A Spirited 15 Rounds ...

Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
Using Zelda, the system seller, isn't really the best example - but again, that game cost $80 for the full experience.
Click to expand...
The base $60 game gets you everything you would expect of a Zelda game. The expansion is just that, an expansion. In the true sense since it's clear work didn't start on it until the main experience was finished and fully fleshed out.
And because of Nintendo's hardware business, they know that when the Switch 2 comes out in a couple of years, they will be able to sell you that game all over again for $60 by adding a few bells and whistles. They do it to all the Nintendo games, and Nintendo fans are just desensitized to it. That's the "unique" Nintendo model.
Click to expand...
All of the Nintendo games? Are you sure you're not just talking about some of the big Wii U games that got ported to 3DS (and now Switch) because of how badly the system sold?* Because I don't know about you, but I've seen tons of fan requests for remakes that don't seem to be happening. Two that I would love are Super Mario Galaxy HD Collection and Metroid Prime Trilogy HD.

Unless you're insinuating that every game in each of Nintendo's long running series are the same just because they use the same main characters, in which case I'll simply stop here and chuckle to myself with my face firmly in my palm.

*I admit that ticked me off as well because they kept giving people less reasons to buy a Wii U while it was still on the market.
And let's not even begin to talk about their overpriced hardware. Again, they are a horrible example.
Click to expand...
Hypocrite. You defend all the micro transactions and other shady practices on the basis that the games still sell well and then go on and say this. Well, here's your own defense thrown right back.

The Switch is still selling incredibly well no matter how much you hate it and I think that strikes a nerve with you for whatever reason :)

To the rest I believe @The_Jobu helped me out there.
 
Last edited:
AEfx

AEfx

Well-Known Member
Mike S said:
Hypocrite. You defend all the micro transactions and other shady practices on the basis that the games still sell well and then go on and say this. Well, here's your own defense thrown right back.
Click to expand...

You don't need to be so nasty and emotional.

That's the problem, you guys are so emotional about this you can't see reason.

I didn't "defend" anything on the basis that the games "still sell well" - that's just a factual comment about how these "outrage fests" don't reflect consumer habits. It's true. If you don't like it you are welcome to not purchase the games. But that's the problem - people desperately want them claim they aren't willing to pay for them. All this "controversy" is moot, because it is what it is - you either find the product enough value to purchase, or you don't. People act like it's some God-given right to be provided games at a cost that you want.

The actual point is so simple - games like BFII cost a lot more to make, and no one is willing to pay the true up front cost, so they use other revenue models to make a profit. And BF2 is giving you the WHOLE GAME, and ALL future content - for $60. The only complaint is "some people can spend more money so their digital characters guns get more powerful more quickly" - that is a childish, butt-hurt, silly notion when they are giving people what they have been screaming they want - complete game and all experiences for one price with zero add-ons and no DLC.

I like you, but on this topic it's useless to argue because you are so indoctrinated it's not even sensible to waste the time.


Mike S said:
To the rest I believe @The_Jobu helped me out there.
Click to expand...

Hahaha, if you are relying on that jumbled mess of goal post moving, "I don't care how much they cost to make, I should pay what I did 20 years ago" (he literally said that!) tripe...oh geeze, again, I like you - but that's not the post to hitch yourself to, ROFL.
 
Last edited:
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
AEfx said:
Almost, but yes, the right track.

They essentially did that with the last BF game. The complete game really cost $100 - $60/game and $40/season pass. (That said, that was only people who had to have the game on release - within a couple of months you could just wait for a sale and pay $60-70 and get the whole thing, and even a few months beyond that, even cheaper.) There were no microtransactions.

People lost their crap over this. (Yet, I have to point out, the game was still the best selling game of the year, and the best selling Star Wars game of all time, by far.)

So, for BF2, they are putting the entire game and all content for sale at $60. All existing and future content. One price. Done.

However, these "loot boxes" that can make you progress in the game even more quickly (you get some for free, but then will be able to buy as many as you want for cash) are going to be available - "microtransactions" - which basically means you can spend all kinds of money and get a more powerful character more quickly. It's pejoratively refereed to as "Pay 2 Win".

The reason for the "almost" is this - most players will never spend a cent more than the original $60, yet they are getting the entire game (which everyone pretty much agrees is pretty frigging spectacular in terms of content). Those players that want to spend hordes of money to progress their characters more quickly are the ones picking up the slack. People are going to spend $100's and some $1000s of dollars on these boxes because they have too much disposable income and they want to have more powerful characters more quickly. They are called "whales".

So anyone who lays down $60 can experience the entire game, it's essentially just going to take them longer to make their guns more powerful. Yet, people are still cheesed off.

It's the FTP ("free to play") mobile model applied to AAA console games. I don't like that it's a reality, I would much rather just hand them $100 like I did with the last BF game, but the gaming community didn't like it and raised a fit. In mobile games, the whales (a single digit percentage of players) pay for the entire thing to exist, and the vast majority of players (70% on average) play a game for hundreds of hours absolutely free. The 20ish% in between totally free and whales are "dolphins", who spend a few bucks here and there.

With a AAA console game, the base game isn't "free", but it's the same concept.

All that said, in spite of the controversy and the ire of gaming, ahem, "journalists" (i.e. bloggers and YouTubers who make more money the more they cry and complain from appealing to the outrage for advertising clicks), this is still going to be the bestselling game of the year, just like it was last time. It's just a lot of noise from people online who will complain either way.
Click to expand...

Distilled down the 'loot boxes' are no different from the myriad upcharge events which Disney so loves. As it allows some players to as you say 'pay to win'.

Yes in a most evil company EA/Disney/Comcast would probably have a 3 way tie.

Yet while not being a gamer i've never had a problem with the concept of paying for additional levels within reason. I have a big issue with Pay to Win.
 
ford91exploder

ford91exploder

Resident Curmudgeon
AEfx said:
It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Disney, but the game industry and the fact that gamers aren't willing to spend the amount of money commensurate with what these games cost to make. See above for a longer explanation. ;)
Click to expand...

Pay to Win vs Additional game content, yes Pay to win is an exact equivalent to Disneys upcharge events.

No longer is score related to skill now its how much you are willing to pay.
 
bclane

bclane

Well-Known Member
truecoat said:
I played that game until I found out they sued anyone using the word candy, crush or even worse, used the word saga. So, I was about 2600 levels below you when I stopped playing.
Click to expand...
Well I don't know anything about that (though I don't doubt it), but believe me, you were wise to get out when you did. That game is like my crack cocaine. So many wasted hours...lol!
 
The_Jobu

The_Jobu

Well-Known Member
ford91exploder said:
Pay to Win vs Additional game content,
Click to expand...

Pay to win is shifty business already, but lootboxes are a whole step worse and truly scummy practice.

There's even grumblings on not allowing them in games rated lower than M because it's kind of like a slot machine for kids that takes real world money.

EDIT: If Disney puts slot machines in the parks now, I'm sorry I gave them the idea.
 
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
AEfx said:
You don't need to be so nasty and emotional.

That's the problem, you guys are so emotional about this you can't see reason.
Click to expand...
I know what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. The answer I crafted was in a direct response to what you did.
I didn't "defend" anything on the basis that the games "still sell well" - that's just a factual comment about how these "outrage fests" don't reflect consumer habits. It's true. If you don't like it you are welcome to not purchase the games. But that's the problem - people desperately want them claim they aren't willing to pay for them. All this "controversy" is moot, because it is what it is - you either find the product enough value to purchase, or you don't. People act like it's some God-given right to be provided games at a cost that you want.
Click to expand...
Maybe because most consumers don't follow the news about stuff like this that we do. They likely don't know until they boot up the game.
The actual point is so simple - games like BFII cost a lot more to make, and no one is willing to pay the true up front cost, so they use other revenue models to make a profit. And BF2 is giving you the WHOLE GAME, and ALL future content - for $60. The only complaint is "some people can spend more money so their digital characters guns get more powerful more quickly" - that is a childish, butt-hurt, silly notion when they are giving people what they have been screaming they want - complete game and all experiences for one price with zero add-ons and no DLC.

I like you, but on this topic it's useless to argue because you are so indoctrinated it's not even sensible to waste the time.
Click to expand...
The reason it's a problem is because the game appears to be a long and tedious grind if you don't pay up for stuff that you don't even know if you'll get what you want once you do pay (basically, gambling). If the game had a regular progression system for those who didn't want to pay and rather than adopting the same freemium model made for games that are FREE allowed you to see and get exactly what you wanted, this could be a non issue. Maybe make it so that some of the best stuff was only unlockable through regular progression that way it's the fairest it could be. But no, that makes too much sense and doesn't play on addictive tendencies. It also isn't unfair enough to the point where some people who don't want to pay eventually give in.

If game budgets are ballooning so much it's time that game publishers took a long hard look at the way they do things. A recent indie game came out called Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice. If you told me it cost hundreds of millions to make and was done by a AAA publisher, I'd be hard pressed to disagree with you. But it wasn't. The game was made on a smart enough budget that it could recoup its cost with 300,000 sales, doesn't include any micro transactions or any other shady practice, and costs *drum roll*

$30 to download.

Now not all games could be made this way and sometimes costs go higher but when a publisher describes 3.4 million copies sold as "disappointing" as was the case with Tomb Raider, there's a problem. You've said it yourself that Star Wars Battlefront 2 will likely be the best selling game this year. If that's the case, why is this needed? If it sells over 10 million copies like the last one did that's about $600,000,000 right there (yes, I know retailers and distributors get a cut of physical sales, I'm just keeping this simple). If they can't make a profit on that without micro transactions then they need to be spending their budget more wisely.


This has gone on long enough though. The AAA video game industry will just continue to do this and I'll continue to not support it.
 
Last edited:
Mike S

Mike S

Well-Known Member
The_Jobu said:
Pay to win is shifty business already, but lootboxes are a whole step worse and truly scummy practice.

There's even grumblings on not allowing them in games rated lower than M because it's kind of like a slot machine for kids that takes real world money.

EDIT: If Disney puts slot machines in the parks now, I'm sorry I gave them the idea.
Click to expand...
Nah. Games that have this in them should get the elusive "Adults Only" rating. The "Mature" rating is like the "R" rating for movies. As long as the parent is with you you can get it.

Oh, and for those who don't know all three console manufacturers have a policy against selling games with the "Adults Only" rating. This would put a stop to micro transactions and lootboxes very quickly indeed.
 
Hatbox Ghostbuster

Hatbox Ghostbuster

Well-Known Member
834.gif

Hey, uh, Spirit??? You can come back now.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom