Gaming has become such a lucrative industry over the years, I fear the ramifications of the introduction of microtransactions. First it was downloadable content which allowed game developers to spend less time in development because they could create less content initially. Then, the exploitation of gamers was taken a step further when downloadable content became nothing more than downloading a key that would unlock content that was already on the retail disc. Microtransactions represent a way for the game industry to nickel and dime consumers well after they purchase their product. If we have to pay to unlock additional content, that's one thing, but it will get to the point where progress in a game will be so time consuming, that anyone who wants to get a leg up on their competition (in heavily multiplayer games) or anyone who simply doesn't have the time or patience to spend several days to increase a level will gladly pay a dollar or two to do so. If a game is heavily discounted or even free, microtransactions are a way for the developer to compensate for the time and resources used to create a game, but the adoption of this business model by EA is highly concerning. Their games will still cost 60 dollars, they will still charge you for downloadable content, and you will have to pay to progress in the game. The gaming industry is slowly but surely alienating its fanbase and no one is holding them accountable. What do you all think about microtransactions in games?
Microtransactions and the potential for abuse by video game developers
This topic is locked from further discussion.
DLC is like full games. Some of it is well worth the price, most of it is a ripoff. The definition of what is worth it and what isn't will vary from consumer to consumer.
When making purchasing decisions, I worry about games rather than DLC. if a publisher makes the game I am looking for, I don't care whether or not they try to sell me additional missions or outfits or music or whatever down the line. Hell, if I'm that big on the game additional content is appreciated.
Its also worth keeping in mind that DLC is a consumer friendly way to keep gamers playing. Part of the longevity of many games has to do with a steady stream of additional content in the form of new quests, bosses, weapons and (in the case of multiplayer games) maps.
Cliffy B wrote an interesting editorial on the subject recently. I had thought about creating a thread around it, but was in no mood to deal with the 'I hates all DLC, it magically sucks the money from my wallet!' crowd.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
I remember when the rage was pointed at Epic when we allowed users to purchase weapon skins in Gears 3. I replied to an enraged fan on Twitter that Youre more than welcome to not buy the optional cosmetic weapon skins that will make you more visible to the enemy. And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. (Ive seen the numbers.)
I used to hate DLCs in the past but now I accept them...grudgingly.
What I still hate is when developers charge for day 1 DLC. What EA did with ME2 (and I think DA:O) that they gave you free Day 1 DLC if you bought the game new was great because it rewarded people who didn't buy it second hand.
But sure, living is expensive and people need to pay fees and feed their families. And game development is a business, not a charity work.
I think sites are bringing negativity unto the matter, and I think gullible gamers will eventually take notice. Eurogamer just reviewed the premier reding game on iPad, Real Racing 3, and gave it a 3/10 almost based solely on how it handles in-app purchases.Heirren
I haven't played the game, but the Eurogamer review struck me as reasonable.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review
If games like Dota and Tribes are the warm, welcoming faces of free-to-play, then Real Racing 3 is the grotesque polar opposite, the snarling grinch that's the embodiment of every sceptic's worst nightmare. It's cynical, it's nasty and it's hard-wired into the very fabric of the game, making it totally unavoidable.
There's an in-game economy comprised of credits and the harder-to-come-by gold, which would be fair enough if the economy wasn't so horrendously lopsided in EA's favour. Every part of Real Racing's make-up away from the track is a transaction where you're on the rough end of the deal.
Come the end of the race you're handed with a repair bill that must be seen to if you want your car back at optimal performance. So you drive as clean a race as possible, right? Fat chance - Real Racing 3 boasts grids full of mindless Maldonados who think nothing of running you into walls or parking inexplicably on apexes. In any other game a 20-car field would be something to celebrate - here it feels like another way to skim your wallet, each driver acting like they're on a commission for those costly repairs.
You're not even safe if you've driven a clean race, as each and every car is susceptible to everyday wear and tear that must be seen to in a service station. And it's here that the game's time-limitation mechanic is most rigorously enforced. If you need an oil change, or are after a new set of boots for your car, expect to be kept waiting for 30 minutes - unless, of course, you want to part with some in-game gold or a little of your own cash.
And you're not even safe if you've paid for your car and ploughed money into the game. Car packs are available for £13.99, allowing you access to a handful of cars and a selection of associated races, but they're still subject to the grim mechanics found elsewhere. I've spent a handful of hours grinding in Real Racing 3 and poured £20 of cash into its bleak economy, and all I'm left with is four cars in a repair shop and just enough spare change for a Ford Focus and a couple of minor upgrades.
They're already abusing the hell out of microtransactions. Look at Diablo III - you get to a certain point and it's not ridiculously hard to continue - it's impossibly hard. The only thing you can do is head to the auction house and spend some real money on buying the stuff you need. Wait until EA has 4 or 5 years to work with this stuff - you'll be starting out Battlefield 7 with your bare hands and paying $5 for a .22 caliber pistol.
But we've always got our trustworthy reviewers to warn us about this stuff, right? Well, Diablo III has an 88/100 Metacritic rating but according to 3,156 customer reviews at Amazon, it's got a 2.2/5 rating.
It's getting to the point where there are a few developers an publishers still making games, but the majority of the industry is just churning out profit centers.
[QUOTE="Heirren"]I think sites are bringing negativity unto the matter, and I think gullible gamers will eventually take notice. Eurogamer just reviewed the premier reding game on iPad, Real Racing 3, and gave it a 3/10 almost based solely on how it handles in-app purchases.CarnageHeart
I haven't played the game, but the Eurogamer review struck me as reasonable.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review
If games like Dota and Tribes are the warm, welcoming faces of free-to-play, then Real Racing 3 is the grotesque polar opposite, the snarling grinch that's the embodiment of every sceptic's worst nightmare. It's cynical, it's nasty and it's hard-wired into the very fabric of the game, making it totally unavoidable.
There's an in-game economy comprised of credits and the harder-to-come-by gold, which would be fair enough if the economy wasn't so horrendously lopsided in EA's favour. Every part of Real Racing's make-up away from the track is a transaction where you're on the rough end of the deal.
Come the end of the race you're handed with a repair bill that must be seen to if you want your car back at optimal performance. So you drive as clean a race as possible, right? Fat chance - Real Racing 3 boasts grids full of mindless Maldonados who think nothing of running you into walls or parking inexplicably on apexes. In any other game a 20-car field would be something to celebrate - here it feels like another way to skim your wallet, each driver acting like they're on a commission for those costly repairs.
You're not even safe if you've driven a clean race, as each and every car is susceptible to everyday wear and tear that must be seen to in a service station. And it's here that the game's time-limitation mechanic is most rigorously enforced. If you need an oil change, or are after a new set of boots for your car, expect to be kept waiting for 30 minutes - unless, of course, you want to part with some in-game gold or a little of your own cash.
And you're not even safe if you've paid for your car and ploughed money into the game. Car packs are available for £13.99, allowing you access to a handful of cars and a selection of associated races, but they're still subject to the grim mechanics found elsewhere. I've spent a handful of hours grinding in Real Racing 3 and poured £20 of cash into its bleak economy, and all I'm left with is four cars in a repair shop and just enough spare change for a Ford Focus and a couple of minor upgrades.
I agreed with it. They also reported on a story of a child unknowingly ringing up a ridiculous amount of money spent on in app purchases, on his fathers wallets account. Apple actually refunded the money. I've been saying how Nintendo would stay away from dlc, or handle it differently. People disagreed with me. Things like this are prime examples--they actually diminish brand reputability.
Spot on. For me I buy whatever I feel is worth it to me from the actual game to any dlc. I don't care if it's day one dlc, on-disc dlc, or whatever if a company makes something I want and I'm comfortable paying the price then I'll do that. I've purchased many, many games this gen and I've purchased dlc for some and skipped on dlc for others. Of all the things I've purchased some was at the full initial price and some was at discount.Cliffy B wrote an interesting editorial on the subject recently. I had thought about creating a thread around it, but was in no mood to deal with the 'I hates all DLC, it magically sucks the money from my wallet!' crowd.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
I remember when the rage was pointed at Epic when we allowed users to purchase weapon skins in Gears 3. I replied to an enraged fan on Twitter that Youre more than welcome to not buy the optional cosmetic weapon skins that will make you more visible to the enemy. And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. (Ive seen the numbers.)
CarnageHeart
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]Spot on. For me I buy whatever I feel is worth it to me from the actual game to any dlc. I don't care if it's day one dlc, on-disc dlc, or whatever if a company makes something I want and I'm comfortable paying the price then I'll do that. I've purchased many, many games this gen and I've purchased dlc for some and skipped on dlc for others. Of all the things I've purchased some was at the full initial price and some was at discount. See, here's the problem I have with that. Remember when you used to unlock things like character skins by, I dunno.... PLAYING the game? Well, why bother EARNING it when you can just BUY it! There needs to be a vocal resistance against this, because if publishers think it's ok, they'll continue to keep pushing their boundaries. In the case of Dead Space 3, the game was totally playable without purchasing a single resource, but the what if factor still exists. What if they tailor the difficulty in Dead Space 4 or some other game to be almost impossible for the average gamer to the point where they have no option but to buy resources/gear/credits/points whatever. It's already happened in several mobile games, and it seems like more and more companies are implementing mobile practices in console games. I don't want the future of console gaming reflecting pay-to-win business models. Games are more fun when you earn stuff, not flatout buying when you've hit a wall or want instant gratification. Dangerous that Cliffy B would be this defensive about the matter... Of course, he would have to be since... he works in the industry. Kinda hard to be defensive about things that cut into your paycheck.Cliffy B wrote an interesting editorial on the subject recently. I had thought about creating a thread around it, but was in no mood to deal with the 'I hates all DLC, it magically sucks the money from my wallet!' crowd.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
I remember when the rage was pointed at Epic when we allowed users to purchase weapon skins in Gears 3. I replied to an enraged fan on Twitter that Youre more than welcome to not buy the optional cosmetic weapon skins that will make you more visible to the enemy. And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. (Ive seen the numbers.)
Archangel3371
Microtransactions are terrible and need to stop. A lot of people (myself included), play games for immersion, and it's incredibly hard to become immersed in a game when it's continuously asking you for real-world money. Sure, some here will undoubtedly throw out the "don't like it, don't buy it" argument, but that's ignoring the fact that many of these games are being designed in such a way to make it difficult to accomplish things without spending more of your money. As I saw a user on another forum say, it's gaming's version of a long con. Get the gamer interested, and then slowly push small purchases that quickly add up to substantial amounts.
I'll continue to sit back and not buy these, but that doesn't do much good when other people are throwing more and more money into these games via microtransactions. As long as the mass of idiots who keep buying these things continue to do so, EA and other companies are just going to keep pushing this further.
Also, reading the neoGAF thread on this makes CliffyB look like a moron who is incapable of addressing any counter-arguments to his article.
Edit: Some free-to-play games I'm ok with microtransactions, as they handle the system well so that they don't have an impact on gameplay (like Team Fortress 2 and Dota 2, or League of Legends). Unfortunately the number of games that make good use of the model is far fewer than the ones that are bad.
And mainly, I'm opposed to paying $60 for a new title and then having to see microtransactions in the game I've just bought.
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"][QUOTE="Heirren"]I think sites are bringing negativity unto the matter, and I think gullible gamers will eventually take notice. Eurogamer just reviewed the premier reding game on iPad, Real Racing 3, and gave it a 3/10 almost based solely on how it handles in-app purchases.Heirren
I haven't played the game, but the Eurogamer review struck me as reasonable.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review
If games like Dota and Tribes are the warm, welcoming faces of free-to-play, then Real Racing 3 is the grotesque polar opposite, the snarling grinch that's the embodiment of every sceptic's worst nightmare. It's cynical, it's nasty and it's hard-wired into the very fabric of the game, making it totally unavoidable.
There's an in-game economy comprised of credits and the harder-to-come-by gold, which would be fair enough if the economy wasn't so horrendously lopsided in EA's favour. Every part of Real Racing's make-up away from the track is a transaction where you're on the rough end of the deal.
Come the end of the race you're handed with a repair bill that must be seen to if you want your car back at optimal performance. So you drive as clean a race as possible, right? Fat chance - Real Racing 3 boasts grids full of mindless Maldonados who think nothing of running you into walls or parking inexplicably on apexes. In any other game a 20-car field would be something to celebrate - here it feels like another way to skim your wallet, each driver acting like they're on a commission for those costly repairs.
You're not even safe if you've driven a clean race, as each and every car is susceptible to everyday wear and tear that must be seen to in a service station. And it's here that the game's time-limitation mechanic is most rigorously enforced. If you need an oil change, or are after a new set of boots for your car, expect to be kept waiting for 30 minutes - unless, of course, you want to part with some in-game gold or a little of your own cash.
And you're not even safe if you've paid for your car and ploughed money into the game. Car packs are available for £13.99, allowing you access to a handful of cars and a selection of associated races, but they're still subject to the grim mechanics found elsewhere. I've spent a handful of hours grinding in Real Racing 3 and poured £20 of cash into its bleak economy, and all I'm left with is four cars in a repair shop and just enough spare change for a Ford Focus and a couple of minor upgrades.
I agreed with it. They also reported on a story of a child unknowingly ringing up a ridiculous amount of money spent on in app purchases, on his fathers wallets account. Apple actually refunded the money. I've been saying how Nintendo would stay away from dlc, or handle it differently. People disagreed with me. Things like this are prime examples--they actually diminish brand reputability. That's a scary story, and that is why from day 1 I password locked my Apple account. Anyone (most importantly, my wife and kids) do almost anything on my IPad without the password, but the password is needed to buy stuff with real world money and even to download free games and apps and only I know the password.
Realistically a reviewer will only put so much time into a game before reviewing it (throw in a pay wall 80 hours in I doubt any reviewers would hit it before posting reviews). Abusing and pissing off consumers is the sort of problem that quickly solves itself though because the following of a franchise or even a company can disintegrate.They're already abusing the hell out of microtransactions. Look at Diablo III - you get to a certain point and it's not ridiculously hard to continue - it's impossibly hard. The only thing you can do is head to the auction house and spend some real money on buying the stuff you need. Wait until EA has 4 or 5 years to work with this stuff - you'll be starting out Battlefield 7 with your bare hands and paying $5 for a .22 caliber pistol.
But we've always got our trustworthy reviewers to warn us about this stuff, right? Well, Diablo III has an 88/100 Metacritic rating but according to 3,156 customer reviews at Amazon, it's got a 2.2/5 rating.
It's getting to the point where there are a few developers an publishers still making games, but the majority of the industry is just churning out profit centers.
Jackc8
So you think Bioware intentionally offer up bad endings so they could give good endings away for free later?I always hated EA especially when I saw mass effect 3 ending and the way they put an alternative ending into a DLC. Though I think it's people's fault. They should not be supporting their methods.
alim298
[QUOTE="alim298"]So you think Bioware intentionally offer up bad endings so they could give good endings away for free later? No I meant I didn't like the DLC endings neither.I always hated EA especially when I saw mass effect 3 ending and the way they put an alternative ending into a DLC. Though I think it's people's fault. They should not be supporting their methods.
CarnageHeart
Cliffy B wrote an interesting editorial on the subject recently. I had thought about creating a thread around it, but was in no mood to deal with the 'I hates all DLC, it magically sucks the money from my wallet!' crowd.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
I remember when the rage was pointed at Epic when we allowed users to purchase weapon skins in Gears 3. I replied to an enraged fan on Twitter that Youre more than welcome to not buy the optional cosmetic weapon skins that will make you more visible to the enemy. And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. (Ive seen the numbers.)
CarnageHeart
that was more of a condescending lecture on how publishers are actually looking to make money. he even noted his in depth research on the subject because nobody would be convinced otherwise.
i'm not being snarky towards you or the audacity of publishers trying to make their money back, but i think bleszinski has the same tone as publishers who implement microtransactions in the wrong way. yes, some gamers are defensive about anything that differs from how they traditionally buy their games (be it microtransactions, DLC, digital distribution, or whatever) and some developers implement microtransactions in a way that does respect the player, but there are also "successful" models that are pure cynicism. there are people that don't like being treated like suckers whether they buy the product or not.
Microtransactions and DLC are not as bad as many claims. They keep the complete game price lower.
I do not mind paying $60 for the complete game and pay extra what worthless extra I want. I would hate to pay $80 or more to get the same game with worthless junk with the game.
Most if not all games sold are complete when you buy then and they you can pay extra for other things if you choose to. DLC are not parts taken out of the game.
Companies can abuse DLC and Microtransactions but any group can abuse things like some can abuse sharing games. I would say almost all DLC are not scams.
See, here's the problem I have with that. Remember when you used to unlock things like character skins by, I dunno.... PLAYING the game? Well, why bother EARNING it when you can just BUY it! There needs to be a vocal resistance against this, because if publishers think it's ok, they'll continue to keep pushing their boundaries. In the case of Dead Space 3, the game was totally playable without purchasing a single resource, but the what if factor still exists. What if they tailor the difficulty in Dead Space 4 or some other game to be almost impossible for the average gamer to the point where they have no option but to buy resources/gear/credits/points whatever. It's already happened in several mobile games, and it seems like more and more companies are implementing mobile practices in console games. I don't want the future of console gaming reflecting pay-to-win business models. Games are more fun when you earn stuff, not flatout buying when you've hit a wall or want instant gratification. Dangerous that Cliffy B would be this defensive about the matter... Of course, he would have to be since... he works in the industry. Kinda hard to be defensive about things that cut into your paycheck.JustPlainLucasWell personally I don't pay for things that I can unlock in-game but if a developer wants to make it an option for those who choose to do so then I don't have a problem with that. Now if a developer makes a game where it's either literarily impossible to progress or it takes an inordinate amount of time to do so then I probably wouldn't buy that game to begin with let alone pay more money to continue. Also I usually don't buy things like say alternate outfits for characters in fighting games typically because I find that they don't contribute enough to my entertainment of the product to justify the price. Street Fighter IV for instance. I thoroughly enjoyed the game despite not purchasing the extra outfits. I take everything on a case-by-case basis. If something is of value to me then I'll buy it, if not then I won't. I won't say dlc and microtransactions are bad because they might lead to something down the road though. People all have different opinions of what constitutes value to them so the best thing to do is to vote with your wallet. If I were to try and take someone else's advice on spending money on my entertainment then where would it end? The person who thinks game X is worth $60 or the person who thinks it worth $5? Games can be incredibly expensive to create and so can the content but there will always be those who develop on lower budgets as well. I don't begrudge those who choose to buy or not to buy things that they deem to be of value or not of value to them but what I don't care for is when people try to dictate to others their own value system.
Microtransactions and DLC are not as bad as many claims. They keep the complete game price lower.
I do not mind paying $60 for the complete game and pay extra what worthless extra I want. I would hate to pay $80 or more to get the same game with worthless junk with the game.
Most if not all games sold are complete when you buy then and they you can pay extra for other things if you choose to. DLC are not parts taken out of the game.
Companies can abuse DLC and Microtransactions but any group can abuse things like some can abuse sharing games. I would say almost all DLC are not scams.
wiouds
You're neglecting the fact that DLC is often already in the retail versions of these games, you're just paying to unlock a portion of a game that you've already paid for. Video games are one of the few things that haven't increased in price with time, they've been expensive for quite some time. I suppose game developers are relying on gamers with an attitude like yours - "well I may be getting less, but at least I'm not getting less for more (initially at least)". Ultimately, to get all of the maps and whatnot that should be in the game to begin with, you end up paying like 90 to 100 dollars. With the increase in popularity of micro transactions, this price is going to sky rocket, though the average person will realize it less because it's such a small amount of money at a time (which is what they're counting on).
It's not that black and white. What about content that's already on the disc, like the characters of Street Fighter X Tekken? That's a clear abuse of DLC, as they're charging you to unlock content you already physically own.DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
worlock77
[QUOTE="wiouds"]
Microtransactions and DLC are not as bad as many claims. They keep the complete game price lower.
I do not mind paying $60 for the complete game and pay extra what worthless extra I want. I would hate to pay $80 or more to get the same game with worthless junk with the game.
Most if not all games sold are complete when you buy then and they you can pay extra for other things if you choose to. DLC are not parts taken out of the game.
Companies can abuse DLC and Microtransactions but any group can abuse things like some can abuse sharing games. I would say almost all DLC are not scams.
MrHappyBizzar
You're neglecting the fact that DLC is often already in the retail versions of these games, you're just paying to unlock a portion of a game that you've already paid for. Video games are one of the few things that haven't increased in price with time, they've been expensive for quite some time. I suppose game developers are relying on gamers with an attitude like yours - "well I may be getting less, but at least I'm not getting less for more (initially at least)". Ultimately, to get all of the maps and whatnot that should be in the game to begin with, you end up paying like 90 to 100 dollars. With the increase in popularity of micro transactions, this price is going to sky rocket, though the average person will realize it less because it's such a small amount of money at a time (which is what they're counting on).
Most DLC are not on the disc. Also, in order for a game to handle a DLC you need program the game to be able to handle it and this could include some parts of a code.
My attitude is I would like to pay a lower cost and pick what I want than having to pay $100 at the start to get everything including worthless junk that I do not care about. I will pay $60 and pick what I want than pay $100 and get a bunch of junk that is trival.
I do not see most of the DLC parts that should be in the game from the start. I see most DLC would not be in the finish game even if DLC did not exits.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]It's not that black and white. What about content that's already on the disc, like the characters of Street Fighter X Tekken? That's a clear abuse of DLC, as they're charging you to unlock content you already physically own.DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
JustPlainLucas
The solution is simple then - don't pay for it. If enough people cease buying such DLC then publishers will stop doing it.
It's not that black and white. What about content that's already on the disc, like the characters of Street Fighter X Tekken? That's a clear abuse of DLC, as they're charging you to unlock content you already physically own.[QUOTE="JustPlainLucas"][QUOTE="worlock77"]
DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
worlock77
The solution is simple then - don't pay for it. If enough people cease buying such DLC then publishers will stop doing it.
What would happen if they do not make money off DLC?
Do you believe they will just add the extra costly stuff into the game? Do you think they will sell the game at the same price? Do you think they will be more willing to take risk with new ideals?
The best microtransactions--aside from not being there in the first place--are the ones that are unobtrusive.
I've been playing a lot of Path of Exile lately, and I like the dev team's stance on microtransactions, which they tell you up-front and as blunt as possible. Basically, they have it, but everything is cosmetic. The full game is available to you whether you threw money their way or not. You can't purchase gear with real money. You can only trade with other players in-game.
The reality is that microtransactions are here to stay, because the industry can't sustain itself by offering games for free without any sort of compensation. But even the games you do pay for will have microtransactions...that does seem pretty bad, but what if they're necessary for the continued survival of the industry? I read Cliff's blog and he makes some good points, but anyone who really looked at the situation could've came up with the same conclusion: if microtransactions weren't working, they would've disappeared by now.
The only thing we can do, and the only thing we have to do, is not support microtransactions if you don't believe in them. Endless b*tching solves nothing.
I'll continue to save money and not pay extra for rip off dlc and microtransactions and I will continue to not buy games that take content out of the game to make customers pay extra to unlock it off the disc.Rattlesnake_8
I'm with you on that one.
[QUOTE="wiouds"]Since when sharing games is abusing?Companies can abuse DLC and Microtransactions but any group can abuse things like some can abuse sharing games. I would say almost all DLC are not scams.
Miroku32
Any system can be abused. The consumers can abuses system just as much as the company and they may do it even more.
[QUOTE="Heirren"]I think sites are bringing negativity unto the matter, and I think gullible gamers will eventually take notice. Eurogamer just reviewed the premier reding game on iPad, Real Racing 3, and gave it a 3/10 almost based solely on how it handles in-app purchases.CarnageHeart
I haven't played the game, but the Eurogamer review struck me as reasonable.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-02-28-real-racing-3-review
If games like Dota and Tribes are the warm, welcoming faces of free-to-play, then Real Racing 3 is the grotesque polar opposite, the snarling grinch that's the embodiment of every sceptic's worst nightmare. It's cynical, it's nasty and it's hard-wired into the very fabric of the game, making it totally unavoidable.
There's an in-game economy comprised of credits and the harder-to-come-by gold, which would be fair enough if the economy wasn't so horrendously lopsided in EA's favour. Every part of Real Racing's make-up away from the track is a transaction where you're on the rough end of the deal.
Come the end of the race you're handed with a repair bill that must be seen to if you want your car back at optimal performance. So you drive as clean a race as possible, right? Fat chance - Real Racing 3 boasts grids full of mindless Maldonados who think nothing of running you into walls or parking inexplicably on apexes. In any other game a 20-car field would be something to celebrate - here it feels like another way to skim your wallet, each driver acting like they're on a commission for those costly repairs.
You're not even safe if you've driven a clean race, as each and every car is susceptible to everyday wear and tear that must be seen to in a service station. And it's here that the game's time-limitation mechanic is most rigorously enforced. If you need an oil change, or are after a new set of boots for your car, expect to be kept waiting for 30 minutes - unless, of course, you want to part with some in-game gold or a little of your own cash.
And you're not even safe if you've paid for your car and ploughed money into the game. Car packs are available for £13.99, allowing you access to a handful of cars and a selection of associated races, but they're still subject to the grim mechanics found elsewhere. I've spent a handful of hours grinding in Real Racing 3 and poured £20 of cash into its bleak economy, and all I'm left with is four cars in a repair shop and just enough spare change for a Ford Focus and a couple of minor upgrades.
sadly it's a matter of time before EA transforms their big budget titles in something like this.
DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
worlock77
no abuse? when they are like say fr example lair of the shadow broker, its good, a good dlc with good content and not that important for the story, but for example there are games like asura's wrath and final fantasy xiii-2 where the ending is given or content is added via PAYED dlc. You think anyone who played those games wouldn't then be forced to buy them to see the ending? Do you think thats not abusing? How long till they cut important parts of the story or keep doing this endings via dlc?
DLC was a good idea but the problem is it is open to being abused and ofc, companies will keep doing it, when you got great packages for full retail price before now you willl get a shorter game that will be sold to you in parts after ypu already paid full retail price, and ofc if yo go with your logic "don't buy then" you will get a very basic package and miss a lot of the game you like. It's sad people are so short sighted
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
Krelian-co
no abuse? when they are like say fr example lair of the shadow broker, its good, a good dlc with good content and not that important for the story, but for example there are games like asura's wrath and final fantasy xiii-2 where the ending is given or content is added via PAYED dlc. You think anyone who played those games wouldn't then be forced to buy them to see the ending? Do you think thats not abusing? How long till they cut important parts of the story or keep doing this endings via dlc?
DLC was a good idea but the problem is it is open to being abused and ofc, companies will keep doing it, when you got great packages for full retail price before now you willl get a shorter game that will be sold to you in parts after ypu already paid full retail price, and ofc if yo go with your logic "don't buy then" you will get a very basic package and miss a lot of the game you like. It's sad people are so short sighted
If you go to a restaurant, get a big meal and ask for ketchup and they tell you 'that costs extra', maybe you pay and maybe you don't, but you never go back. What's hard?
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
CarnageHeart
no abuse? when they are like say fr example lair of the shadow broker, its good, a good dlc with good content and not that important for the story, but for example there are games like asura's wrath and final fantasy xiii-2 where the ending is given or content is added via PAYED dlc. You think anyone who played those games wouldn't then be forced to buy them to see the ending? Do you think thats not abusing? How long till they cut important parts of the story or keep doing this endings via dlc?
DLC was a good idea but the problem is it is open to being abused and ofc, companies will keep doing it, when you got great packages for full retail price before now you willl get a shorter game that will be sold to you in parts after ypu already paid full retail price, and ofc if yo go with your logic "don't buy then" you will get a very basic package and miss a lot of the game you like. It's sad people are so short sighted
If you go to a restaurant, get a big meal and ask for ketchup and they tell you 'that costs extra', maybe you pay and maybe you don't, but you never go back. What's hard?
analogies aren't your thing since you fail to grasp the basic problem here and instead compare it to bad example. But w/e, don't want to see, fair enough, we will pay for the games endings later on.
What happens when important titles become like real racing (the game that was reviewed in that link) and not just a random unimportant game. If you can't see how that will affect you, and think it is as simple as "hey i'm not going to take ketchup" well.. no further discussion is needed.
Content that would have been included in games last gen is now being stipped out for extra profits. Gamers are now getting less for their money. The reason I play games is to find upgrades and improve my charecters equipment. If I'm going to get charged in micro transaction for upgrades theres no point in me playing. I'm not going to pay real cash for weapons and such. I'll just call it quits with modern gaming and stick to retro games.
Most gamers are idiots anyway all you need to do is play COD for a half hour and you'll find that out. Theres no hope for gaming people will continue to support shady buisness practices.
peoole are making a lot of noise out of nothing regarding the Dead Space 3 micro-transactions, and most of you talking about it probably have no idea about the micro-transactions in the game, I mean what is there really to get, all weapons can be built, you can use real life currency to purchase in game gun upgrades or you can use points from the salvage bot instead to get better parts for those weapons from the store, it was the same thing in ME3's online mode, the game isn't incomplete because you can waste your money on extra content, it's still a rather full and complete game without the micro-transactions, people make it sound like they bought a Street Fighter game and they can't play as Ryu without paying a few dollars for the DLClamprey263
For me it's more of a matter of principle. If I just paid $60 for a game, I sure as hell don't want to have to see microtransactions in the game when I play it. EA is trying to force a free-to-play model into a regularly priced game, something that obviously isn't going over well with many people.
Also, you have to take into account the precedent this sets. Ok, so the Dead Space 3 microtransactions aren't intrusive. That doesn't mean that future games with these microtransactions will be as easily avoidable as DS3's.
[QUOTE="worlock77"]It's not that black and white. What about content that's already on the disc, like the characters of Street Fighter X Tekken? That's a clear abuse of DLC, as they're charging you to unlock content you already physically own.DLC is like any other product - it's your choice to buy it or not. There is no abuse involved.
JustPlainLucas
I agree. Capcom got a LOT of flak from mostly fighting game fans for making them spend $20 to unlock the 12 characters in SF x Tekken in which that those characters were already on the disc.
Spot on. For me I buy whatever I feel is worth it to me from the actual game to any dlc. I don't care if it's day one dlc, on-disc dlc, or whatever if a company makes something I want and I'm comfortable paying the price then I'll do that. I've purchased many, many games this gen and I've purchased dlc for some and skipped on dlc for others. Of all the things I've purchased some was at the full initial price and some was at discount. See, here's the problem I have with that. Remember when you used to unlock things like character skins by, I dunno.... PLAYING the game?[QUOTE="Archangel3371"][QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
Cliffy B wrote an interesting editorial on the subject recently. I had thought about creating a thread around it, but was in no mood to deal with the 'I hates all DLC, it magically sucks the money from my wallet!' crowd.
http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters
I remember when the rage was pointed at Epic when we allowed users to purchase weapon skins in Gears 3. I replied to an enraged fan on Twitter that Youre more than welcome to not buy the optional cosmetic weapon skins that will make you more visible to the enemy. And you know what? In spite of the uproar, people still bought plenty of them. (Ive seen the numbers.)
JustPlainLucas
this
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
no abuse? when they are like say fr example lair of the shadow broker, its good, a good dlc with good content and not that important for the story, but for example there are games like asura's wrath and final fantasy xiii-2 where the ending is given or content is added via PAYED dlc. You think anyone who played those games wouldn't then be forced to buy them to see the ending? Do you think thats not abusing? How long till they cut important parts of the story or keep doing this endings via dlc?
DLC was a good idea but the problem is it is open to being abused and ofc, companies will keep doing it, when you got great packages for full retail price before now you willl get a shorter game that will be sold to you in parts after ypu already paid full retail price, and ofc if yo go with your logic "don't buy then" you will get a very basic package and miss a lot of the game you like. It's sad people are so short sighted
Krelian-co
If you go to a restaurant, get a big meal and ask for ketchup and they tell you 'that costs extra', maybe you pay and maybe you don't, but you never go back. What's hard?
analogies aren't your thing since you fail to grasp the basic problem here and instead compare it to bad example. But w/e, don't want to see, fair enough, we will pay for the games endings later on.
What happens when important titles become like real racing (the game that was reviewed in that link) and not just a random unimportant game. If you can't see how that will affect you, and think it is as simple as "hey i'm not going to take ketchup" well.. no further discussion is needed.
Since your level of reading comprehension is so low, I'll simplify things for you. If you buy a game and put 50 hours into it and then right before the ending, it demands you buy something else in order to finish it, on account of being so deep in, maybe you buy it, but knowing how the game ripped you off, you won't (well, shouldn't) show up for the inevitable part 2. I hope that is simple enough for you.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
If you go to a restaurant, get a big meal and ask for ketchup and they tell you 'that costs extra', maybe you pay and maybe you don't, but you never go back. What's hard?
CarnageHeart
analogies aren't your thing since you fail to grasp the basic problem here and instead compare it to bad example. But w/e, don't want to see, fair enough, we will pay for the games endings later on.
What happens when important titles become like real racing (the game that was reviewed in that link) and not just a random unimportant game. If you can't see how that will affect you, and think it is as simple as "hey i'm not going to take ketchup" well.. no further discussion is needed.
Since your level of reading comprehension is so low, I'll simplify things for you. If you buy a game and put 50 hours into it and then right before the ending, it demands you buy something else in order to finish it, on account of being so deep in, maybe you buy it, but knowing how the game ripped you off, you won't (well, shouldn't) show up for the inevitable part 2. I hope that is simple enough for you.
and you can't see how that is an inconvinience for the gamers? man you are dumb
well what can you expect after the "im not taking ketchup analogy" :lol:
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
analogies aren't your thing since you fail to grasp the basic problem here and instead compare it to bad example. But w/e, don't want to see, fair enough, we will pay for the games endings later on.
What happens when important titles become like real racing (the game that was reviewed in that link) and not just a random unimportant game. If you can't see how that will affect you, and think it is as simple as "hey i'm not going to take ketchup" well.. no further discussion is needed.
Krelian-co
Since your level of reading comprehension is so low, I'll simplify things for you. If you buy a game and put 50 hours into it and then right before the ending, it demands you buy something else in order to finish it, on account of being so deep in, maybe you buy it, but knowing how the game ripped you off, you won't (well, shouldn't) show up for the inevitable part 2. I hope that is simple enough for you.
and you can't see how that is an inconvinience for the gamers? man you are dumb
well what can you expect after the "im not taking ketchup analogy" :lol:
Learn how to spell simple words like 'inconvenience' before you question anyone's intelligence.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]
Since your level of reading comprehension is so low, I'll simplify things for you. If you buy a game and put 50 hours into it and then right before the ending, it demands you buy something else in order to finish it, on account of being so deep in, maybe you buy it, but knowing how the game ripped you off, you won't (well, shouldn't) show up for the inevitable part 2. I hope that is simple enough for you.
CarnageHeart
and you can't see how that is an inconvinience for the gamers? man you are dumb
well what can you expect after the "im not taking ketchup analogy" :lol:
Learn how to spell simple words like 'inconvenience' before you question anyone's intelligence.
Please just stop posting carnage. You're one of the biggest enablers of microtransactions. You'll buy 60 dollar games and give companies the idea of making this the norm. Just stop posting.
:lol:
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment