Akalabeth said:
For some people, yes. Because some people bought the Orange box at 60 dollars. Actually the people who bought TF2 at 60 dollars got screwed by the way, because the 360 version has been updated all of 4 times. Compared to 319 updates for the PC version. I don't think TF2 on 360 even got any of this "free content" even either, even as priced DLC.
Despite that, PC gamers still paid 50 (full price) for the game.
The fact that it wasn't introduced until later doesn't change the fact that it was originally full priced.
...
When I say the microtransactions are optional, I'm listening to gamers, not EA, people who have PLAYED the game. A situation which I suspects does not apply to most people who complain about the transactions. The worst I heard from reviewers of the game is that the microtransactions are immersion breaking.
I think you can make a distinction between a microtransaction system for a full price game that sells superfluous crap and one that sells gameplay elements. One model earns money from people who choose to invest more into a game based on their personal preferences and the other model is a rather manipulative practice which uses player enthusiasm/investment to sell a game in piecemeal form at an inflated price.
A similar sort of psychological manipulation can be seen in these bite-sized DLCs which increase a bit in price every year it seems. If I have invested a great deal of time and energy into a game, I am therfore more likely to want to experience more content. So I shell out another $10-15 for DLC that far too often turns out to be poorly executed and far shorter than I expected. Nobody had a gun to my head, but player enthusiasm has been used to essentially increase the price to $80 using content of minimal cost to the developer.
Similarily, a system which withholds gameplay elements uses similar enthusiasm and investment to get people to pay for content which probably should have been part of the base game. Thus the total purchase price increases another $10 or so. The ethics of such a practice is debatable as it is entirely voluntary, but if I ever buy a game only to find much of what I believe to be core content held behind a MT system I am going to feel cheated. I think that this was what most people were concerned about with DS3. I don`t think it was the case in this instance (DS3), but I also think it is good idea to oppose the precedent of MT systems in full price games. The business practices of the game industry have gotten rather slimey, so I wouldn`t put it past them to move on beyond selling superfluous crap.
I think many have been complacent about the Valve MT system because they have earned significant consumer trust (I honestly thought TF2 was F2P when they started the micro-transactions). EA has a bad reputation, so people spoke out against them. I have little sympathy for EA when they point out the hypocrisy of consumer reactions as they have not earned the benefit of the doubt.
Akalabeth said:
Oh yes the Valve releases less frequently because they're higher quality. Hahaha. Where's episode 3? What about finishing a game, in the way you intended? What about sticking to what you told the fans instead of slowly spinning the truth and basically abandoning single player for multiplayer only?
...
Dude, you need to google some interviews of Gabe talking about single player gaming. They talk about what a nightmare HL2 was, talk about working on a game for so long then people consume it in a couple days, etcetera.
Valve is becoming the leader in "multiplayer only" model.
When they release a single-player focused game (half of portal 2 is co-op from what I understand), then I'll regard your words with more weight. But the proof is in the pudding.
All the single player games I have previously purchased from Valve have been excellent, so I have little reason to think otherwise for future releases unless objective evidence says otherwise. You are speculating using no real evidence other than the long interval since their last release and some grumbling by Gabe. They haven`t exactly been flooding the market with multiplayer games. And if they really are abandoning single player games or game development entirely, why should I be outraged? Such a change will cost me nothing. I recieved content worthy of the full prices I have payed to Valve in the past, I have no reason to hold a grudge if they go in another direction. That said, I am certainly not going to change my tastes because Valve has.
Akalabeth said:
And Valve creating original content? Sequel to mod, Portal. Sequel to mod, Counter Strike. Sequel to mod, DOTA. You notice a trend here?
As for EA stagnating the industry?
Mirror's Edge. (The one example that is the exception to the rule)
Spore. (Yea, the extensive funding, enthusiasm and effort put into that game really shines. EA definitely backed it whole-heartedly)
Dead Space. (A horror game that was turned into a shooter with horror elements...breaking new territory with the IP there)
Mass Effect. (An RPG that turned into another shooter when all was said and done...the RPG elements, plot and characterization had clealry taken a back seat by ME3...what pioneers)
Dragon Age. (An excellent RPG that turned into a really shitty action game with some vestige of its former RPG status.)
Battlefield Series. (Yes how many times can you re-release BF2 with newer graphics...they can`t even be bothered to try out different time periods any more)
(see above quote) The vast vortex of dull action games and rehashed shooters is at least partily down to EAs influence on the studios it purchases.
HL, HL2 and Portal were fairly ground-breaking advances in the medium (IMO anyways). Day of Defeat and of course CS were some of the best and most unique shooters of the day. Giving a mod team a retail deal was not a common practice in the industry (still isn`t of course). I wish mod-teams would get green-lighted more often as it they usually show more originality and dedication towards their work (for a while anyways).
