Avatar

Weren't microtransactions supposed to replace expansions? (Destiny)

by Kahzgul, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 17:16 (3239 days ago)

Year 1 we got CE and HoW. Say what you will about them, but they were actual content drops that fundamentally altered your week to week gameplay of Destiny. One was a new raid. The other was an arena. Both had several MP maps, loads of new items, light level increases, and they forwarded the overall plot of the game.

In Year 2, we were told all future expansions would be free, and funded by the new microtransactions they were adding into the game.

What have we got to show for that?

Sparrow racing was awesome, but they inexplicably removed it, never to be seen again. So we "rented" sparrow racing? That's not how this should work.

Crimson doubles? Far less impressive than SRL, and basically lasted for a week. Again, gone forever.

Red bull quest? Does that even count? I don't think so because it's from a commercial tie-in that they certainly got paid to develop.

And now this latest patch. A snooze of a quest and a new strike that's pretty dang short. An update to bring some of the existing content up to the current light levels, and a token increase in max light level. Alongside this are some much needed balance tweaks, but no one should, for a second, think that paying money to a company in order to get them to fix bugs, exploits, and broken mechanics is reasonable. Those things should be fixed automatically, for free (and are by most companies).

So... where is that sweet, sweet microtrans money going? The short answer is probably Destiny 2, but none of us are getting that for free, and we were told this microtrans action would fund live content for Destiny 1. This Destiny.

Avatar

No.

by cheapLEY @, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 17:21 (3239 days ago) @ Kahzgul
edited by cheapLEY, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 17:25

In Year 2, we were told all future expansions would be free, and funded by the new microtransactions they were adding into the game.

We weren't told that. Kotaku published an article saying that "sources" told them this would happen. I don't think Bungie ever said anything like that. They said buying Silver would fund the Live Team, which would provide free updates. The didn't say anything about expansions.

It's another case of bad messaging.

Edit: And by bad messaging, I mean managing expectations. They didn't say anything about free substantial expansions. But they knew that Kotaku article was out there and being taken as gospel by a lot of folks, and they didn't very little (or nothing?) to get ahead of it.

Avatar

No.

by Ragashingo ⌂, Official DBO Cryptarch, Thursday, April 14, 2016, 17:26 (3239 days ago) @ cheapLEY

Yeah. At best/worse we the community with the always reliable help of the gaming press got it into our heads that micro transactions = free expansions. I wish we had gotten a real expansion (free or paid) vs what we got, but I think someone would need to quote an official source before we go down this road.

Avatar

God, The gaming press is awful

by Kahzgul, Friday, April 15, 2016, 17:19 (3238 days ago) @ Ragashingo

Thanks for clearing that up - you guys are totally right. WTF Kotaku? I feel like the gaming press' failure to verify sources and cross-reference information leads to an awful lot of the "chatter" about how good games are going to be.

Avatar

No.

by Cody Miller @, Music of the Spheres - Never Forgot, Friday, April 15, 2016, 18:03 (3238 days ago) @ cheapLEY

It's another case of bad messaging.

It was crystal clear to me. Microtransactions go to the live team. The live team does things like Festival of the Lost, SRL, the Taken Spring, etc.

Nobody ever said we'd get free expansions.

Avatar

God, The gaming press is awful

by Xenos @, Shores of Time, Friday, April 15, 2016, 18:33 (3238 days ago) @ Kahzgul

Thanks for clearing that up - you guys are totally right. WTF Kotaku? I feel like the gaming press' failure to verify sources and cross-reference information leads to an awful lot of the "chatter" about how good games are going to be.

Kotaku is also the same site who whines that Ubisoft has stopped inviting them to press events or sending them press info because Kotaku finds leaks and sources and reports on them. Gaming journalism in general is pretty bad, but Kotaku actually makes me angry. You can either be friendly with a company, or you can actively look for and report leaks, you don't get to do both.

God, The gaming press is awful

by Avateur @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 18:36 (3238 days ago) @ Xenos

Or you can be like IGN and get bought and paid for to make bad games look good instead of actually telling people how bad a game really is. Honestly, gaming journalism in the "friendly" or "leak/sources" way both suck.

Avatar

God, The gaming press is awful

by Xenos @, Shores of Time, Friday, April 15, 2016, 18:37 (3238 days ago) @ Avateur

Or you can be like IGN and get bought and paid for to make bad games look good instead of actually telling people how bad a game really is. Honestly, gaming journalism in the "friendly" or "leak/sources" way both suck.

Agreed. There is a balance, but it's hard to pull off.

Avatar

On the other hand

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Friday, April 15, 2016, 20:54 (3238 days ago) @ Xenos

Thanks for clearing that up - you guys are totally right. WTF Kotaku? I feel like the gaming press' failure to verify sources and cross-reference information leads to an awful lot of the "chatter" about how good games are going to be.


Kotaku is also the same site who whines that Ubisoft has stopped inviting them to press events or sending them press info because Kotaku finds leaks and sources and reports on them. Gaming journalism in general is pretty bad, but Kotaku actually makes me angry. You can either be friendly with a company, or you can actively look for and report leaks, you don't get to do both.

Personally, that's not how I interpreted the situation. Nothing about Kotaku's statements around that Ubisoft situation came off as "whiney" to me. Rather, it seemed like a very straightforward response to all the questions they were getting from their fans about lack of day 1 reviews of ubisoft games. It seemed to me that they were simply explaining that Ubisoft was no longer sending them review code, and the likely reason for the "blackout".

But I may also be a little biased, because in general I have a huge problem with the roll that most publishers play in how their games are covered and written about, pre and post launch. Kotaku has a checkered history, to be sure... however, I do applaud their willingness to say "You know what, we've come across some genuine videogame news and we're going to cover it, even if it costs us review copies of a few games". I'm not saying they are perfect, but they are one of the few outlets who overtly displays that they are not in the pockets of the major publishers. Patrick Klepek and Jason Schrier are the only 2 members of the games press I can think of who do true reporting of the industry. Virtually everyone else is just playing along with the hype cycles spun up by the publishers, regurgitating press releases and covering games based on experiences at carefully contained press events.

I do feel for hard working developers who's jobs are in some way effected by leaks. But it really shouldn't be the job of the media to prevent those leaks from happening (the opposite, actually). Ultimately, I think the level of secrecy around videogame development is insane, and serves nobody but the publishers. I think the media is far too willing to play along most of the time.

Avatar

On the other hand

by Xenos @, Shores of Time, Friday, April 15, 2016, 21:20 (3238 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

I do feel for hard working developers who's jobs are in some way effected by leaks. But it really shouldn't be the job of the media to prevent those leaks from happening (the opposite, actually). Ultimately, I think the level of secrecy around videogame development is insane, and serves nobody but the publishers. I think the media is far too willing to play along most of the time.

While I agree to a certain degree, my main point is that you really can't expect a company who is trying to keep a secret to cooperate later with a company who intentionally reveals their secrets, which is how Kotaku comes across in that article. Whether or not that secrecy is warranted or good is a completely separate issue. And this isn't even a matter of writing stories on leaks, Kotaku actually talks to sources in companies to release this stuff, which is shady in its own right since the employee is breaking contract. Since it's almost impossible to track down the person that leaked the information in such large companies, they instead make a statement to news sites basically saying if you talk to such an individual we may not work with you going forward. This isn't a government, the company has a right to privacy for the development if they want, and another company or private individual has no right to that information without their permission.

Think about it on a personal level, if you had a secret you were keeping and it was revealed in a similar manner (a friend of a friend revealing it), would you let the friend of a friend know private details in the future?

And honestly, this part: "You know what, we've come across some genuine videogame news and we're going to cover it, even if it costs us review copies of a few games" would be fine on its own, but in the article where they say that's their intention they go on to complain that Ubisoft won't send them review copies. That's expected, You were willing to give that up! So let it go if you really are willing to give it up!

Avatar

A "must read" on this topic

by CruelLEGACEY @, Toronto, Friday, April 15, 2016, 21:23 (3238 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Just continuing on my thoughts above regarding videogames media and the way games are covered. I went and dug up this article that I first read about a year ago. It was written by a supposed industry "insider" who chooses to remain anonymous (which always makes me skeptical)... it is at times harsh, if not downright condescending. And yet I find it impossible to dispute. It was written in response to the outburst of Gamergate, and their search to expose the "corruption" in the videogames press. The basic opinion in this article is "yeah, the videogames press is completely corrupt, but not in the stupid ways gamergate claims. It is corrupt in these other far more obvious ways that nobody seems to have a problem with".

Anyway, I found it a very interesting read.

http://www.destructoid.com/guest-op-ed-the-real-sources-of-unethical-videogame-journalism-286380.phtml

Avatar

God, The gaming press is awful

by cheapLEY @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 21:30 (3238 days ago) @ Xenos
edited by cheapLEY, Friday, April 15, 2016, 21:47

They day they posted that article about Ubisoft and Bethesda blacklisting them was the last day I visited Kotaku. That article was nothing but self-fellatio about posting leaked info. If they had been blacklisted by Bethesda for an actual story, it'd be one thing. But they posted a leaked Fallout script. That's not exactly hard-hitting journalism. And why would you expect Bethesda to continue working with you after that?

Avatar

+1

by Xenos @, Shores of Time, Friday, April 15, 2016, 21:37 (3238 days ago) @ cheapLEY

- No text -

Avatar

On the other hand

by cheapLEY @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 22:51 (3238 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

however, I do applaud their willingness to say "You know what, we've come across some genuine videogame news and we're going to cover it, even if it costs us review copies of a few games".

And I would applaud that to. I wouldn't call publishing leaked scripts admirable, though. Property theft, maybe, but definitely not admirable.

Heck, I might even feel a bit different if they had just said, "We have some info that Fallout 4 is in development, and will be set in Boston," but that wasn't good enough for them. They posted specific details and parts of the actual script. I don't think that's news. Maybe I'm in the minority there, but their self-congratulatory tone about the whole thing turned me off enough that I don't visit them anymore. Which is a shame, because I agree that Patrick typically does some pretty good work. But I won't be party to that sort of crap.

Avatar

Kinda Funny Gamescast on the issue.

by cheapLEY @, Friday, April 15, 2016, 23:21 (3238 days ago) @ CruelLEGACEY

Greg Miller talked with Mitch Dyer, who was a writer for IGN on the "state of games journalism."

I just listened to it today while at work, and thought it was interesting, and as it's relevant here . . .

(On an unrelated note, Greg is wearing a shirt from a pretty good pizza place that's in my hometown, which I just noticed and thought was cool. Turns out he went to Mizzou, which I did not know, but probably should have figured out, guessing by the cup on the desk, which I also didn't notice.)

Back to the forum index
RSS Feed of thread