In game microtransactions

[IHateMyJob2004]

Ya, I started a pissing match in another thread. So, I'll bring it here for dedicated discussion.

I'm getting sick of shelling out $60 for game just to have to spend $20 to gt all playable characters in MK X. Forza 5 did the same thing.

I then did this Forza 5 search (which I can not get to the links to from work):
https://www.google.com/search?q=ave...-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl

I know I am pissed over this, but I didn't know that an actual consumer revolts seems to have started.

 

[Lil Frier]

I was mad myself, but more because they removed so much content from FM5, saying it was due to the level of work put in, yet they found the time to do the same amount of paid DLC as FM4, with some extra stuff to boot. To this day, I haven't purchased FH2 because of how much I hate Turn 10's DLC practices. FH2 launched at $60, came with a $25 Car Pass (half the price of FM5's Season Pass, but with half the cars), and then it became apparent why they change the name...so they could then throw on a $20 Storm Island DLC, bringing the price tag up for $105. Now, the Furios 7 car pack is $5 for 7 more cars, even though they gave those away for free in a DLC standalone game.

Worst. Dev team. Ever. Their games can NEVER bee good enough to make up for this. $50 for 60 cars is an utter joke. It's bad enough they halved the Motorsport content from FM4 to FM5, but the DLC is just moronic.

 

[purbeast0]

ill never understand the whole car argument. i play a lot of racers and probably use less than 20 cars the entire time i'm playing the game from start to finish. i don't care if there are 50 or 5000 cars since i'll probably use a handful of them.

 

[Lil Frier]

It's more about the fact they're taking away options. Though, in terms of gameplay, it was REALLY about halving the number of tracks in the game. I got FM5 as a gift, and it didn't take long for me to get bored and trade it in because of the sheer lack of content. The cars don't outright bother me as much, but the fact that the one car I actually wanted to drive was taken out, that sucked. Perhaps ridiculously (and I accept that others consider it to be such), it's more the principle of the matter--that they would charge the same $60 for half the content of the previous game. No polygon count and no amount of rumble triggers can make up for stripping THAT MUCH content from people.

And they're all "the level of detail meant make sacrifices," and I'm sure there's truth in that, but they sure didn't seem to have compromise issues when it came time to shell out the paid DLC. But that Racing Game of the Year, that was the line. I could get over the lack of content if the game went on-sale for $30-40. When they re-released the game like that, I was done. FM6 is going to have to include something insane to make me consider the franchise again.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Lack of tracks yes but at least they offered a few for free.

The car thing, I am with purebeast. I only use a couple of my favorites and forget the rest. I don't know anyone who uses the 1990 pugot or whatever that they often have in the game. People want to drive a Ferrari or lambo. Fighting games I feel sort of the same. I pick a character or two I like and I learn them. Today's fighting games are very complex so you can't master each character like back in the MK1, MK2, and Street Fighter 2 days. You really need to dedicate yourself to a main. I will experiment and see if I enjoy another character more but at the end of the day I am looking for my main couple choices.

 

[purbeast0]

It's more about the fact they're taking away options. Though, in terms of gameplay, it was REALLY about halving the number of tracks in the game. I got FM5 as a gift, and it didn't take long for me to get bored and trade it in because of the sheer lack of content. The cars don't outright bother me as much, but the fact that the one car I actually wanted to drive was taken out, that sucked. Perhaps ridiculously (and I accept that others consider it to be such), it's more the principle of the matter--that they would charge the same $60 for half the content of the previous game. No polygon count and no amount of rumble triggers can make up for stripping THAT MUCH content from people.

And they're all "the level of detail meant make sacrifices," and I'm sure there's truth in that, but they sure didn't seem to have compromise issues when it came time to shell out the paid DLC. But that Racing Game of the Year, that was the line. I could get over the lack of content if the game went on-sale for $30-40. When they re-released the game like that, I was done. FM6 is going to have to include something insane to make me consider the franchise again.

they are not "taking away" anything. the tracks/cars weren't in forza 5 then removed.

 

[artemicion]

Meh. Don't stress about it?

What's happening to the video game market is not too different from what is happening in almost every market. The video game market is expanding. Companies are starting to market toward different demographics within the video game market, including a "luxury" market of overpriced crap purchased by people with an overabundance of disposable income.

Overpriced content in MK X and Forza isn't really all that different from overpriced luxury clothing, jewelry, cars, houses, appliances, housewares, etc. $10 for extra cars in Forza is a luxury just like spending an extra $50,000 on a Ferrari over a Ford Focus. $10 for extra fighters in MK X is a luxury just like spending $200 on a pair of designer jeans compared to $20 Gap jeans. Not to mention the fact that $17,000 Apple Watches are an actual thing that someone, somewhere is buying.

There are a lot of rich people in this world that have more money that they know what to do with. Frankly, it'd be stupid for companies like Turn 10 and WB to NOT take advantage by selling overpriced luxury crap to them.

 

[smackababy]

Toasting in a troll bread.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Ya, I started a pissing match in another thread. So, I'll bring it here for dedicated discussion.

I'm getting sick of shelling out $60 for game just to have to spend $20 to gt all playable characters in MK X. Forza 5 did the same thing.

I then did this Forza 5 search (which I can not get to the links to from work):
https://www.google.com/search?q=ave...-US:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&safe=active&gws_rd=ssl

I know I am pissed over this, but I didn't know that an actual consumer revolts seems to have started.

The answer is very simple, stop paying $60 or more for a game. Stop buying games as soon as they come out or, shudder...pre-ordering. I've stopped buying games until they've been out for at least a year to allow for most of the bugs and dl content to shake out. It gives you time to read honest reviews and decide if it's really the kind of game you want to spend money on. The ONLY downside is bragging rights. Ask yourself if bragging rights and the type of people you brag to are really worth the money, broken games and, stupid game publisher decisions?

 

[ImpulsE69]

The answer is very simple, stop paying $60 or more for a game. Stop buying games as soon as they come out or, shudder...pre-ordering. I've stopped buying games until they've been out for at least a year to allow for most of the bugs and dl content to shake out. It gives you time to read honest reviews and decide if it's really the kind of game you want to spend money on. The ONLY downside is bragging rights. Ask yourself if bragging rights and the type of people you brag to are really worth the money, broken games and, stupid game publisher decisions?

I agree with most of this except for one thing. The examples in the OP's post are greatly wanted for multiplayer. While great games may still have some people on them in a year (or even 3-6 months later), the reality is the heaviest times is when the game comes out.

This kind of leads to a divide in thought. I very rarely buy a game as soon as it comes out, but I will buy it in the first or 2nd price drop. However in doing this, I've tended to shy away from multiplayer games for the reasons stated above.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I agree with most of this except for one thing. The examples in the OP's post are greatly wanted for multiplayer. While great games may still have some people on them in a year (or even 3-6 months later), the reality is the heaviest times is when the game comes out.

This kind of leads to a divide in thought. I very rarely buy a game as soon as it comes out, but I will buy it in the first or 2nd price drop. However in doing this, I've tended to shy away from multiplayer games for the reasons stated above.

Name one good game that isn't still going strong after even three years?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Name one good game that isn't still going strong after even three years?

In the console world? all of them?

 

[cmdrdredd]

Name one good game that isn't still going strong after even three years?

There's many, pretty much any game released last year with MP doesn't have the number of players. It's not even the number of players, it's the number of people you actually know who are playing. I have 70+ people on my PSN friend list mostly from Destiny, only maybe 3 are still logging into that game now. They are playing different games. Of those how many would still be playing the latest game if I decided to buy it 6 months late to save $20? Not many I assure you because they'll move on to the next thing.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Borderlands
GTA
Dragon Age
Bioshock
Elder Scrolls
Mass Effect
Resident Evil
Call of Duty
And the list goes on.

Are you trying to tell me those games are dead in the console world?

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

There's many, pretty much any game released last year with MP doesn't have the number of players. It's not even the number of players, it's the number of people you actually know who are playing. I have 70+ people on my PSN friend list mostly from Destiny, only maybe 3 are still logging into that game now. They are playing different games. Of those how many would still be playing the latest game if I decided to buy it 6 months late to save $20? Not many I assure you because they'll move on to the next thing.

Maybe you should convince those folks to take a look at their buying habits if, they're unhappy like you.

 

[purbeast0]

Borderlands
GTA
Dragon Age
Bioshock
Elder Scrolls
Mass Effect
Resident Evil
Call of Duty
And the list goes on.

Are you trying to tell me those games are dead in the console world?

pretty much 1 of those is multiplayer focused, and if you are playing a 3 year old call of duty game online, you are probably playing with 3 other people in the world.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Borderlands
GTA
Dragon Age
Bioshock
Elder Scrolls
Mass Effect
Resident Evil
Call of Duty
And the list goes on.

Are you trying to tell me those games are dead in the console world?

You didn't read the post very closely.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Maybe you should convince those folks to take a look at their buying habits if, they're unhappy like you.

uh...what? That's not how gaming works. See not buying a game on launch day is like the guy waiting for Avengers: Age of Ultron to be on Netflix. You'll miss out on what everyone else is experiencing and likely have the entire thing spoiled to boot. If you're not there early, you'll miss out. It's been like this since the 360. The only games with any real longevity are MMOs.

Think about this. Go play the CoD from 3 years ago and tell me there are a ton of players on console. There aren't. Yes you can probably get a match but that's not the point here. None of your friends will be playing it still, heck look at Titanfall and the epic dropoff of the player base.

People on my friend list are playing different games because Destiny has been out so long and they are done with it or bored with it like me. They are playing lots of other stuff. Right now there are people on my PSN list playing Mortal Kombat X, Minecraft, Dragon Ball Xenoverse, CoD Advanced Warefare, Bloodborne. So my friends aren't playing Destiny like before, used to see 20 people on at any time. Not anymore. It's nothing to do with buying habits and everything to do with there simply being other games to play now.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

So, what you guys are saying is it's not the games or dlc that's an issue, it's consoles?

 

[ImpulsE69]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that multiplayer games on consoles tend to dwindle in numbers fairly quickly, so I could see the reason for someone doing day one purchases, or rather not waiting a year to buy a game that was highly known for multiplayer...for instance Titanfall. There may be some people playing it to this day, but not many.

In the PC world, I think this is slightly different due to mods, private servers, etc, the longevity can be had in some cases, like Counter Strike. Granted I would say in the FPS world console games and PC gamers vary greatly in what they want. I consider console only gamers to be pretty short attention spanned in general and quickly bore and move on due to limited features.

 

[mmntech]

The problem with micro-transactions is they're so often done poorly that it's easy to forget cases where they do work, like Hearthfire.

The big issue is that developers and publishers are now using them to actively exploit "whales" (addicts), and games are being built around that concept. Which is why the whole mobile gaming sphere, which started out so promising, has become so toxic. It's also making gamers more cynical.

The problem with including them in full retail games is perceived value, or lack there of. Which is why they (deservedly so) get so much flack.

It's a lot easier for a consumer to justify spending $60 worth of coins on a free game than it is to buy a $60 game and spend $5 on coins. We view it as us getting ripped off of something we should have got in the full package.

In order to work, they need to add meaningful content to the game. This is why people don't complain about Hearthfire or Rock Band. You get booster to strengthen your deck (like IRL trading card games) or a new song to learn. That's the focus the industry has to take. Paying to make levels easier doesn't add meaningful content.

 

[artemicion]

I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was pointing out that multiplayer games on consoles tend to dwindle in numbers fairly quickly, so I could see the reason for someone doing day one purchases, or rather not waiting a year to buy a game that was highly known for multiplayer...for instance Titanfall. There may be some people playing it to this day, but not many.

In the PC world, I think this is slightly different due to mods, private servers, etc, the longevity can be had in some cases, like Counter Strike. Granted I would say in the FPS world console games and PC gamers vary greatly in what they want. I consider console only gamers to be pretty short attention spanned in general and quickly bore and move on due to limited features.

You don't have to wait very long after release to get an idea on how much content is packaged in the base game.

See: Destiny. Release Date: September 9, 2014. First Complaint re: how short the game was on our very own ATCG Official Thread: September 9, 2014 at 7:42 a.m.

 

[cmdrdredd]

You don't have to wait very long after release to get an idea on how much content is packaged in the base game.

See: Destiny. Release Date: September 9, 2014. First Complaint re: how short the game was on our very own ATCG Official Thread: September 9, 2014 at 7:42 a.m.

That was just the story. There was much more outside there to unlock but eventually it hit a wall and there's now nothing more except to repeat the same stuff. That's not a good indication at all.

Your reply also had nothing to do with the post you quoted.


Anyway my response to people who say "wait for the GOTY edition with all the DLC packed in" is this... I can't get a good MP experience a year after the game is out. By then everyone I know has moved on from it and the story etc has been spoiled for me.

 

[Lil Frier]

You don't have to wait very long after release to get an idea on how much content is packaged in the base game.

See: Destiny. Release Date: September 9, 2014. First Complaint re: how short the game was on our very own ATCG Official Thread: September 9, 2014 at 7:42 a.m.

But when you're part of a group for such a game, and your friends want to play Destiny at midnight, waiting until 7 AM isn't really an option. so, you get it at midnight, find out it sucks, and now you've sunk money into a poor game. Yeah, that's the risk you take, but it doesn't change the fact that the game was bad/short.

I still don't get how people can pass on Best Buy's GCU, though. Got The Evil Within for $52, after tax, and traded it in for $44 when I found out it sucked. It mitigates the risk greatly. The downside is there's just a tough go with wanting to see a game, but still get to experience it immediately with friends.

Maybe if these publishers didn't screw over customers with asinine review embargoes to keep midnight buyers from finding out their games suck, the problem would be lessened. That's the agreement the companies are forced into within journalism, but it still sucks.

 

[artemicion]

Your reply also had nothing to do with the post you quoted.

People were talking about Day One purchases and whether you could take a "wait and see" approach with multiplayer games or whether you *have to* buy them day one to enjoy multiplayer. My post said that you don't have to wait very long to make an informed decision on a game, and cited Destiny as an example. People were talking about waiting a year before buying a game. My point was you don't have to wait a year. Obviously more time = more information, but even waiting through Day One yields a ton more relevant information than you'd have buying blindly on Day One.

On point if you ask me?

Wasn't my point to bash Destiny, the game has a lot of good qualities. I just cited as an example of a game where the flaws of the game and information relevant to making a purchasing decision was available VERY SOON after release.

Maybe if these publishers didn't screw over customers with asinine review embargoes to keep midnight buyers from finding out their games suck, the problem would be lessened. That's the agreement the companies are forced into within journalism, but it still sucks.

The existence of a review embargo in and of itself is a red flag that should deter people from making a Day One purchase. Your point about midnight play parties is well taken, especially if you are saavy enough to do the GCU damage mitigation flip you described. Just goes to show you that if you are clever, it's not hard to make smart purchasing decisions that protect yourself from being burned by crap releases.