CliffyB: Microtransaction is Not a Dirty Word, EA is Not The Bad Guy

[Rachmaninov]

I mean what you're effectively saying is that EA has a set a deadline, and artists working are either not inspired often enough (ie not working hard) or they get inspired and add more things to make it better despite knowing that they have a deadline. And I'm supposed to blame EA for that why exactly?

Now I know for sure I'm not talking to an artist. Inspiration has absolutely nothing to do with working hard.

Having written stories, made a few games, and composed music, I'm intimately familiar with the process of inspiration. Inspiration is me sitting here with by bass, plinking around, trying stuff out, waiting until a good idea comes to me. You can't make it come to you, you just have to wait.

Let me give you this example; Why don't you go invent something new and valuable? Surely if you try hard enough, something new will just materialize before you, right? Can you give me a deadline for when you will have invented something new?

Nope. Of course you can't. Which is why "inventors" wind up as paupers who spend altogether too much time in their basement/shed, trying to force good ideas.

Yes that's lovely speculation but I suspect it's not backed up by any actual experience is it?

Actually, it is. I've not got international experience, so maybe it's different elsewhere (although, if you were me, you'd be assuming it's the same across the world, even in other fields, like you have been this whole time) but I have a few friends who game design students, and through them have got to meet experienced, unemployed game designers.

I'm not deflecting blame from EA, I'm saying blame EA where their blame is due.

Which is apparently never. Besides maybe DA2, I get the impression you blame them for that. And nothing else. Ever.

People blaming EA for creative differences is nonsensical when EA is a publisher. Whereas blaming EA for giving a game a comparatively low budget (ie Dragon Age 2) makes more sense.

Publishers do get a say in the creative side. That's good cause to assume everything "out of character" for the game could well be publisher interference (for example, ME3's ending; a rushed, sudden, nonsensical plot twist at the end of a masterfully woven story? Sounds pretty out of character to me).

Steam Box

And how does that affect the alleged stagnation of video games?

The Steam Box isn't to fix the stagnation of video games, but it will crack open the console market, to bring Steam (along with Greenlight) to a wider range of people, and hopefully put an end to the deliberately divisive tactics used by Microsoft and Sony (proprietary everything).

Greenlight is helping to fix that stagnation of video games. Because indie games bring fresh ideas and it's easy for those creators to get their great ideas out to more people. Which brings me back to dashing this strawman you've brought up again:

So now does Steam get credit for selling an innovative game? So if EA publishes Mirror's Edge 2, and it's awesome, does Best Buy, Future Shop, Game Stop all get credit for selling it just as Steam gets credit for selling FTL or Binding of Isaac?

I've already told you that this isn't what I meant, why must you insist on repeating it?

FTL = great game
FTL + Steam = great game given the spotlight

FTL's idea doesn't earn Steam credit. Steam earns credit for showing FTL to lots of people. That doesn't make Steam responsible for FTL's great idea, that makes Steam responsible for a large part of FTL's popularity.

I hope I explained it better this time so that you understand.

I think there's a difference between financing a game with money (ie EA). And allowing some indie game the privilege of being on your store so you can take your 33% cut.

They both achieve the same effect. Except EA has no interest in indie games, so does next to nothing to support them.

I'm sorry but if Valve is developing HL3 I'll be very surprised.
They went from making full SP games. To episodic SP games. To multiplayer only games, most of which aren't even based on their own IP. The only exception to the MP-only being portal2. And now they're becoming a console manufacturer, possibly copying the Ouya. If you don't see the obvious shift away from games like Half Life 3 then you need to look a little harder.

No looking is required. You've got this incorrect idea that MP-only games are a new thing for Valve. It's not. Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era, with Counter Strike. And before you repeat what you've already said; Yes, I know Counter Strike wasn't made by them. Yes, I know it was a mod. Yes, I know they only bought the idea. But my point is, Valve have been in the MP-only arena for a long, long time and nothing has changed. And that's not even including Team Fortress, which invented class-based shooters.

No obvious shift has occurred. Valve makes MP-only games most of the time, and a masterpiece singleplayer game every now and then.

Valve's new engines have always come with a new half-life game. And there's no reason to think they'd stop now. They'll make HL3, on a new engine, and they'll release a handful of MP-only games on that engine afterwards.

Yes and for that you can give them credit for promoting the game, but you cannot give them credit for breaking up the stagnation of the industry. That credit is due to the people actually, making games. The people still being creative.

Part of that credit is due to the people making games. But all their creativity would be for naught if someone didn't give them a place where those games could be viewed just as easily as AAA games. People like EA have helped create a system where independent developers cannot complete. They spend massive amounts of money on their games, giving them loud advertising and building hype (all good things, besides perhaps the bloated spending) which completely drowns out other games, who don't have a publisher and don't have the funds to advertise.

XBLA and Greenlight advertise these games, and Greenlight gives the opportunity to any game so long as it's popular enough (which doesn't actually mean that popular).

But no you create new songs. So if you write a song, lose the rights, just go make a new song in the same style (same mechanics) but with a different tune (new IP).

Since most musicians write lots of songs (a lot more than a developer would ever create games (except maybe EA with FIFA, eh?) I guess my music analogy wasn't so good.

Perhaps I'll use the analogy of books instead, since video games also involves writing a story. Go back to 1995, take the Harry Potter I.P. away from J.K. Rowling.

Sure, she probably would've written other books, but Harry Potter was her magnus opus, her great work. Taking that away from her would've meant that the successful career she had now, likely never would have happened. She couldn't have exactly gone and written "Parry Hotter and the Logician's Rock" without the new owner of her IP taking her to court.

Your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of art. Truly great ideas aren't just the product of thinking really hard, despite what you seem to think.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Gaming is a business and both TF2 and DS3 have made one metric fuckton of an effort trying to get people's money after having you buy the game.

One game was shipped at full price, with microtransactions, Day One DLC, and full-price DLC down the line.

The other was shipped as part of a 5-for-1 deal of games, wouldn't get microtransactions for three years, and released every piece of DLC for free with big, semi-regular updates continuing for at least 5 years after the game came out, and all for no extra charge.

Maybe they both made a metric fuckton, but only one of them is daylight robbery.

So are all full-priced games "daylight robbery"? *snip*

No. All full-priced games that ship with microtransactions, Day One DLC plus full-price DLC down the line are daylight robbery. Which is what I said already.

Because if the DLC and MTs are optional for DS3 then it's no different than every other game out there at face value.

Except that the game comes to you deliberately unfinished, so they've got more things to sell you. Seriously, what is it you're not getting?

Developers: "Hey, we've got a great game with Dead Space 3. We've had some really good ideas how to further the story."
EA: "Good, now lock some pieces so we can sell them as Day One DLC, shoe-horn in a resource system so we can offer microtransactions and cut out this extra stuff in Chapter X, we'll use that idea for some $25 DLC."

Read that. Read it and try to pretend it's not true.

Dead Space 3 didn't need a resource system, and it didn't improve the game in the least, but it gave EA an excuse to include MTs. And it had eleven pieces of content on the disk and locked until you paid extra.

EA take every bad, money-grubbing idea anyone else has come up with, and adopt them full-on. They try to cram as many money-making schemes into their game as possible on launch.

 

[DJShire]

When Cliffy B speaks, the internet gets mad

 

[Rachmaninov]

You know shit all actually.

And how hypocritical of you, to threaten me for using the word "rant" which you take exception to, only to go on to insult me bare-faced.

I'm not going to rise to this pissing contest you're so desperate to start. Perhaps you are an artist after all, but your lack of comprehension of the subject is still apparent. If you think inspiration is something that just comes with trying hard, you're incorrect. Maybe if you had more than 4 months experience drawing shorts, which in no way compares to writing proper full length stories and single projects that would take sevenfold the sum of your experience to make, you'd understand.

It's clear by your assertion that you've worked in an "artistic trade" and yet only have 4 months experience making any actual art, that you're not actually making art yourself anymore. Being an artist's accountant doesn't mean you know anything about art.

You don't know my credentials, and I'm not buying in to your pissing contest.

It's disrespectful and demeaning, and if you pull that shit again this discussion over.

First you say being disrespectful and demeaning is an excuse to threaten me with the end of the conversation, and then;

So you can go ahead and plink on your bass and doodle in your sketchbook like every other person in the planet

You disrespect and demean me. Your hypocrisy continues to stun me.

Yeah because every game ever has a great ending right? Oh wait, no a lot of them have weak third arcs.

When did I say ever? Find it for me, and I'll give you a trophy. Until then quit it with the strawmen.

I said it was out of character in comparison to the rest of Mass Effects critically acclaimed story telling, including two endings. It was all phenomenal, and then, all of a sudden, it's awful.

What's more likely;

That the writer had an aneurysm and forgot all that incredible story-telling they'd painstaking crafted for the last 60 hours of gameplay, or;

That EA pressured them into an unrealistic deadline, resulting in the writing that they had planned being scrapped for something faster?

But if a game that EA publishes is great, it's not because of EA, they're just the publisher. They didn't develop those games right. But if there's any problem with a game, it must be EA's fault. The ending sucks! It's EA's fault because of you know, deadlines and stuff, yeah that's a good rational right? NOT.

If the ending sucks, maybe Bioware should not have waited until the end to work on it.

Not true, and the funny thing is, if you'd been paying attention, you'd know it.

EA published a great game with Mirror's Edge, and I thanked them in front of you earlier in this thread.

Some things EA does are good, like risking publishing games I love, like Mirror's Edge.

And I said:

Publishers do get a say in the creative side. That's good cause to assume everything "out of character" for the game could well be publisher interference

Not "If it's bad it's EA's fault.". When I say "out of character", it's you who assumes I mean "anything bad". Please read what I'm actually typing, and stop mentally adding meanings that aren't there.

Hahaha. Right.
So . . a storefront that REQUIRES you use it in order to play the games it sells is going to get rid of deliberately divisive tactics? Give me a break man.

Well I'm sorry you're not feeling optimistic, but I'm afraid I have evidence.

Both the Xbox and the PS3 are insular, only work with proprietary controllers, hard-drives and accessories, almost exclusively manufactured by the respective company. If you want an Xbox made by someone other than Microsoft, tough luck.

The Steam Box, on the other hand, is basically a miniature PC. It comes with Linux, and you can install windows if you want. But the Steam Box can be manufactured by anybody. You could even make one yourself, if you like. In fact, Steam have already funded (that word you like so much) the development of the first Steam Box, and it's not even made by them.

Now, have you actually got an argument, or just more baseless negativity?

Wrong.
Kickstarter and word of mouth gave FTL a spotlight. Not Steam Greenlight.

You're correct here. It wasn't Steam Greenlight. It was just Steam. But you're lying to yourself if you think getting on the front page of the most popular DD service isn't good advertising, and didn't easily triple the games sales.

And yes that's besides the point but again, I don't credit a store for selling things. A store selling stuff is just people looking to make money from other people's work. I credit people for creating things.

Creating things like the best DD service around, you mean? Well, then you best be giving credit to the Valve people.

Yes except in one case EA is risking their capital to develop a product. In the other case Valve is riding on the coat tail's of someone else's hard work.

Because letting millions of people see that the hard work actually exists is totally not worthwhile, right?

If I wanted to sell my games, I would be over-the-moon for Steam to do it. Not because I like Valve, but rather because their cut is very reasonable for the massive exposure and free advertisement you get. People flock to YouTube to share their creations there, and YouTube only offer you about $1 each 1000 views... that is a much, much greater cut, for basically the same service.

And while doing so by the way Valve has shown a preference for the Source engine, hosting games which are . . alleged terrible while at the same time other great indie games weren't allowed on Steam.

Of the games I've seen Greenlit, none were in the Source engine. They have hosted some real gems, too, like this [http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/euro-truck-simulator-2].

Some games are Greenlit, but haven't got to the front page. But you rag on me for "conspiracy theorist thinking" later in your comment, so I expect you won't be adding a meaning to why they haven't arrived yet, will you?

Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era, with Counter Strike. And before you repeat what you've already said; Yes, I know Counter Strike wasn't made by them. Yes, I know it was a mod. Yes, I know they only bought the idea. But my point is, Valve have been in the MP-only arena for a long, long time and nothing has changed. And that's not even including Team Fortress, which invented class-based shooters.

So . . Valve didn't make Counter Strike, and yet you're still giving them credit for it. Hmmn. Right. Biased much? Oh and speaking of "riding on the coat tails of someone else's hard work": Counter strike!

I wish you'd cut it with the strawman arguments.

I didn't give Valve credit for Counter-Strike, I won't reiterate what I said, since I decided to leave the quote above for you to re-read.

Valve gave Counter-Strike a push, by hiring the team, giving them support. It'd be nothing but conjecture to guess at whether or not CS would have been as successful if not for the support of Valve,

Oh and speaking of "riding on the coat tails of someone else's hard work": Counter-Strike is a mod for Half Life. Half Life and the modding tools used to create Counter-Strike were made by Valve.

Besides whether Valve has always done MP or not doesn't matter, what matters now is that they're not making much for single player games, nor are they making new IP.

And like I said already, they've never made much for single player games. You are entirely imagining this "Valve single-player dry-spell" nonsense. Valve made Half Life and didn't make Half Life 2 until they had the Source engine, and won't make Half Life 3 until they've made another engine leap. Of their games, a small portion of them are single-player. You seem to imagine them making a steady stream of SP games until recently, and that simply isn't true.

Part of that credit is due to the people making games. But all their creativity would be for naught if someone didn't give them a place where those games could be viewed just as easily as AAA games. People like EA have helped create a system where independent developers cannot complete. They spend massive amounts of money on their games, giving them loud advertising and building hype (all good things, besides perhaps the bloated spending) which completely drowns out other games, who don't have a publisher and don't have the funds to advertise.

Yes and all that creativity would be for nought if EA didn't front the production budget so the game could actually get made. So again, you have a company investing in the production of video games, and you have a store selling video games.

We agree, which is something you seem to have missed, I highlighted for effect.

Despite your imaginings, I've never said that everything EA does is bad. Providing capital to developers is a good thing. Doesn't excuse the other evil shit, though.

Perhaps I'll use the analogy of books instead, since video games also involves writing a story. Go back to 1995, take the Harry Potter I.P. away from J.K. Rowling.

Sure, she probably would've written other books, but Harry Potter was her magnus opus, her great work. Taking that away from her would've meant that the successful career she had now, likely never would have happened. She couldn't have exactly gone and written "Parry Hotter and the Logician's Rock" without the new owner of her IP taking her to court.

Your misunderstanding comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of art. Truly great ideas aren't just the product of thinking really hard, despite what you seem to think.

That's an amusing analogy because Rowland was reportedly happy to be finally rid of Harry Potter so she could write something new.

Thanks for that nugget of irrelevant information. It doesn't matter if she eventually got sick of writing Harry Potter, what matters is that Harry Potter was her great work, her magnus opus. The only reason she was in a press release to tell you she was finally happy to be rid of Harry Potter was because she got famous by writing Harry Potter.

Now, perhaps you could respond to the point?

Assumptions ahoy!

Geez Ms. Sensitive!

Now, re-read your post and tell me where you went wrong. Very good! The areas where you made claims when you had no idea what the reality was! You're learning! Whose a good boy? That's right! You are!

This is gold.

I don't mean to gang up on you, Akalabeth, but this guy is right. You're making these claims when you really don't have any idea what the reality is.

You should stop it.

 

[Rachmaninov]

*snip*
Now you've got to know you're deliberately misrepresenting the truth here. Are you so keen to defend EA that you're going to resort to bare-faced lying?
*snip*

As much as it made me sick to do it, I went over a few of the pages with your quotes and pulled out personal attacks. Couldn't go through all of them as the sheer amount of nonsense was making me ill. I think I've got enough to at least prove that you're hardly an innocent.

That one was me, but that's the only one on the list by me. And I stand by it, because:

Bully. Haha.
I attack the content of the post, not the person. There's a difference.

You are a liar. You purposefully belittled and insulted me;

You know shit all actually.

So you can go ahead and plink on your bass and doodle in your sketchbook like every other person in the planet

So don't try and feign innocence now.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Only after you pay. You get next to nothing in terms of drops if you don't give Valve a cent towards TF2. You don't even get weapon drops.

You do get weapon drops, and what do you mean "next to nothing" ? You get the standard items from drops, if you don't care about the bullshit cosmetic shit then it shouldn't matter.

Just crates you can't open until you pay. And even, the majority of what you get is crates, so have HAVE to pay up.

You don't just get crates, and as I said before:

the crate drops do not add to your weekly weapon-drop cap.

So even if you do get crates, it's not like you're missing a weapon or craft item drop.

Its no as fun being the blank slate TF2 player when people are running around in full sets that give them bonuses.

So now you're saying that their model requires people to pay? Even though it's been the same as every F2P model? That's like arguing that League of Legends is unfair because you have to pay in order to get more expensive champions at a faster rate.

F2P players get weapon drops, they can rise as any starting player did when the game was first released, I'm not understanding your "it's no fun" argument.

Also, I'd hardly call them bonuses considering that Valve has built the entire game around balance. I'd only agree that the weapons have gotten stupider and more random, but nothing unbalanced.

 

[Tradjus]

If people's faces tense up and their nostrils flare like they've just smelled a big eggy fart when you say a word, it's officially a dirty word. If you're a gamer, go look in the mirror and say "Microtransaction" aloud and you'll see what I mean.

 

[Rachmaninov]

So now you're saying that their model requires people to pay?

Actually, despite my generally disagreeing with him, on this aspect, he is correct.

Since TF2 went F2P, any players who obtain the game free need to make a purchase from the Mann Co store to become "Premium" and begin receiving random drops besides crates. Any players who owned the game when it cost money are automatically "Premium" and don't need to pay anything if they don't want to.

EDIT:

Nopenopenopenopenope. Ignore everything I just said, it's wrong.

The truth is, having a "free" account opposed to a "premium" account puts some restrictions on the account, but it does not stop you from getting random drops. "Free" accounts do not get rare drops, or cosmetic items, though.