It's a valid business model

**feels forum rage intensify**

[image]

I know Claude or Kermit (maybe both) have brought up this exact example before :P

locked

2646 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand.

On top of that, if you have the necessary funds these days, you can buy a machine outright. You're done. You can play the game to your heart's content, and at never have to worry about paying the publisher for content in the game again.

locked

2500 views

I can understand looking back at arcades with nostalgia.

Using them as some sort of smartass justification for microtransactions is asinine. The two aren't really equivalent. It would be more like if you bought an arcade machine for your house and then still had to feed quarters into the motherfucker to play it.

I've said it before, and I stand by it---I'd rather pay $80 for a new game than see microtransactions stuffed into everything. I don't think they're the death of video games, and I don't find most of them particularly offensive (although the post I just made illustrates why I think Destiny 2 could be a stronger game without them).

locked

2445 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand.

"This is a bad analogy because I personally didn't get to play a lot of arcade games!"

On top of that, if you have the necessary funds these days, you can buy a machine outright. You're done. You can play the game to your heart's content, and at never have to worry about paying the publisher for content in the game again.

"Arcades don't count because if you have a lot of money these days, you can just buy a machine and take the quarters back!"

Not really picking up on a single thing remotely resembling an example that would explain how rev's post is anything close to a bad analogy... Denial is a terrible thing, Cyber, but whatever lets you feel justified; at least you stand by your principles, misguided though they may be...

locked

2510 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand.

"This is a bad analogy because I personally didn't get to play a lot of arcade games!"

No, it's a bad analogy because it implies continuously pumping quarters into arcade machines is somehow the Superior Game Experience™

On top of that, if you have the necessary funds these days, you can buy a machine outright. You're done. You can play the game to your heart's content, and at never have to worry about paying the publisher for content in the game again.

"Arcades don't count because if you have a lot of money these days, you can just buy a machine and take the quarters back!"

What do you mean "arcades don't count?" It's a flawed analogy.

If games with microtransactions had a "gold" version that got you every optional thing without having to worry about spending another cent, I could totally see myself buying that. But they don't. They put a question mark on the price tag, to hide how ludicrous the cost of all these extra cosmetic and booster items actually is.

Not really picking up on a single thing remotely resembling an example that would explain how rev's post is anything close to a bad analogy... Denial is a terrible thing, Cyber, but whatever lets you feel justified; at least you stand by your principles, misguided though they may be...

I get that you enjoy putting people down- here on the forum, and in game- to make yourself look better by comparison, but don't you think you're laying it on a little thick?

locked

2435 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand.

"This is a bad analogy because I personally didn't get to play a lot of arcade games!"

No, it's a bad analogy because it implies continuously pumping quarters into arcade machines is somehow the Superior Game Experience™

No it doesn't. It's being sarcastic, reminding folks that "micro transactions" are not new- they've been around for years (arcades were still popular until the N64\ps1 era of consoles, at least where I grew up).

Look, the "golden age" of gaming is going to be relative to each generation.

My dad thinks the golden age was Pac-man and Centipede.

For me, it was the end of N64 and early xbox (pre live).

For some kid younger than me, it's COD4.

For others, it's the advent of steam.

For others, it was Doom Share-ware.

In the end, ALL OF THESE PEOPLE payed money one way or the other into that ecosystem, be it $100 game cartridges (adjusting for inflation, some of those N64 games were hella expensive), rumble paks and expansion slots, controllers, memory cards, online subscriptions, a new video card, dial up or broadband, or quarters at the laundramat (or tokens at the putt-putt).

6 of 1, half-dozen of the other, dude.

There is definitely a WRONG way to do those transactions, but as long as it's limited to cosmetics, I don't consider it wrong.

I DO consider DLC that's already on the disc shady, but now games are mostly digital anyway so...... it's just dlc on a server you don't have access to yet :P

Eh. This topic isn't a big deal.

locked

2413 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand. .

I remember seeing a cool game and scurrying over to my parents for a few quarters. That game usually offered no mercy to some casual passerby taking an interest in it. That’s a steep price to keep with it. Especially for an overeager kid. Today’s microtransactions feel like a far cry from that, at least with the games I’ve played that attempted to nickel and dime me. Something like Destiny 2, I look at Eververse and only think, “Cool! It’s all hidden behind a paywall but oh well, I don’t really need it.” I’ve already got a solid game with the base $60 product.

locked

2428 views

There are so many holes in this analogy it makes my head spin.

As a kid with a very limited allowance, arcades SUCKED. I can count the number of times I got the opportunity to play an arcade game on one hand. .

I remember seeing a cool game and scurrying over to my parents for a few quarters. That game usually offered no mercy to some casual passerby taking an interest in it. That’s a steep price to keep with it. Especially for an overeager kid. Today’s microtransactions feel like a far cry from that, at least with the games I’ve played that attempted to nickel and dime me. Something like Destiny 2, I look at Eververse and only think, “Cool! It’s all hidden behind a paywall but oh well, I don’t really need it.” I’ve already got a solid game with the base $60 product.

Paywall would mean that the content is walled-off from you until you pay, though, and it's not. Not only do you get access to the entirety of the Eververse content through Bright Engrams, but you can use any Dust that you earn to buy specific stuff from the cycling inventory. It's definitely the least manipulative form of Microtransactions that's popped up in a long while.

Even the (pretty much useless) armor/weapon mods that Cyber was complaining about can be bought from Banshee by the dozens for glimmer, further destroying any argument against D2's microtransactions.

locked

2410 views

I learned a great love for pinball this way. Specifically being good enough to win a free game. :D

locked

2380 views

**feels forum rage intensify**

I know Claude or Kermit (maybe both) have brought up this exact example before :P

Again, more ignorance about the Arcade model and why it's just fine.

1. Arcade machines were way more powerful and expensive than what you could get at home.
2. You paid a quarter to play the game for a time.
3. How long you could play is determined by how good you are.
4. People spread the word about unfair and cheap games, and those were generally not the most popular.
5. Because of 2 and 3, the games were designed to reward mastery.

The reason Arcades are not really a thing anymore is because #1 is no longer true. That's all. It's a completely false equivalence. You spent a quarter so you didn't have to pay 10 grand for the machine. Microtransactions on your home console are the opposite of this. They don't save you money; they cost you more.

You were also paying for the venue, which in the case of some things like fighting games were crucial to the experience. Sure I could have played Soul Calibur 2 at home, but there was no online. You're limited to your friends. At the arcade, you faced a huge variety of opponents.

locked

2444 views

At the arcade, you pay to play.

With Microstransactions, you pay to NOT play.

They are literally the opposite!

locked

2457 views

- No text -

locked

2316 views

**feels forum rage intensify**

I know Claude or Kermit (maybe both) have brought up this exact example before :P

If they did, they're wrong.

Or else I forgot the part in the arcade where they charged you $400 for a console cabinet and $60 for a ROM and THEN $0.25 every time you died.

It is a disingenuous reframing of the argument to say people object to microtransactions.

People mostly object to microtransactions in full priced titles, or titles that are not free, freemium, etc.

locked

2459 views

It is a disingenuous reframing of the argument to say people object to microtransactions.

People mostly object to microtransactions in full priced titles, or titles that are not free, freemium, etc.

Again, it confuses the way that microtransactions and pay to play affect game design. Paying a quarter to play till you died IMPROVED game design. Selling microtransactions makes game design WORSE, since you must make 'frictions' so people will actually buy them.

locked

2455 views

Again, it confuses the way that microtransactions and pay to play affect game design. Paying a quarter to play till you died IMPROVED game design. Selling microtransactions makes game design WORSE, since you must make 'frictions' so people will actually buy them.

Except for the "continue from this point, as opposed to the very start" mechanic, which can push the developer into making "memorize it or die" sequences. But yes, most microtransaction-focused games use them to justify the implementation of grinds. I don't think Destiny is one of them, but I can see the argument.

locked

2468 views

Again, it confuses the way that microtransactions and pay to play affect game design. Paying a quarter to play till you died IMPROVED game design. Selling microtransactions makes game design WORSE, since you must make 'frictions' so people will actually buy them.

Except for the "continue from this point, as opposed to the very start" mechanic, which can push the developer into making "memorize it or die" sequences. But yes, most microtransaction-focused games use them to justify the implementation of grinds. I don't think Destiny is one of them, but I can see the argument.

You paid to play someone else's game, on someone else's property, with someone else's electricity. Playing an arcade game is not a microtransaction at all, anymore than a carnival or billiards game is a microtransaction.

Like someone else pointed out, if you owned the console yourself, then you were free to play it as much as you wanted, with the only limit to what you could achieve being your own skill.

That is nothing like what is going on now with gaming.

locked

2449 views

I'm not saying that the analogy holds up , but if you are saying arcade games did not have an incentive to make pain points that encouraged payment to continue, and then did so, I have to question how much arcade gaming you did.

Hell, Dragon's Lair is a shining idol to nothing but the concept.

locked

2410 views

I'm not saying that the analogy holds up , but if you are saying arcade games did not have an incentive to make pain points that encouraged payment to continue, and then did so, I have to question how much arcade gaming you did.

Hell, Dragon's Lair is a shining idol to nothing but the concept.

The good ones did not do this. Dragon’s Lair is awful.

And in the long term there was incentive not to do this. Quarter suckers got labeled as such, and were mostly shunned.

locked

2358 views

I'm not saying that the analogy holds up , but if you are saying arcade games did not have an incentive to make pain points that encouraged payment to continue, and then did so, I have to question how much arcade gaming you did.

Hell, Dragon's Lair is a shining idol to nothing but the concept.

The good ones did not do this. Dragon’s Lair is awful.

And in the long term there was incentive not to do this. Quarter suckers got labeled as such, and were mostly shunned.

Doesn't mean they aren't a valid example. Arcade and video games were made and people have played them, that alone makes them valid for discussion in my opinion.

locked

2362 views

I'm not saying that the analogy holds up , but if you are saying arcade games did not have an incentive to make pain points that encouraged payment to continue, and then did so, I have to question how much arcade gaming you did.

Hell, Dragon's Lair is a shining idol to nothing but the concept.

The good ones did not do this. Dragon’s Lair is awful.

And in the long term there was incentive not to do this. Quarter suckers got labeled as such, and were mostly shunned.

Doesn't mean they aren't a valid example. Arcade and video games were made and people have played them, that alone makes them valid for discussion in my opinion.

I mean, there are tons of examples of stupid things that happen in console games to get people to buy them, or buy more stuff once they have them. What's the point? There is nothing inherently bad about the Arcade model. Nothing about that model necessarily makes games worse. In fact, it often forces them to be better since another game is right next to you, and you only invested a quarter. If it sucks, you can move to the next one. Competition is more fierce.

However, microtransactions necessarily make the games worse. They must. If they didn't, nobody would pay to not play and get the items immediately.

locked

2386 views

I mean, there are tons of examples of stupid things that happen in console games to get people to buy them, or buy more stuff once they have them. What's the point? There is nothing inherently bad about the Arcade model. Nothing about that model necessarily makes games worse. In fact, it often forces them to be better since another game is right next to you, and you only invested a quarter. If it sucks, you can move to the next one. Competition is more fierce.

However, microtransactions necessarily make the games worse. They must. If they didn't, nobody would pay to not play and get the items immediately.

It almost sounds like stubborn hypocrisy, but the low-investment and high competition is a good point. Still, there are models of microtransaction that don't make the game worse, just like there are examples of arcade games that are coin-munchers.

locked

2351 views

It almost sounds like stubborn hypocrisy, but the low-investment and high competition is a good point. Still, there are models of microtransaction that don't make the game worse, just like there are examples of arcade games that are coin-munchers.

I can't really think of a microtransaction model that doesn't make the game worse.

1. Buy items you can get by playing
This makes the game worse because 'frictions' are designed in to make paying to skip them and acquire items more desirable.

2. Buy items you can't get by playing
The game is worse because it doesn't have these items in it to begin with. I mean, they ostensibly make the game better right? Or else why buy them?

locked

2372 views

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

locked

2382 views

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

locked

2384 views

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

Except it has been a problem every single time that it's been done. No matter how good an expansion pack is, you will never get 100% of the active player base buying it. That's why this model is finally going away. It has caused problems right from the start.

locked

2404 views

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

Would you rather have people have to pay for new maps again and split the user base? We saw that in Bungie Halo games, and it was always a clusterfuck that ended up with a bunch of shitty playlists.

What you do in this situation is develop a huge expansion pack, and charge for it. Make it good enough to be a 'must have' and fragmentation isn't a problem.

Except it has been a problem every single time that it's been done. No matter how good an expansion pack is, you will never get 100% of the active player base buying it. That's why this model is finally going away. It has caused problems right from the start.

You don't need 100%. Just a critical mass.

locked

2390 views

Except now you're fucking over the people that bought the base game but not the expansion. You still have to account for them not having the new content (especially multiplayer maps), which ends up with either segmented playlists like Halo did or some sort of smart matchmaking system which I've never seen work all that well (it either ends up with long waits to find people that don't have the new maps for those people, or you end up with just a rotation of the stock maps because you keep getting matched with folks that don't have the new ones, or whatever other case might happen).

locked

2356 views

Except now you're fucking over the people that bought the base game but not the expansion. You still have to account for them not having the new content (especially multiplayer maps), which ends up with either segmented playlists like Halo did or some sort of smart matchmaking system which I've never seen work all that well (it either ends up with long waits to find people that don't have the new maps for those people, or you end up with just a rotation of the stock maps because you keep getting matched with folks that don't have the new ones, or whatever other case might happen).

And releasing a sequel doesn't do the same thing? What's the crucible matchmaking pool like for Destiny right now?

locked

2357 views

And releasing a sequel doesn't do the same thing? What's the crucible matchmaking pool like for Destiny right now?

Sure, a sequel does the same thing. My initial gut reaction is to say that's a completely different situation, but maybe it's not. I legitimately don't have an answer for that--I'll have to think on it.

locked

2355 views

So because sequels have this problem, it's negligible for expansions to have it, even though expansions are much more frequent and have the problem worse?

Which means an alternative cosmetic microtransactions pay for free expansions model is bad because... They could use a different model with a different distribution scheme and a different pattern of revenue generation with different advantages and disadvantages to hopefully release the same content.

You can say "Well I still dislike that" without holding onto the reasoning that it makes a game worse, full stop, no exceptions, because uh. Kinda seems like you hit a corner where your logic isn't so clearcut.

Because now it's "How the disadvantages of microtransactions in the game weigh against the advantages of free expansions with guaranteed availability", which comes down to something that most people would think depends on context. And opinion.

Yaaaaay

locked

2340 views

So because sequels have this problem, it's negligible for expansions to have it, even though expansions are much more frequent and have the problem worse?

Which means an alternative cosmetic microtransactions pay for free expansions model is bad because... They could use a different model with a different distribution scheme and a different pattern of revenue generation with different advantages and disadvantages to hopefully release the same content.

I have never seen microtransactions fund an expansion. DLC maybe, but never an expansion pack.

Because now it's "How the disadvantages of microtransactions in the game weigh against the advantages of free expansions with guaranteed availability", which comes down to something that most people would think depends on context. And opinion.

Again, you are not getting expansions. You are getting free DLC. DLC by its very nature is not as substantial, deep, or as vital as an expansion pack.

locked

2391 views

Uhhhhh.

You know an expansion pack literally is DLC, right? Like, downloadable content?

Either from the 'net or off a disk.

I mean I know it wasn't always true, but in this day and age it's not really a meaningful semantic distinction anymore.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

(And I would say DLC content that adds, well, noncosmetic content- i.e. expands the game, is an expansion. I could see disagreement here, or ideas that expansions should further the core of the game, and sure. In a lot of games, that's storyline. In Destiny, it's new missions and new lore and new gear. In a collectible card game, it's new cards, and in something like Overwatch it's probably new character options? I dunno, I don't play it.)

locked

2351 views

Uhhhhh.

You know an expansion pack literally is DLC, right? Like, downloadable content?

Either from the 'net or off a disk.

I mean I know it wasn't always true, but in this day and age it's not really a meaningful semantic distinction anymore.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

An expansion pack can be downloaded yes. But that doesn’t make it DLC.

I know I can be confusing, but DLC in common parlance seems to mean a pack of small or disconnected elements. It could be cosmetic items, a single level or mission, or whatever. The point is that it’s largely independent and stands alone. If it didn’t, then the game would be incomplete without it.

Expansion packs are larger, and the content more tightly integrated together. It’s a much larger package, and the content more substantial as such, since you aren’t picking and choosing, but getting an interconnected dump. So they often completely change the game.

I hope this makes sense.

locked

2340 views

You’re splitting hairs.

Again, think about Bungie’s Halos. Their map packs were what, four maps each? That’s certainly no expansion, but it was definitely substantial and it certainly split the player base, which is a problem that Halo 5 didn’t have because it’s microtransactions funded free maps for everyone.

locked

2352 views

But these days multiplayer-centered games benefit MUCH more from expansions than sequels, exactly because a sequel will inevitably split the community. Back in the day, expansions were as hard to publish and distribute as sequels, so it made sense to bash on developers who would rather do expansions than full-blown sequels. These days? It's definitely easier to publish and distribute DLCs. Why the hell wouldn't I take advantage of that?

locked

2354 views

I think that misses some Very root differences in consumer bases comparing expansions and sequels as just two separate models for releasing new content to the same user base. Not accounting for standalone expansions, there is an inherent difference in audience between an expansion or map pack and a sequel.

Obviously, there are factors to mitigate the difference, but sequels are more prone to drawing in new players than an expansion pack is to getting someone on board who wasn't already. While an expansion pack or paid map pack inherently splits the player base into haves and have-nots for various reasons (desire, cost, value concerns) a sequel is not a split in the same regard. A migrating player base to a sequel can be viewed as splintering the player base but might also be growing players who were not previously part of the player pool.

I feel it is a bigger distinction rather than the pedantry of arguing if DLC and Expansions are different (quantifiably they are not, qualitatively it is a personal consideration; the terms are functionally interchangeable), because one is relying on an installed user base first and the other is trying to create a new user base, even if it is pulling folks from the same pool.

locked

2343 views

Yeah, those differences are real, which is why sequels still exist. If only the FIFAs and Maddens and CoDs didn't keep churning out games that could easily be DLCs every year, I'd have a stronger argument to make. :p

locked

2293 views

You are completely spot on with those sports games. I personally disagree about CoD, but that is minor.

locked

2334 views

Yeah, those differences are real, which is why sequels still exist. If only the FIFAs and Maddens and CoDs didn't keep churning out games that could easily be DLCs every year, I'd have a stronger argument to make. :p

Are the CoD single player campaigns so small that you would call them DLC? Genuinely asking since I have not played one all the way through.

locked

2314 views

In hindsight, I might've gone too far to lump it in with the sport games.

While I was thinking about this during the day, Korny's Favorite Game(tm), Warframe, has exclusively funded every single expansion (and the last one is simply massive, I think even you, Cody, would consider it an expansion) with microtransactions. IMHO, they did tone the pacing of the game for worst to justify its particular brand of microtransaction (you accelerate weapon/armor build time [rated from hours to days, depending on your choice]). The game itself is completely free and you don't need to spend a penny to do anything. Grind for materials is real, but I don't think you can buy your way out of it, except by trading with other players for completed wares, where you can throw in premium currency.

locked

2333 views

You miss the part where it’s a trade off to make the game more accessible and better, like in Overwatch and Titanfall 2, where it was all for cosmetic shit that allowed for new content like characters and maps that free.

He also misses the part where not everyone wants the same thing out of a game, and not everything IN a game appeals to everyone. But it's hard to make absolute statements unless you cast issues in black and white, so at least he's consistent.

locked

2348 views

Agreed! I can support a "pay once play forever" model and a "free to play but has microtransactions" model, but the "Pay once and also there are microtransactions" is bullshit and greedy.

locked

2402 views

**feels forum rage intensify**

I know Claude or Kermit (maybe both) have brought up this exact example before :P

If they did, they're wrong.

Or else I forgot the part in the arcade where they charged you $400 for a console cabinet and $60 for a ROM and THEN $0.25 every time you died.

It is a disingenuous reframing of the argument to say people object to microtransactions.

People mostly object to microtransactions in full priced titles, or titles that are not free, freemium, etc.

The last thing I remember posting anything related was the story about my scheme to get out of paying for my arcade gaming.

I'm not very ideological on this question, and I don't necessarily see it as an either/or question, the way you're framing it, narc. If there's some equity between the money made through microtransactions (that are trivial to the experience of the game) and ongoing improvements to a living game like Destiny, then I'm more or less okay with it. So far Bungie hasn't offended me, and they have made like Claudia Black a little less.

locked

2419 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

It's a valid business model (Destiny)

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

+1

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

>Implying arcades represent "The good old days" of gaming

It's a valid business model

They are actually complete opposites

Except the example is buying more lives, just like an arcade

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

You didn't OWN the arcade

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

Well, yeah

Differences between Expansions and Sequels

Differences between Expansions and Sequels

Differences between Expansions and Sequels

Differences between Expansions and Sequels

Not really

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model

People aren't objecting to valid uses of the model