By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
foodfather said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
DonFerrari said:
That is very pro-consumer....Now being less sarcastic. If a game can keep you interested in it for a full year so you won't buy 5 games, it isn't unreasonable to receive more than a single full purchase price from it. The problem is the lack of transparency and the dirty way they do it. If they come out and charge 200 or 300 for the game and you think it is fair sure go and buy, If they launch expansions or meaningful DLC for 30 bucks and you like it sure buy it... now to make the game obnoxiously grind to sell acceleration packs is shitty practice, worse imho than cosmetic overpriced DLC that even though we can argue is low cost and should be on the game already you don't really need to buy or get in the way of your enjoyment.Will wait to see how Phil Spencer or his advocates rephrase this interview.

The idea that getting somebody to play a game for 300 hours, must have meant that the devs put in a ton of work, and therefore need extra money in return doesn't always hold true.BTW, I do absolutely love how people try to defend cosmetic MTX as "Who cares, it's just cosmetic!" The number of free cosmetic customization options in GoW, Spiderman, and GoT is unmatched. 

Guess you haven't played Sunset Overdrive. 

No, I haven't. Does it have an even bigger free set of costumes and stuff?

LudicrousSpeed said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Translation: We haven't announced it yet, but we're going to ask for $70 for all of our MS first party titles. 

Why would their first party titles all be $70? All of their first party titles this gen weren't $60. Also, aren't Sony and other publishers already charging $70?

Because if they were going to be $60 he would have said so. MS will brag about anything they get a chance to brag about. His silence speaks volumes. And yes, Sony and other publishers are doing the same.

Cerebralbore101 said:
Translation: Whatever price point gets the most users, while also getting the most money up front is the best price point. Because you want people hooked on a single game forever. If they are hooked on a single game forever, they will spend all of their money on the microtransactions. So we have to find a nice balance between charging as much as we possibly can for the initial game without lowering the userbase. That way we can design all our games to be grindy messes, and then offer MTX as the solution. This will maximize profits!

Again, isn't this how the business currently works? What publisher wouldn't love to have a strong fan base playing one game for years, constantly generating new revenue with expansions and microtransactions? How is this bad for a gamer? There have been countless games that tried to do this and for every failure there are plenty of Avengers and Anthem's. Please list for me an executive at any publisher, MicroSonyNintendo included, and tell me which of them wouldn't start drooling when being offered what you are describing. As long as the execution is good, this isn't an inherently bad business model.

I have 65 PS4 games, 40 PC games, and over 100 Switch games. Guess how many of those games are trying to constantly generate revenue with MTX? Less than 10. Sure, every company in the world would love to print money, but quite a few of them know they would alienate their fanbases by going with MTX, GaaS, and Grind.

It's bad for a gamer, because they are often forced to choose between grind, and spending more money. They either waste their time, or waste their money. A game with pointless levels of grind for the sake of pushing MTX isn't fun. Avengers and Anthem are failures, so for every failure there's a failure? What?

Of course it's not a bad business model. That's not the point. The point is that it's a scummy unethical business practice.

Cerebralbore101 said:

: EA and Activision have found a way to sell people digital goods that costs next to nothing for them to produce, and they are making a killing off it. Let's face it. All games will eventually become this. And as a corporate shill I really like that idea! Good for them!

Oh man can you please source these costs? I enjoy math, I'd love to see what "next to nothing" is. Also, people have been blaring this "all games will come this!!!!" horn for like a decade it seems. Yet we're not closer to it now than we were back then.

 Most skins and costumes are just retextures, with maybe a couple alphamaps or other things thrown in. A talented 3D artist should be able to make a new skin in 4-5 hours. I know this because I went to school for 3D Art, and Programming. Considering that game artists work 40 to 60 hours a week with mandatory crunch, and no overtime pay. Well, I'll let you do the math for yourself. Keep in mind that once they've paid the 3D artist, and sold 30K to godknowshowmany digital copies they've made bank. It's gotta be something like 3,000% profit on these stupid microtransactions.

Cerebralbore101 said:
Translation: These games cost a bunch of money to make. So much so that we need to charge as much as humanly possible, while still having MTX in our games, or else we'll go bankrupt! Not really, but I'm going to lie to you about that because I want to swim in money like Scrooge McDuck!

Another bizarre translation that comes off as whiny and anti-business and downright just silly and illogical. I'm all for consumer rights and pro consumer moves, but at some point you have to realize you've jumped the shark when it comes to consumer rights and are just being upset that all these publishers want to make money.

There's a difference between making money, and ripping people off.

I don't get this idea that MS wants MTX in all their games and people talk as if they've been doing that all gen or something. The only game I remember it being an issue is Forza 7 and they fixed it. Their games aren't grindy or full of MTX. Sure you might have an outlier here or there but it's no different than Sony.

I mostly agree with that. I think it was just Forza 7, Gears 4, and Gears 5, that had MTX. All signs indicate that Halo Infinite is going full on GaaS mode though, that is where the idea that MS wants MTX in all of their games. Not to mention that this CFO is actively defending MTX in this interview.

Equally confused as to why people are so set in stubborn ways against the idea of a good GaaS title. If done right, it's a great business model for consumers. For example I play Dead By Daylight. It came out in 2017 and I still play it daily. It cost me $30 to buy. Compare that to many $60 titles, and I would have been done with them in less than 30 hours. It monetizes the game in three ways:

DLC. Every three months or so, a new killer character, survivor character, and map are brought out. They cost anywhere from $8-10 altogether.
Battle Pass. Every other month or so a new rift comes out and you can play through the whole thing and earn cosmetics for free or pay $10 and unlock tons of stuff, plus your $10 back to buy the next rift.
Cosmetics. Buy all sorts of cosmetic items for killers and survivors. Laughably overpriced, or grind for them. Doesn't bother me, because they are cosmetic.

I've played this game for thousands of hours and whenever I finally find a SX, it will likely be the first game I download. There are plenty of good games like this that do content the right way, there's no need to mindless disregard everything associated with GaaS because you think your rights are at stake and that in the future every game will be a GaaS.

There will always be a place for strong single player games and games with a beginning and an end. No need to worry so much about it.

I put my comments in bold in the above quote.

As for Dead by Daylight: So every three or four months they come out with $8 in DLC? And the game is four years old? So does that mean there's $96 in DLC? And then you can waste even more money on cosmetics, even though cosmetics are free in other games such as GoW, Spiderman, Mario Odyssey, BotW, etc.?

How much money have you spent on DbD? How much money would one have to spend to get the full experience?