Finally, prices rise

https://ir.take2games.com/news-releases/news-release-details/everything-game-damian-lillard-zion-williamson-and-kobe-...

Take 2 is gonna charge $70 for NBA2K21.

It's long been overdue for a price increase with AAA games. This is a good thing. Developers can have more resources, and hopefully rely less on micro transactions and other stuff. I hope the rest of the industry follows suit.

locked

1650 views

Is it still going to be full of microtransactions?

locked

1665 views

https://ir.take2games.com/news-releases/news-release-details/everything-game-damian-lillard-zion-williamson-and-kobe-...

Take 2 is gonna charge $70 for NBA2K21.

It's long been overdue for a price increase with AAA games. This is a good thing. Developers can have more resources, and hopefully rely less on micro transactions and other stuff. I hope the rest of the industry follows suit.

Yes, games going up to $70 is probably something positive. NBA2k21 specifically being the pioneer? Not so much, I think.

locked

1623 views

Developers can have more resources, and hopefully rely less on micro transactions and other stuff.

I just don't see that happening at all. If $70 becomes the new standard price for games, I'd be shocked to see the prevalence of microtransactions trending downward.

-SR

locked

1603 views

Developers can have more resources, and hopefully rely less on micro transactions and other stuff.

I just don't see that happening at all. If $70 becomes the new standard price for games, I'd be shocked to see the prevalence of microtransactions trending downward.

-SR

Of course it won't.

But they won't have that excuse to hide behind this time.

locked

1617 views

Of course it won't.

But they won't have that excuse to hide behind this time.

Personally, I'd rather pay less and let them have the excuse than pay more and feel like I'm on top of some meaningless moral high ground.

-SR

locked

1582 views

Of course it won't.

But they won't have that excuse to hide behind this time.

Personally, I'd rather pay less and let them have the excuse than pay more and feel like I'm on top of some meaningless moral high ground.

-SR

I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather pay more and not get a game with crippled design because it has to sell microtransations.

locked

1586 views

Of course it won't.

But they won't have that excuse to hide behind this time.

Personally, I'd rather pay less and let them have the excuse than pay more and feel like I'm on top of some meaningless moral high ground.

-SR

I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather pay more and not get a game with crippled design because it has to sell microtransations.

Except now they’re just going to get both. No one is going to put microtransactions back in the bottle.

locked

1568 views

Except now they’re just going to get both. No one is going to put microtransactions back in the bottle.

Dunno man, I just played three giant AAA games released in the past 8 months that had no microtransactions. And 2/3 of those were masterpieces.

locked

1592 views

But, those were not higher priced. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it too here. I’m all for price increase instead of micro transactions, but that needs to be the deal offered. Until then it’’s just a price hike. We should be looking to support things that make no IAP/Microtransactions an actual marketing point, like Apple Arcade and even within take 2, the new obsidian game. Or maybe Crash bandicoot 4, depending on who is lying.

locked

1573 views

Except now they’re just going to get both. No one is going to put microtransactions back in the bottle.

Dunno man, I just played three giant AAA games released in the past 8 months that had no microtransactions. And 2/3 of those were masterpieces.

Were those games $60?

-SR

locked

1582 views

I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather pay more and not get a game with crippled design because it has to sell microtransations.

Sure, so would I (for the most part), but I think that in the real world that's not how it works. I think the developers/publishers who want a full-fledged game without microtransactions are going to do it whether the base price of games is $60 or $70. If everyone raises their price to $70, anyone looking to profit from microtransactions will continue to do so.

-SR

locked

1545 views

He's happily see the games industry collapse in on itself so long as he got to claim some arbitrary high ground.

locked

1602 views

He's happily see the games industry collapse in on itself so long as he got to claim some arbitrary high ground.

And nothing of value would be lost.

Death Stranding. No Microtransactions. Profitable enough to fund Kojima's next game.
Final Fantasy 7 Remake. No Microtransactions. Set a franchise sales record.
Last of Us Part 2. Bad game, but no microtransactions. 4 million sales and counting.

Then there's God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn, Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, Nier Automata etc etc. The list goes on.

What are we losing again by leaving out microtransactions? At $70, I don't think these games would have suffered any if at all, and they would have actually benefited through more resources. Remember, each new generation costs more to develop for than the previous. If you want better games, you've got to pay for better games.

locked

1585 views

The thing you’re missing is that the literally the only game we know of at $70 is NBA 2K21, which is basically the standard for chock full of bullshit microtransactions.

If Horizon Forbidden West releases at $70, I’ll happily buy it and not begrudge them the ten bucks. Let’s not pretend it’s just a net positive for the industry though. It’s not going to change anything—microtransactions are here to stay. That some major AAA games don’t have them doesn’t negate that point. All of those games you mentioned already had massive resources and sold a bunch of copies and made tons of money. And they’re all made by developers that have never had significant (or any, as far as I know) microtransactions. I guess it’s conceivable Killzone did, but I’ve never played it, and that series existed mostly before every online game was infected with them.

If the extra ten bucks leads to actual significant change in anything about video games beyond me paying an extra ten bucks per game, I’ll eat a fucking hat.

locked

1566 views

If the extra ten bucks leads to actual significant change in anything about video games beyond me paying an extra ten bucks per game, I’ll eat a fucking hat.

No, but the games that don't do this can be even better. They'll have more resources, and don't have to compromise on design. I'm sure microtransactiosn will be everywhere, but the ones that don't use them will benefit.

locked

1559 views

If the extra ten bucks leads to actual significant change in anything about video games beyond me paying an extra ten bucks per game, I’ll eat a fucking hat.

No, but the games that don't do this can be even better. They'll have more resources, and don't have to compromise on design. I'm sure microtransactiosn will be everywhere, but the ones that don't use them will benefit.

Or the rich assholes at the top will just get richer.

locked

1554 views

To be clear, I was making fun of you ("I dont mind if things are more expensive and have microtransactions as long as they prove me right in the process"), and not the assertion that microtransactions are bad.

----------------

And nothing of value would be lost

*Cody immediately follows up by listing three games he considers to be "of value" that would have been lost had the games industry ceased to exist

Would you like to finish putting on your clown makeup now, or is this a three-part act?

locked

1550 views

Last of Us Part 2. Bad game, but no microtransactions. 4 million sales and counting.

At first I was kind of ticked to stumble across a spoiler of sorts--don't want to know anyone's opinion. You've got so many rules, though, I think I'm still safe.

Making slow progress. It's either me, the times, or the game. Still can't tell.

locked

1548 views

I believe the point that Cody is trying to make (Cody please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the $60 price point is often held up by publishers as a justification for micro transactions. The fact that games still only cost $60 to buy, despite inflation and increasing development costs, actually gives that excuse some legitimacy.

Cody is saying that by increasing the price tag to $70, publishers will no longer have that excuse to prop up their scummy micro-transaction practices. That won’t necessarily stop publishers from including micro transactions anyway, but their justification for it will look a lot less credible. THAT could possibly have an effect on public opinion > sales > future practices, etc.

locked

1583 views

I believe the point that Cody is trying to make (Cody please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the $60 price point is often held up by publishers as a justification for micro transactions. The fact that games still only cost $60 to buy, despite inflation and increasing development costs, actually gives that excuse some legitimacy.

Cody is saying that by increasing the price tag to $70, publishers will no longer have that excuse to prop up their scummy micro-transaction practices. That won’t necessarily stop publishers from including micro transactions anyway, but their justification for it will look a lot less credible. THAT could possibly have an effect on public opinion > sales > future practices, etc.

Yes all this.

Plus the games that don't have them can be better, since they will make more money due to the higher price point. Rising prices have not historically hurt game sales, and in fact aren't even at inflation level as it is.

locked

1579 views

Plus the games that don't have them can be better, since they will make more money due to the higher price point.

I still don't understand the concept that games that don't have MT automatically have a higher standard that they are capable of hitting. Like, some manager tells the developers they are going to add MTs in the game and some developer was like "well shucks, I was going to do this awesome feature but now I can't because we are going to sell ponchos."

There is nothing about MT that automatically make a game worse. You can believe it Cody, that is your right after all, but I whole heartily disagree with you. I'm not saying all MT are good either, I just don't believe that all MT sully a game with the mere existence of them.

Rising prices have not historically hurt game sales, and in fact aren't even at inflation level as it is.

I agree.

locked

1553 views

Plus the games that don't have them can be better, since they will make more money due to the higher price point.

I still don't understand the concept that games that don't have MT automatically have a higher standard that they are capable of hitting.

Think of it this way. Very simply, You project you will sell X units, so you bring in 60x dollars. So this is your development ceiling if you want to stay in business.

But if you charge 70, your ceiling is 70x. Now you can make your game more complex. Spend more time on it. All the things that cost money, because you have more coming in.

locked

1560 views

Plus the games that don't have them can be better, since they will make more money due to the higher price point.

I still don't understand the concept that games that don't have MT automatically have a higher standard that they are capable of hitting.

Think of it this way. Very simply, You project you will sell X units, so you bring in 60x dollars. So this is your development ceiling if you want to stay in business.

But if you charge 70, your ceiling is 70x. Now you can make your game more complex. Spend more time on it. All the things that cost money, because you have more coming in.

By that logic, games that sell for $70 AND have MT will be even better!

Money != quality. I disagree with your original point.

locked

1578 views

By that logic, games that sell for $70 AND have MT will be even better!

Money != quality. I disagree with your original point.

No. Because I believe (but you don't) that microtransactions necessarily compromise the design of the game in such a way as to poison the well, no matter how much water's in it.

locked

1568 views

By that logic, games that sell for $70 AND have MT will be even better!

Money != quality. I disagree with your original point.

No. Because I believe (but you don't) that microtransactions necessarily compromise the design of the game in such a way as to poison the well, no matter how much water's in it.

This is what I was talking about. I disagree with you that MTs "poison the well". They can be abusive and make a game worse. But you are making the stand that it's guaranteed.

Also, we haven't even talked about free games that have MTs as their source of income.

locked

1550 views

This is what I was talking about. I disagree with you that MTs "poison the well". They can be abusive and make a game worse. But you are making the stand that it's guaranteed.

If they don't make the game worse, there is no incentive to pay to skip actually playing the game to get the things. The exception is of course for items ONLY available via microtransaction. Since they aren't obtainable in game, the game design does not necessarily have to nudge you towards buying (but it often does.)

locked

1546 views

This is what I was talking about. I disagree with you that MTs "poison the well". They can be abusive and make a game worse. But you are making the stand that it's guaranteed.

If they don't make the game worse, there is no incentive to pay to skip actually playing the game to get the things. The exception is of course for items ONLY available via microtransaction. Since they aren't obtainable in game, the game design does not necessarily have to nudge you towards buying (but it often does.)

Okay, MT are only evil and destroy the game if they allow you to bypass any part of the game. So what if cosmetics are random chance in the game, but you can also buy them via MT? I'm honestly confused by your standards of MT and want to know where your line is. Because you recently condemned not only a game, but an entire franchise because it has MTs without even knowing how they might affect the game. That to me says "if it has MT the developers are ruining the entire game" regardless of what the MTs might be or how they affect the game.

locked

1559 views

This is what I was talking about. I disagree with you that MTs "poison the well". They can be abusive and make a game worse. But you are making the stand that it's guaranteed.

If they don't make the game worse, there is no incentive to pay to skip actually playing the game to get the things. The exception is of course for items ONLY available via microtransaction. Since they aren't obtainable in game, the game design does not necessarily have to nudge you towards buying (but it often does.)

Okay, MT are only evil and destroy the game if they allow you to bypass any part of the game. So what if cosmetics are random chance in the game, but you can also buy them via MT?

This is easy. The random nature of getting the cosmetic you want is frustrating, therefore you pay to bypass the randomness. Compare this with say, Mario Odyssey were the cosmetics are acquired buy buying the specific one you want with purple coins you find throughout the game. No randomness.

Now Mario Odyssey, which is a game about running jumping and exploring, is ostensibly fun when players do those things. So acquiring the cosmetics is likewise ostensibly fun because the running and jumping and exploring is how you find the coins to get them. There is no compromise to the game design, and the developer is incentivized to make the game as fun as possible. Also note that there are a set amount of purple coins in each level; there is no 'grinding'.

With your hypothetical game, the incentive is reversed. If the game was as fun as possible, nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics. Why pay extra when you can get them by playing the game, and having fun doing it? So they add frictions, which by the way necessarily effect those who don't want to pay. That's the whole point of them. You are paying to avoid an inconvenience which is intentionally included, which makes the game worse.

locked

1565 views

If the game was as fun as possible, nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics.

This is the sentence that shows that your understanding of humanity is sorely lacking.

locked

1521 views

If the game was as fun as possible, nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics.

This is the sentence that shows that your understanding of humanity is sorely lacking.

1. Pay money to get something
2. Pay nothing to get something and have a good time doing it

Gee I wonder what people would pick. That's why every single friction introduced is either annoying or unpleasant. Point to a design decision in any game that entices you to buy a microtransaction, that is wonderful and pleasant in its effects. I'd be surprised if you were able to.

locked

1567 views

If the game was as fun as possible, nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics.

This is the sentence that shows that your understanding of humanity is sorely lacking.

1. Pay money to get something
2. Pay nothing to get something and have a good time doing it

Gee I wonder what people would pick. That's why every single friction introduced is either annoying or unpleasant. Point to a design decision in any game that entices you to buy a microtransaction, that is wonderful and pleasant in its effects. I'd be surprised if you were able to.

Let's start at the beginning. "as fun as possible" - what does this mean? Exactly? Is there an absolute fun scale? Is your fun scale the same as my fun scale? How about the other 7.5 billion people on this planet - do any of us have the same fun scale? (Hint: no.)

So to begin with, your sentence begins with a completely indefinable premise.

Move on to the second part, though. "nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics." We've had this conversation, many times. You're wrong. There are lots of people, for lots of reasons, who might choose to pay money instead of playing a game - even a game they enjoy playing! We all make value judgements on a regular basis, and sometimes, the same comparison comes up differently for one single person! Sometimes you want chocolate, sometimes you want vanilla!

If you see the world in this simplistic, black-and-white "either you like this thing or you don't" way... you don't understand people at all.

locked

1530 views

Move on to the second part, though. "nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics." We've had this conversation, many times. You're wrong. There are lots of people, for lots of reasons, who might choose to pay money instead of playing a game - even a game they enjoy playing! We all make value judgements on a regular basis, and sometimes, the same comparison comes up differently for one single person! Sometimes you want chocolate, sometimes you want vanilla!

Of course they enjoy playing the game… If they didn't, they wouldn't have the game in their console at all. So that's the trick. You make a game that's fun to play, but you add little annoyances. Frictions if you will. Frictions that could easily be designed out. I might say, 'enjoy' playing Crash Team Racing, but not grinding races away mindlessly to slowly earn currency to buy a cosmetic. The solution isn't to let me pay the bypass the grind. The solution is not including the grind in the first place.

And yes there isn't a universal standard of fun… which is why "fun as possible" to me means the best good faith effort a developer can make. As soon as you intentionally design frictions, that good faith is gone, but not if you say, have certain levels that are weaker than others. A lot of people did not like the Library, but Bungie wasn't intentionally trying to add a boring level. But a friction is a deliberate decision to add an annoyance to a game.

locked

1512 views

Move on to the second part, though. "nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics." We've had this conversation, many times. You're wrong. There are lots of people, for lots of reasons, who might choose to pay money instead of playing a game - even a game they enjoy playing! We all make value judgements on a regular basis, and sometimes, the same comparison comes up differently for one single person! Sometimes you want chocolate, sometimes you want vanilla!

Of course they enjoy playing the game… If they didn't, they wouldn't have the game in their console at all. So that's the trick. You make a game that's fun to play, but you add little annoyances. Frictions if you will. Frictions that could easily be designed out. I might say, 'enjoy' playing Crash Team Racing, but not grinding races away mindlessly to slowly earn currency to buy a cosmetic. The solution isn't to let me pay the bypass the grind. The solution is not including the grind in the first place.

And yes there isn't a universal standard of fun… which is why "fun as possible" to me means the best good faith effort a developer can make. As soon as you intentionally design frictions, that good faith is gone, but not if you say, have certain levels that are weaker than others. A lot of people did not like the Library, but Bungie wasn't intentionally trying to add a boring level. But a friction is a deliberate decision to add an annoyance to a game.

What I'm reading is that MTs aren't bad. It's when companies add friction to a game to allow for MTs to be profitable.

If this is true, then what about adding MTs to a game that has no friction to entice you to buy the MTs? Or what about all the people that honestly don't consider what you consider to be frictions? What if the companies never add what you call frictions and they still have MTs? There are so many cases depending on what the company does and what I consider as a player that makes MTs bad or good. I've seen both cases as a player. But to say without a doubt that elminating MTs will always make a game better is, as Claude was saying, overly black and white.

locked

1503 views

If this is true, then what about adding MTs to a game that has no friction to entice you to buy the MTs? Or what about all the people that honestly don't consider what you consider to be frictions? What if the companies never add what you call frictions and they still have MTs? There are so many cases depending on what the company does and what I consider as a player that makes MTs bad or good. I've seen both cases as a player. But to say without a doubt that elminating MTs will always make a game better is, as Claude was saying, overly black and white.

Can you give me an example of a microtransaction you personally consider good? I would like to explore this.

locked

1507 views

If this is true, then what about adding MTs to a game that has no friction to entice you to buy the MTs? Or what about all the people that honestly don't consider what you consider to be frictions? What if the companies never add what you call frictions and they still have MTs? There are so many cases depending on what the company does and what I consider as a player that makes MTs bad or good. I've seen both cases as a player. But to say without a doubt that elminating MTs will always make a game better is, as Claude was saying, overly black and white.

Can you give me an example of a microtransaction you personally consider good? I would like to explore this.

When I played dota 2, it was a game that was completely free. It is based off of a free mod that was for Warcraft 3. I started to play it because it was free and got some of my friends to play it. We had a great time and there were MTs in the game because otherwise they wouldn't make money. So you get random cosmetics of lower quality for just playing games. I naturally equipped them even if they weren't for most of the characters I liked playing but you never know when I might! Anyway, it came to a point where there were some cooler looking cosmetics that were for characters that I played more often. My rational thought was that I appreciated this game and I had played it enough for free that I wanted to give back to the company that made it, so I spent money on it. I think I must have played on and off for roughly 5 years and spent probably around $100 bucks. Would I have paid $60 or even $70 for it up front? No.

locked

1518 views

When I played dota 2, it was a game that was completely free. It is based off of a free mod that was for Warcraft 3. I started to play it because it was free and got some of my friends to play it. We had a great time and there were MTs in the game because otherwise they wouldn't make money. So you get random cosmetics of lower quality for just playing games. I naturally equipped them even if they weren't for most of the characters I liked playing but you never know when I might! Anyway, it came to a point where there were some cooler looking cosmetics that were for characters that I played more often. My rational thought was that I appreciated this game and I had played it enough for free that I wanted to give back to the company that made it, so I spent money on it. I think I must have played on and off for roughly 5 years and spent probably around $100 bucks. Would I have paid $60 or even $70 for it up front? No.

Were these cosmetics only available by purchase? Or could you earn them?

locked

1540 views

When I played dota 2, it was a game that was completely free. It is based off of a free mod that was for Warcraft 3. I started to play it because it was free and got some of my friends to play it. We had a great time and there were MTs in the game because otherwise they wouldn't make money. So you get random cosmetics of lower quality for just playing games. I naturally equipped them even if they weren't for most of the characters I liked playing but you never know when I might! Anyway, it came to a point where there were some cooler looking cosmetics that were for characters that I played more often. My rational thought was that I appreciated this game and I had played it enough for free that I wanted to give back to the company that made it, so I spent money on it. I think I must have played on and off for roughly 5 years and spent probably around $100 bucks. Would I have paid $60 or even $70 for it up front? No.

Were these cosmetics only available by purchase? Or could you earn them?

The ones I bought were only purchasable. I think it was possible to buy the ones you earned, but I'm honestly not sure.

locked

1520 views

[image]

locked

1539 views

This is what I was talking about. I disagree with you that MTs "poison the well". They can be abusive and make a game worse. But you are making the stand that it's guaranteed.

If they don't make the game worse, there is no incentive to pay to skip actually playing the game to get the things. The exception is of course for items ONLY available via microtransaction. Since they aren't obtainable in game, the game design does not necessarily have to nudge you towards buying (but it often does.)

Okay, MT are only evil and destroy the game if they allow you to bypass any part of the game. So what if cosmetics are random chance in the game, but you can also buy them via MT?

This is easy. The random nature of getting the cosmetic you want is frustrating, therefore you pay to bypass the randomness. Compare this with say, Mario Odyssey were the cosmetics are acquired buy buying the specific one you want with purple coins you find throughout the game. No randomness.

But it's not easy. Because the nature of random rewards isn't inherently frustrating. The reason I say this and Claude has mentioned it also is that people are different than you. I personally have played a TON of games, and only a handful of mobile games that's revenue stream were built on the foundation you are describing have really frustrated me.

There are other games like Dota 2 and Apex Legends that have MTs. They are both free to play games and Dota 2 has random rewards after playing a game and Apex does not. I have spent money in both games before but not for the reasons of frustrations or bypassing the game. I pay money because it's a way I can support a really fun game. It's my choice what I pay and I also get things I enjoy out of it, which is making my character look awesome while playing the game.

Now Mario Odyssey, which is a game about running jumping and exploring, is ostensibly fun when players do those things. So acquiring the cosmetics is likewise ostensibly fun because the running and jumping and exploring is how you find the coins to get them. There is no compromise to the game design, and the developer is incentivized to make the game as fun as possible. Also note that there are a set amount of purple coins in each level; there is no 'grinding'.

I understand this concept. But what you are describing is honestly about 90% of mobile game MTs and maybe 20% of PC and console game MTs. We talk about PC and console games here generally.

With your hypothetical game, the incentive is reversed. If the game was as fun as possible, nobody would want to pay money to avoid playing it to get the cosmetics. Why pay extra when you can get them by playing the game, and having fun doing it? So they add frictions, which by the way necessarily effect those who don't want to pay. That's the whole point of them. You are paying to avoid an inconvenience which is intentionally included, which makes the game worse.

Ahhh, you finally bring it up. Time vs money. Classic case of unlocking something you with money vs time. I honestly, depending on the game and how it's implement believe this is actually a boon. I understand your premise that it's up to the developer to decide where the difficulty of said item to achieve, so they could be make it harder to create said friction to entice people to buy it instead of playing for it. I don't think this is inherently evil.

What if you have a game that is 80% fighting and 20% exploring, and you can only get those cosmetics by exploring? Just so you know, I'm using any sort of percentage, it doesn't matter. Generally speaking not everyone loves a game 100% and thus, as Claude said, we are all different people. So if I hate the percentage of a game that I need to play to get that thing I wanted, that would indeed be a grind. Is that bad development? No, because you might be a small percentage of the community how hates that part of the game, but absolutely love the rest.

Okay, there is also MTs that are just sold. Both Dota and Apex have these. I generally don't buy them. I believe have bought them once but that was because I wanted to support the game because it was awesome. Now that I think about this, this is very similar to tipping people. I get to choose if I valued the experience and it's up to me to give, or not give, the amount I deem they deserve. If I go to a place that auto tips, I feel like I'm deprived the ability to choose how I felt the service went. Same would go for paying $60 (or $70) for a game that I really thought was worth $30.

locked

1501 views

What if you have a game that is 80% fighting and 20% exploring, and you can only get those cosmetics by exploring? Just so you know, I'm using any sort of percentage, it doesn't matter. Generally speaking not everyone loves a game 100% and thus, as Claude said, we are all different people. So if I hate the percentage of a game that I need to play to get that thing I wanted, that would indeed be a grind. Is that bad development? No, because you might be a small percentage of the community how hates that part of the game, but absolutely love the rest.

I'll grant you this, but we used to have a free solution. Cheat codes. Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Start. All extras unlocked. Plus, no developer would take the time and money to implement those microtransactions unless they believed enough people would buy them, which is a tacit admission enough people would find the elements of the game they'd pay to skip unfun. Not good faith.

Now that I think about this, this is very similar to tipping people. I get to choose if I valued the experience and it's up to me to give, or not give, the amount I deem they deserve. If I go to a place that auto tips, I feel like I'm deprived the ability to choose how I felt the service went. Same would go for paying $60 (or $70) for a game that I really thought was worth $30.

Tipping is always above the base price. If you looked at the menu and say the food was too much, you simply wouldn't go in at all. So wait until the 60 dollar game is 30 dollars in 5 months. Also tipping is really stupid as a concept and should go away.

locked

1504 views

What if you have a game that is 80% fighting and 20% exploring, and you can only get those cosmetics by exploring? Just so you know, I'm using any sort of percentage, it doesn't matter. Generally speaking not everyone loves a game 100% and thus, as Claude said, we are all different people. So if I hate the percentage of a game that I need to play to get that thing I wanted, that would indeed be a grind. Is that bad development? No, because you might be a small percentage of the community how hates that part of the game, but absolutely love the rest.

I'll grant you this, but we used to have a free solution. Cheat codes. Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Start. All extras unlocked. Plus, no developer would take the time and money to implement those microtransactions unless they believed enough people would buy them, which is a tacit admission enough people would find the elements of the game they'd pay to skip unfun. Not good faith.

Cosmetics take time and money to implement. Skipping levels or sections does not, or I guess I should say far less. Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money. The exception would be things that were intentionally added, like in Warframe you craft things which take time, you can make it done instantly if you pay. But I've already said that is not good MTs.

I might add, that you can't exactly compare a game that was made 20 years ago to a modern game. They are different beasts that take way more people and money. Cheat codes aren't used in modern games and if they are it is for nostalgic purposes.

Now that I think about this, this is very similar to tipping people. I get to choose if I valued the experience and it's up to me to give, or not give, the amount I deem they deserve. If I go to a place that auto tips, I feel like I'm deprived the ability to choose how I felt the service went. Same would go for paying $60 (or $70) for a game that I really thought was worth $30.

Tipping is always above the base price.

Yes. We are literally talking about games going from 60 to 70 base price. If I buy a meal that is 60 bucks but they charge a mandatory 10 dollar tip vs my choosing to tip an extra 10 dollars based on service, I see that no different than paying a base 70 dollars for a game (60 plus forced 10 tip) vs base 60 for a game plus MTs that I choose to pay for.

I was just using free games as an example.

If you looked at the menu and say the food was too much, you simply wouldn't go in at all. So wait until the 60 dollar game is 30 dollars in 5 months.

I value an establishment way more than just what is on their menu. What if I want a burger and go into a restaurant that has a reasonably priced one only to find it takes like crap? I can't simply decide that based on a menu. Same for a game, I can't simply read about it or see a trailer to define whether it's a good game. That is why I like the idea of MTs. It allows you to play the game and give the company more money or things like Game pass where you pay a subscription. There are very few games that I know I will like and even those I'm not 100% sure. So in reality, I'm taking my chances when buy a game. I can never assume a game is just good and fork out $70.

Also tipping is really stupid as a concept and should go away.

I agree with this in a perfect world. But hey, we don't live in one of those which is why we have tipping.

locked

1508 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

I might add, that you can't exactly compare a game that was made 20 years ago to a modern game. They are different beasts that take way more people and money.

So maybe they should… charge more?

Cheat codes aren't used in modern games and if they are it is for nostalgic purposes.

Why do you think this is?

locked

1521 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

locked

1522 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

And there aren’t plenty that you can get with either bright dust OR silver?

locked

1513 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

And there aren’t plenty that you can get with either bright dust OR silver?

There certainly aren't as many nowadays. And they've thankfully made it much clearer what is only available with silver vs bright dust.

locked

1568 views

Have they? That info is nowhere in the in game store that I’ve seen.

locked

1527 views

Have they? That info is nowhere in the in game store that I’ve seen.

No, you're right, it's not. They do post a list, though (I'm not even sure where to find it, lol) of all the stuff that is available on Eververse that WILL be available for Bright Dust at some point during the season.

locked

1519 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

And there aren’t plenty that you can get with either bright dust OR silver?

Yep. Never said there wasn't. Trying to get you to pay attention to your words.

"If you have ever bought" is wrong.

"Sometimes, when you buy" would have been accurate. (Correction: MIGHT have been accurate. There are still other ways to interpret that activity. For example, there is actually a limit on the amount of Bright Dust you can realistically earn in a given time period. (Some of the bounties that provide it are repeatable... but there are really only so many hours in a day.) You might say "I really want both that ship and that ghost, but I don't have the Bright Dust for both. I'll pay for the Ghost, and I'll buy the ship with real money when it comes around again." This is NOT the same thing as "paying to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing".)

locked

1533 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

And there aren’t plenty that you can get with either bright dust OR silver?

Yep. Never said there wasn't. Trying to get you to pay attention to your words.

"If you have ever bought" is wrong.

"Sometimes, when you buy" would have been accurate. (Correction: MIGHT have been accurate. There are still other ways to interpret that activity. For example, there is actually a limit on the amount of Bright Dust you can realistically earn in a given time period. (Some of the bounties that provide it are repeatable... but there are really only so many hours in a day.) You might say "I really want both that ship and that ghost, but I don't have the Bright Dust for both. I'll pay for the Ghost, and I'll buy the ship with real money when it comes around again." This is NOT the same thing as "paying to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing".)

Lol. A cap like that on bright dust with expiring items is a textbook example of a friction.

locked

1525 views

Also, I don't think I've ever seen a non-mobile game ever have an ability to skip any part of a game for money.

If you have ever bought something from Eververse with silver, you've paid to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing.

This is wrong. There are plenty of Eververse items that have not, and never will be, sold for bright dust.

And there aren’t plenty that you can get with either bright dust OR silver?

Yep. Never said there wasn't. Trying to get you to pay attention to your words.

"If you have ever bought" is wrong.

"Sometimes, when you buy" would have been accurate. (Correction: MIGHT have been accurate. There are still other ways to interpret that activity. For example, there is actually a limit on the amount of Bright Dust you can realistically earn in a given time period. (Some of the bounties that provide it are repeatable... but there are really only so many hours in a day.) You might say "I really want both that ship and that ghost, but I don't have the Bright Dust for both. I'll pay for the Ghost, and I'll buy the ship with real money when it comes around again." This is NOT the same thing as "paying to skip the part of the game where you earn bright dust to buy the thing".)

Lol. A cap like that on bright dust with expiring items is a textbook example of a friction.

But not a bad one.

If I could buy everything I wanted to, because Bright Dust fell like rain (or even more to your liking, everything was free), I wouldn't care about ANY of it. They could make thousands of ornaments... and I'd ignore them all. Total waste of their dev time, total waste of an opportunity to engage me.

FRICTION MAKES ME CARE. I'm totally good with friction frustrating you. What I've been trying to make you see, for years now, is that NOT ALL OF US THINK LIKE YOU.

locked

1514 views

If I could buy everything I wanted to, because Bright Dust fell like rain (or even more to your liking, everything was free), I wouldn't care about ANY of it. They could make thousands of ornaments... and I'd ignore them all. Total waste of their dev time, total waste of an opportunity to engage me.

FRICTION MAKES ME CARE. I'm totally good with friction frustrating you. What I've been trying to make you see, for years now, is that NOT ALL OF US THINK LIKE YOU.

There are other ways of making you care. Like say, tying it to an accomplishment of skill or knowledge building. Frictions have to be the worst possible way to make you care about things.

Do you go to shitty movie theaters because the friction will make you care more? Do you hire a slimy auto mechanic so that you have to check and fight his every attempt to scam you? I'll bet you'd really care a ton about your car then after going through that! You might as well take a job that pays you minimum wage, because when a game costs a day's wage you'll sure care about it more!

But at the end of the day, if you wouldn't care about it if it's free, then it just means the thing has no intrinsic value.

locked

1519 views

If I could buy everything I wanted to, because Bright Dust fell like rain (or even more to your liking, everything was free), I wouldn't care about ANY of it. They could make thousands of ornaments... and I'd ignore them all. Total waste of their dev time, total waste of an opportunity to engage me.

FRICTION MAKES ME CARE. I'm totally good with friction frustrating you. What I've been trying to make you see, for years now, is that NOT ALL OF US THINK LIKE YOU.

There are other ways of making you care. Like say, tying it to an accomplishment of skill or knowledge building. Frictions have to be the worst possible way to make you care about things.

There are other ways of almost everything under the sun. Doesn't make the one they picked bad (or even worse than whatever vague thing you just suggested).

Do you go to shitty movie theaters because the friction will make you care more?

I don't even know what this means.

Do you hire a slimy auto mechanic so that you have to check and fight his every attempt to scam you?

Nope.

I'll bet you'd really care a ton about your car then after going through that!

You'd lose that bet. Also, way to completely miss the point.

You might as well take a job that pays you minimum wage, because when a game costs a day's wage you'll sure care about it more!

Way to go out on a 50-foot limb for that strawman!

But at the end of the day, if you wouldn't care about it if it's free, then it just means the thing has no intrinsic value.

Also wrong.

You're just full of wrong today.

locked

1571 views

- No text -

locked

1506 views

- No text -

locked

1498 views

- No text -

locked

1514 views

Think of it this way. Very simply, You project you will sell X units, so you bring in 60x dollars. So this is your development ceiling if you want to stay in business.

But if you charge 70, your ceiling is 70x. Now you can make your game more complex. Spend more time on it. All the things that cost money, because you have more coming in.

This is too simple of a way to think about it. It ignores the concepts of risk and present value vs. future value, which are essential to consider.

locked

1506 views

This is too simple of a way to think about it. It ignores the concepts of risk and present value vs. future value, which are essential to consider.

Can you expand upon this? Isn't every game hedging on future value to be successful? A game in development has no present value, since nobody can buy it. Unless you're talking about advertising pairings, tie ins, product placement, etc. But that wouldn't really change either way would it?

locked

1509 views

Can you expand upon this? Isn't every game hedging on future value to be successful? A game in development has no present value, since nobody can buy it. Unless you're talking about advertising pairings, tie ins, product placement, etc. But that wouldn't really change either way would it?

Creating games costs too much and takes too long to rely on future value for financing. Games are paid for by the success of some previous game - that's what publishers are for, to move money around from game to game. However, game sales are presumably very spiky and concentrated around certain times of year (e.g., the holidays). It's less risky to have a uniform distribution of income over time, because that's more or less the distribution of expenses (salaries and overhead) on development. Microtransactions solve that problem by providing a reliable cash flow. It's also true that money sooner is worth more than money later. That's where the Fortnite model comes into play - the sooner a game can be released and establish that cash flow, the better, even if features are not complete.

locked

1515 views

That's where the Fortnite model comes into play - the sooner a game can be released and establish that cash flow, the better, even if features are not complete.

And there we have it.

locked

1516 views

- No text -

locked

1515 views

Plus the games that don't have them can be better, since they will make more money due to the higher price point.

I still don't understand the concept that games that don't have MT automatically have a higher standard that they are capable of hitting. Like, some manager tells the developers they are going to add MTs in the game and some developer was like "well shucks, I was going to do this awesome feature but now I can't because we are going to sell ponchos."

There is nothing about MT that automatically make a game worse. You can believe it Cody, that is your right after all, but I whole heartily disagree with you. I'm not saying all MT are good either, I just don't believe that all MT sully a game with the mere existence of them.

Ehhhhhhh. I kinda agree with that part of it. Let's start by saying that whatever it is that you get from the MT is either good or not. I know this is subjective, but let's all agree that for any given person this will be true. That leaves us with two results:

1. A thing that is not good was put into the game just to make money off of a MT. This obviously makes the game worse because now the game has one more not good thing in it. There is also an opportunity cost, as rather than working on this not good thing, they could have possibly made something that is good and put that into the game (obviously that's a more speculative impact)
- or -
2. Some good thing in the game will be unavailable to a substantial section of the people playing the game. The whole point of a MT is to capture money from people who are willing to spend more than the people who will not pay more than the title price. If everyone was willing to pay the cost of the game and all the MT, they could just charge that amount for the game (and expansion packs if it is about spreading cost over time), so we know not all players will get the good thing if it is available only through MT. That makes the game worse because players who buy it will be missing out on a good thing.
- and -
Either way they have a good thing that is going to get into the game through MT, which is pretty likely not to work into the story or game mechanics smoothly as if it was not behind a paywall. And we can also add on transaction cost as they have to spend programming resources working out how to take this good or not good thing in the game and pull it out behind the paywall when they could be working on something else; cross-apply that to testing and localizations and all of the other things you need to do to all the parts of a game.
- finally -

Now, I do not think these things are always worth getting in a funk over, or that it is always equally bad. Nor that you would be unable to say all of these things about cheat codes and Easter eggs that were revealed through strategy guides and platform magazines. Companies gunna business. But I do think anyone would be very hard pressed to explain how MT wasn't a net detractor on a game — especially once you take away the argument for funding development which is what Cody has done.

locked

1523 views

All other things being equal, I think a game without MT is better.

Warframe is full of MT, but that game can be enjoyed completely without putting in a single dollar. I still think it’s be a better game if it was a $60 product without MTs. Again, that’s assuming enough people would have bought the $60 product to fund the amount of support it currently gets, which I don’t think would have happened at all.

I can’t see that MTs have benefitted Destiny at all though.

I don’t think an extra ten dollars per copy even comes close to touching the money MTs make, especially in something like Warframe (or Apex or Fortnite) where a $60 or $70 product just wouldn’t sell in the first place.

Look at Disintegration. That game probably didn’t sell well, but if they could keep supporting it and working on through MTs for the community they do have, would that be a bad thing?

locked

1514 views

Warframe is full of MT, but that game can be enjoyed completely without putting in a single dollar. I still think it’s be a better game if it was a $60 product without MTs. Again, that’s assuming enough people would have bought the $60 product to fund the amount of support it currently gets, which I don’t think would have happened at all.

I think Warframe does a fantastic job of balancing microtransactions without making players feel like it's unfair or otherwise pay to win. But it was always designed as a free to play game with very grindy mechanics. If the developers moved away from that model, I think the core mechanics of the game would also need to fundamentally change in a way that would make it feel like a different game entirely.

-SR

locked

1513 views

Back to the forum index

RSS Feed of thread

DBO Forums

Finally, prices rise (Gaming)