I am afraid "what can we monetize?" will be the first question in the future....
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Monetization of our time is evil. Gamers regroup !
- Thread starter Solal
- Start date
I am afraid "what can we monetize?" will be the first question in the future....
EsotericManiac
Banned
The auction house became the preferred way of getting items and became the focus of the game. This doesn't make the game any more or less fun.
Removing the auction house (another option) doesn't instantly make the game more fun.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I don't subscribe to that thinking either, but that doesn't make the business model bad on its own for gamers. As long as it's an option that supplements the game design that isn't designed around the business aspect of it, then that's entirely up to the consumer whether or not they feel it will make the game more enjoyable to them.
So in a perfect business-centric world, it could be seen as a favor in offering that option. The problem is that many microtransaction models have the game designed around or emphasize them, rather than the other way around.
DrROBschiz
Member
Oh yeah?
Real money getting in the way of my experience always made games less fun. Heck we are so inundated with it now that the instant I see any game with microtransactions I just refuse to touch it without a second thought
gutterboy44
Member
I'm still waiting for a logical/reasonable explanation as to why the very services these microtransactions provide have to cost money, they don't add content, they just unlock what you paid for. In addition, they always cost money in different tiers and almost never specify the extent of the "content" it unlocks. Can you spend $400 on Forza 5 and still not have all the cars? If it is just a convenient option for gamers, wouldn't it be far more convenient to give it to them for free with a options or cheat sections?
My guess is the paywall gives them the blessing to cheat your way to achievements. If you pay you get trophies, if you "cheat" shame on you, no chievos.
My guess is the paywall gives them the blessing to cheat your way to achievements. If you pay you get trophies, if you "cheat" shame on you, no chievos.
The console version of Diablo 3 is pretty awesome
EsotericManiac
Banned
They aren't doing you any favors. They could add that shit for free, thats why. The reason they don't and the reason they tweak games they way they do is so that they can maximize revenue per user.
Super Nothing
Member
But they're artificially increasing the amount of time it takes to unlock everything in order to encourage you to pay them instead. They're setting the time in order to manipulate the players for their profit. I really don't understand how people can't see this.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I find that almost as bad as those buying into the microtransactions.
Not every game is like that. Obviously, it's always going to be faster to just buy your way through with that model. So because that way is quicker, it makes the game's process longer than it would have been on its own?
It's important to differentiate between what microtransaction models are out there.
DrROBschiz
Member
Yes it was
Especially in harder difficulties. To be tempted to resort to the auction house at all was a bleed into the core gameplay
People claimed the game couldn't be completed on every difficulty without either a ridiculous level of grinding for high level items (drop rates HAD to be low to balance the auction house) therefore ruining the experience unless you dished out for the goods
The core gameplay in Diablo 3 absolutely was affected by the auction house. Drop rates on gear were cut to tiny slices of what they would have otherwise been to ensure that people had to go to the auction house unless they were incredibly lucky.
They took the best part of Diablo (getting loot) and turned it into a chore of sifting through menus rather than looting it yourself.
that's fucking terrifying.
It's a really simple problem though. Stop spending money IN games. Buy all the fucking games you want, but stop spending extra money in them. They do this shit because people will pay.
DrROBschiz
Member
I don't want to support this model
For every positive setup there are thousands of horrible ones. Clearly the positive examples of these business practices aren't "catching on"
And heck I can only think of a handful of games where the microtransactions aren't offensive
Just a quick point on the bigger budgets argument, wasn't Uncharted 2 rumoured to cost $20m and Tomb Raider $100m? I beleive many other games of a similar nature cost far more too.
If so it would seem there are better ways to save money before passing the costs on to us.
(Sorry if my figures are way off, just ignore me)
If so it would seem there are better ways to save money before passing the costs on to us.
(Sorry if my figures are way off, just ignore me)
It was less engaging, less satisfying, and the player base shrank dramatically because of the auction house. Blizzard admitted they fucked up!
Or do you think Blizzard doesn't knows less about DIII and its game design than you do?
EsotericManiac
Banned
you were performing the same tasks and commands you always were. only your gear changed as it wasn't as easy to obtain because they reduced the drop rate
NullPointer
Member
If you consider the auction house to be the game than I can see where you're coming from. If you see the battles and found loot to be the game the auction house very much hurt it from a design standpoint. A near fatal blow really, which is why its being removed.
D3 is a perfect example of how monetization perverts game design.
Are you sure? I haven't encountered this.
But I haven't played that JoJo fighting game which sounds like total bullshit.
Yes. They reduced the drop rate to the point where it made the game un-fun. That's kind of the entire issue with it.
ArkkAngel007
Member
You don't have to support the model. If you're not supporting the game of itself, you're not supporting whatever the executives decide you're not supporting. Which to them will land on the game that didn't make a dime rather than the microtransactions that those bought into them and gave that free revenue stream. You're not winning either way, except maybe saving money of course
Drop rate and the real money auction house are part of game design, and they fucked it up. But, yeah, you could say you are still just left clicking a mouse for hours and the RMAH didn't change that.
Super Nothing
Member
No, not all games are like that, but you're kidding yourself if you think that developers aren't looking for ways to incentivize microtransactions and that it's not affecting gameplay.
Then you don't play many games or you haven't been paying attention, because it's common place in retail games now.
robertsan21
Member
you dont get it.
they will always make an effort for the people that pay, which means that we who dont want to pay are stuck playing games that are gimped from start.
as this kind of monetization grows, so will the gimping of games. Just look at iOS, the first games that arrived before in app purchases was there, you could buy full games for 7-10 dollars, today a game in that price range are gimped, and its not until you have started play that you relize that you cant change characters, new weapons etc, cause they are behind a damn pay wall.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I'm not kidding myself. I'm just saying there are good models (well, maybe just one) out there that are balanced.
But I don't see what the problem is with them looking for more ways to create a stream of revenue as long as it doesn't negatively affect the consumer who already bought the product and wants to leave it at that, and are not misleading to the consumer who wants to utilize that option given by the microtransactions.
Slippery slope. Also, why not be, I don't know, an informed consumer and avoid the games that do that?
WarMacheen
Member
Leave it alone man, he doesn't get it. I've explained that the drop rates were intentionally lowered to push people to pay money. If the RMAH wasn't there the drop rates would not stay the same. Artificially limiting the market for a monetary gain is bullshit.
Some people just can't grasp the concept of a game being intentionally changed in the hopes that a percentage of the player base will just buy their way through. Not paying and ignoring the issues will only exacerbate the problem
This thread is about all the ones that do negatively affect the consumer.
Name some.
Super Nothing
Member
No one would have a problem with a system like that. The problem is that systems like that are few and far between. The vast majority of them are manipulative and come at the expense of gameplay, and that's why we want them out of gaming altogether.
You're in a thread dedicated to naming and shaming these types of games and trying to stop the practice and you still can't think of any? You're being willfully ignorant of the problem.
DrROBschiz
Member
They are looking because a new disruptive market opened the doors (mobile)
Not because it was necessary (some claim it was) but because opportunities popped up since these practices were starting to be accepted as the norm.
Doesn't matter. It IS here to stay and everyone will participate with varying levels of ethical implementation. I would encourage people to shop smart and call out BS from the rooftops on bad business. Much like you guys already do here.
As far as abolishing the practice? Good luck with that
DrROBschiz
Member
So you can't name any, then?
If there's a thing you really want in GTA Online, how long will it take to work towards it if you don't pay for it?
ArkkAngel007
Member
Not really. The ones that do so might be emphasized, but posts like the one below and the follow up posts by the OP demonstrate that it's more of an all or nothing argument.
It's a new business model, just like everything else in the online space. It's going to take a long time for such things to settle down and find that spot.
But it isn't going to go away. It's essentially free revenue stream, and nothing is lost by people not buying into it.
It's better to illustrate what does work/can work rather than shut the door on the problem. It's still going to be there when you open up and have uglier friends with it.
I think I have to agree. A lot of people seem not to care/don't notice/think game company is doing them a favor. And this is here at neogaf, I can only imagine the apathy elsewhere. Anyway, Mario + Link come out tomorrow which are pure old time games.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Yup, I am nuts, but that's completely off-topic. Of course there are AAA games that are poorly managed with out-of-control budgets. There are also AAA games that cost $60 but give you more than $60 worth of value (i.e. Last Of Us, GTA V, Pikmin 3). You can't just generalize and lump these two group together. With a variable pricing model, the good devs/pubs that keep costs down would thrive while the devs/pubs you are talking about would have to get leaner or go out of business. If anything, the $60 price point/monetization combo allows inefficient devs/pubs to hide costs and, thus, hide their inefficiencies = if some of these guys had to charge $80 for their shitty games instead of pretending they are $60, no one would buy them!
Also, several people have pointed out that pricing in European markets is more flexible (like 120 euro BF4 package with everything included), so it looks like we already have a good working model for this.
You really drink the coolaid
If you had said the orange box, or dota2 (which is free free btw) or quake 3 I'd have said sure you get a lot more out of those than out of most games (mods, thousands of hours of gameplay)
But you list some AAA 10 hour drivel, a nintendo singleplayer game and a game that is already nickle and diming it's players with the very microtransactions listed in the OP that made a billion dollars pure profit in launch week just from upfront sales...
I mean, really? Rockstar needsmore than a billion in profits? it's not enough?
Games are already VERY expensive, they don't need to nickle and dime us, inconvenience us, split multiplayer communities or ask even more money on top of that. Again ,they just need to budget, if the current AAA industry can't be sustained then it will shrink, that's how capitalism works.
Super Nothing
Member
From the first page of the fucking thread: BF4, Dead Space 3, GT6, Forza 5. Listed on this page: Diablo 3, GTAO. Earlier examples in the thread also included AC4. You're clearly not paying attention.
DrROBschiz
Member
The fact that you are immediately posing this question when booting up a game is the problem
Before you would grind trying to achieve a goal you set for yourself in the game. Now its just to avoid having to spend money
This encroachment on MENTAL immersion in a game ruins the experience.
I am not saying GTA Online doesn't handle things tastefully. I am just saying that with my traditional mindset and approach to gaming I have a hard time sticking with games that take this path.
They tend to be less memorable and enjoyable over time.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Pretty sure you haven't played that game, so I'll excuse you for being wrong in naming that one.
I know several of those are definitely bad examples, though. Nothing in AC4 takes an unreasonable amount of time or effort to unlock. I just did it all last week. Dead Space 3 is the same deal.
I guess I should have specified that I want actual legitimate examples, though I really shouldn't have to.
This. I don't understand the problem.
I mean, monetizing codes, which this essentially is, is grimy, but if you're looking to get the most out of your game, wouldn't you just play it?
I can see being super upset about Forza's retarded pricing structure (the price is supposed to be DISCOUNTED the more you buy, not inflated...) but I honestly don't see the bellywho about microtransactions that are optional, especially when everything is still obtainable by playing the game.
Awesome phrasing. I was trying to think of why the exp and money dlc ruined Shin Megami Tensei IV for me to the point that I never finished. And what you wrote was why. Once that was brought into the game, something was ruined for me. ymmv yadda.
Super Nothing
Member
And why should I have to read the thread for you?
To the OP: the topic is obviously to complicated for a nice movement to happen like with the simple issue of used games. I do appreciate your efforts though.
I am dead serious when i say that playtime will be looked at next soon enough. Publishers will seriously look at the time a Call of Duty or FIFA game is played and simply put timers on how long you can play your game, and then lock you out of your game, which was the entire point of the always online debacle.
The argument will be that a movie ticket costs 8-12 dollars and you get 120minutes of entertainment, give or take. Yet there are people who have played Halo, CoD, GTA for 20+ hours and "only" paid 60 dollars + micro transactions + dlc. Meaning that they are outright stealing from the publisher, enjoying too big of a entertainment-to-dollar ratio. And there will be people who defend it, as there was with the horse armor, map packs, online pass, initial Xbox One "vision" and now this.
I am not going to even attempt some sort of rallying cry here, like some Barbarian king standing on the top of a mountain, shouting to high heavens how we have finally had enough, while thunder and lightning are striking behind me. Because its not going to work, this is happening, best you can do is raise your middle fingers and go on with your day, its depressing to even think about what is happening.
The argument will be that a movie ticket costs 8-12 dollars and you get 120minutes of entertainment, give or take. Yet there are people who have played Halo, CoD, GTA for 20+ hours and "only" paid 60 dollars + micro transactions + dlc. Meaning that they are outright stealing from the publisher, enjoying too big of a entertainment-to-dollar ratio. And there will be people who defend it, as there was with the horse armor, map packs, online pass, initial Xbox One "vision" and now this.
I am not going to even attempt some sort of rallying cry here, like some Barbarian king standing on the top of a mountain, shouting to high heavens how we have finally had enough, while thunder and lightning are striking behind me. Because its not going to work, this is happening, best you can do is raise your middle fingers and go on with your day, its depressing to even think about what is happening.
Why should you have to actually support your so-far-bullshit assertions with examples, you mean? You regurgitated other people's examples and at least some of them are crap, if not all of them. How about a list of examples consisting entirely of games you've actually played? You, specifically, seem to think this is a major trend. What, in your actual experience, leads you to this conclusion?
Well...I mean here's the thing about that, and with Diablo which someone brought up earlier.
Doesn't decreasing the level of good drops to push people to go to a paid marketplace simply game the game bad? I mean, let's set the idea of a real money marketplace aside for a moment, the game that you paid money for has a poor drop rate that makes playing it a chore. Forget the decision behind why that is, isn't that simply indicative of the game being bad?
So if the game is bad, why play it? It's easy to put the blame on real money marketplaces, and a lot of time that pointed finger is fair. But let's take Plants vs. Zombies 2 as an example. That game makes progressing such an incredible chore unless you spend money. That makes it significantly worse than the previous game. So I stopped playing it.
I mean really, voting with your wallet seems the most appropriate here.
And those games will flop. ::Shrugs::
Dead Space, AC4 and BF4 didn't increas in grind becasue of microtransactions. I don't think GTAO is an issue eiter.
On the other hand Diablo 3 was really bad.