 5 you have to buy? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, as far as I'm concerned those cars simply aren't in the game and I make do with the (huge) selection that is

_Puma_

COYVB wrote: »

Once the game isn't broken without microtransactions I'm fine with it. I've never bought, nor will I ever buy, DLC, so anything that's not on the disc, as far as I'm concerned, doesn't exist and I treat the game as is. Cars in Forza 5 you have to buy? Doesn't affect me in the slightest, as far as I'm concerned those cars simply aren't in the game and I make do with the (huge) selection that is

I can understand that approach but the problem with Forza is these Cars are Timegated to a ridiculous level so that they are only realistically attainable by Micro transactions. In fact all the cars are linked to this currency so to unlock all the cars that were attainable in previous iterations of the game you need to put in 2000 hours of grinding currency without micro transactions. Pretty hard to ignore them then.

COYVB

_Puma_ wrote: »

I can understand that approach but the problem with Forza is these Cars are Timegated to a ridiculous level so that they are only realistically attainable by Micros transactions. In fact all the cars are linked to this currency so to unlock all the cars that were attainable in previous iterations of the game you need to put in 2000 hours of grinding currency without micro transactions. Pretty hard to ignore them then.

I dunno, I think it's pretty easy to ignore them TBH. Sure, some of them are unattainable, realistically, but I'm pretty sure I'll survive without them. It's not going to break the game for me

calex71

I don't like to be made feel that I paid full price for a game and stuff that could have been put in was deliberately taken out for extra profit on day one as in some last gen games with their 33kb DLC that was already on the disc.

I also don't like paid content that given an advantage to people in multiplayer, maybe in a free to play scenario it's borderline ok. but it unbalances the game and alienates players.

What I don't have any problem with at all is map packs and dlc, most recent example for me was Borderlands 2 must spent over €120 on the game and dlc but it was (mostly) worth it because of the extra time I got from a game I enjoyed. I also have no issue with microtransactions in single player games that give xp boosts, additional cars, weapons or what ever, people are free to take or leave them as long as the game hasn't been pillaged of all the best ones and them to be resold later, is that the issue with Forza 5? There were tonnes of car packs in the previous games but the games never felt like they were missing any huge amount of good cars on the discs.

Banjo

The Forza cars are only unattainable (for free) if you go after all of them
And that's the mentality of the kind of person who spends a lot of money on DLC and mewties. (μT's - will that catch on?)

Surely this makes your choice of which cars to grind for in Forza far more important because you can't have them all? To be honest, there's part of me that quite likes that, after unlocking the a huge chunk of cars in NFS on the WiiU after aimlessly driving around for about 20 minutes. Would that not make you more likely to spend time on the cars you get instead of driving them all once, then settling on a handful of favourites?

I'm happy to pay extra for perks. I'm not happy if someone who's not as good as me at a game but has more money to spend can beat me. Having said that, there's a special feeling you can only get when your poor mewtie-less but capable self defeats some perked-up no-talent spanner. In your face, moneybags!

_Puma_

calex71 wrote: »

I don't like to be made feel that I paid full price for a game and stuff that could have been put in was deliberately taken out for extra profit on day one as in some last gen games with their 33kb DLC that was already on the disc.

I also don't like paid content that given an advantage to people in multiplayer, maybe in a free to play scenario it's borderline ok. but it unbalances the game and alienates players.

What I don't have any problem with at all is map packs and dlc, most recent example for me was Borderlands 2 must spent over €120 on the game and dlc but it was (mostly) worth it because of the extra time I got from a game I enjoyed. I also have no issue with microtransactions in single player games that give xp boosts, additional cars, weapons or what ever, people are free to take or leave them as long as the game hasn't been pillaged of all the best ones and them to be resold later, is that the issue with Forza 5? There were tonnes of car packs in the previous games but the games never felt like they were missing any huge amount of good cars on the discs.

Not quiet. The way the game is structured is that all cars are now only attainable through the currency, no more Car rewards. The currency reward has been gimped so that to attain all the cars that were available in other iterations of the game you need to grind currency for 2000 hours without micro transactions. So to access all the content on the disc you need to either pay more money in micro transactions or grind an unattainable amount of hours. On top of that it has been confirmed that car packs will also be released through DLC.

The Borderlands example is a good example of pay to play, pretty much getting value for your money. You could still play and enjoy the core game that the original RRP got you while having the option to get extra content. A subtle but very important difference between the two.

Bordelands (RRP gets you core game unrestricted) with optional DLC through micro Transactions
Forza (RRP gets you restricted core game, unlockable through micro transactions or unatainable time gating) with optional DLC through car pack micro transactions

It is a new business model we are seeing with here with the Xbox one exclusives and to a certain extent some current Pc games.

Sonics2k

In general I have no real issues with micro-transactions, unless they are for the sole benefit of giving players a key advantage over other players in a PvP like game.

A DLC is just like an expansion pack in my mind, and as long as it's a good one for a great game that truly adds more to the product, then I'll probably get it.
As for those New Skin and item packs that do nothing, but cost €19.99, well frankly, fúck them.

johnny_ultimate

Any game that requires a player to grind for hundreds or thousands of hours to unlock all on-disc cars is insulting, cynical game design, point blank. I sincerely doubt the intention behind it is to get the player to think about their car choice more carefully. It's aggressive economising that I hope all players reject so we don't see more of its sort in the future. Of course, I'm in the majority of gamers who don't tend to 100% games anyway, but the option should be fair and achievable if I do fancy unlocking all the content. In all reports I've read Forza has been stripped down from its predecessors to make room for aggressive microtransactions and DLC, and that IMO is pretty unacceptable.

Up until now I've been forgiving of microtransactions like XP boosts or shortcuts for the most part: if you want to buy them, they're there, but the game's core mechanics or balance should not be compromised as a result: you should not suffer because you're unwilling to pay the additional outlay. But the first wave of One games seems like the balance has nastily shifted towards the obnoxious, which is a bitter pill to swallow on top of the already large expense of buying into next gen software and hardware.

It's important IMO to differentiate between substantial DLC and microtransactions, incidentally. I tend to find a lot of the day one or speedy DLC stuff to be b-grade stuff that was better left on the cutting room hard drives (Catwoman in Arkham City, Zaeed in Mass Effect - second hand purchases weren't missing much) so I have yet to have good cause to get truly outraged. Only if core content is absent or mechanics are compromised is the balance unfairly shifted. Xbox One games seem to be walking that line awkwardly.

Oafley Jones

Forza 5's implementation of micro transactions is incredibly cynical . Even if you could ignore the grind; aspects such as Getting an in game invite to an event, only to be brought to a purchase screen is absolutely repugnant to me. Such a shame as 4 was one of the very few driving Sims I've enjoyed.

Potatoeman

It was just another reason for me to avoid dead space three. Its fine for ftp games but paying 60 bucks you expect the full game.
A friend of mine has stopped buying new games as you can wait and get the full thing with dlc later for less.
I find most dlc is just not worth the price. Blooddragon being the exception but it was really a stand alone title.

penev10

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Getting an in game invite to an event, only to be brought to a purchase screen.

Oh good god that's horrendous. I'm glad I haven't experienced anything like that...yet!

In-game shakedowns can feck right off.:mad:

Grimebox

Vote with your wallet folks. I have never purchased anything through micro-transactions because I think its only the beginning of a horrible direction that gaming is taking.

DUBLINHITMAN

Microtransactions are the devils spawn
candycrush is to blame

BloodBath

It's perfectly acceptable in Guild Wars 2 as there is no monthly subscription. Wow charges a monthly subscription and they still do micro transactions.

It's either 1 business model or the other. If in their greed they do both then you don't buy the game to teach them a lesson. It's that simple.

Magill

Are there microtransactions in WoW now too ? Didn't know that... I know they had their online store but it was never advertised in game and was only a couple of ****ty pets/mounts.

Glico Man

Veni Vidi Vici have a piece which describes the Forza farce very well.

Case in point: the Lotus E21 formula one car, one of Forza 5’s new star attractions keenly publicised by Microsoft as this is the first game in the series to feature open wheel racecars. What they failed to mention was the astronomical price of admission. In-game, it costs a whopping 6 million credits. Alternatively, at the time of writing you can buy it for 10,000 tokens – in real world cash, this equates to over £60.00. £60.00 for one digital racecar? That's more expensive than the actual game. No. Just no.

Which is quite frankly insulting to those that bought the game.

ShadowHearth

TB has a thing about it too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpx4R9SY98o

Dravokivich

That's one thing I really can't stand about NFS:Most Wanted.

- Drive around, see a car I might want to switch into, wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?
- Look through the list of races to do, wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?
- Look through the challenges per upgrade (PER CAR), wait... I need to purchase a "bonus pack"!?

This was a game I had considered buying, but to get the full affect of it, I would have had to purchase multiple and various miniscule add-ons. I'm glad I got it through PS+

Just seeing Grid2 is on PS+ and it seems to have a similar setup, for cars batched in "Bonus Packs."

Kind of annoyed that it looks like GT6 is going to be doing the same thing, even more than what they did with GT5. The thought of this becoming the norm is insulting to be honest.

There is a big difference between these and the expansion packs of old. When I buy the game, I don't want to have to pay extra for trinkets, or races/games types, item upgrades or what ever that have been clearly left out.

Call Me Jimmy

aaronh007 wrote: »

Veni Vidi Vici have a piece which describes the Forza farce very well.



Which is quite frankly insulting to those that bought the game.

I am not even considering getting a new console or any games but from cursory reading of news about it, the formula one car has been prominent in the advertising of Forza 5. Frankly I would be very pissed off, and I can't quite believe that it would cost the price of the game again to get this much advertised (digital) car.

Surely this information was at least available before purchasing the software. Unfortunately, if reviewers etc. mentioned this and people bought it knowing these facts I have no sympathy for them. But if it was essentially underhanded advertising that misled someone I would feel very aggrieved and would make a point of not buying anything from the publisher/developer again.

Once this stuff comes out, people who buy it knowingly should not be allowed a breath of complaint as they are the people companies are (at the moment, justifiably) banking on.

Jet Black

I dont mind if it's just cosmetic stuff like TF2 but I wouldn't buy a game that then has micro transactions restrict or give you a disadvantage. I didnt bother with dead space 3 because of this.

Slightly off topic but a guy sold one weapon in tf2 for about €4000 today. Crazy money for a digital item.

Shiminay

I had a further thought about this...

There are certain game types that attract certain gamer types.

Your serious car sim petrol heads may not have any sort of problem with these sorts of measures at all, so for all the fuss that we might make about the Forza example, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the target audience who may never buy another game this year (or within the next 6-12 months) will still consider it a worthy way to spend their money.

I don't think it unfair to suggest that amongst the regular readers here we've got a pretty reasonable monthly spend on games. This sort of thing might bring that car sim enthusiast's spend more in line with the rest of us.

Another fine example of this would be The Sims. It has a MASSIVE fan base and with about what, a dozen expansions so far for the Sims 3 (and the Sims 4 on its way), as well as a micro-transaction supported marketplace for new items in-game, there's very little noise out of that particular community about this (I'm open to correction here, it's not something I follow very closely).

Call Me Jimmy

Jet Black wrote: »

I dont mind if it's just cosmetic stuff like TF2 but I wouldn't buy a game that then has micro transactions restrict or give you a disadvantage. I didnt bother with dead space 3 because of this.

Slightly off topic but a guy sold one weapon in tf2 for about €4000 today. Crazy money for a digital item.

Well I suppose you could liken it to someone paying 100,000 euro for a painting. Absolutely nuts to me, but different strokes.

Dravokivich

Shiminay wrote: »

I had a further thought about this...

There are certain game types that attract certain gamer types.

Your serious car sim petrol heads may not have any sort of problem with these sorts of measures at all, so for all the fuss that we might make about the Forza example, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the target audience who may never buy another game this year (or within the next 6-12 months) will still consider it a worthy way to spend their money.

I don't think it unfair to suggest that amongst the regular readers here we've got a pretty reasonable monthly spend on games. This sort of thing might bring that car sim enthusiast's spend more in line with the rest of us.

Another fine example of this would be The Sims. It has a MASSIVE fan base and with about what, a dozen expansions so far for the Sims 3 (and the Sims 4 on its way), as well as a micro-transaction supported marketplace for new items in-game, there's very little noise out of that particular community about this (I'm open to correction here, it's not something I follow very closely).

The enthusiasts, wouldnt be likely to go for the AAA level games. Theres a whole genre of sim that'd be more suited which makes the likes of forza arcadey.

_Puma_

Shiminay wrote: »

I had a further thought about this...

There are certain game types that attract certain gamer types.

Your serious car sim petrol heads may not have any sort of problem with these sorts of measures at all, so for all the fuss that we might make about the Forza example, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the target audience who may never buy another game this year (or within the next 6-12 months) will still consider it a worthy way to spend their money.

I don't think it unfair to suggest that amongst the regular readers here we've got a pretty reasonable monthly spend on games. This sort of thing might bring that car sim enthusiast's spend more in line with the rest of us.

Another fine example of this would be The Sims. It has a MASSIVE fan base and with about what, a dozen expansions so far for the Sims 3 (and the Sims 4 on its way), as well as a micro-transaction supported marketplace for new items in-game, there's very little noise out of that particular community about this (I'm open to correction here, it's not something I follow very closely).

Id actually think the complete opposite of this. These Micro transactions are more aimed at the casual players of Forza who dont want to put in the Time gated credits to achieve new shiny cars. However it is now also the only option for collector enthusiasts due to the gimping of the reward system to make way for the micro transactions. In any case id doubt motor enthusiasts would appreciate the Driving simulation in Forza and would be less incilned to pump more money into it because of this. Forza enthusiast on the other hand..

I read a PR laden article from the Developers of Forza about the reason they have the prices so high was due to keeping certain cars "Rare"....in a single player game that I have already paid full price for! Using micro transactions as a substitute for game progression is such cynical move by any game developer, be it your free to play candycrush or your AAA console exclusive release. Id love to hear from other professional game designers and what they think about the micro transactions in fully priced games like Forza. Its like one of the big No-No's you would learn in college when doing game design.

Im not too familiar with the Sims in fairness but wouldn't these items be more in the vein of new expanded content that you would buy seperate to the core game? Kinda like the Borderlands example from earlier and in the main cosmetic items?

Another major bugbear I have with this pricing model and the industry in general is that it was never transparent what exactly the pricing model was going to be or implemented until after reviews went out. Hell most reviews even neglected to mention the micro transactions in their review, with Eurogamer being the only one I can think of that actually did. Did they review Debug versions of the game that had the Micro Transactions not implemeted? Why would they neglect to mention a major component of the game progression system in a review? Transparencey is the key here and it looks to me that the micro transactions were carefully kept under wraps until after the game was released.

COYVB

_Puma_ wrote: »

put in 2000 hours of grinding currency

Spent 4-5 hours playing Forza yesterday, and between my racing and what my Drivatar had done while I was at work I increased my currency by a million in that time before going to bed. That was one session where I was playing the very early races, then doing rival mode for 4-5 laps, then onto the next race in the event.

I'm not sure I buy this 2000 hours thing - isn't the most expensive car in the game only 6 million? I could buy that by Sunday, comfortably, probably without getting out of the first batch of events...

_Puma_

COYVB wrote: »

Spent 4-5 hours playing Forza yesterday, and between my racing and what my Drivatar had done while I was at work I increased my currency by a million in that time before going to bed. That was one session where I was playing the very early races, then doing rival mode for 4-5 laps, then onto the next race in the event.

I'm not sure I buy this 2000 hours thing - isn't the most expensive car in the game only 6 million? I could buy that by Sunday, comfortably, probably without getting out of the first batch of events...

Your right fail on my part about the 2000 hours. It was €2000 to buy all the cars through the tokens not 2000 hours to amass the credits. From having a look at the Forza forums people are coming up with a figure closer to 1000 hours

Here is an example:
119 Races
9 Hours 50 Minutes and 28 Seconds of Driving Time
Winnings From Races 1,000,595 ( I do have roughly 900,000 more than that from my Drivatar, Rivals, and Forza Rewards though)
Total Credits Currently: 1,952,140

Basically, I have only purchased upgrades and cars absolutely necessary to compete. So, CR per hour of driving is at a whopping 102,101 based solely on race winnings. I got this by taking 1,000,595 CR/9.8 Hours=102,101 CR/hr

Now lets see how much drive time I have to put in to get all of the cars at this rate...102,536,000/102,101=1,004 Hours of Driving Time

It will take ~42 real life days of driving for 24 hours straight to get every car at this rate. That doesn't even include the time spent in the menus buying/upgrading/tuning or the credits you have to spend on cars and upgrades in order to progress either. Those kinds of maths are way over my head so I'm not going to go there.

ancapailldorcha

_Puma_ wrote: »

Your right fail on my part about the 2000 hours. It was €2000 to buy all the cars through the tokens not 2000 hours to amass the credits. From having a look at the Forza forums people are coming up with a figure closer to 1000 hours

1,000 hours? You'd invest less time in the likes of Skyrim. Mainstream reviews read more like advertisements nowadays. The likes of IGN are too afraid of losing exclusivity rights to perform actual criticism. And don't get me started on so-called gaming journalism awards.
I just hope Totalbiscuit and those like him can keep doing what they do as they seem to actually care about their hobby and want the best for the industry.

johnny_ultimate

COYVB wrote: »

Spent 4-5 hours playing Forza yesterday, and between my racing and what my Drivatar had done while I was at work I increased my currency by a million in that time before going to bed. That was one session where I was playing the very early races, then doing rival mode for 4-5 laps, then onto the next race in the event.

I'm not sure I buy this 2000 hours thing - isn't the most expensive car in the game only 6 million? I could buy that by Sunday, comfortably, probably without getting out of the first batch of events...

So over a day's worth of playing to unlock a single car, assuming you don't spend the currency on any other cars or features over the course of those 24-30 hours?

Sorry, but that's a staggering waste of the player's time and effort. And I wish I could find anything near 4-5 hours a day to play games: if I could, grinding for an unlockable isn't particular appealing.

Days 298

As a casual game player this sh*t annoys me. I buy a game, for €60 I expect the game. Not some of it. Fair enough if it takes time to get it all but tbh micro transactions put me off getting the game. Especial day 1 dlcs. F*ck off I bought the game yet you are withholding some of it to ransom

COYVB

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

So over a day's worth of playing to unlock a single car, assuming you don't spend the currency on any other cars or features over the course of those 24-30 hours?

Sorry, but that's a staggering waste of the player's time and effort. And I wish I could find anything near 4-5 hours a day to play games: if I could, grinding for an unlockable isn't particular appealing.

I rarely get that kind of time to play in my spare time, yesterday was a bit of an anomaly. I think the complainants here are doing it a little wrong. For example; winning base race with all assists on might earn you 4000CR. Turning some (or all) of the assists off gives you a bonus percentage, mine is about 30%. Then for manufacturer affinity I get 15% extra again. Then, when the race is done you hit X to go into rivals mode, which will earn you at least double just for beating the time of the opponent ahead of you on the leaderboards, plus the same bonus percentages for assists off and manufacturer affinity.

I'm levelling up every second race, and earning about 15,000CR minimum every event. It's certainly not grinding either, I'm playing exactly how I normally would. I've also only bought one car, because I rarely spend in-game money until much later on in games - no point wasting it on the slower motors. I'm also not playing the game to unlock stuff, I'm playing the game because it's an incredibly fun racer. I'm not a big car guy, so I have no idea the ins and outs of the cars in the game - I just want to pick one and race it until it stops being competitive, then buy the best replacement I can and repeat the cycle

Now, I'm not saying that it's a bit silly having stuff priced so highly, or that this isn't an epic gouge job, I'm just pointing out that it's NOWHERE near as bad as is being made out. Like the guy quoted in one of the posts above has only made a million from almost ten hours of racing - I did that from 3 and a bit yesterday, and I'm not that good at the game (best times per track are usually between 2000-15000th in the world)

_Puma_

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

1,000 hours? You'd invest less time in the likes of Skyrim. Mainstream reviews read more like advertisements nowadays. The likes of IGN are too afraid of losing exclusivity rights to perform actual criticism. And don't get me started on so-called gaming journalism awards.
I just hope Totalbiscuit and those like him can keep doing what they do as they seem to actually care about their hobby and want the best for the industry.

Interesting point, what is the most amount of hours you have put into a game from your Library? Mine is probably Guild wars at about 300 hours(~1.25 years and it is my MMO of choice atm, which I pretty much played exclusively for about half that time. Most of this time is in PVP realm play WvW. Cannot see myself putting in the same amount over the next while unless there is a major expansion). For a single player game it is Skyrim at about 150 hours since release and I played it extensively using Mods to freshen things up a bit.

ancapailldorcha

I've put in just shy of 200 hours into Final Fantasy X as it was my first RPG. On Steam, it'd be not too far short of 100 hours into Mass Effect 2. I think I'd want a proper rig before attempting Skyrim.
I've heard nothing but praise about Guild Wars but I just don't trust myself not to get sucked into it.

Banjo

I'm reading _Puma_'s post above about their experience with the first day's play and I really do fail to see the problem with the reward structure. You play the game the way you want to play it over a week or two, you will naturally be able to unlock a bunch of cars, depending on how expensive your tastes are. If you want performance, spend your money pimping the car. You want to complete the collection, you have to work like a dog.

Did none of you grow up in the world where if you wanted to see the end credits for a video game you either had to be preternaturally good or own a lot of 10p pieces?

I appreciate - you bought the game, you want access to everything on the disk. "I bought this disk in good faith, Joe". The sad truth is you don't have some god-given right to access that stuff. Maybe 1000 hours of grinding is excessive but there are 200+ f'ing cars to unlock! That's a lot of cars. If they hand you all of the keys at once, how many of them are you really going to drive?

I was appalled reading about that F1 car from the ads costing millions of in-game credit, that's nuts, but then I didn't know how long it takes to earn the credit - if you can unlock it in about a week's reasonable play then what's the big deal? It's clearly the flagship car. It should not be easily earned. If you get every car after 5 minutes, where's the incentive to play? Where are the bragging rights when you roll up to the starting line in your pimped up wheels?

My only complaint would be that you can buy the same car with real money. The Earned car should look different so people know what kind of player they're dealing with.

At the end of the day, as long as you can't buy any advantage that you can't also earn, what's the big whoop-de-doo?

_Puma_

Banjo wrote: »

I'm reading _Puma_'s post above about their experience with the first day's play and I really do fail to see the problem with the reward structure. You play the game the way you want to play it over a week or two, you will naturally be able to unlock a bunch of cars, depending on how expensive your tastes are. If you want performance, spend your money pimping the car. You want to complete the collection, you have to work like a dog.

Did none of you grow up in the world where if you wanted to see the end credits for a video game you either had to be preternaturally good or own a lot of 10p pieces?

I appreciate - you bought the game, you want access to everything on the disk. "I bought this disk in good faith, Joe". The sad truth is you don't have some god-given right to access that stuff. Maybe 1000 hours of grinding is excessive but there are 200+ f'ing cars to unlock! That's a lot of cars. If they hand you all of the keys at once, how many of them are you really going to drive?

I was appalled reading about that F1 car from the ads costing millions of in-game credit, that's nuts, but then I didn't know how long it takes to earn the credit - if you can unlock it in about a week's reasonable play then what's the big deal? If you get every car after 5 minutes, where's the incentive to play? Where are the bragging rights when you roll up to the starting line in your pimped up wheels?

My only complaint would be that you can buy the same car with real money. The Earned car should look different so people know what kind of player they're dealing with.

At the end of the day, as long as you can't buy any advantage that you can't also earn, what's the big whoop-de-doo?

Of course there should be content that is either timegated or unlocked via skill etc.. this is a common method Game Designers use to to implement game progression. It has always been this way. However what we are seeing in Forza is the introduction of MT to circumvent the timegating. The insidius part of this is they have gimped the reward system(No more car rewards, less Credits) to make way for the MT system. Without MT's you are looking at timegating that far exceed the Design Time period any user can be expected to put into the game. If you ever get into game design this would be a big topic. Maximising and balancing the content unlock time with regard to a maximum designe time a user can be expected to play your game for.

COYVB

Less credits is not true

And I've been getting free cars gifted to me, I'm not sure why though, but the last 2 days I logged in I had a new free car waiting for me

Banjo

Starting low gives them scope for boosting the rewards over certain events - whether it's double XP weekends, getting you to race for your country in an online endurance/long distance race, earn a car by completing task X in time limit Y, whatever promotion they want to do, and the harder it is to earn credits the more likely it is that players will lap them up.

I do understand you're point. And you may well be right, but if unlocking all of the content is within the reach of most of the players of the game, I personally feel that you have the balance wrong. It should also be noted that unlocking everything is not within the financial reach of most players, so at least the playing field is somewhat level - 100% is for the very rich or the very dedicated.

I might sound uncaring, but then I bought Guitar Hero III on the Wii, which used Slash playing Velvet Revolver's "Slither" in the ad, and that song was only available as paid-for DLC. And the Wii didn't support DLC in any shape or form. So while you can earn the cars, no matter how hard it might be, I have no sympathy

Sonics2k

_Puma_ wrote: »

Interesting point, what is the most amount of hours you have put into a game from your Library? Mine is probably Guild wars at about 300 hours(~1.25 years and it is my MMO of choice atm, which I pretty much played exclusively for about half that time. Most of this time is in PVP realm play WvW. Cannot see myself putting in the same amount over the next while unless there is a major expansion). For a single player game it is Skyrim at about 150 hours since release and I played it extensively using Mods to freshen things up a bit.

Back in my Warcraft playing days I probably racked up hundreds of days worth of play, but I'd been playing from release up until last year on a hardcore PvP and PvE basis.

My next highest played game would be Skyrim or Final Fantasy 7.

Skyrim sits at about 300 hours and FF7 would be a few hundred too for each play through.

The idea of playing a single player game for 1000 hours is just baffling to me, especially a racing game.

_Puma_

Banjo wrote: »

Starting low gives them scope for boosting the rewards over certain events - whether it's double XP weekends, getting you to race for your country in an online endurance/long distance race, earn a car by completing task X in time limit Y, whatever promotion they want to do, and the harder it is to earn credits the more likely it is that players will lap them up.

I do understand you're point. And you may well be right, but if unlocking all of the content is within the reach of most of the players of the game, I personally feel that you have the balance wrong. It should also be noted that unlocking everything is not within the financial reach of most players, so at least the playing field is somewhat level - 100% is for the very rich or the very dedicated.

I might sound uncaring, but then I bought Guitar Hero III on the Wii, which used Slash playing Velvet Revolver's "Slither" in the ad, and that song was only available as paid-for DLC. And the Wii didn't support DLC in any shape or form. So while you can earn the cars, no matter how hard it might be, I have no sympathy

The guitar Hero thing would probably be a bit of misleading advertisement more than anything in my opinion, again that games model would be similar to the borderlands example from earlier. RRP + Additional MT content.

What we see in Forza is RRP with severely limited progression rate with MT to improve this progression rate. Additional MT content to come in the form of car packs. It is a new business model entirely in terms of console games. We see it in F2P games on the PC but never to the extent that it is used for a fully RRP AAA title.

The fact that other ways such as gifting cars or earning them through rewards further limits the ability to improve your progression rate. In GT5 some cars were only available through completing a certain event, again another means of progression through skill that is not available in Forza to make way for the MT's. Bad Game design would see progression rate veering into farming if you have to compete in the same car over and over again and not allow for the flexibility of using other cars the more time you put in, just so you can save up for the next shiny and further your progression through the game.

I know I am focusing on Forza here a bit and I'm not saying that it is alone in this but what I am really trying to get at is this new Business model seems to be limiting the ability to fully experience a game when you pay a RRP for it. Game Progression can be severely limited in this model to incentivise the MT's, otherwise what is the point of them and just have the traditional DLC by themselves.