GOOD NEWS! EA’s future games will all feature microtransactions!

[Maniacal]

ACTUAL GOOD NEWS! (Or EA is lying again, who knows)

The original quote of his:

"We're building into all of our games the ability to pay for things along the way, either to get to a higher level to buy a new character, to buy a truck, a gun, whatever it might be".

Apparently the only games that will definitely have microtransactions are mobile games, the rest will just have the typical DLC and so on that is already par for the course and may or may not have microtransactions.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...-off-microtransactions-in-all-games-statement

 

[Sonereal]

Mind you, this is the same company that said Steam sales cheapen and devalue games and hurts indie developers, then turned around and did a deep sale a week later on Origin.

 

[Disgustipated]

ACTUAL GOOD NEWS! (Or EA is lying again, who knows)

The original quote of his:


Apparently the only games that will definitely have microtransactions are mobile games, the rest will just have the typical DLC and so on that is already par for the course and may or may not have microtransactions.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...-off-microtransactions-in-all-games-statement

I thought DLC was microtransactions. It is to me. Look at some of the DLC for Dragon Age, it's very micro.

I hate most DLC, they aren't long enough to get a decent plot and story going. Bring back real expansion packs.

 

[Sonereal]

I thought DLC was microtransactions. It is to me. Look at some of the DLC for Dragon Age, it's very micro.

I hate most DLC, they aren't long enough to get a decent plot and story going. Bring back real expansion packs.

DLC is the middle ground between microtransactions and full blown expansion packs. They're cheaper than expansion packs to create, especially when an expansion pack would be considered economically unfeasible.

Microtransactions, in my mind, is the buying of really minor stuff for inflated prices, like most of Fable 3's DLC.

 

[Matthew.]

Problem with DLC is since it is still fairly new, there isn't a set standard of what a DLC should be worth. There are plenty examples where if you added up the cost of several DLC's into the price of an expansion and ask yourself "would all these additions make for a decent expansion?" the answer is clearly no.

Good for developers, bad for people who suck at math. A very very very poor analogy would be how buying single items at a supermarket is significantly higher than buying in bulk. The worst part is as the younger generation grows up and takes over the market, they won't have any memories of what an actual expansion used to be worth. Already, people just gladly accept a "slightly re-skinned model and modified stats" as worthy as 5 dollars.

(Sigh... complaining about how the younger generation is worse off... getting old)

 

[Maniacal]

Microtransactions are supposed to be paying a little bit for a little bit of stuff (ie a new skin, some in-game currency, items or a bank slot). Of course, there are enough financially irresponsible people who need instant gratification regardless of the cost they can overcharge for pretty much all of it because they only need like 2% or so of players to actually buy lots of stuff to make more than enough money from it.

Also since you mentioned it. bulk sections do seem to have mostly disappeared from some supermarkets and have less variety than they used to (and are smaller).

 

[civvver]

First I disagree with everyone who hates dragon age 2 so much. It is a very different game from origins, but it was still fun, and still had a good story line which I actually found more compelling because you followed a developed family of characters rather than make your own. I guess origins felt like you were just observing all the other characters as how they developed because the warden never seemed to develop at all, despite being able to pick responses etc and get approval. It was cool to see Alister develop as a character but I never felt like I was developing you know? Contrast that to DA2 where your responses are fully voiced and change based on your past choices, like if you always pick aggressive a-hole responses you start to respond like an aggressive a-hole. It was really cool to me. Also you didn't see the whole response, you just picked a flavor like aggressive, or friendly and then your guy talked the actual words.

The main gripes I heard people had with DA2 were repetitive environments which I totally a agree with, a non-open world and changing the combat. First origins didn't have an open world either, it was just more open than 2, but still not even close to a real open world game like skyrim. So I never got those gripes because origins was closed off too, it just had more of an overworld feel to it and more areas. The combat though I though was fine because you now tried to line up special attacks like mage shatters etc whereas in origins it was more about positioning. I don't mind the pace fast or slow, but I hated the animations in origins so I though this was a huge improvement in 2, even if it was kind of mortal combat esque. But I'm going off on a huge tangent about one game. In general EA has some good games and some bad ones like most big publishers.

But one thing I think we haven't mentioned is how some micro transactions make for a good game experience because you can get the game for free and then choose what to buy. Like in the case of Dota2. Game is free. You purchase aesthetic items only, nothing to actually make you better. Heroes of newerth you purchase characters which I don't mind except that they're usually op as hell when they first come out to get you to buy them and patched for balance later so it's a bait and switch. But if I can get a free game because a bunch of other people pay for skins I am all for it.

 

[Disgustipated]

Problem with DLC is since it is still fairly new, there isn't a set standard of what a DLC should be worth. There are plenty examples where if you added up the cost of several DLC's into the price of an expansion and ask yourself "would all these additions make for a decent expansion?" the answer is clearly no.

Good for developers, bad for people who suck at math. A very very very poor analogy would be how buying single items at a supermarket is significantly higher than buying in bulk. The worst part is as the younger generation grows up and takes over the market, they won't have any memories of what an actual expansion used to be worth. Already, people just gladly accept a "slightly re-skinned model and modified stats" as worthy as 5 dollars.

(Sigh... complaining about how the younger generation is worse off... getting old)

Most old school RPG expansions offered a ratio of 1 hour of gameplay for 1 USD. Games like Civ4 offered quite a bit more hours. But I still say a game should have a minimum of 1 hour of game play for 1 USD. Games like Dragon Age (I did buy the "better" dlc for this game) fail that test immensely. That game is $10 for 1 hour of dlc.

 

[Rub'Rum]

He said that for non-mobile game, they were looking at the Battlefield 3 model. He said that like I'm supposed to be reassured this statement.

 

[warpus]

Problem with DLC is since it is still fairly new, there isn't a set standard of what a DLC should be worth.

DLC's are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. That's what they are going to be priced at, anyway.

If people continue to pay for overpriced stuff, prices aren't going to drop as fast.. if ever.

 

[Sonereal]

DLC's are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. That's what they are going to be priced at, anyway.

If people continue to pay for overpriced stuff, prices aren't going to drop as fast.. if ever.

Which is why Activision was able to get away with increasing the price of map packs to $15 (and why I no longer play Call of Duty games).

 

[Joecoolyo]

DLC's are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. That's what they are going to be priced at, anyway.

If people continue to pay for overpriced stuff, prices aren't going to drop as fast.. if ever.

Good thing I only buy during sales then.

 

[Matthew.]

DLC's are worth whatever people are willing to pay for them. That's what they are going to be priced at, anyway.

If people continue to pay for overpriced stuff, prices aren't going to drop as fast.. if ever.

Indeed, which is why I mentioned the bit about people [apparently] unable to do basic math. I'm guessing that is the reason why micro-transitions work--not just in video games, but the practice in general. I've not ready any specific studies on it, but just from observation it seems people are willing to pay more than something is typically worth, as long as the price is broken up in several pieces. Kind of like setting the price at 12.97 instead of 13.00 or three simple payments of 20.00 (instead of 60.00). Just fudging with the numbers a bit and it ends up in larger profits.

There is currently large variance in what DLC offers, which is what I meant by saying there has been no standard yet. For one game, 5.00 will give you an extra chapter/mission on a campaign. For another, it is a single in-game cosmetic item that probably took one programmer an afternoon to code into the game. I don't expect DLC to ever leave, but I do expect trends to start forming on basic price points. (unfortunately those price points will still be higher than I am ever willing to pay)

 

[Maniacal]

I don't know if there have been any studies done on microtransactions, but I think it has something to do with a 'skinner box'.

 

[Matthew.]

Part of it is the "keeping up with the Joneses" situation, too. A good example coming up with be SC2's expansion. I know players who have never played the first game's campaign and others who just rushed through it once on the easiest difficulty. They play the game purely for multi-player. Of course they will need to shell out the money for the new expansion to keep playing with everyone else.

That isn't DLC, but the example still works, I think. I've never played CoD, but someone mentioned map packs. I'm guessing one would feel obligated to pick up the latest maps if all their friends are playing on it. They aren't paying for the maps; they are paying for the ability to play with others.

 

[ahawk]

New SimCity user reviews are way in the red... not going to touch that game.

The idea of Always-On DRM is atrocious. It's one thing in a game where a lot of multi-player is expected, but SimCity? At least in Diablo 3, there was always going to be a reasonable amount of multi-player.

There is a bigger issue, though: when even IGN and reputable magazines and reviewers are giving 80's and 90's to Diablo 3 and SimCity, while the fanbase is recording sub-50 scores on Metacritic, it really makes me start to doubt. Neither game is worthy of above even a 75, DRM aside:

* Diablo 3's levels are almost all re-hashs of Diablo 2 and it's expansions (Act 1: Forests, Act 2: Combo of d2's acts 2 and 3, going from desert to jungle, and Act3: basically a combo of acts 4 and 5 from d2 and the expansion). Diablo 3 also had no PvP at launch, and the money houses didn't start until later, and Inferno difficulty is a mess, and on and on. That, and worst of all, the gothic style gave way to pastel, cartoonish WoW-like animation, sprites, and backgrounds.

* SimCity, not having played it, aside from the DRM looks like a reasonable attempt to change some stuff, from what I see in vids. But at the same time, non-connected cities that look to be on the smallish side? Maybe SimCity, like D3, will get more stuff many months after release to eventually flesh out, but, I don't know. It's early yet, so things may improve for SimCity, but I'm not going to take that risk.

Ultimately, I usually now go to forums and check Metacritic user scores for games. Sure, there's a lot of false reviews (from the game's creators, or rival companies, or trolls or whatever) and there's often enough stupid reviews (giving a '0' for a game where you knew there'd be DRM is different than docking a few points and giving the game a 3 or 4, down from the 6 or 7 it deserved minus the DRM), but I've lost a great deal of faith in the endless parade of magazines giving great scores to mediocre games. Best example: Dishonored. Is it a great design? Well, yeah. But let's say I make the best design ever, and you only get 9 missions, and around .333% of those missions can be beaten stealthly, the harder way, in 30 or 40 minutes or less. Well, that's not getting a 90%. Especially not when the pricetag is 59.99 USD (unless you got it on the Steam sale like me, at 45 or whatever it was dropped to). I mean, come on, even though the levels are well-designed, they aren't going to make up for the fact that I can beat the find-which-lady-is-the-target-at-a-gala-event mission in 15 minutes.

The last true 90 or better game I played was Fallout: New Vegas. And even there, I had to forgive the occasional CTD or random immersion-breaking bug, which I only did because of the vast scope of the game. I'd personally give CiV vanilla a high 70's-ish, while CiV w/ G&K and all DLC (CiV Gold Edition) a mid-to-high 80's score (I like CiV's more-unique-feeling civ choices as opposed to the old everyone-gets-two-each-of-Spiritual-Industrious-etc.-and-one-UU, as well as liking 1UPT).

Today, I'd rather sift through the garbage user reviews and find the ones that sound legitimate that come from a user who has a string of scores/reviews and has scores similar to those I gave on games we've both already played.

 

[Matthew.]

It is likely somewhere between metacritic and the big-name magazines. The people who rate on metacritic tend to go to the opposite extreme. A lot of the Diablo 3 reviews are solely due to unable to log in on release night and have zero to do with the game (much like Simcity though, so I hear).

Yeah, D3 was a big disappointment, but certainly not as low as metacritic claims.

 

[ahawk]

It is likely somewhere between metacritic and the big-name magazines. The people who rate on metacritic tend to go to the opposite extreme. A lot of the Diablo 3 reviews are solely due to unable to log in on release night and have zero to do with the game (much like Simcity though, so I hear).

Yeah, D3 was a big disappointment, but certainly not as low as metacritic claims.

I totally agree. I weed out the silly user reviews though and usually go off 3 or 4 legit ones and decide off that. Like both you and I said, there are too many folks who rate a game a '0' simply because of launch day issues or because of an issue they should have known about going in (again, a '0' for DRM is not nearly the same as just a 2 or 3 point penalty).

I sort of imagine that, if every 0 was taken off the board, D3 would come to rest at about a 65 to 70 for user scores. It's a functional game, has redeeming elements (the combo bonus XP, the vast amount of loot), and is long enough on the initial playthrough that you aren't beating it in 5 hours (ehm, Dishonored...). SimCity, silly launch-day 0's removed, will probably be in the same spot. But even then, didn't D3 get a high 80 score from critics? And SimCity has a mid-80 score for critics. That still leaves a sizable gap, however, between critics and reasonable users.

[edit]: Ah, I was still going on editing that post after you had responded. Yeah, I might not have added the part about silly 0 scores and what not until after your post. I see... I sometimes forget that when I go back to edit, the post is still up!

 

[coanda]

But I'd love them to succeed and show Bioware a thing or two (Bioware rips off Obsidian all the time anyways).

Got that one backwards. Obsidian makes some fine games, but historically they haven't been big on the "innovation" meter. Their primary modus operandi was to buy rights to make a sequel to a successful RPG by some other company, then try to refine and improve on the original a little bit and add a new story. See: KOTR2, NWN2, Fallout: New Vegas, Dungeon Siege 3. Exceptions: Alpha Protocol, some games not yet released.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Diablo 3 boring item drop rates being adjusted to account for the availability of the auction house (a special kind of microtransaction).

Wow what a turn-off. I loved the Diablo 2 MP. Even was more or less the leader of a clan at some time. It constituted my first in-depth experience with the World Wide Web! I remember my mother being all paranoid what could happen if this young lad of mine had regular access to this new strange mystery called Internet Anyway sorry for the reminiscence - my point was that I at first was sure to somehow get into Diablo 3 MP too, but then other things took priority and I never played it a single second, nor did I follow it in any way since release.
But now getting to know what you said (sorry for being so uninformed these days ), I am pretty sure I will never lay a hand on Diablo 3. It just sucks if a game is designed the way that money can make all the difference. It just sucks if this aspect of the ordinary daily life gets transferred into a world where one is supposed to escape what makes ordinary life dull at times. Money is IMO one of those things.