Support NeoGAF

[sainraja]

What you are suggesting is stupid, if for no other reason, than the fact that other games don't follow this model. This will immediately be criticized by the gaming community. In order for this to be justified, and this is a BIG IF, they would have to sell other characters at a discounted price OR allow players to swap the original character with another. The original $40 dollar should allow them to experience the game and all characters so allowing players to swap would be one way to allow it.

If players want to own more than one character, they'd always have the option to buy. If I am not mistaken, I think Rogue Company kinda did this, but you didn't have to pay crazy prices for characters you did not have and they initially had a bundle for a bunch of characters or the base characters (which was basically purchasing the game).

Anyway, I think it is a stupid idea.

 

[Grizzled Ghost]

Theres a reason the majority of MTX are cosmetic. Companies can get away with it. If you have to pay to gain an advantage you'll lose 90% of your audience.

They tried it with DMZ with paid skins that had perks and it killed the game mode.

Does any game do what you are suggesting?

Warframe and LoL do it on a smaller scale, but you can slowly earn all the other characters in-game if you don't want to pay.

 

[dreamstation]

Charge $40 for the whole game then maybe we'll talk.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Theres a reason the majority of MTX are cosmetic.

My counter to this would be that cosmetic DLC is relatively cheap to make, and effective at generating revenue. However, I do think that it was the first, easy idea in the nascent GAAS period. The industry "lucked into it" in a sense.

They tried it with DMZ with paid skins that had perks and it killed the game mode.

Poor implementation of a valid strategy doesn't invalidate the strategy. You just need to do it properly.

Asymmetry can be fun (Overwatch) or it can be annoying (any number of mobile P2W trash).

Does any game do what you are suggesting?

Star Citizen does an embellished version of this.

Valorant, League of Legends, and DotA 2 also tip toe around this idea. Those games give you access to a small pool of heroes for free and then you can pay for new heroes to add to your roster or you can play to earn in game currency to purchase new heroes.

I just tend to think we're maturing past the infancy phase of GAAS. People are open to new ideas. I know I'm personally not interested in cosmetics too much any more but would love seeing gameplay centric MTX start to permeate games.

 

[DeepEnigma]

 

[clarky]

My counter to this would be that cosmetic DLC is relatively cheap to make, and effective at generating revenue. However, I do think that it was the first, easy idea in the nascent GAAS period. The industry "lucked into it" in a sense.

Poor implementation of a valid strategy doesn't invalidate the strategy. You just need to do it properly.

Asymmetry can be fun (Overwatch) or it can be annoying (any number of mobile P2W trash).

Star Citizen does an embellished version of this.

Valorant, League of Legends, and DotA 2 also tip toe around this idea. Those games give you access to a small pool of heroes for free and then you can pay for new heroes to add to your roster or you can play to earn in game currency to purchase new heroes.

I just tend to think we're maturing past the infancy phase of GAAS. People are open to new ideas. I know I'm personally not interested in cosmetics too much any more but would love seeing gameplay centric MTX start to permeate games.

Where do you draw the line? What if there is an insta win gun but it cost a million dollars?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

This is god awful design and the game would be a massive flop.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Where do you draw the line? What if there is an insta win gun but it cost a million dollars?

At fun. You draw the line at what's fun for Marathon players.

If it's not fun, don't do it.

Insta win guns aren't fun.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I will say, the poll results seem to suggest that a ton of people on NeoGAF are interested in Marathon.

That's actually great to see.

 

[clarky]

At fun. You draw the line at what's fun for Marathon players.

If it's not fun, don't do it.

Insta win guns aren't fun.

Didn't play laser tag weekend in Destiny 2?

 

[clarky]

I will say, the poll results seem to suggest that a ton of people on NeoGAF are interested in Marathon.

That's actually great to see.

Bumgies first game in ten years mate.

Game will be massive regardless of what Sony single player gaf says. Needs some meat on the bones to make it stick though. VOG saved Destiny through luck, they need to be better.

I am slightly concerned though as the talent that made MP Halo is long gone and the brains behind the best Destiny content have cashed out (Noseworthy, smith etc).

Plenty of pronouns.kicking around as well, remember Lightfall.

 

[Kronark]

I don't understand this need to have full access to everything as long as you spend 40 dollars on a product that gives you long term, high end entertainment.

It's about competitive integrity. There is no PvP environment where someone has a gun / ability you don't have that is going to feel good, balanced, or fair when you get killed by it even if it was technically worse. Counter Strike would feel like shit if you had to pay $40 per to unlock the AWP, AK, etc.

You can make a game like that I suppose but a huge chunk of people are going to say no thanks because it feels like you can buy power (And let's be real there will be a meta, there will be imbalance so to some extent that's true).

 

[DeepSpace5D]

I’m interested in Marathon and I will 100% play it when I get the chance. But I highly doubt I would be willing to spend potentially hundreds of dollars on the game just to unlock multiple characters. Only scenario where that would have a chance to happen is if it instantly became my favorite game and the only one I’m sure I’d want to spend all of my free time playing, and I have my doubts that happens.

I’m still optimistic about Marathon though and look forward to checking it out.

 

[Grizzled Ghost]

At fun. You draw the line at what's fun for Marathon players.

If it's not fun, don't do it.

Insta win guns aren't fun.

So paying 40 dollars to unlock a second character is supposed to be fun?

 

[baphomet]

No one is paying $40 for the game, let alone characters in it.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It's about competitive integrity. There is no PvP environment where someone has a gun / ability you don't have that is going to feel good, balanced, or fair when you get killed by it even if it was technically worse. Counter Strike would feel like shit if you had to pay $40 per to unlock the AWP, AK, etc.

You can make a game like that I suppose but a huge chunk of people are going to say no thanks because it feels like you can buy power (And let's be real there will be a meta, there will be imbalance so to some extent that's true).

Star Citizen is a very successful version of this on steroids. No one who's even mildly interested in the future of that game wants CI Games to take out the asymmetry to improve "competitive integrity".

Fun beats competitive integrity 10/10 times.

Don't you remember being a kid, pretending to lob imaginary grenades at giant tanks? Asymmetrical imbalance is an awesome fantasy.

There are also games like DotA 2 and League of Legends where new players can have access to 10 heroes and long time players can have access to the full 120 hero roster. Those games are wildly successful.

I think what's happening here is a conditioning. P2W has generally been implemented poorly in the past so some people believe it must always be implemented poorly. That's a folly. Concepts frequently need to be iterated on for a length of time before they succeed.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

So paying 40 dollars to unlock a second character is supposed to be fun?

So the counter is this...

Escape from Tarkov charges you 40 dollars for access to a single class. Only, EfT doesn't provide additional classes so you're stuck fighting your mirror in every PvP engagement (obviously loadouts differ).

If a developer can make money off creating additional characters, they can invest more into making the game better.

Halo died, in large part because 16 Master Chiefs fighting eachother is generally boring. It's just a map full of the same Checkers piece.

Overwatch became of phenomenon because some people liked playing Tracer and other people liked playing Reinhardt.

 

[kevboard]

Halo died, in large part because 16 Master Chiefs fighting eachother is generally boring. It's just a map full of the same Checkers piece.

Halo died because Halo 4 tried to copy Call of Duty and killed the fanbase... it never recovered from that.
then Halo 5 came along and tried to be an eSports game, when Halo was always a casual party-style game first... which again alienated the fanbase.
then Halo Infinite launches WITHOUT A TEAM SLAYER PLAYLIST AND WITHOUT FUCKING COOP... launches broken, misses basically every feature of prior games, and still tries to lure in CoD fans by keeping sprinting and clamber in the game...

having each player have the same class had zero to do with that. in fact, Halo tried to add classes with Armor Abilities and loadouts. and after massive backlash reversed it in 5.


Shameless Self Plug:

 

[Radical_3d]

I will say, the poll results seem to suggest that a ton of people on NeoGAF are interested in Marathon.

That's actually great to see.

Total voters: 72.

Aha. Same old 72 old farts that miss our youth with the 360. Good luck, Bungo.

 

[kevboard]

Total voters: 72.

Aha. Same old 72 old farts that miss our youth with the 360. Good luck, Bungo.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Halo died because Halo 4 tried to copy Call of Duty and killed the fanbase... it never recovered from that.
then Halo 5 came along and tried to be an eSports game, when Halo was always a casual party-style game first... which again alienated the fanbase.
then Halo Infinite launches WITHOUT A TEAM SLAYER PLAYLIST AND WITHOUT FUCKING COOP... launches broken, misses basically every feature of prior games, and still tries to lure in CoD fans by keeping sprinting and clamber in the game...

having each player have the same class had zero to do with that. in fact, Halo tried to add classes with Armor Abilities and loadouts. and after massive backlash reversed it in 5.


Shameless Self Plug:

I shouldn't have picked on Halo.

I meant to point to the fact that early PvP shooters were all symmetrical (Checkers). Quake, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, Halo etc... They were all built around "competitive balance".

Then the industry learned that play style (asymmetry) is more effective to cater to. Asymmetry is fun. Fun beats competitive balance 10/10 times.

 

[Grizzled Ghost]

So the counter is this...

Escape from Tarkov charges you 40 dollars for access to a single class. Only, EfT doesn't provide additional classes so you're stuck fighting your mirror in every PvP engagement (obviously loadouts differ).

If a developer can make money off creating additional characters, they can invest more into making the game better.

Halo died, in large part because 16 Master Chiefs fighting eachother is generally boring. It's just a map full of the same Checkers piece.

Overwatch became of phenomenon because some people liked playing Tracer and other people liked playing Reinhardt.

Would Overwatch still have become a phenomenon if you had to pay 80 dollars if you wanted to try both Tracer and Reinhardt?

And you didn't explain how charging for the different classes somehow makes it more fun than just having them all available to freely choose.

 

[kevboard]

I shouldn't have picked on Halo.

I meant to point to the fact that early PvP shooters were all symmetrical (Checkers). Quake, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, Halo etc... They were all built around "competitive balance".

Then the industry learned that play style (asymmetry) is more effective to cater to. Asymmetry is fun. Fun beats competitive balance 10/10 times.

I mean, the popularity of Fortnite shows that equal starts is still very much popular.
PUBG is also still very popular and also relies on fully equal starts.

I don't think either style is more popular than the other.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Would Overwatch still have become a phenomenon if you had to pay 80 dollars if you wanted to try both Tracer and Reinhardt?

No, but the loop is way too short for that. Those matches are 8 minutes long and require you to switch off characters based on rock paper scissors match ups. Extraction Shooters have considerably longer, more detailed gameplay loops. You're literally building your character for months on end.

And you didn't explain how charging for the different classes somehow makes it more fun than just having them all available to freely choose.

Because games are developed based on their potential revenue projections. If Bungie sees an avenue where they can charge $40 per character and make +50% revenue, they're more likely to flesh out and develop each characters arc. Example: Star Citizen is way more interesting because CI Games is leaning into the asymmetry. They're only doing that because it makes money for them.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I mean, the popularity of Fortnite shows that equal starts is still very much popular.
PUBG is also still very popular and also relies on fully equal starts.

I don't think either style is more popular than the other.

Equal starts, that grow into asymmetrical engagements.

Quake, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, Halo had equal starts and a relatively minimal loot pool so engagements largely played out the same. There's no question asymmetry has taken over game design. It appeals to our desire to play closer to our preferred playstyle.

 

[kevboard]

Equal starts, that grow into asymmetrical engagements.

Quake, Unreal Tournament, Goldeneye, Halo had equal starts and a relatively minimal loot pool so engagements largely played out the same. There's no question asymmetry has taken over game design. It appeals to our desire to play closer to our preferred playstyle.

I mean, whenever I play Fortnite most people use the same weapons. it's not like there are a ton. you usually got like 3 ARs, 2 MPs, 3 shotguns, 2 snipers and a few more specialised weapons at any given time.
in a typical Halo match you'll often also find different ARs, different MPs, different shotguns, different Snipers and specialized weapons like the rocket launcher, sword or fuel rod.

while 2 players in a Halo 3 match might spawn with an AR and a Magnum, 10 seconds later one of them will have a Plasma Pistol and a BR on his back going for a noob combo loadout, while the other one will dual wield Maulers with a Carbine on his back trying to catch people off guard close range. one will have collected some Plasma Grenades, while the other might have only Frag Grenades. One found a bubble shield, while the other has a shield absorber...
they will meet each other, one will win the fight and then might go on to secure a power weapon that spawns in... now that player has a Spartan Laser and can take down the 2 guys that have annoyed his team with a warthog for a while.

I feel like there is more than enough loadout variety in such a match of Halo 3.
this is very similar to a typical fight in Fortnite, just at a way faster cadence of getting kills, getting killed, respawning and collecting weapons and equipment.

Battle Royales are basically just much larger and much slower Arena Shooters like Halo... they are like Halo: Open World edition

 

[James Sawyer Ford]

Not a good look here Men_in_Boxes

 

[ViciousAgenda]

Some of y'all need your thread privileges revoked yesterday.

Big time. How is this clown allowed to pay these good awful threads.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I mean, whenever I play Fortnite most people use the same weapons. it's not like there are a ton. you usually got like 3 ARs, 2 MPs, 3 shotguns, 2 snipers and a few more specialised weapons at any given time.
in a typical Halo match you'll often also find different ARs, different MPs, different shotguns, different Snipers and specialized weapons like the rocket launcher, sword or fuel rod.

while 2 players in a Halo 3 match might spawn with an AR and a Magnum, 10 seconds later one of them will have a Plasma Pistol and a BR on his back, while the other one will dual wield Maulers with a Carbine on his back. one will have collected some Plasma Grenades, while the other might have only Frag Grenades. One found a bubble shield, while the other has a shield absorber...
they will meet each other, one will win the fight and then might go on to secure a power weapon that spawns in... now that player has a Spartan Laser and can take down the 2 guys that have annoyed his team with a warthog for a while.

I feel like there is more than enough loadout variety in such a match of Halo 3.
this is very similar to a typical fight in Fortnite, just at a way faster cadence of getting kills, getting killed, respawning and collecting weapons and equipment.

Battle Royales are basically just much larger and much slower Arena Shooters like Halo...

That's all perception.

If you look at the loot table for both games, Fortnite blows Halo out of the water. Not only that, but things like building, engagement distances, vehicle variety and map mechanics are all used to make an exponentially more diverse engagements. Halo is much too repetitive.

This can't be a real discussion. The trend is too obvious.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Not a good look here Men_in_Boxes

Come on! We swore a blood oath! Join me brother!

 

[Grizzled Ghost]

This can't be a real discussion.

Sums this thread up pretty well

 

[kevboard]

That's all perception.

If you look at the loot table for both games, Fortnite blows Halo out of the water. Not only that, but things like building, engagement distances, vehicle variety and map mechanics are all used to make an exponentially more diverse engagements. Halo is much too repetitive.

This can't be a real discussion. The trend is too obvious.

uuhmm... no it doesn't.

1: Holo Twister Assault Rifle
2: Fury Assault Rifle
3: Veiled Precision SMG
4: Surgefire SMG
5: Sentinel Pump Shotgun
6: Twinfire Auto Shotgun
7: Oni Shotgun
8: Typhoon Blade

these are ALL weapons that the current Fortnite season launched with. I think since then they added like 3 others.
and there are 2 vehicle types... a slow offroad one and a fast 2 seater.

the map Avalanche in Halo 3 has 5 Power Weapons. that's only the Power Weapons: Sniper, Spartan Laser, Rocket Launcher, Brute Shot, Shotgun.
on top of that it has Scorpion Tanks, Wraith Tanks, Hornets, Banshees, Warthogs and Choppers as vehicles. again that's 1 map.
it also has multiple equipment items like Bubble Shields and Tripmines... powerups like overshields...
and of course the non-Power weapons: Battle Rifle, Needler, Plasma Pistol, Spiker and Machine Gun turrets. While you spawn in with an AR and a Magnum, which you can dual wield with either the Spiker or Needler... or just swap out for them... oh and Plasma grenades/frag grenades are also there.

so on 1 map we got 12 weapons, 2 grenade types, 6 vehicle types, 4 equipment items, and 2 power up items. compared to 8 weapons, 2 vehicles and some heal items the current Fortnite season launched with.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

these are ALL weapons that the current Fortnite season launched with.

New Chapters always launch with a minimal loot pool. It's not representative of what Fortnite actually is.

I don't mean to be a d***, but I can't entertain the merits of Halo, which is on life support, compared to the behemoth that is Fortnite. Fortnites mechanics should only be debated against other titans of industry. No offense.

 

[Dacvak]

Yes. I would love to pay $40 per character

said no one ever

 

[kevboard]

New Chapters always launch with a minimal loot pool. It's not representative of what Fortnite actually is.

yes it is. because weapons get switched in and out. there's never much more in the loot pool than what I listed. there's usually 2 of each weapon class, maybe 3 for some, and maybe 1 or 2 wild card weapons like a sword.

it's very much representative of Fortnite. it's the exception whenever theres much more than that in the game at once.
and the amount of weapons, items, vehicles etc. at any give point in Fortnite is very similar to the amount of many Halo 3 or Reach maps.

I don't mean to be a d***, but I can't entertain the merits of Halo, which is on life support, compared to the behemoth that is Fortnite. Fortnites mechanics should only be debated against other titans of industry. No offense.

no offense but that makes no sense on any level.
precisely the fact that one game is massive and the other isn't is what makes the comparison relevant. it shows that the type of game isn't the deciding factor. Halo went downhill because it lost what made it special, and because it went Asymmetrical with loadouts and armor abilities.

Halo 4 killed the IP because it alienated the entire Halo fanbase by making it fully Asymmetrical...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

yes it is. because weapons get switched in and out. there's never much more in the loot pool than what I listed. there's usually 2 of each weapon class, maybe 3 for some, and maybe 1 or 2 wild card weapons like a sword.

it's very much representative of Fortnite. it's the exception whenever theres much more than that in the game at once.
and the amount of weapons, items, vehicles etc. at any give point in Fortnite is very similar to the amount of many Halo 3 or Reach maps.




no offense but that makes no sense on any level.
precisely the fact that one game is massive and the other isn't is what makes the comparison relevant. it shows that the type of game isn't the deciding factor. Halo went downhill because it lost what made it special, and because it went Asymmetrical with loadouts and armor abilities.

Halo 4 killed the IP because it alienated the entire Halo fanbase by making it fully Asymmetrical...

The attempt to pit the asymmetry of Halo against the asymmetry of Fortnite is just not worth my time. It makes no sense. Ideologues are never interesting to engage with because their minds are rigid.

 

[Danjin44]

It’s such a bad and anti consumer idea, why would ANYONE want this?

There is NO good side about this idea, it straight up horrible and greedy as fuck.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Yes. I would love to pay $40 per character

said no one ever

You're only commenting on half of the equation. The negative part of the equation.

The positive part would be a more compelling, higher quality product. IE: You get what you pay for.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It’s such a bad and anti consumer idea, why would ANYONE want this?

There is NO good side about this idea, it straight up horrible and greedy as fuck.

NeoGAF generally adores AAA games that sell for $70 dollars.

$70 dollars is such a bad and anti consumer idea, why would ANYONE want that?

Because monetization generally leads to higher quality products. NeoGAF isn't particularly interested in games that launch at $20 dollars. Why is that? It's so much more pro consumer.

Now apply the same principle to Marathon.

 

[Aenima]

Obviously Marathon is an Extraction Shooter that will have a number of different Runners (characters) at launch. Let's say the game offers 12 on release. Would the following monetization model kill your interest in the game?

You spend $40 dollars on the game and receive one "Runner token". You spend this token on a single Runner and can only play that character.

If you want access to a different Runner, you're forced to buy another $40 token.

So if you want full access (all 12 runners) that is going to cost you $480 dollars.

Would this be a deal breaker for you?

Poll is going about how I expected. Now if someone can help me understand the following scenarios...

- When we played paintball as kids, some of us bought the cheap Walmart paintball guns, and others bought the $500+ dollar pro models. Paintball was still ridiculously fun.
- When you buy a Chevy Corvette, you do so with the knowledge that other people are buying a Ferrari Enzo. Driving the Corvette is still ridiculously fun.
- When we go to amusement parks (which is what games are) we can buy the basic ticket, the speed pass, or the all inclusive week long stay at the high end hotel that's attached. It's still fun for people who buy the base ticket.
- When we go to sporting events, we can buy nosebleed seats, or we can buy front row seats. Do those in the nosebleeds not have fun?

I don't understand this need to have full access to everything as long as you spend 40 dollars on a product that gives you long term, high end entertainment.

Do we have any psychologists in the house?

You should join Ubisoft. You have briliant ideas on how to scam the consumer.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You should join Ubisoft. You have briliant ideas on how to scam the consumer.

Or you could engage with the thought experiment and advance the discussion. That might be more interesting.

 

[Danjin44]

NeoGAF generally adores AAA games that sell for $70 dollars.

$70 dollars is such a bad and anti consumer idea, why would ANYONE want that?

Because monetization generally leads to higher quality products. NeoGAF isn't particularly interested in games that launch at $20 dollars. Why is that? It's so much more pro consumer.

Now apply the same principle to Marathon.

Are you fucking serious? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

It like playing Unicorn Overlord but instead of unlocking characters through story progression or side quests you have to pay $40 for it.....Thats fucking stupid!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Are you fucking serious? ABSOLUTELY NOT!

It like playing Unicorn Overlord but instead of unlocking characters through story progression or side quests you have to pay $40 for it.....Thats fucking stupid!

Unicorn Overlord was $59.99 dollars at launch. That's so anti consumer. Games can be made and sold for $19.99 at launch. Why are you advocating for higher prices? That's stupid!

(It's because you know higher prices lead to higher quality like in all walks of life)

 

[Danjin44]

Unicorn Overlord was $59.99 dollars at launch. That's so anti consumer. Games can be made and sold for $19.99 at launch. Why are you advocating for higher prices?

Because Vanillaware put lots of hard works in to this game and I'm willing to pay full price to reward that hard work, its that simple.

I'm not fucking rewarding monetization for corporation greed, fuck that!.....if you like that shit you more than free to pay $40 each character but don't expect people with actual mind and common sense support that shit.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Because Vanillaware put lots of hard works in to this game and I'm willing to pay full price to reward that hard work, its that simple.

So if Bungie puts in the corresponding hard work and charges for that hard work, you'd be OK with it?

You do see how ridiculous you sound right?

 

[Danjin44]

So if Bungie puts in the corresponding hard work and charges for that hard work, you'd be OK with it?

You do see how ridiculous you sound right?

Give me full game without any monetization crap and I'm more than happy to pay full price.

 

[Paasei]

Seems like one of those many GaaS games that will be dead on arrival. Why bother paying for this?

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

You're only commenting on half of the equation. The negative part of the equation.

The positive part would be a more compelling, higher quality product. IE: You get what you pay for.

From Bungie?

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

You really are wondering why people value real activities in the real world with real people making real experiences along the way more than a digital make believe playdoll? OK

 

[Hudo]

Serious question: Are you working for Bungie?