Thanks for the detailed response.|
There's going to be a conflict between marketing and dev. That's understandable. But it seems that the industry - at least the money side - is moving towards a model that is tempted by F2P and compulsion loops and whatnot. And we can see aspects of it creeping into games at the moment - with microtransactions and such.
So, I think it's a valid concern that, when people have an incentive to alter gameplay or levelling rates, that might affect the player.
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's looking how human and commerce work. Shit rolls downhill. It would be remiss of gamers not to consider it.
I'm glad you acknowledged my point about items being able to affect gameplay. Now, it's a complex subject but one way to think of it is 'don't add any ambuity or annoyance to the result'.
I think we've all had the experience of dying in an MP game and wondering if the guy got the kill because he was better or if it was lag. That lag thing niggles; it fucks people off. It's ambiguity and the sense of annoyance he shouldn't have got the kill.
WIth microtransactions and paid unlocks, you add ambiguity. And that ambguity .. it calls the whole point of playing into question.
Now, contrary to what you might think, on EG and Twitter and the podcast I'm always thinking about ways that the industry can have its unlocks and still keep people like me happy. For example, if BF had 'No microtransaction' servers and leaderboards, I might keep playing.
Because there'd be no ambiguity.
If you know how many individual accounts are playing a game, you can compare that to units shipped/sold and from there you can work out, if not the type of player, at least numbers of people that played before vs goty sales and players.
Edited by 1Dgaf at 18:34:15 11-10-2012
www.hatchetjob.com - more than games. "Seemingly trivial, surprisingly deep"