Microtransactions *can* be good.

We've talked a lot about Microtransactions here at DBO, and the fear or concern that they might make their way into Destiny.

This got me thinking about one of my favorite multiplayer games: Mass Effect 3. ME3 featured microtransactions right out of the gate... and it was awesome.

For those who don't know, here's how they handled it.

ME3's multiplayer mode was a 4 player co-op, wave based, loot-driven arena mode with team objectives. It launched with somewhere around 20 playable characters across 4 or 5 subclasses. Each character has their own unique set of powers and upgrade tree. You start with access to a small list of characters. As you play, you earn "credits" (the in-game currency). After each game, you can then use these credits to buy "Resupply Packs" (loot crates). These packs would give you random loot; everything from med packs and ammo packs to new weapons and new character unlocks. There were several levels of loot packs; the cheaper ones would contain basic supplies, while the more expensive ones had a better chance of dropping weapons or new characters.

Over the course of about a year, Bioware released constant DLC packs and game updates for ME3 multiplayer. New maps and weapons, over a dozen new characters (with their own new abilities), new objectives, and updates to existing maps (including environment and weather effects, hazards, and geometry tweaks). And it was all free. ALL of it.

Instead of charging for DLC, they let players buy the loot packs for real money if they wanted to. It was completely optional, and it didn't give you access to anything that couldn't be earned by simply playing the game. There were initially some concerns about buying loot packs that contain random rewards... you might get what you want, or you might get something you already have (beyond the microtransactions, this is a problem with RNG based loot in general, as we all know). But Bioware had a great solution to this problem. If a loot crate gives you a weapon you already have, it upgraded your gun to a "Mark II" version that would do slightly more damage. Your weapons could be upgraded all the way up to Mark X, so getting duplicates was actually a good thing. If you got a character that you have already unlocked, it would give you re-spec points so you could re-do your upgrade tree (ME3 didn't allow re-specing the way Destiny does).

Obviously, this exact system wouldn't work for Destiny (having PvP in the game makes buying loot crates for chances at better weapons problematic). But the point I'm making is that Mass Effect 3 was able to release great new content on a frequent basis, with constant tweaks and additions in between major releases, without ever charging a penny for that new content, all thanks to a microtransaction system that didn't interfere with the game in any way.

So it is possible :)

locked

2299 views

Remember what I said about the underlying principle about buying stuff you could otherwise earn in game? If it were fun to earn it, nobody would buy it and the business model will fail. Thus, earning it would have to be unpleasant. From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I honestly think the industry just needs a higher standard price point. People would get used to it quickly, but we'd at least get more for our money.

locked

2223 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

It was loads of fun, AND it was hugely successful (hence the boatloads of free DLC). Buying the loot crates was easily affordable, both with in-game currency AND real money. It was purely a personal decision. If DLC came out at a point where I had more spare time, I would just play the game a bunch and buy new stuff with in-game currency. If new content came out when I didn't have as much time to play, I'd drop $5 and get a few new toys to mess around with right away.

The brilliance of the system is that it put the pressure on Bioware to keep releasing great content to keep people playing. So that's what they did.

locked

2183 views

ME3 multiplayer is still probably the best online co-op game I have ever played. I had a ton of fun with it, new content came out what seemed like constantly for a year, there were WEEKLY balance changes (usually for the better), and I personally never spent a cent. And because it was co-op only, I never had any reason to resent anyone who had better gear - it just meant my team was going to do better.

I'm not sure I completely disagree with Cody. Microtransactions and the free-to-play model are probably not actually helping things overall (as far as product quality, not financially - it's definitely making money). But ME3 certainly made the best use of it that I have personally seen.

locked

2173 views

- No text -

locked

2126 views

Bottom line, the core game was just so good. I have high hope for Andromeda.

*goes off to Vanguard more fools*

locked

2112 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

Agreed. The Ignorant Cody Post of the Day assumes that the Co-op was a grind, when the unlocks were a bonus that helped you play better. The default characters were very fun to play with (Human Soldier spec'd for Concussion shot FTW), so you never felt like you HAD to unlock the other characters, because they weren't inherently "better". Same goes for the weapons. My Widow catered more to my playstyle than Sammy's Black Widow Mk-X.

The more they added, though, I found new ways to love the game (the N7 Demolisher became my signature class), and it was all free, although we put a LOT of money into the game to support it.

Of course, I can see the wishful sunshine-and-rainbows point that Cody tries to make when he assumes that being charged more for a game will magically mean that we get much more content, but the only game that I've seen do this is Warframe, where you buy an $80 Prime Pass and get the New Hotness character and enough Platinum (thousands!) to buy pretty much anything and everything you could want in the game. It's a great way to support the devs, and tells you up front what you're going to get for the higher price point, which is something you wouldn't get for being charged $10 more for a base game.

Even Halo is taking a page from ME3's MP with the Req packs, promising that all of the MP DLC will be free while adding the option to buy some RNG packs for a specific gametype.

It was loads of fun, AND it was hugely successful (hence the boatloads of free DLC). Buying the loot crates was easily affordable, both with in-game currency AND real money. It was purely a personal decision. If DLC came out at a point where I had more spare time, I would just play the game a bunch and buy new stuff with in-game currency. If new content came out when I didn't have as much time to play, I'd drop $5 and get a few new toys to mess around with right away.

Yeah, same. And the best part is you almost never got something that you didn't want (unless certain weapons weren't your style). I unlocked classes and weapons that I wouldn't have ever thought of using, but fell in love with (N7 Shadow and M-300 Claymore). Of course, Cody thinks that overwhelming players with every single thing unlocked, maxed-out, and with insta-kill rounds is what makes a game fun, but I like the challenge of starting from the bottom and climbing to the top. Something satisfying about watching new people making a stand against enemies, then coming in and wrecking shop while they stare in amazement. That's power that you earn.

The brilliance of the system is that it put the pressure on Bioware to keep releasing great content to keep people playing. So that's what they did.

I could have done without the Geth Bombers, but the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

locked

2199 views

the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

This is what I'd love to see more of from Destiny. By the time each DLC comes out, we've played the old stuff too death. So instead of the new stuff mixing in to the base game and enriching the overall product, it gets singled out and burned through. I'd much rather see smaller updates on a more frequent basis.

locked

2155 views

the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

This is what I'd love to see more of from Destiny. By the time each DLC comes out, we've played the old stuff too death. So instead of the new stuff mixing in to the base game and enriching the overall product, it gets singled out and burned through. I'd much rather see smaller updates on a more frequent basis.

Right, but the smaller content, by nature of it being smaller, is not going to reach the sort of critical mass that makes a piece of content fun. That's Destiny's problem and why you feel burned out: the missions are one offs and short, not really being able to integrate some large scale challenge, but rather smaller ones that are conquered more easily.

If everything were tied into everything else, rather than being piecemealed, then it becomes more than the sum of the parts. This of course requires more content dropped at once in less frequent intervals; this is the opposite of the model they are going for.

If you've played life is strange, imagine if they released 2 minutes of content every day, instead of two hours of content every two months. same total amount, but what kind of experience could you craft that lasts two minutes?!

locked

2161 views

the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

This is what I'd love to see more of from Destiny. By the time each DLC comes out, we've played the old stuff too death. So instead of the new stuff mixing in to the base game and enriching the overall product, it gets singled out and burned through. I'd much rather see smaller updates on a more frequent basis.

Right, but the smaller content, by nature of it being smaller, is not going to reach the sort of critical mass that makes a piece of content fun. That's Destiny's problem and why you feel burned out: the missions are one offs and short, not really being able to integrate some large scale challenge, but rather smaller ones that are conquered more easily.

If everything were tied into everything else, rather than being piecemealed, then it becomes more than the sum of the parts. This of course requires more content dropped at once in less frequent intervals; this is the opposite of the model they are going for.

Say that they added cosmetic microtransactions, and used the money that they earned to directly fund development of a new Raid, while the rest of the team works with Activision's budget to fund Destiny 2. Now you have zero negative impact on the future, while directly supporting content for the current game outside of planned DLC packs.

And the best part is, you don't have to spend a single cent for a new, free Raid, since other folks picked up the tab for you.

In your world, that's a bad thing?

locked

2119 views

the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

This is what I'd love to see more of from Destiny. By the time each DLC comes out, we've played the old stuff too death. So instead of the new stuff mixing in to the base game and enriching the overall product, it gets singled out and burned through. I'd much rather see smaller updates on a more frequent basis.

Right, but the smaller content, by nature of it being smaller, is not going to reach the sort of critical mass that makes a piece of content fun. That's Destiny's problem and why you feel burned out: the missions are one offs and short, not really being able to integrate some large scale challenge, but rather smaller ones that are conquered more easily.

If everything were tied into everything else, rather than being piecemealed, then it becomes more than the sum of the parts. This of course requires more content dropped at once in less frequent intervals; this is the opposite of the model they are going for.

Say that they added cosmetic microtransactions, and used the money that they earned to directly fund development of a new Raid, while the rest of the team works with Activision's budget to fund Destiny 2. Now you have zero negative impact on the future, while directly supporting content for the current game outside of planned DLC packs.

And the best part is, you don't have to spend a single cent for a new, free Raid, since other folks picked up the tab for you.

In your world, that's a bad thing?

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

locked

2135 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

locked

2139 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

locked

2134 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

They bought a cool looking hat. Just how integrated does it need to be?!

locked

2126 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

You're talking about the content being sold through micro transactions. I'm talking about the content that can be added because of funding through micro transactions. Did you read my OP? How are new maps, new characters, new weapons, new objectives, and updates to existing maps "not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game"?

locked

2120 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

You're talking about the content being sold through micro transactions. I'm talking about the content that can be added because of funding through micro transactions. Did you read my OP? How are new maps, new characters, new weapons, new objectives, and updates to existing maps "not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game"?

Because it is added after the fact, instead of being built into the whole of the game since the beginning. Unless the content they deliver is equivalent to a huge expansion pack, it will suffer the same problems.

locked

2138 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

You're talking about the content being sold through micro transactions. I'm talking about the content that can be added because of funding through micro transactions. Did you read my OP? How are new maps, new characters, new weapons, new objectives, and updates to existing maps "not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game"?

Because it is added after the fact, instead of being built into the whole of the game since the beginning. Unless the content they deliver is equivalent to a huge expansion pack, it will suffer the same problems.

I think you're making an argument that might apply to some areas of some games, but can't be applied as a blanket statement. How do new maps in a multiplayer game suffer from some kind of disconnect? If you logged in to Destiny tomorrow and found a new class of personal transport for sale at the vendor, how is that failing to fit in with the rest of the game? And then a week later we noticed a new type of public event while out on patrol. Then a week after that it was snowing in Old Russia. Then a week after that... you get my point :)

locked

2128 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

You're talking about the content being sold through micro transactions. I'm talking about the content that can be added because of funding through micro transactions. Did you read my OP? How are new maps, new characters, new weapons, new objectives, and updates to existing maps "not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game"?

Because it is added after the fact, instead of being built into the whole of the game since the beginning. Unless the content they deliver is equivalent to a huge expansion pack, it will suffer the same problems.

I think you're making an argument that might apply to some areas of some games, but can't be applied as a blanket statement. How do new maps in a multiplayer game suffer from some kind of disconnect? If you logged in to Destiny tomorrow and found a new class of personal transport for sale at the vendor, how is that failing to fit in with the rest of the game? And then a week later we noticed a new type of public event while out on patrol. Then a week after that it was snowing in Old Russia. Then a week after that... you get my point :)

The only answer I have is that some types of "content" have more of an effect on the experience than others.

locked

2131 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

We did that when Destiny shipped... We're talking about getting more added on top of that. In this theoretical example, the people who pay some money (which funds the development of a new raid) are absolutely happy. They got the cosmetic item they paid for. If the cosmetic item didn't matter to them, they wouldn't buy it.

The interchangeability of content available through microtransactions though, will always ensure a less mature, and less valuable experience. The very fact that it's optional means it is not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game!

You're talking about the content being sold through micro transactions. I'm talking about the content that can be added because of funding through micro transactions. Did you read my OP? How are new maps, new characters, new weapons, new objectives, and updates to existing maps "not tightly integrated into the fabric of the game"?

Because it is added after the fact, instead of being built into the whole of the game since the beginning. Unless the content they deliver is equivalent to a huge expansion pack, it will suffer the same problems.

I think you're making an argument that might apply to some areas of some games, but can't be applied as a blanket statement. How do new maps in a multiplayer game suffer from some kind of disconnect? If you logged in to Destiny tomorrow and found a new class of personal transport for sale at the vendor, how is that failing to fit in with the rest of the game? And then a week later we noticed a new type of public event while out on patrol. Then a week after that it was snowing in Old Russia. Then a week after that... you get my point :)

The only answer I have is that some types of "content" have more of an effect on the experience than others.

Absolutely agree. I do think there is still room for bulk content packs, like what The Taken King is shaping up to be. I just think there is a need, in a game like Destiny, for a more frequent level of change. Think back to the week before HoW shipped. Patrol mode was exciting for a few days there, as we all played the new Wolf events. But a week later, they're old news and we're right back where we were before the DLC launched: waiting for something new again.

locked

2128 views

Absolutely agree. I do think there is still room for bulk content packs, like what The Taken King is shaping up to be. I just think there is a need, in a game like Destiny, for a more frequent level of change. Think back to the week before HoW shipped. Patrol mode was exciting for a few days there, as we all played the new Wolf events. But a week later, they're old news and we're right back where we were before the DLC launched: waiting for something new again.

This only seems like a problem because Bungie wants you to constantly replay Destiny. If they Designed it so that's not the case, I feel like nobody would complain about lack of content.

locked

2126 views

Absolutely agree. I do think there is still room for bulk content packs, like what The Taken King is shaping up to be. I just think there is a need, in a game like Destiny, for a more frequent level of change. Think back to the week before HoW shipped. Patrol mode was exciting for a few days there, as we all played the new Wolf events. But a week later, they're old news and we're right back where we were before the DLC launched: waiting for something new again.

This only seems like a problem because Bungie wants you to constantly replay Destiny. If they Designed it so that's not the case, I feel like nobody would complain about lack of content.

I partially agree, but there is another side to it. *I* want to keep playing Destiny. The mechanics are so freaking fantastic, and playing with friends is a blast. So it frustrates me when we wait as long as 6 months for new content, only to find it doesn't add much to the game :-/

locked

2129 views

Not too mention, how long will the Wolves be roaming? The Blades of Crota disappeared after a while (which makes sense within the story, as it will makes sense for the Wolves to stop showing up). But players that jump in later will never experience those events.

locked

2132 views

But will experience new and potentially better ones! :)

locked

2131 views

Not too mention, how long will the Wolves be roaming? The Blades of Crota disappeared after a while (which makes sense within the story, as it will makes sense for the Wolves to stop showing up). But players that jump in later will never experience those events.

I'm wondering about this, too. Unlike the Blades of Crota, which can still be found in TDB story missions, what's going to happen with Petra's target-specific bounties?

Luke Smith had said that the game will change, alluding to the disappearing blades when he made the point. I think they disappeared to make room for the wolves in the play areas, so like you I imagine the wolves will have to go to make room for something else--Oryx's wizards or something.

locked

2157 views

Isaac in particular.

I suppose it's a resource thing that prevents blades, wolves, and a public event from happening all at once? I'm guessing my 360 can't handle it, but next gen could? Having something like that happen would make for some really fun and intense moments of gameplay IMO.

Side note: Kermit, it was great to game with you again the other night! It was a great Destiny moment: Miriam and I were just patrolling and we were in the middle of battling wolves and a walker all by ourselves when Kermit joined our fireteam. We managed to defeat the wolves, find the chest, and take out the walker. Now add some Blades of Crota to that mix...

locked

2120 views

Isaac in particular.

I suppose it's a resource thing that prevents blades, wolves, and a public event from happening all at once? I'm guessing my 360 can't handle it, but next gen could? Having something like that happen would make for some really fun and intense moments of gameplay IMO.

Side note: Kermit, it was great to game with you again the other night! It was a great Destiny moment: Miriam and I were just patrolling and we were in the middle of battling wolves and a walker all by ourselves when Kermit joined our fireteam. We managed to defeat the wolves, find the chest, and take out the walker. Now add some Blades of Crota to that mix...

You're not wrong.

A few weeks ago after the Kermit's weekly co-op night, Anton P. Nym and I decided to do some wolf bounties. We had a pack of Wolves, Defend the Warsat, and Urzok all going at one time. Killed Urzok and Gold Tiered the Warsat, but the Wolves scattered before we could deal with them.

It was super intense, and super awesome, and it was weirdly great that we couldn't defeat the Wolves as well. At this point, if you're not doing a Nightfall or high level PoE, it's easy to get used to feeling like a god. Failing something was a breath of fresh air.

locked

2106 views

It's probably not strictly console resources. For instance even last gen consoles keep up fine with the Skywatch section which can support a public event (like Defend the Warsat) an Enemies are moving against each other event (which put a lot of units on screen at one time),a Wolves are Patrolling event, and that ultra tough Hive sword knight.

My guess it's more keeping the world changing kind of thing and maybe even Bungie finding their footing with their public space scripting. Remember, anything that happens in a public space is a bit more complex to set up because it needs to seemlessly deal with players constantly moving in and out of that section.

My guess is the Wolves will go away but if they do it will be more for story reasons than console limitations. But Eris' open world missions remained in House of Wolves so there is at least a chance some or all the Wolves missions might remain in TTK. :)

locked

2113 views

Isaac in particular.

I suppose it's a resource thing that prevents blades, wolves, and a public event from happening all at once? I'm guessing my 360 can't handle it, but next gen could? Having something like that happen would make for some really fun and intense moments of gameplay IMO.

Side note: Kermit, it was great to game with you again the other night! It was a great Destiny moment: Miriam and I were just patrolling and we were in the middle of battling wolves and a walker all by ourselves when Kermit joined our fireteam. We managed to defeat the wolves, find the chest, and take out the walker. Now add some Blades of Crota to that mix...

I enjoyed it very much. Your kids' enthusiasm for the game is always refreshing. In-game conversation among us old fogies can be kind of jaded.

locked

2119 views

In Mass Effect's case the new content was new multiplayer maps and new multiplayer characters. It didn't really connect to the "fabric of the game." It's like saying Widow's Court or Pantheon are bad Crucible maps... because they didn't ship with the original game. That's nonsense. Maybe you like the maps and maybe you don't, but that has little or nothing to do with them not coming with the base game.

locked

2097 views

Do you think the people buying the cosmetic stuff would appreciate 'picking up the tab for me'? Everyone should just pay one price and get everything.

They certainly might. They get something they want now (the cosmetic item) and they get something else later (new game content and an unfractured player base to play it with.) It's not like they are paying money and getting nothing in return...

locked

2126 views

In a perfect world, yes, that's how it should work.

It never would, though. If they raised the base price of games to $70, where do you think that extra $10 would go? My guess is straight into share-holders pockets, and not into funding the developers any further.

locked

2103 views

the fact that the gameplay never got stale succeeded in bringing me back. Not to mention the fact that every time you came back, something was new, tweaked, or simply better than before.

This is what I'd love to see more of from Destiny. By the time each DLC comes out, we've played the old stuff too death. So instead of the new stuff mixing in to the base game and enriching the overall product, it gets singled out and burned through. I'd much rather see smaller updates on a more frequent basis.

Imagine if everything we had gotten in the two DLC's had been spread out over the past months. There have been more than enough weapons that could have been sprinkled out so every week we got a new weapon. Same with Armor. You go to the tower, head to the Vanguard vendor and were like "oh crap, check out this new Allfate pulse rifle". I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

locked

2103 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

Of course, it would be great if Bungie increased the cap on Marks to provide the incentive to spend, or they could lower their prices.

A living economy is a good economy.

locked

2136 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

I always wondered why Bungie didn't do this. It seems like a no-brainer.

locked

2123 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

I always wondered why Bungie didn't do this. It seems like a no-brainer.

In a recent interview, someone said they don't want your epic stories to revolve around "I went and bought this cool gun!" That's why they don't do it :-p

locked

2129 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

I always wondered why Bungie didn't do this. It seems like a no-brainer.

In a recent interview, someone said they don't want your epic stories to revolve around "I went and bought this cool gun!" That's why they don't do it :-p

Yeah, Cruel's "I spent 24750 of my 25000 glimmer to get this roll" story last night was soooooo much more enthralling ;)

locked

2120 views

- No text -

locked

2099 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

I always wondered why Bungie didn't do this. It seems like a no-brainer.

In a recent interview, someone said they don't want your epic stories to revolve around "I went and bought this cool gun!" That's why they don't do it :-p

Standard Legendaries should be bought from vendors and be random. All the exotics and unique legendaries should have a story behind them. But not stories like I killed this guy and got my 8th dragons breath. Nobody wants that story.

locked

2095 views

- No text -

locked

2115 views

- No text -

locked

2076 views

I don't even check the vendors anymore because nothing changes. I have all the weapons I want. Hell, if they even rotated in weapons every week with the reset it would make everything seem fresh.

Instead of letting players re-roll their weapons, what they should have done was a weekly reset of the rolls on vendor stocks, as well as a cycling of different weapons (the return of The Devil You Know!). That way, you can spend your marks on more than just boring Resources (which I don't even bother with anymore, both sit at 200 on all characters), and each reset is more anticipated, because you never know what rolls the vendors will have (and it adds a risk/reward system to spending all of your marks).

Of course, it would be great if Bungie increased the cap on Marks to provide the incentive to spend, or they could lower their prices.

A living economy is a good economy.

I'm all for removing reforging. It just doesn't feel right when we have an RNG system already in place. I'd much rather be excited about checking to the vendor to get my cool new Vanquisher with extended mag, rangefinder, and killing frenzy.

locked

2152 views

I'm all for removing reforging. It just doesn't feel right when we have an RNG system already in place. I'd much rather be excited about checking to the vendor to get my cool new Vanquisher with extended mag, rangefinder, and killing frenzy.

You get a star:

[image]

I really hope that Destiny 2 completely re-invents the loot system from top to bottom, including weapon and armor perks, and how they're gained/applied.

locked

2176 views

We talked about this during the nightfalls last night. Reforging sounds great, but in reality it is just a tax on getting a bad roll.

locked

2112 views

That seems a bit extreme. Especially since previously a bad roll was something you were simply stuck with or sharded. Are you just against reforging all together?

locked

2126 views

That seems a bit extreme. Especially since previously a bad roll was something you were simply stuck with or sharded. Are you just against reforging all together?

I'm leaning toward not having random perks on weapons at all. Not only would everything be easier to balance, but all the legendary guns would be and feel unique. Currently only the raid weapons and exotics feel special, and surprise! They are the ones with fixed perks.

locked

2133 views

That seems a bit extreme. Especially since previously a bad roll was something you were simply stuck with or sharded. Are you just against reforging all together?

I'm leaning toward not having random perks on weapons at all. Not only would everything be easier to balance, but all the legendary guns would be and feel unique. Currently only the raid weapons and exotics feel special, and surprise! They are the ones with fixed perks.

Really? The stuff I get jealous about is the stuff that folks spend forever re-rolling... combinations of perks I simply haven't been able to get myself. Exotics... eh. Everyone's got 'em now.

Weird. Not only don't we agree, we hold OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. About something that should, on the surface, be obvious.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, about all those absolute statements you make? :)

locked

2103 views

Really? The stuff I get jealous about is the stuff that folks spend forever re-rolling... combinations of perks I simply haven't been able to get myself. Exotics... eh. Everyone's got 'em now.

This.

Yes, the exotics are more special in a way, because their perks are more unique and interesting (some times). Red Death's health regen, Gally's wolf rounds, etc., etc. But as long as you have it, everyone's exotic is exactly the same. With the legendary weapons, that's not true.

But I haven't been playing for super long, so I don't have resources built up like crazy. I've never had more than 30 motes of light at a time; I certainly don't have a hundred or more like a lot of people seem to.

So reforging is a big decision for me. Do I settle for only full auto, or do I try to get full auto and firefly? Is Grenades and Horseshoes enough, or do I keep going to get it and Tripod?

This sounds awful on paper, just more of what we expect from Destiny: getting screwed by RNG and grinding for resources. But for whatever reason, it works for me, and I like it. It feels great when I get that perfect roll that I wanted, and it's made me fall in love with some perks that I would have otherwise ignored, because I settle for taking the one perk I really wanted, and whatever else happens to drop with it.

locked

2060 views

That seems a bit extreme. Especially since previously a bad roll was something you were simply stuck with or sharded. Are you just against reforging all together?

I'm leaning toward not having random perks on weapons at all. Not only would everything be easier to balance, but all the legendary guns would be and feel unique. Currently only the raid weapons and exotics feel special, and surprise! They are the ones with fixed perks.

Really? The stuff I get jealous about is the stuff that folks spend forever re-rolling... combinations of perks I simply haven't been able to get myself. Exotics... eh. Everyone's got 'em now.

Weird. Not only don't we agree, we hold OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS. About something that should, on the surface, be obvious.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it, about all those absolute statements you make? :)

Maybe I should clarify that what I meant was that they would be unique relative to each other. I have the resources to roll whatever I want, so one legendary of the same archetype is basically just as good as another. The differences are minor when I can get the same perks on both. You see it differently probably because you can't simply re roll on a whim.

By the way what I wrote was so overwhelmingly subjective as my experience I cannot fathom how you took it as anything other than my opinion.

locked

2087 views

I think I get where he is coming from. There was a little something lost when you can't tell what a gun is by looking at its name.

For a long time I recommended Three Little Words to people. While you could technically get a Three Little Words with random perks from a drop, the chances of that were so low that I felt confident that when I talked about Three Little Words people knew I was talking about the slow, hard hitting Crucible Vendor Pulse Rifle that came with 3rd Eye and Headseeker. When I got killed by it in the Crucible I pretty much knew what roll it had on it. To me, even though it wasn't 100% technically correct, Three Little Words was very much a specific gun.

Now, post-reforging, that very rarely holds true. I don't feel comfortable talking about a 55A-allFATE as if it is a unique or specific gun because my 55A-allFATE (with 3rd Eye and Hidden Hand) might be very different from your 55A-allFATE (say with Full Auto and Counter Balance or whatever). The ability to buy a weapon from a vendor then drastically change how it acts vs another gun with the same name in a way dilutes the Legendary-ness of the name...

If you can buy that then sure, Cody is right. A Praedyth's Timepiece is more "special" and "unique" than any random Spare Change.25 since there aren't any variants. It is exactly what it is. It's name refers to one very specific gun. Same thing with Exotics. We all know exactly what a Bad Juju or The Last Word are because there are precisely zero different reforged variants of either floating around.

locked

2046 views

I think I get where he is coming from. There was a little something lost when you can't tell what a gun is by looking at its name.

For a long time I recommended Three Little Words to people. While you could technically get a Three Little Words with random perks from a drop, the chances of that were so low that I felt confident that when I talked about Three Little Words people knew I was talking about the slow, hard hitting Crucible Vendor Pulse Rifle that came with 3rd Eye and Headseeker. When I got killed by it in the Crucible I pretty much knew what roll it had on it. To me, even though it wasn't 100% technically correct, Three Little Words was very much a specific gun.

Now, post-reforging, that very rarely holds true. I don't feel comfortable talking about a 55A-allFATE as if it is a unique or specific gun because my 55A-allFATE (with 3rd Eye and Hidden Hand) might be very different from your 55A-allFATE (say with Full Auto and Counter Balance or whatever). The ability to buy a weapon from a vendor then drastically change how it acts vs another gun with the same name in a way dilutes the Legendary-ness of the name...

If you can buy that then sure, Cody is right. A Praedyth's Timepiece is more "special" and "unique" than any random Spare Change.25 since there aren't any variants. It is exactly what it is. It's name refers to one very specific gun. Same thing with Exotics. We all know exactly what a Bad Juju or The Last Word are because there are precisely zero different reforged variants of either floating around.

That's something that I've thought about, too. During the Alpha, people coveted the Mitternacht. It was vicious, and the lack of perks meant that you knew what you were getting.
During the Beta, the Jigoku became the thing to get.
At launch, while the Shadow Price was greatly desired, the fact that you could get one as a random drop with five different perks slightly changed the value of the weapon. Sure you could get the Vendor's version, but if you were lucky, you'd get one with a better roll as a drop. This was rare enough that someone with a better roll than the vendors had a slight edge over others, but for the most part, you knew what you were dealing with when it killed you. Now, the default rolls from Vendor weapons are essentially placeholders that few people keep.
Why keep a vendor roll when you can get whatever you want?
Maybe they could have cycled the perks and added cosmetic differences (Shadow Price Mk-3, with a green and gold paint scheme, for example) to give you an idea of what perks it had on it, so you could check out the vendors to see if they had the same roll, or if his was a special random drop.

The way it is now, with the ability to get any roll you want (if you have the resources to spare), there's little reason to run around without an optimized roll (Send It on Hand Cannons, Field Scout on MGs, Rangefinder/SP on Shotguns, etc.). I think Bungie put too much power in the hands of the player, when they could have been in control of what people could easily get their hands on (and automated algorithms are NOT the answer).

I think a Vendor overhaul should address this. Remove the ability to re-roll weapons, as that was the cause of the Felwinter/Party Crasher/other-sniper-shotgun debacle.
People who have their super rolls? Congrats, never shard those! But moving forward, Bungie needs to take more control, while giving us more options.
The fact that they gave people this power, then were genuinely surprised (according to the recent balancing article) that people exploited it is beyond words.

locked

2106 views

I think a Vendor overhaul should address this. Remove the ability to re-roll weapons, as that was the cause of the Felwinter/Party Crasher/other-sniper-shotgun debacle.
People who have their super rolls? Congrats, never shard those! But moving forward, Bungie needs to take more control, while giving us more options.
The fact that they gave people this power, then were genuinely surprised (according to the recent balancing article) that people exploited it is beyond words.

I think they weren't surprised that people exploited it. I think that they were surprised at how it being difficult (ish), but doable for anyone, and that en masse people did it, which greatly affected the meta-game, was what they were surprised about.

But it's been a while since I read that, so maybe bungie missed it. I know not how though... =)

locked

2082 views

I think a Vendor overhaul should address this. Remove the ability to re-roll weapons, as that was the cause of the Felwinter/Party Crasher/other-sniper-shotgun debacle.
People who have their super rolls? Congrats, never shard those! But moving forward, Bungie needs to take more control, while giving us more options.
The fact that they gave people this power, then were genuinely surprised (according to the recent balancing article) that people exploited it is beyond words.

I think they weren't surprised that people exploited it. I think that they were surprised at how it being difficult (ish), but doable for anyone, and that en masse people did it, which greatly affected the meta-game, was what they were surprised about.

But it's been a while since I read that, so maybe bungie missed it. I know not how though... =)

You know the easiest way to fix this right? All they have to do is get rid of random perks. Make every version of Party Crasher exactly the same. Every version of All Fate is the same, etc. Every gun will be exactly the same as everyone else's gun.

I think that would go a long way toward making every gun feel unique, and everyone would know exactly what they're going up against.

To keep variety up, just have more guns as loot.

Granted, I'm not sure how they could implement this at this point without pissing people off, because the only way I can see doing it is retroactively changing everyone's stuff to whatever they decided the new set perks will be, and that obviously won't make people love them.

locked

2080 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

locked

2101 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

Geth Gold on Firebase White. Believe.

locked

2092 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

Geth Gold on Firebase White. Believe.

Get Gud, that was the best thing to play as a Quarian Infiltrator.

locked

2094 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

"I found a single piece of evidence to support the narrative that I want to be true, so I'll add it to my lonely echo chamber." -Cody Miller

Congrats, Cody. You are now an Anti-Vaxxer.

locked

2096 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

"I found a single piece of evidence to support the narrative that I want to be true, so I'll add it to my lonely echo chamber." -Cody Miller

Congrats, Cody. You are now an Anti-vaxxer

Read down the thread. He's not the only one.

locked

2111 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

"I found a single piece of evidence to support the narrative that I want to be true, so I'll add it to my lonely echo chamber." -Cody Miller

Congrats, Cody. You are now an Anti-vaxxer

Read down the thread. He's not the only one.

There's more than one anti-vaxxer in the world, too. Doesn't make them any less stupid.

locked

2076 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

locked

2100 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

Cruel, nobody's saying ME3's multiplayer wasn't good, or great, or fantastic even. But the reward system blew chunks, because the devs wanted to incentivise players to spend money on extra resupply packs.

locked

2154 views

Cruel, nobody's saying ME3's multiplayer wasn't good, or great, or fantastic even.

My understanding is that Cody is saying exactly that. Sorry if I misunderstood. You and I disagree on the investment system, and that's fine :)

locked

2076 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

His assertion was that multiplayer was fun, but the way you obtain items was not. I have no doubt that's true, and there's no contradiction. Saying you liked the multiplayer does not invalidate the statement that the grind sucks.

locked

2107 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

His assertion was that multiplayer was fun, but the way you obtain items was not. I have no doubt that's true, and there's no contradiction. Saying you liked the multiplayer does not invalidate the statement that the grind sucks.

That's kind of beside the point I was making. The exact nature of ME3's grind was very similar to Destiny's, good and bad. My point is that ME3 found a way to generate constant income without effecting the grind one way or another, and that allowed them to find constant new content.

locked

2071 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

His assertion was that multiplayer was fun, but the way you obtain items was not. I have no doubt that's true, and there's no contradiction. Saying you liked the multiplayer does not invalidate the statement that the grind sucks.

That's kind of beside the point I was making. The exact nature of ME3's grind was very similar to Destiny's, good and bad. My point is that ME3 found a way to generate constant income without effecting the grind one way or another, and that allowed them to find constant new content.

I see now. I guess I would simply counter by saying they should have designed the game in such a way as for that to not be a problem needing solving. Namely, including all the content for everybody, and raising the asking price by the average amount of dlc purchased per player.

locked

2084 views

From what you described, it does sound like a grind. Sorry, but in no way are microtransactions good for the game or for players.

I think you might want to defer to someone who actually played the game ;)

I'll defer to cyber then who confirms my suspicions.

How about the several posts from various people in this thread saying ME3 multiplayer was fantastic?

I'll say this: if ME3 was available on PS4, I'd be playing it instead of Destiny right now. The multiplayer was phenomenal.

His assertion was that multiplayer was fun, but the way you obtain items was not. I have no doubt that's true, and there's no contradiction. Saying you liked the multiplayer does not invalidate the statement that the grind sucks.

That's kind of beside the point I was making. The exact nature of ME3's grind was very similar to Destiny's, good and bad. My point is that ME3 found a way to generate constant income without effecting the grind one way or another, and that allowed them to find constant new content.

I see now. I guess I would simply counter by saying they should have designed the game in such a way as for that to not be a problem needing solving. Namely, including all the content for everybody, and raising the asking price by the average amount of dlc purchased per player.

That's where time becomes an issue. This wasn't "on disc" content that was locked until they decided to "release" it. This is totally new content that was released in installments over the course of about a year. So if the question is "would I prefer to play the game that shipped with micro transactions and get all the added content as it was completed, or wait a year and get it all in 1 chunk?" My answer is the former. Specifically because I enjoy playing a game over a long period of time and having the experience of seeing things change and grow as new stuff gets added. But I totally see how you might prefer the opposite.

locked

2078 views

That's where time becomes an issue. This wasn't "on disc" content that was locked until they decided to "release" it. This is totally new content that was released in installments over the course of about a year. So if the question is "would I prefer to play the game that shipped with micro transactions and get all the added content as it was completed, or wait a year and get it all in 1 chunk?" My answer is the former. Specifically because I enjoy playing a game over a long period of time and having the experience of seeing things change and grow as new stuff gets added. But I totally see how you might prefer the opposite.

Yeah. I prefer my games to be tight, already fully formed and not needing to evolve and change. When I want change, I simply buy a new game ;-p

locked

2084 views

I see now. I guess I would simply counter by saying they should have designed the game in such a way as for that to not be a problem needing solving. Namely, including all the content for everybody, and raising the asking price by the average amount of dlc purchased per player.

This theoretical game you're designing? I'd never play it, because I'd say "eh, it's not worth the extra money at the outset".

Your player base would be poorer, for me, and the many, many people like me.

Cruel's way means we're in the game, and we can decide if it's worth paying the optional fee for the extra doodads or not. Your way, we're not even in the game.

locked

2081 views

"I think your game would fail." - Claude Errera

lol

locked

2081 views

I see now. I guess I would simply counter by saying they should have designed the game in such a way as for that to not be a problem needing solving. Namely, including all the content for everybody, and raising the asking price by the average amount of dlc purchased per player.

This theoretical game you're designing? I'd never play it, because I'd say "eh, it's not worth the extra money at the outset".

Your player base would be poorer, for me, and the many, many people like me.

Cruel's way means we're in the game, and we can decide if it's worth paying the optional fee for the extra doodads or not. Your way, we're not even in the game.

So wait till there's a Steam sale.

Also if I did my job right and made something truly awesome, nobody would mind paying more. If it's not self evident why it's worth more, then the game didn't fail, I failed.

locked

2085 views

Except the game mode WAS fun. All your theorizing doesn't hold up when the game is actually fun to play moment to moment and day to day.

locked

2094 views

Except the game mode WAS fun. All your theorizing doesn't hold up when the game is actually fun to play moment to moment and day to day.

The game mode was fun. The RNG grind was not.

A lot of people have voiced the question of why Destiny doesn't have similar micro-transactions, given the way it's loot and xp system is designed. It has all the hallmarks(good and bad) of the classic F2P model, but the payment option is missing.

locked

2107 views

Microtransactions work really well in two types of games in my oppinion.

1. Casual games where people can kind of lightly engage with them and they have a massive market of people with relatively low commitment to them, and hope a few get really into it.

2. Super hardcore, massively complicated games with a base of people who are deeply into them, play them socially and utilize the online features. The Dota-a-likes being the obvious example of this kind of massive complexity.

Imagine you are a developer, the traditional buy first model rewards you for accessibility. Hey, You get their money up front, so obviously you want to focus on that stuff that can grab people for a sale. Maybe that's big cinema like scenes, or maybe it's gameplay that's immediately apparent. Hewing to this model is a big part of why so many AAA games feel the same right? That first 30 seconds of the game, and the visuals are really how you sell it, and after that, long term engagement isn't so important.

It also adds to the "Box ticking" feature mentality, where people will not buy your game if it misses these crucial features, many of which they will never use (online play! cinematic cutscenes! RPG progression system! Open world!), and this weird arrangement where online servers are now expected, but no long term funding mechanism is apparent.

Contrast that with the rewards of F2P. Since your initial buy in is so cheap, but you make money by getting people deeply engaged. It encourages to do things around that. Hence the staggering complexity and learning curve of something like DOTA or LOL. Different incentive structures prompt different kinds of games, and that's all part of a healthy market.

Destiny sits in somewhat of an awkward spot. It gets close to that kind of lateral complexity with it's crazy mix of weapons/perks/enemies, but it's also a big AAA business model that sells itself on that first 30 seconds of engagement when you first pick up the controller. It also does a horrible job of easing you into that complexity, and literally just kind of dumps you off a cliff mechanically at the end of the campaign.

I dunno, I think some mix of DLC and mictrotransactions be appropriate. If Destiny could drop the expansion prices with some kind of cosmetic micro transactions that would be a net win for everyone, even at the cost of incentivizing more cosmetic development (which I'm generally less interested in)

locked

2116 views

It also adds to the "Box ticking" feature mentality, where people will not buy your game if it misses these crucial features, many of which they will never use (online play! cinematic cutscenes! RPG progression system! Open world!), and this weird arrangement where online servers are now expected, but no long term funding mechanism is apparent.

I hate this so much. You know how many open world games there are that don't need to be open world? Like ninety percent of them. So many of them are just so empty and lifeless, they would have been much better without being open world. Everyone expects it now, especially out of RPGs. A lot of the best RPGs aren't open world.

Racing games are especially bad. Open world racing games blow. There's nothing to be gained by driving aimlessly from one race to the next. I want to race, not spent ninety percent of the game driving from objective to the next, or trying to find all your fucking billboards to smash. Just . . . please stop doing this, developers. If you can't fill your open world game with interesting things to do, and most of the time spent in said open world is just moving from one object to the next, it doesn't work.

locked

2090 views

It also adds to the "Box ticking" feature mentality, where people will not buy your game if it misses these crucial features, many of which they will never use (online play! cinematic cutscenes! RPG progression system! Open world!), and this weird arrangement where online servers are now expected, but no long term funding mechanism is apparent.

I hate this so much. You know how many open world games there are that don't need to be open world? Like ninety percent of them. So many of them are just so empty and lifeless, they would have been much better without being open world. Everyone expects it now, especially out of RPGs. A lot of the best RPGs aren't open world.

Racing games are especially bad. Open world racing games blow. There's nothing to be gained by driving aimlessly from one race to the next. I want to race, not spent ninety percent of the game driving from objective to the next, or trying to find all your fucking billboards to smash. Just . . . please stop doing this, developers. If you can't fill your open world game with interesting things to do, and most of the time spent in said open world is just moving from one object to the next, it doesn't work.

I totally agree that 90% of games don't need to be open world, but I love open world racing games. But they should be a completely separate category. You just can't get the crazy driving exploration in other games that you could in Burnout Paradise.

locked

2093 views

Paradise is always upheld as the best open world racing game.

I thought it was terrible. For me, it suffers from the same problem as all other open world racing games: there's just not enough to keep me invested. Just randomly driving around doesn't keep me interested, and adding the hidden shortcuts and billboards to find wasn't enough to get me to care. And no Crash Mode is pretty much a deal killer when it came to a Burnout game. Yeah, they said the whole world was now a crash mode, but it wasn't any near the same (or anywhere near as good; there was never enough traffic).

Different strokes for different folks and all that; I just don't find them compelling.

Edit: See, nothing in Paradise is even close to this, and this isn't even close to as good as Burnout 3 could be. (Skip to around the one minute mark to jump right in).

locked

2112 views

I hate this so much. You know how many open world games there are that don't need to be open world? Like ninety percent of them. So many of them are just so empty and lifeless, they would have been much better without being open world. Everyone expects it now, especially out of RPGs. A lot of the best RPGs aren't open world.

Racing games are especially bad. Open world racing games blow. There's nothing to be gained by driving aimlessly from one race to the next. I want to race, not spent ninety percent of the game driving from objective to the next, or trying to find all your fucking billboards to smash. Just . . . please stop doing this, developers. If you can't fill your open world game with interesting things to do, and most of the time spent in said open world is just moving from one object to the next, it doesn't work.

Destiny V1 has this in spades too, and the fact that the early versions forced you out there to farm mats just made it worse. Hell, I do a little groooooan whenever I see a "Do 6 missions bounty pop up"

I think it's getting somewhat better as Bungie figures out what's good in their version. The wolf packs show a lot of clever design, as they use the environment, the clashes of various people, and then the little mad hunt/communication for the treasure chest. I'm excited with the kind of environmental puzzle solving/storytelling in the dread naught,

locked

2149 views

Forza Horizon 2. That game is a blast :)

locked

2104 views

Forza Horizon 2. That game is a blast :)

I didn't like the first one (and I love the main Forza games), so I haven't played the second. I did, however, get the Fast and Furious add on while it was free, and played through all of that, which was great. It's small enough, and focused enough, that for me, it worked. It almost was enough to make me get the full version of the game, but then I realized, the full game is just dragging that fun four or five hour experience into tens of hours, and I know I would tire of it quickly.

locked

2092 views

What have I done with my life?!

locked

2091 views

What have I done with my life?!

Clearly not learn to read. :P

Pretty much every single advertisement, article, and review pointed out that you didn't need the full game to get the F&F promotional game.
That said, I personally found it no less boring than the full game, so I'm happy that it was free.

locked

2092 views

Racing games are especially bad. Open world racing games blow. There's nothing to be gained by driving aimlessly from one race to the next. I want to race, not spent ninety percent of the game driving from objective to the next, or trying to find all your fucking billboards to smash. Just . . . please stop doing this, developers. If you can't fill your open world game with interesting things to do, and most of the time spent in said open world is just moving from one object to the next, it doesn't work.

locked

2172 views

They're what drove me away from that multiplayer after a couple of weeks. The mode was fun for a bit, but I got sick of getting the same respec drops over and over and over again, and never getting to play as new classes because RNG.

Unless your game is free, micro-transactions are wholly unacceptable because I already PAID you for your game's existing content! I'm your customer, not a cow to be milked dry!

And personally, I try to avoid Free-to-play games with micro-transactions anyway, because as a player you can't trust the developer to not incentivise you to pay for them through game mechanics.

locked

2120 views

games are way more complex than they used to be, take of more disc space, and generally have larger development staffs.

Yearly releases like sports games should probably stay @ $59, b/c not a whole lot changes from one iteration to the next.

locked

2130 views

games are way more complex than they used to be, take of more disc space, and generally have larger development staffs.

Those are all accurate, but you have to remember that overall sales are also a lot higher than they used to be. I think the push for more profit is coming from shareholders.

Despite that, I agree that simply raising the price of the finished product is the best compromise.

locked

2118 views

.. I'm not talking about buying a game that is fixed in stone when it comes out. I'm talking about a game with frequent updates and free new content. If a developer can make this happen by adding microtransactions in a way that does not interfere with the gameplay experience, then why not?

locked

2131 views

If a developer can make this happen by adding microtransactions in a way that does not interfere with the gameplay experience, then why not?

There's no such thing, except perhaps if they are cosmetic. And at that point savvy consumers are going to realize you're just gouging them to make a profit.

Also, if your game is well-designed in such a way that it can appeal to multiple demographics, your lifetime sales should be able to hold you over while you update it or until you launch your next game.

locked

2088 views

If a developer can make this happen by adding microtransactions in a way that does not interfere with the gameplay experience, then why not?

There's no such thing, except perhaps if they are cosmetic.

Bingo. That's what I would like to see more of. People joke about Horse armor, but "vanity" items like that have proven to be a great revenue stream while having zero negative impact on gameplay. Bring it on :)

And at that point savvy consumers are going to realize you're just gouging them to make a profit.

Well that's a personal decision, isn't it? What you call "gouging", I might call "sweet looking shoulder pads". If a developer wants to keep a couple artists busy by having them churn out cosmetic items to be sold to players, I see absolutely no harm.

locked

2080 views

Bingo. That's what I would like to see more of. People joke about Horse armor, but "vanity" items like that have proven to be a great revenue stream while having zero negative impact on gameplay. Bring it on :)

Well that's a personal decision, isn't it? What you call "gouging", I might call "sweet looking shoulder pads". If a developer wants to keep a couple artists busy by having them churn out cosmetic items to be sold to players, I see absolutely no harm.

I completely agree. I would definitely drop down a few dollars for shader packs. They'd have to be careful with armor, given how Light and perks works in Destiny. I guess it could just be re-skinned armor that the Vanguard sells or something, so you wouldn't be getting stat advantages from it.

locked

2093 views

I completely agree. I would definitely drop down a few dollars for shader packs.

[image]

locked

2111 views

Oh, believe me, I know. This makes me dumb, and I actually realize this.

I'm a firm believer that if you pre-order games, you're part of the problem. There's no reason to do so anymore. In a world where you can buy games digitally, the only reason for pre-ordering (low stock) has been eliminated. Every other reason for pre-ordering (It's a collector's edition! I need that exclusive skin!) is completely artificial.

So, I'm an idiot and a hypocrite, and I realize this. But I would pay a dollar or two for a pack of awesome looking shaders. I know, it's stupid. Shaders shouldn't even exist anyway. I should be able to color my damn armor however I want. But this is one of those cases where I want to look awesome, and if I can get some more options for a dollar, then why not? No skin off my back.

locked

2091 views

.. I'm not talking about buying a game that is fixed in stone when it comes out. I'm talking about a game with frequent updates and free new content. If a developer can make this happen by adding microtransactions in a way that does not interfere with the gameplay experience, then why not?

I totally agree with you. Image how much happier we would all be if optional microtransations that don't affect game balance/progression (like cosmetic only things) would allow bungie to issue the DLC's for free and possibly on a more frequent basis. I'd probably buy a couple 1$ items, but I wouldn't spend nearly as much as I do now, because I'm not that big on looks.

I think it could work. The other option is that I'd be ok with a higher initial price, but I'd also expect a little more upfront in return and much lower DLC prices. I think drawing out the income stream helps a game in long term development.

locked

2105 views

games are way more complex than they used to be, take of more disc space, and generally have larger development staffs.

Those are all accurate, but you have to remember that overall sales are also a lot higher than they used to be. I think the push for more profit is coming from shareholders.

Despite that, I agree that simply raising the price of the finished product is the best compromise.

A couple points.

A) Triple A software sales aren't rising nearly as fast as the costs are.
B) Rising time of purchase costs doesn't do a ton to offset the kind of long running costs of updates, and servers that have also balooned in recent years.

locked

2097 views

They're what drove me away from that multiplayer after a couple of weeks. The mode was fun for a bit, but I got sick of getting the same respec drops over and over and over again, and never getting to play as new classes because RNG.

hmmm... sounds familiar ;)

First of all, Bioware did a good job of addressing this issue by adding new types of resupply packs. There were "character packs", "weapon packs", etc. So you could buy packs (using credits or real money) that had a good chance of giving you what you want.

And consider this: In Destiny, certain pieces of gear can only drop from certain activities. So for me to get the new HoW exotics, I had to play A LOT of a game mode that I don't enjoy. In Mass Effect 3, you could do whatever you wanted (which is admittedly way more limited) and take the credits you earn to buy the specific loot packs that give you the best chance of earning what you want. Long term, I found ME3 far less frustrating in terms of earning new loot.

Unless your game is free, micro-transactions are wholly unacceptable because I already PAID you for your game's existing content! I'm your customer, not a cow to be milked dry!

But we weren't milked... we got a bunch of good new content, for free! I played for months at a time without paying a penny, and never felt disadvantaged compared to those who spent money.

And personally, I try to avoid Free-to-play games with micro-transactions anyway, because as a player you can't trust the developer to not incentivise you to pay for them through game mechanics.

This is the import part, I feel. In ME3, I think Bioware got it all right. They made it easy enough to earn stuff in-game that nobody felt pressured to buy, but the microtransactions were cheap enough that plenty of people dropped a couple bucks from time to time. So we got great new updates that kept the game fresh on a frequent basis.

Personally, I much prefer this to what we've had with Destiny so far: paying $20 at a time for content updates that don't add enough to the game to justify the price or the wait (IMO).

locked

2110 views

They're what drove me away from that multiplayer after a couple of weeks. The mode was fun for a bit, but I got sick of getting the same respec drops over and over and over again, and never getting to play as new classes because RNG.

hmmm... sounds familiar ;)

First of all, Bioware did a good job of addressing this issue by adding new types of resupply packs. Their were "character packs", "weapon packs", etc. So you could buy packs (using credits or real money) that had a good chance of giving you what you want.

And consider this: In Destiny, certain pieces of gear can only drop from certain activities. So for me to get the new HoW exotics, I had to play A LOT of a game mode that I don't enjoy. In Mass Effect 3, you could do whatever you wanted (which is admittedly way more limited) and take the credits you earn to buy the specific loot packs that give you the best chance of earning what you want. Long term, I found ME3 far less frustrating in terms of earning new loot.

I was exaggerating when I said "A couple of weeks". I played up to the point when they added the Krogan Vanguard, and they must have added those packs later.

And yes, Destiny suffers from the same problem. I probably would have quit a long time ago if I hadn't started playing with DBO peeps. I know for sure that I wouldn't have picked up the season pass.

Unless your game is free, micro-transactions are wholly unacceptable because I already PAID you for your game's existing content! I'm your customer, not a cow to be milked dry!

But we weren't milked... we got a bunch of good new content, for free! I played for months at a time without paying a penny, and never felt disadvantaged compared to those who spent money.

I would infinitely prefer to pay up front and get access to the new classes and maps instead of the banal RNG grind we got. Time is money, especially if you have other commitments.

And personally, I try to avoid Free-to-play games with micro-transactions anyway, because as a player you can't trust the developer to not incentivise you to pay for them through game mechanics.

This is the import part, I feel. In ME3, I think Bioware got it all right. They made it easy enough to earn stuff in-game that nobody felt pressured to buy, but the microtransactions were cheap enough that plenty of people dropped a couple bucks from time to time. So we got great new updates that kept the game fresh on a frequent basis.

Personally, I much prefer this to what we've had with Destiny so far: paying $20 at a time for content updates that don't add enough to the game to justify the price or the wait (IMO).

It's preferable to Destiny, but only because the Destiny stuff has been so lackluster. You're comparing two different business models, but the quality of content of those examples is so disparate as to create a bias.

(To preface my next point: I support devs using the paid DLC model, but expect a certain level of quality when you ask for more of my money to expand on a product where the "heavy lifting" has already been done.)

There are a ton of really good games that don't charge the consumer AT ALL for minor content updates, and they're able to do that because they're competent at both money management and game development. When you start charging the consumer extra for things that other devs offer for free (eg. Cosmetics in a non-F2P game), it shows either incompetence or greed.

locked

2090 views

There are a ton of really good games that don't charge the consumer AT ALL for minor content updates, and they're able to do that because they're competent at both money management and game development. When you start charging the consumer extra for things that other devs offer for free (eg. Cosmetics in a non-F2P game), it shows either incompetence or greed.

I really don't like this attitude. So what if other developers do it? That's not a good justification for something. Is it nice that other developers offer small things for free? Absolutely! (The Witcher 3 is a great example of this.) Is it bad if another developer chargers for their work? Not at all.

In games that aren't Free to play, why would they give you free shit? You already bought their game, you got the full product. To expect more to be added to the game at no additional cost to you seems a little ridiculous, whether that be a major content addition, or a shader, or weapon skin, or whatever it happens to be.

locked

2108 views

They're what drove me away from that multiplayer after a couple of weeks. The mode was fun for a bit, but I got sick of getting the same respec drops over and over and over again, and never getting to play as new classes because RNG.

hmmm... sounds familiar ;)

First of all, Bioware did a good job of addressing this issue by adding new types of resupply packs. Their were "character packs", "weapon packs", etc. So you could buy packs (using credits or real money) that had a good chance of giving you what you want.

And consider this: In Destiny, certain pieces of gear can only drop from certain activities. So for me to get the new HoW exotics, I had to play A LOT of a game mode that I don't enjoy. In Mass Effect 3, you could do whatever you wanted (which is admittedly way more limited) and take the credits you earn to buy the specific loot packs that give you the best chance of earning what you want. Long term, I found ME3 far less frustrating in terms of earning new loot.

I was exaggerating when I said "A couple of weeks". I played up to the point when they added the Krogan Vanguard, and they must have added those packs later.

And yes, Destiny suffers from the same problem. I probably would have quit a long time ago if I hadn't started playing with DBO peeps. I know for sure that I wouldn't have picked up the season pass.

Unless your game is free, micro-transactions are wholly unacceptable because I already PAID you for your game's existing content! I'm your customer, not a cow to be milked dry!

But we weren't milked... we got a bunch of good new content, for free! I played for months at a time without paying a penny, and never felt disadvantaged compared to those who spent money.

I would infinitely prefer to pay up front and get access to the new classes and maps instead of the banal RNG grind we got. Time is money, especially if you have other commitments.

And personally, I try to avoid Free-to-play games with micro-transactions anyway, because as a player you can't trust the developer to not incentivise you to pay for them through game mechanics.

This is the import part, I feel. In ME3, I think Bioware got it all right. They made it easy enough to earn stuff in-game that nobody felt pressured to buy, but the microtransactions were cheap enough that plenty of people dropped a couple bucks from time to time. So we got great new updates that kept the game fresh on a frequent basis.

Personally, I much prefer this to what we've had with Destiny so far: paying $20 at a time for content updates that don't add enough to the game to justify the price or the wait (IMO).

It's preferable to Destiny, but only because the Destiny stuff has been so lackluster. You're comparing two different business models, but the quality of content of those examples is so disparate as to create a bias.

(To preface my next point: I support devs using the paid DLC model, but expect a certain level of quality when you ask for more of my money to expand on a product where the "heavy lifting" has already been done.)

There are a ton of really good games that don't charge the consumer AT ALL for minor content updates, and they're able to do that because they're competent at both money management and game development. When you start charging the consumer extra for things that other devs offer for free (eg. Cosmetics in a non-F2P game), it shows either incompetence or greed.

All good points. I do feel there are a couple other advantages to the "microtransaction" model. First, it keeps the player base unified. We've seen countless multiplayer games over the past decade fragment their own player base through paid DLC packs. It sucks, and it harms the long term health of a game.

Developers are clearly feeling the hurt of the typical DLC model as well. Titanfall just made all of their DLC free forever to get the player base back together. Halo 5's DLC will be free (the question is whether or not their micro-transaction model causes problems). I bet we'll see similar moves from Gears of War as well.

The other thing that I like about the way Mass Effect handled things is that I could see the new content in action even if I didn't have it yet. I could play with people who were using the new characters, and see if I liked the look of them or not. Destiny's (standard) DLC model means you have no way to know if you will like the new content or not until you buy it, and by then it is too late.

locked

2069 views

All good points. I do feel there are a couple other advantages to the "microtransaction" model. First, it keeps the player base unified. We've seen countless multiplayer games over the past decade fragment their own player base through paid DLC packs. It sucks, and it harms the long term health of a game.

True, but this raises the question of why there are stragglers to begin with. If the quality of your DLC is good, and your marketing efforts are able to accurately convey why it's good, fragmentation can be kept to a minumum. If a player enjoys your base game enough to keep playing it past the point where DLC is available, but doesn't pick up the DLC, why?

I also think making old DLC free is good practice, because players who were hesitant to pick it up, or are just jumping in, can use that as a barometer for a dev's DLC quality standards.

The other thing that I like about the way Mass Effect handled things is that I could see the new content in action even if I didn't have it yet. I could play with people who were using the new characters, and see if I liked the look of them or not. Destiny's (standard) DLC model means you have no way to know if you will like the new content or not until you buy it, and by then it is too late.

This is probably why I'll never pick up another season pass. It's not a deal if the product is bad.

locked

2063 views

- No text -

locked

2094 views

There were initially some concerns about buying loot packs that contain random rewards... you might get what you want, or you might get something you already have (beyond the microtransactions, this is a problem with RNG based loot in general, as we all know). But Bioware had a great solution to this problem. If a loot crate gives you a weapon you already have, it upgraded your gun to a "Mark II" version that would do slightly more damage. Your weapons could be upgraded all the way up to Mark X, so getting duplicates was actually a good thing.

Also, once you got a gun to Mark X, it was no longer possible to get that gun. So no duplicates or wasted drops.

locked

2104 views

There were initially some concerns about buying loot packs that contain random rewards... you might get what you want, or you might get something you already have (beyond the microtransactions, this is a problem with RNG based loot in general, as we all know). But Bioware had a great solution to this problem. If a loot crate gives you a weapon you already have, it upgraded your gun to a "Mark II" version that would do slightly more damage. Your weapons could be upgraded all the way up to Mark X, so getting duplicates was actually a good thing.

Also, once you got a gun to Mark X, it was no longer possible to get that gun. So no duplicates or wasted drops.

Unfortunately, this logic didn't apply to classes :(

locked

2097 views

That's true, but getting a character you already had did at least apply some XP to that class (for those not in the know, in ME3 multiplayer all characters in a given class - soldier, adept, etc. - leveled up together).

Of course, if you happened to have that class at max level at the time you effectively got nothing.

locked

2089 views

That's true, but getting a character you already had did at least apply some XP to that class (for those not in the know, in ME3 multiplayer all characters in a given class - soldier, adept, etc. - leveled up together).

Of course, if you happened to have that class at max level at the time you effectively got nothing.

Could have sworn that you unlocked shader options on a class when you already had it...

locked

2082 views

Ah, you're right. You did unlock a new cosmetic tweak (skin color, lights, etc.) each subsequent time you got that character. There was still an upper limit, but you did keep progressing for a while.

Now I want to play a Kro-guard again...

locked

2034 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

locked

2141 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

Which is one reason I DON'T think they'll add micro-transactions to Destiny (at least not related to weapons).

locked

2115 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

Which is one reason I DON'T think they'll add micro-transactions to Destiny (at least not related to weapons).

I agree. Personally, I think adding cosmetic items would be the best option.

locked

2113 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

Which is one reason I DON'T think they'll add micro-transactions to Destiny (at least not related to weapons).

I agree. Personally, I think adding cosmetic items would be the best option.

The fact that people are even talking about adding microtransactions to Destiny is indicative of the game's failures. News flash: they are not short on money and resources. They are the best selling new ip of all time according to activision. If they can't give you what you want now, they won't be able to with micro transactions.

locked

2080 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

Which is one reason I DON'T think they'll add micro-transactions to Destiny (at least not related to weapons).

I agree. Personally, I think adding cosmetic items would be the best option.

The fact that people are even talking about adding microtransactions to Destiny is indicative of the game's failures. News flash: they are not short on money and resources. They are the best selling new ip of all time according to activision. If they can't give you what you want now, they won't be able to with micro transactions.

And yet another very popular and well funded scifi IP used a microtransaction model to Massively great Effect. The reality that it can work and can work well is right in front of you.

locked

2096 views

I loved ME3's MP. I hated the totally random nature of the drops. I always got Baterians, and there are still some weapons that I never unlocked. Asking for real money for extra chances to disappointment just added to the frustration. Just think how much more people would hate this game if they blew $100 trying to get a Gallerjorn, only to have it nerfed a week before they got it?

Which is one reason I DON'T think they'll add micro-transactions to Destiny (at least not related to weapons).

I agree. Personally, I think adding cosmetic items would be the best option.

The fact that people are even talking about adding microtransactions to Destiny is indicative of the game's failures. News flash: they are not short on money and resources. They are the best selling new ip of all time according to activision. If they can't give you what you want now, they won't be able to with micro transactions.

And yet another very popular and well funded scifi IP used a microtransaction model to Massively great Effect. The reality that it can work and can work well is right in front of you.

I'm pretty sure mass effect could have been BETTER without them ;-p

locked

2082 views

- No text -

locked

2074 views

And yet another very popular and well funded scifi IP used a microtransaction model to Massively great Effect. The reality that it can work and can work well is right in front of you.

Lots of people pointing out to Cody the consensus that ME3 rocks and that the microtransactions worked as proof that microtransactions can work in general, which sort of avoids something. Much like Cody desperately grasping onto a few people who agree with his point in relation to ME3, a lot of others are using ME3, one of maybe a few solid and successful, fun games that implement microtransactions in a mostly well-done way, as some sort of proof that they can work. ME3's particular multiplayer style of gaming happened to fit the scheme. There are an endless supply of other examples that fully back up what Cody is saying. He's dead wrong about ME3, but I have a feeling that he'd be right if microtransactions are truly implemented into Destiny.

I'm firmly in the camp of just raising the base price of games across the board. These games have been launching at $60 for too long. Microsoft bumped Xbox Live pricing, and while there was initial backlash, they're doing just fine. Industry-wide increases in game pricing would be just as fine.

locked

2113 views

And yet another very popular and well funded scifi IP used a microtransaction model to Massively great Effect. The reality that it can work and can work well is right in front of you.

Lots of people pointing out to Cody the consensus that ME3 rocks and that the microtransactions worked as proof that microtransactions can work in general, which sort of avoids something. Much like Cody desperately grasping onto a few people who agree with his point in relation to ME3, a lot of others are using ME3, one of maybe a few solid and successful, fun games that implement microtransactions in a mostly well-done way, as some sort of proof that they can work. ME3's particular multiplayer style of gaming happened to fit the scheme. There are an endless supply of other examples that fully back up what Cody is saying. He's dead wrong about ME3, but I have a feeling that he'd be right if microtransactions are truly implemented into Destiny.

No, not "some sort of proof." Proof. Because Mass Effect 3's method largely did work. The distinction between the two matters to me.

That said, you are correct. Microtransactions don't have a bad reputation because most games do great jobs like Mass Effect 3 or Team Fortress 2 (which I've never played but always heard good things about), they have a bad reputation because most games either do a terrible job of implementing microtransaction content or they just straight up abuse microtransactions in an awfully diverse variety of ways. But Cody doesn't acknowledge that any game can do it well. And that's just intellectually dishonest of him when an example of doing it right (or mostly right, as I think the ME3 detractors in this thread do have some valid complaints about the ME3 way of doing things) is the basis of the entire thread.

I do agree that microtransactions would probably be a bad thing for Destiny if nothing else changed. If expansions continued to cost $15 - $40 with that additional revenue stream then something would be very wrong. But what if the future smaller HoW style expansions dropped to $5 and the big TTK ones dropped to $10 because of microtransactions? Or if they became free? For me at least, it would then depend on exactly how the transactions were implemented. If its just people buying funny looking hats then sure, go for it. If it were to be something horrible like you see a lot in the mobile world where you have to pay to get more artificially scarce daily respawns or whatever... then heck no!

I'm firmly in the camp of just raising the base price of games across the board. These games have been launching at $60 for too long. Microsoft bumped Xbox Live pricing, and while there was initial backlash, they're doing just fine. Industry-wide increases in game pricing would be just as fine.

I would agree as long as we are sure that the current "low" selling price is actually hurting the content. And that it's not bad developers or poor budgeting or corporate greed or that it is actually pretty hard to make a great game no matter how much money you have. But even if the current new game price point is too low, can't the argument be made that no matter what price we raise new games to a flow of microtransactions done in a "good" Mass Effect 3 style would allow a developer to provide even more content?

locked

2101 views

I would agree as long as we are sure that the current "low" selling price is actually hurting the content. And that it's not bad developers or poor budgeting or corporate greed or that it is actually pretty hard to make a great game no matter how much money you have. But even if the current new game price point is too low, can't the argument be made that no matter what price we raise new games to a flow of microtransactions done in a "good" Mass Effect 3 style would allow a developer to provide even more content?

I don't think I personally have enough information about how developers make money to really answer this.

Seriously, how does Bungie make money from Destiny? Do they get royalties? Or is more like Activision saying, we'll pay you $X to make the game, and $X to make an expansion. If microtransactions are added, where does that money go? Does Bungie get it, or Activision?

I don't know the answers, and that largely depends on what the effect of microtransactions would be. Because I'm pessimistic about it, I imagine the increased profits would largely just end up in Activision's pocket, and not much would make it back to Bungie to fund further projects.

locked

2085 views

That too.

If I were on the other side of this debate one of my first targets would be to question whether ME3's microtransactions really had anything to do with its additional multiplayer content. They really kept on artists and programmers, enough to design several new maps and guns and subclasses with custom animations, based on people paying a few dollars at a time for resupply packs? Or was all that budgeted from the start and the additional money they got over time was just pure profit? Are there any sources or quotes to support one version over the other?

Of course, this question can be raised about most DLC. Where does the money actually go?

locked

2108 views

I actually would love to see those numbers (as would everyone, probably).

How much real money did people actually spend on resupply packs? I'd bet it was quite a bit, actually. I think everyone knows people that have spent stupid amounts of money on shit like Candy Crush or whatever the new hot mobile game is now. I didn't play much ME3 multiplayer, so I don't even know what the resupply packs cost, but I know plenty of people that probably would have spent over a hundred bucks on them, a dollar at a time. They're lazy like that. These are guys that were collecting other people's discarded Mt. Dew bottles for the Halo 4 Double XP, and buying ridiculous amounts of it on their own.

locked

2112 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Microtransactions *can* be good. (Destiny)