GhostOfSparta305
Banned
I'm guessing you think it would be "fairer" if Person X didn't benefit from a higher investment?
Also in what world does someone else bettering themselves somehow "penalize" me?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Ex-Naughty Dog Community Guy on DLC/Microtransactions: 'You should pay for good work'
- Thread starter Septic360
- Start date
I'm guessing you think it would be "fairer" if Person X didn't benefit from a higher investment?
Also in what world does someone else bettering themselves somehow "penalize" me?
FonkyByNature
Member
Sol_Goodguy
Member
The way I see it, the Full Auto Rifle was added for free to The Last of Us with the intention of making the game more accessible to new players. With that in mind, I can't really agree with the bit of the article that talks about doing the same thing with paid weapons.
Aside from making newer players panic, the Crossbow isn't a particularly great weapon. Hitting moving targets at long range is awkward and the time it takes to down is disappointing when compared to something like the El Diablo.
Yeah, the bit about the Burst Rifle threw me for a loop to. Maybe he meant to say the Burst Pistol? Who knows...
I have to disagree with you on health packs; they really are all over the place. There's also other ways to stop the bleed effect besides healing yourself (such as a medic on your team).
Aside from making newer players panic, the Crossbow isn't a particularly great weapon. Hitting moving targets at long range is awkward and the time it takes to down is disappointing when compared to something like the El Diablo.
AyaisMUsikWhore
Member
It's not like he's wrong. If you want to buy it and they offer it, you are free to choose where you want to put your money. None of it is forced unless you are weak minded, don't have patience and would rather pay to win or level up.
Game do make it more stressful to the point that it may drive you to do something foolish like buying micro transaction but for the most part.. It's optional and still remains that way. He isn't wrong and I agree
Game do make it more stressful to the point that it may drive you to do something foolish like buying micro transaction but for the most part.. It's optional and still remains that way. He isn't wrong and I agree
ShinHayase
Member
This thread is the way it is because ND makes good and original games. Some companies don't and still practice shitty policies regarding DLC.
The point is that it is a shitty policy. Doesn't matter how good the games are or who makes them.
The point is that it is a shitty policy. Doesn't matter how good the games are or who makes them.
autoduelist
Member
While I agree some of the logic the guy uses is absurd and broken -- if beginners need a leg up, give it to them free... breaking balance with paid-for weapons is crappy.
THAT SAID ---
I play TLOU MP everyday for at least an hour.
DLC weapons do not break the game. There is no weapon an enemy can hold that makes them some angel of death. Give me a shiv, and they'll bleed like the rest.
Anyone relying on one of the dlc weapons that is slightly superior likely doesn't have the skill to make a difference. And the highly skilled players are more likely using non-paid for weapons in my experience.
THAT SAID ---
I play TLOU MP everyday for at least an hour.
DLC weapons do not break the game. There is no weapon an enemy can hold that makes them some angel of death. Give me a shiv, and they'll bleed like the rest.
Anyone relying on one of the dlc weapons that is slightly superior likely doesn't have the skill to make a difference. And the highly skilled players are more likely using non-paid for weapons in my experience.
BriareosGAF
Member
Nothing that straightforward, no. Let's say I'm an internal studio team member where there is a profit sharing agreement. The publisher/parent company has an internal cost accounting system which tracks how much development has cost (salaries, devkits, rent, evening/weekend crunch meals, etc.), and how much marketing has cost, etc. These are liabilities/expenses against revenue that comes in from digital partners (first party, Steam, etc.) and retail partners (big box stores). An internal profit sharing agreement will generally look to assign some percentage of profit (i.e., revenue minus expenses) to the studio to disburse in some way, usually on a quarterly reporting basis. All of those will be specific to the studio/publisher in question. Some teams don't do internal profit sharing as such, but will tie an annual bonus payout to sales or other performance metrics. So in those cases *indirectly* a share of the DLC revenue will end up in someone's pocket. A third party developer will have a different but also legally structured deal on when they are paid out, usually with audit clauses and fun stuff like that.
There are a few areas where micro-transactions do generally go directly to an artist's wallet, and that's things like Steam Workshop UGC. In that case the person posting the work has a direct revenue split agreement with Valve according to the Steam policy. I actually don't know what the splits are there... looking into it now at this Steam page indicates it's per publisher/developer to set the terms of the split. This reminds me of the Skyrim mod controversy last year, I think that was about what the split was determined to be. Looks like for Team Fortress 2 it's 25% (grep for 'revenue').
I do not speak for my employer.
play the game before quoting some random dude that dont know how to play.
No I think it would be fairer that Person X didnt have the option in the first place.
In a world where one player can get an unfair advantage?
You do realise that your defence of this practice enables a dangerous precedent to be set right?
So you think its fine for better weapons to be available to those who can spend extra money on them? Are you in support of that practice?
GreedyDog
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
Tell that to all the gamers with 9-5 jobs & families who don't have time to grind and "earn" their unlocks.
There's nothing "unfair" about paying with your dollars instead of your time, as long as both are an option. That's what TLOU MP did. You might know that if you actually played it.
SprachBrooks
Member
Maybe this is why I've become so jaded to the hobby: it's going to shit and games becoming services is just not financially viable.
Bumblebeetuna
Member
Oh, so that's what ruined Last of Us MP and made it shift from a slow methodical and tactical cover shooter to a shitty run and gun DLC fest. Good work is what did that. K.
I just gave you a scenario where both sets of players play for the exact same time?
Never mind; you're an advocate for MT's so according to you, you should be able to buy as many weapons and packs as you like. Somehow competitive balance is not a thing because of 'ethics and dynamics of life'. Okay got it.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Financially viable to whom?
You or the companies? Because the latter is very viable. And that is the direction gaming is headed. It will also eventually eliminate used game sales they see no financial compensation for.
Companies will probaby offer a trade service, now where did we hear that from? Hmmmm
professor denim
Member
Indeed. What a nonsense
I don't understand. What did i said that's conflicting with what's on the OP?
Crossing Eden
Hello, my name is Yves Guillemot, Vivendi S.A.'s Employee of the Month!
I have played the game. Or did you miss the part where said I quit specifically because of people constantly using the newer weapons? (Not to mention how little modes there were, lackluster customization, little reward for surviving the whole way through in the metagame, which iirc I did twice in a row). I was quite good at the game. I had a team, but the newer weapons ruined it for me.
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
Am I too late to hate?!?
Wowfunhappy
Member
Microtransactions are not content. Microtransactions allow you to pay for the privilege of skipping content (ie, doing some in-game action)content which probably isn't very good if someone is willing to pay in order to avoid it.
THIS
As much as it pains me, really , i don't mind microtransactions in shooting games as long as map packs are free.
I can't lie, if Destiny had the ability to just buy some of this shit without me having to grind i'd probably enjoy the game a lot more. The grinding killed it for me.
But i get the door that this could open for the futrue.. the more devs do this and it's successful the more they'll just make you grind or put things behind a paywall. They'll find excuses for it whenever they can because MONEY
I can't lie, if Destiny had the ability to just buy some of this shit without me having to grind i'd probably enjoy the game a lot more. The grinding killed it for me.
But i get the door that this could open for the futrue.. the more devs do this and it's successful the more they'll just make you grind or put things behind a paywall. They'll find excuses for it whenever they can because MONEY
More precisely, it's paying for the privilege of skipping repetition of content, which isn't really the same thing as skipping content.
GhostOfSparta305
Banned
Cool bro. Next time you get destroyed online by my "unfair" premium weapon that I clearly didn't "earn," don't take it personally.
Or do. I'll be having fun either way.
John Kowalski
Banned
I pretty much agree, but I think there are better business models.
Warm Machine
Member
I'm not super familiar with the economy of Eve but looking at their subscription costs Eve essentially charges the player the cost of a full priced game every 4-5 months of play. So in a year they have pretty much sold their game 3x over to the same person.
They probably look at their revenue and figure out how much of it they will reinvest to keep people paying that subscription cost. In the background they are obviously tracking player metrics like crazy to figure out who is using what and how new content is being adopted. Also Eve is somewhat niche in comparison to a lot of larger games so they likely can't afford to split up their user base. It is a different type of game based on user acquisition, user engagement, and player retention.
Look at it like a free to play game that has the player buying a small daily micro transaction to keep playing.
Im also pretty sure Eve's server costs are quite expensive to justify their fees.
Warm Machine
Member
Not really. I always fall back to the racing game argument.
In 1995 Ridge Racer for PS1 came out with its single player, 1 track, and 12 Cars. The game was 320x240 with rough polys and ran at 30fps. It was priced in and around $60 and sold millions of copies.
In 2015 Forza Motorsport 6 came out. It has over 400 cars and 20 tracks. It runs in 1080p with gorgeous high poly artwork, licensed cars and locations, online modes, livery, community features, weather effects, and more, and runs at 60fps. It was priced around $60 and has yet to sell a million copies. But man they just added microtransactions those greedy assholes!
Warm Machine, what I have to ask is way OT, would you answer a pm if you have time? Shit, apologies, quoted the wrong person,nvm.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I mean... I agree in principle, but his example is kind of laughable.
Yeah sure. TLOU has become that. Do you even play it?
mcz117chief
Member
Thank you, this helped me understand it a lot more
The EVE example was just an example, I was mostly talking about free DLC and how relations between developer and publisher work in that regard. Free DLC is not very common but there are some video game companies that support their game with additional content for free.
NullPointer
Member
This is the only generation where I have a bigger budget for games and I'm not spending it because I'm only being offered crap like microtransactions, consumables, competitive advantages, accelerators and community-splitting premium map packs and power items.
I have money to spend on gaming, and I fully agree that hard work and good content is worth paying for. So please start providing some actual, you know, content, that isn't about getting a leg up over the other guy, or a payment to skip out on annoyances put in the game to justify those offerings.
Its insanity. But I guess its good news for companies that do put out meaty DLC and expansions, as its far easier for me to pull the trigger on those. Left Behind is good stuff though, and should light the way.
I have money to spend on gaming, and I fully agree that hard work and good content is worth paying for. So please start providing some actual, you know, content, that isn't about getting a leg up over the other guy, or a payment to skip out on annoyances put in the game to justify those offerings.
Its insanity. But I guess its good news for companies that do put out meaty DLC and expansions, as its far easier for me to pull the trigger on those. Left Behind is good stuff though, and should light the way.
Warm Machine
Member
Thank you, this helped me understand it a lot more
The EVE example was just an example, I was mostly talking about free DLC and how relations between developer and publisher work in that regard. Free DLC is not very common but there are some video game companies that support their game with additional content for free.
How do you think it works? The publisher simply gives the developer a budget to make the DLC for their game. How the publisher then decides to monetize that DLC is up to them just as long as there is a contractual agreement with it.
Take Certain Affinity as an example. On Halo they were likely paid a regular development fee to build DLC maps for that game. What is not known though is if CA got a back end royalty based on the number of purchases those maps actually received. It is a definite possibility that they could have once the budget for the map construction was in the black by people buying those maps.
DeepEnigma
Gold Member
Weren't the game's $40 on the PSX? But I agree with you.
Pretty neat snippet for console inflation prices, and how much they would cost in today's inflation.
http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/12/36-years-of-console-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/
InsaneTiger
Member
You can do better than this.
That gif is my feeling of this whole thread. *sigh*
Hamster Plugin
Member
It's not optional in a competitive multiplayer environment where other players are using the paid weapons and perks against you. And you seem to be getting confused with early unlock DLC, this is not the case in The Last of Us. You can NEVER get the paid weapons in TLoU by leveling up, they are strictly pay only.
At this point it looks like Naughty Dog multiplayer games have an expiration date attached to them. Uncharted 2 was ruined by a HP reducing patch. Uncharted 3 was ruined by the sprint mechanic after it got super buffed after the beta - and the game even got pay-to-win microtransactions later. The Last of Us got pay-to-win microtransactions later after release.
... wow.
Orochinagis
Member
Did they sold the community banderas meme gesture in TLOU multiplayer?
Well they can try to sell it to me but i wont buy it.
i've played some freemium.. never spend a dollar on it.
i buy some dlc and season price mostly when its discounted but micro transanctions NEVER.
he can say that they did not cut the content from the game, but if he wanted the gun he mention to be useful for starting players, he could give it for free since it will make people play the games and maybe buy hats...
This pay to win is shitty, you give advantage to who has the most money or the willingness to pay.
When you do any sports you dont give any advantage to any sides and even less to the one who ffers oney, so for multiplayer game that should not exist.
Now if its to speed up your progress like the time saver pack in recent games like the assassins creed, the buyer and the developper should be ashamed one for ruining is game by cheating and the developper who is especially making longer your level up or ressource finding so you can be tempted.
Now the candy crush... type is for me the worst i played a lot of shuffle and the five plays every 3 hours wasnt that bad but it became ridiculous when you had to spend lots of in game currancy just to pass a level who is made to be too hard even with a perfect team.
i've played some freemium.. never spend a dollar on it.
i buy some dlc and season price mostly when its discounted but micro transanctions NEVER.
he can say that they did not cut the content from the game, but if he wanted the gun he mention to be useful for starting players, he could give it for free since it will make people play the games and maybe buy hats...
This pay to win is shitty, you give advantage to who has the most money or the willingness to pay.
When you do any sports you dont give any advantage to any sides and even less to the one who ffers oney, so for multiplayer game that should not exist.
Now if its to speed up your progress like the time saver pack in recent games like the assassins creed, the buyer and the developper should be ashamed one for ruining is game by cheating and the developper who is especially making longer your level up or ressource finding so you can be tempted.
Now the candy crush... type is for me the worst i played a lot of shuffle and the five plays every 3 hours wasnt that bad but it became ridiculous when you had to spend lots of in game currancy just to pass a level who is made to be too hard even with a perfect team.