Cliffy B says things about microtransactions

Guys stop trying to run off Clifford, pls. He likes Shadows of the Damned so fuck any of you who don't like him. RIGHT IN THE BUTTS
 
Coolwhip said:
You might want to edit that part Cliffeh. Because there were massive meltdowns when the first paid mounts and pets got sold in Wow.
Click to expand...

Yeah actually that's true. I don't think "no one seemed upset" is a phrase that could EVER be applied to the WoW community.
 
ArkkAngel007 said:
If they went the DS3/ME3 route for those games, I'd be fine with it. Competitive multiplayer gets a bit tricky.

As far as I know I haven't seen any microtransactions that actually affect the content of the game. Let it stay that way.
Click to expand...
They have done it in Battlefield 3 mutliplayer i think. You can unlock all the stuff early without having to level up. I havnt played THAT much Battlefield 3 online, but i didnt feel any unbalance in the gameplay eventhough early unlock of everything was possible (i'm not sure if i played with anyone who had payed for that though).

But i agree, paying for those time savers doesnt really bother me. I might change my mind when it comes to actual content (although it is probably mostly about extra skins and costumes etc., i dont care that much about that to begin with).
 
animlboogy said:
Valve has PR?
Click to expand...
Valve gets so much good will for acknowledging the existence of its fanbase on reddit by replying to e-mails directed at Gabe.

Just like so many people in this thread went crazy when CliffyB showed up.

As someone on GAF that likes big budget games the best you can hope for is a publisher that is interested in expanding its creative portfolio paired with a developer that can deliver quality games paired with a marketing department that can sell you anything.
And then you pay your 150 dollars for the collector's edition and hope for the best.
 
The second to last boss in Mortal Kombat 2 was harder than the last boss, because when you see the last boss that’s sometimes enough for a gamer.
Click to expand...

Huh, I didn't know this. (Never really played MK)
 
CliffyB said:
Do any of you fuckers still actually play games, or do you just hang out here all day long and play digital fantasy football with the industry? :)
Click to expand...

I have a Wii U. Still have a month to wait until i start playing again ;) (But then i have so much to play, that'll last a while. I mean MH, Lego City should wat quite some hours)
 
Poor EA.

tumblr_mbvhayJH0p1rijrhjo1_500.gif
 
He seems to have missed the boat on the Origin hate.

I've yet to see someone hate on EA because Origin exists. People hate on them because they've made their content exclusive to Origin, they've removed consumer choice and freedom and that's a bad thing.

It'd be like if they decided to open a chain of retail stores, only opened one per town in the dumpiest crappiest part of town and then pulled their product from walmart, best buy, eb, etc. and forced you to only shop in their shitty dumpy ass store.
 
I think we should all show some sympathy. Game development has been really hard on AAA devs ever since a federal mandate was carried out that requires them to spend $100,000,000+ on marketing.
 
NZNova said:
Cliffy is 100% right in this post. The fundamental issue is that a lot of gamers will complain about the actions of publishers but not so many will actually take the step of making a stand by putting the credit card away and not buying a game they want because of something objectionable about the publisher's actions.

Insert 'boycott modern warfare 2 steam group' image here.
Click to expand...

As with everything else...there is no problem with microtransactions, DLC, hats, whatever. If they are done right.

However they can easily be done wrong, especially in a $60 game.

If you have to "rest" for 5 minutes real time in DA3 unless you pay money? This would be a problem.
If your players are injured for 3 days real time in Fifa unless you buy medicine? This would also be something to really complain about.

The issue is where the line is drawn and the trust we have that companies will not push things too far. You can pretty safely bet companies like EA will mess it up completely.
 
I agree with most of the blog post, but not really with the EA vs Valve thing

it's one thing to say you'll start putting microtransactions in every $60 game you'll make, and another thing to have microtransactions on a free to play game, where a big percentage of that microtransaction money actually goes to the players, who themselves make items to sell.

It's.. pretty different. Not getting why EA gets the "scumbag" meme and Valve gets the "good guy" one is odd.
 
Juancho9 said:
So you're saying 100% of what he said is true? Shit...Cliffy got some fanboysssss
Click to expand...

What's there to disagree with? If there are games with poor microtransaction practices I will not buy them OR I will buy the game and the microtransactions when the game drops down to a price I am willing to pay.

For some reason people think day one $59.99 MSRP is the only price point for a game's life span which is clearly not the case. If a game costs $59.99 and has $10 worth of essential DLC and you're not willing to pay it then wait until the base game drops to $49.99 or less.

Instead of countering microtransactions with a brick wall, why not navigate around it or avoid it altogether?
 
CliffyB said:
TOO BAD MOTHERFUCKER!
Click to expand...

Holy fuuuuuuck. So good.

And to be honest, nothing wrong in the post. Businesses going to business. The game industry really isn't anything close to a monopoly right now so the consumers still hold all the power. This is actually what is killing Zynga right now, they're having problems adjusting to a larger market of freemium games so they're losing all their paying customers.
 
This is a comfortable place on the internet for people to gather and hate in unity. Cliffy happens to be that bandwagon everyone jumps on with no real merit. I totally disagreed with the guy on the Saint's Row thing, but some of you guys make gamers look bad.

*Edit: I agree with his post. I wrote the same thing yesterday on my blog, but he came up with more to compare.
 
toddhunter said:
As with everything else...there is no problem with microtransactions, DLC, hats, whatever. If they are done right.

However they can easily be done wrong, especially in a $60 game.

If you have to "rest" for 5 minutes real time in DA3 unless you pay money? This would be a problem.
If your players are injured for 3 days real time in Fifa unless you buy medicine? This would also be something to really complain about.

The issue is where the line is drawn and the trust we have that companies will not push things to far. You can pretty safely bet companies like EA will mess it up completely.
Click to expand...

I would argue the issue is the fact that publishers CAN push too far and people WILL still spend money on it, because video gamers have poor impulse control and are willing to go along with it because they gotta have the latest game.

Normally the market would regulate itself - publisher offers egregiously expensive/inappropriate product, consumers react with their wallets, publisher learns lesson - but gamers tend to be caught up so much in the "gotta have it" mentality about games that they go along with things that they probably shouldn't.
 
I respect the heck outta Cliffy, not many devs can admit when they make mistakes (Gears2, Gears3 sawed off).

I respect his opinion to say I agree with some things, but disagree with others.

I like DLC if its worth my money and has been worked on enough to warrant the 10 dollars (not really micro-transaction type)...

I felt the DLC for Gears 3 was phenomenal, especially the Campaign DLC; and seasons pass was good. However I feel something is seriously wrong with the Gears Judgment DLC setup. And removal of Gears staple modes like HORDE. :(

I will continue to vote with my dollars, and that will always be a big no to any micro-transactions.
 
SalsaShark said:
I agree with most of the blog post, but not really with the EA vs Valve thing

it's one thing to say you'll start putting microtransactions in every $60 game you'll make, and another thing to have microtransactions on a free to play game, where a big percentage of that microtransaction money actually goes to the players, who themselves make items to sell.

It's.. pretty different. Not getting why EA gets the "scumbag" meme and Valve gets the "good guy" one is odd.
Click to expand...

it's also odd to compare a luxury cosmetic item with a joke effect that the team fortress team admitted was overpriced for comedic purposes released years after the game came out and after it went free to play, and stuff like ea's done like From Ashes for me3 which directly influenced the development and story of the conclusion of a story-based game trilogy
 
He's mostly correct. But he misses on a couple points:

1) EA's image control problem isn't because of micro transactions. It spills into a deep history of mistreating its employees and buying out companies with great properties and then turning around and making those properties into less than properties. That baggage along with micro transactions makes the gamer feel like they can't trust EA.

2) Everyone can't buy a used game without it having been purchased to begin with. His point here is beyond ridiculous.

That said, he's right on pretty much everything else.
 
We're in a forum where people buy games they dislike just to shit on them, some gaffers are that hardcore.

"Man this game is the worst thing ever, it's the epitome of what is wrong with modern gaming, but I'm gonna buy it and give my money to the developers just because my urge to shit on it is too strong for me to handle."
Which is totally counterproductive, you're basically asking them to make more games like the one you hate. But I guess gamers are just crazy.
 
He forgot to mention the fact that just because we don't want to support micro-transactions doesn't mean we hate the game all of a sudden. Mirror's Edge is my favorite EA game. If they end up adding micro-transactions to a possible sequel im not just going to skip it! Fuck that. I'll buy it and skip on the micro-transactions.

I do understand the "need" and reasoning behind it, I just don't like how they affect the core game as much as they do. I think you can include micro-transactions into a game without ruining it for people who don't want them. Most games don't bother with this.
 
I don't think anyone has a problem with microtransactions existing, but rather how they are implemented and what is being purposely taken out of games in favor of charging consumers for it.
 
Everything about the vocal minority and consumers voting with dollars is obvious and old hat.

I think the discussion should be whether or not the experience as a whole is being affected by micro transactions. Can people feel a decline in quality from the original Dead Space and it's sequel to Dead Space 3, and if so does it feel micro transactions are the result? Was their a downshift in quality in TF2 after fancy hats were added?

I don't really play games with micro transactions nor have I touched TF2 in years so I honestly have no idea.
 
Cliff is right. We are the minority. If you don't like something, vote with your wallet and don't buy it. Freemium and microtransactions are here to stay. Why? Because the vast majority of people fail to realize how awful they are.

Still, everyone, devs, publishers, advertisers, the media, retailers and gamers are all to blame for things going to shit. No one has the balls or sense to have a serious discussion about this and find a common ground where everyone wins.
 
test_account said:
People keep paying for microtransactions, so it is pretty clear that the market wants it. Personally i've never really been affected by microtransactions so far. I remember the thing about Dead Space 3 for example, but i didnt feel that it affected the game at all for me.
Click to expand...

I agree but when gameplay and enjoyment is affected by micro transactions........

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review

there are plenty of free-to-play games that prove this model can work successfully while respecting the player. Firemonkeys, and perhaps more pertinently EA, have got that balance horribly, horribly wrong, to an extent where the business model becomes the game - with gut-wrenching results.

Let's finish with a little maths. You notice the car you've just bought in a £13.99 pack is suspiciously slow in races, so you want to acquire the first of three engine upgrades that costs 44,000 credits. If you get 3500 credits for winning a race after getting tail-ended just once by another car, get handed a 2855 credit repair bill for the damage and then have to pay another 500 credits to get the oil changed - a job that takes 20 minutes to do, unless you want to hand over a little more cash - what's the final number?
Click to expand...

Someone on Eurogamer worked it out. 104 races to save for that one upgrade, plus all the realtime oil changes.

Or you could make a micro transaction to buy the part since there is no enjoyment winning 104 races just to go through the same shit again in another tier.
 
Two things.

1) No one is (or should be) complaining about micro-transactions for cosmetic items.

2) Someone on Slashdot put it perfectly. If people are paying money to not play parts of your game (for XP/jumping levels), what does it say about your game?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tom Henderson says he heard good things about AC: Shadows reviews :"high 80s, low 90s maybe?"
Rumor Review  2 3
133
5K
pnutboy replied
Cliffy B...stand up comic?
2
99
7K
Hawking Radiation replied
  • Locked
Capcom Remains The King Of Scummy Microtransactions
27
2K
CyberCali replied
Say what you will about Nintendo, but...
2
72
4K
Woopah replied
EA Microtransactions added to Skate Closed Alpha
News 
14
904
Seomel replied
Top Bottom