Are microtransactions, day one DLC packages and day one patches etc really that 'evil'? Page 2

  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
  • RobTheBuilder 7 Mar 2013 21:30:38 6,521 posts
    Seen 10 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @Syrette but they are a false economy in most cases. People buy them because a game is too tough or long. Then they do it again, then they see the trick and don't bother.
  • spamdangled 7 Mar 2013 21:47:05 27,355 posts
    Seen 52 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Syrette wrote:
    You're not wrong really, pre-order exclusives annoy me too even if said DLC eventually becomes available to all.
    But it's not DLC is it? That implies the content isn't already on the disc.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • andytheadequate 7 Mar 2013 22:04:51 8,192 posts
    Seen 35 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Day 1 patches for multiplayer games are fine as you need to be connected to the internet anyway. Day 1 patches for single player games is a sign that they released the game in a buggy state then used the time between it going gold and release to hope they fix everything.

    Day 1 dlc is usually shit and not worth bothering about. Micro transactions have the potential to be game ruining but in most cases you won't even notice them as they're irrelevant.
  • Deleted user 7 March 2013 22:49:15
    Day 1 DLC... Hmm, yes and no. It depends what value it adds to the game and whether it's something that feels like part of the coherent whole or something that just gilds the lily and can be forgotten about without impacting the main game.

    Day 1 patches are just a lazy way of giving a developer extra time to fix bugs to meet a release date. They're generally avoidable and whilst it doesn't annoy me in the day of ADSL it's just very sloppy and, dare I say it, unprofessional.

    Micro transactions don't generally bother me so long as they don't harass me at every turn or actually stop me playing a game because I have to buy something. I'm prepared to forgive them in f2p as the developer's only source of income but in full price titles it's gouging for gouging's sake and can get the fuck out.
  • sanctusmortis 7 Mar 2013 23:21:41 9,631 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Long version of my rather curt original reply:

    Microtransactions are fine - in F2P. In indie games, they're tolerable as a way to generate further income for developers. In full price games, they are an abomination.

    Day one DLC is fine - if it's free to people who bought the game new, or utterly non-essential (see: DS3 suits, which are cosmetic). If it adds something important (see ME3's infamous day one DLC which changes the game a lot) it is again abhorrent.

    Day one patches are a symptom of the fact that games now come out broken. This isn't so much an evil as it is a sign that the industry no longer has the money to take the time to get things right, and testing's nigh pointless as devs just go gold anyhow. Read Tales of the Trenches for a good insight into modern games QA.
  • WinterSnowblind 7 Mar 2013 23:28:28 1,237 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yes. They can be done right, but too many developers are clearly cutting content out of games or otherwise locking off content that would have typically been available in the base game as standard in the past.

    Best way to deal with it is to simply say no. There wouldn't be so much of a problem, if all the people complaining about it would actually stick to their guns and stop supporting this crap.
  • jabberwoky 8 Mar 2013 10:55:24 523 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    The answer you are searching for is......Yes.
  • Widge Moderator 8 Mar 2013 12:03:50 13,619 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    meme wrote:
    RobTheBuilder wrote:
    Micro-transactions - Yes. They force game design to be around making money not playing well.
    Not inherently. There are dozens of mobile games with microtransactions that are perfectly playable without spending a penny. Endless Runners are a good example here - in ones like Jetpack Joyride or Temple Run you progress in the game by playing the game. You can pay to skip that progress (or to make it easier), but at no point are you prevented from playing as normal, at no point does it inherently funnel you towards "you must pay to get past this specific point".
    Although they are high score games, and your score is limited by how many bits of trickery you have available to you. Temple Run requires coins to buy the things to help you get a high score, one microtransaction doubles the coin rate and is possibly the best thing you can buy. So in essence, it becomes a test of endurance to pool together enough resource to have a bash at a high score.

    _ _ _

    www.inverted-audio.com

  • SomaticSense 8 Mar 2013 12:54:21 8,353 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I've not really got a problem with day 1 DLC, as long as a) it wasn't cut from the game to sell later, and b) it isn't an 'unlock key' for content already on the disc.

    I bought SFxTekken in the Xbox GoD demand sale the other day, and was shocked to find that 12 characters were greyed out on the chara select screen.

    There was no patch d/l prompt when loading the game, and the filesize for the character bundle was a mere 108kb, the same as every other 'microtransaction' Capcom was offering for the game. A coincidence? No. They were all clearly in the game already, locked out for an added FIFTEEN QUID charge.

    Evil is a strong word. But it's definitely dodgy business practice. I can't think of a single example of another industry actually locking existing content out and charging extra for it. It's a scandal, and retail regulators really need to start looking into it.
  • JinTypeNoir 8 Mar 2013 12:56:58 4,392 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Day one patches are completely unacceptable in console games. If you can't just suck it up, eat up a loss from printed copies of the game and delay it, then you don't deserve to be in business any more. There's only one console hardware and the specifics of different models aren't anywhere close to the differences in PC configurations that PC developers must deal with. Get your shit together or you get no money from me.

    Up till this generation it was rare that a game was ever so borked it needed a patch or fix in the first place. It still is on hardware like the 3DS or PSP. On the first day? When you KNOW you are delivering something to the consumer that is somewhat broken? Who on earth puts up with this type of abuse?

    Not me, that's for sure. I remember reading how the Wii U at launch had you download a bunch of stuff to get it ready for Miiverse and all that. It wasn't mandatory to get it working, apparently, but for many of the new features, it was. I remember thinking, "Why on earth would you think it is acceptable to tell the consumer, 'Hey, that new console you just bought, don't be too excited about the new features because you're going to have to download them first! If you want to try them out, then buy it and sit and wait!'"

    Soooo fucked up.
  • FogHeart 8 Mar 2013 13:07:24 946 posts
    Seen 59 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    None of these things are inherently evil.

    I am very happy to have pre-ordered Borderlands 2 because I enjoyed playing as a fifth character with her own skill tree which makes the style of play quite different. But would I have pre-ordered a game for skins? No!

    I am happy to buy DLC where the story, characters, experience, atmosphere and so on are different from the main game but of course the 'universe' is the same. The perfect DLC for me was 'Pigsy's Perfect 10' for Enslaved, where you play as a side character in the main story with completely different weapons, locations, atmosphere and story. But would I buy on-disk DLC? No!

    I am happy to have played Tribes:Ascend, and have indulged in some microtransactions in this free-to-play game. Firstly, because I enjoyed it to the extent that I felt I should reward its developers, and secondly because the microtransactions in that game give you a variety of experience but never pay-to-win. Or at least they try - there's sometimes some balance adjustments to be made after release. New weapons might increase the complexity of the scissors-rock-paper scheme of punch and counter, but you don't get a weapon that will win every encounter. But I would never play a pay-to-win, pay-to-advance or pay-to-skip-artificial-delay game.

    And in these days where a game can have more lines of code than a whole Office suite would have had a few years ago, you'll never crush every bug before release so a day one patch is not a surprise. But if you require that patch to make the game playable, you need to question how good that developer is, or how rushed the development was.
  • Page

    of 2 First / Last

    Next
Log in or register to reply