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

[Atmos Duality]

He's absolutely right.

Companies cannot get away with such things like revoking legal securities, lopping content out of the final product for resale, microtransactions that are GROSSLY overpriced, and shoddy derivative design unless customers let them.

And they do. Most consumers are perfectly content with it.
There's a reason publishers can't just flat out charge the 100-200 dollars (USD) so many AAA games would actually cost for all content. It's easier to get someone to commit to that 100 dollars in chunks than in one lump sum.

That is what microtransactions are: Price hikes split up into smaller bits.
The fact that publishers have reached the point where a game may flat out require them to cover their costs (remember EA's claim with Dead Space 3?), speaks volumes more about the inefficiencies of the publisher than anything.

----

EA has been a very dirty word to me for years; well before it was "cool" to hate on EA.
I stopped doing business with them long ago, and time has proven that to be a wise choice.
Until I see sufficient change in EA's business philosophy and practice (ignoring the usual bad press surrounding the company), that policy of mine stands.

----

"Valve can do no wrong"

They've done plenty wrong, but consistently more right. CliffyB does a great job ignoring that in his rant.

Valve gives the player communities the ability to get more involved with their games other than just shelling out more money. Rather than keeping everyone behind a legal glass-wall and employing that "look but don't touch" attitude every other publisher adopts (which they adopt to keep user created content and mods from competing with their DLC, mostly).

For the most part, Steam is a great system, and I do remember its conception; it was not good. At all.
But it legitimately has tried to foster trust and develop a consistent service with practical features as it evolved.
I would even give Origin a fair shake, if it were not owned and operated by EA.

That said, I do NOT like the Steamworks DRM. It has given me fits before and some rumors I've heard about its usage are unsettling (e.g. if your game uses Steamworks, it cannot use any other DRM. I do not know if this is true).
Some people say it's DRM that can be called "humane", and that the alternative is much worse.

And I'll say that's a load of shit.
Other DRM isn't the only alternative (did we conveniently forget piracy? The problem that DRM is supposed to solve while constantly failing at it?), it's just the alternative everyone fixates on as a means of justification.

That's like saying it's better to keep the prison rapist in the cell next to yours instead of having him as a bunkmate.
In practice, it's tolerable, but it still leaves you feeling uneasy.

But the thing that worries me most about Steam, is that someday, someone is going to "cash in their chips" with Steam, and hold a legal or practical gun to everyone's game library on account of greed or trust (possibly one under the pretense of the other).

In 2009, I only had to validate Steamworks once every 20-25 days to use Offline Mode. Today, it's per-session, meaning if I shut my computer down I have to re-establish a connection to Steam to re-verify (and not even that has been consistent, I once lost verification in the middle of a game when I was out and about with limited to no net access).

The point isn't in the potential inconvenience, it's in the change in attitude; the level of trust.
I can only sit here and wonder when that tipping point will come, because to be frank, Steam is a fucking juggernaut in the PC gaming world. They don't need to employ such measures to be highly successful, but Greed by its nature is blind to necessity.

 

[Rachmaninov]

And you claiming to "know you're not an artist" isn't an insult?

Nope. It was an incorrect assumption, but not an insult. Telling me I know shit all? That's an insult.

See the difference between you and I is that I don't care who you are in the real world. It doesn't matter.

Have you done anything artistically professionally? I mean, have you been paid industry rates? Yes or no.

Do you care, or don't you?

Do you know what the difference between an artist and a professional artist is? The ability to convince someone to pay you a wage.

If you work in the film industry, you should know that the real artists, the writers, don't get paid a wage. So they're technically not "professional" despite being the pillars that support your careers entire existance. Don't pin so much importance on a wage.

Yes, you're right that was insulting. And if so I apologize.
But I will remind you that in both cases you've started it. Maybe if you made less character attacks, and more content-centric posts I wouldn't get heated?

Above you will find my guide for how to write an insincere apology.

Every one of my posts has been content-centric. And I've made very few character attacks. I've called you a liar, when I've noticed you telling what you know to be a half-truth or a complete lie. I've called you a hypocrit, when you tell me I can't do something and then go and do it yourself. I don't think either of those would actually count as a character attack, since each was with evidence.

If you lie, you will be called a liar. If you're hypocritical, you will be called a hypocrit.

It's not like I've told you...

You know shit all actually

So yes, you do know shit all

Is it?

So now you can explain to me how that's different than PSN or XBL?

I never said it was different to PSN or XBL, although I can say it doesn't require a subscription like the latter does.

I said that The Steam Box is less divisive because anyone can make the hardware and the peripherals and the operating system. That is not true of Microsoft or Sony's offerings. But I said this already, I shouldn't have to say it again. Please stop making me repeat myself.

Without the money, no one sees anything, store or no store.

And the games we're talking about don't need publisher funding. Please, stay on topic.

Valve provides a platform and free advertising to indie games, as well as AAA titles, giving them an equal shot at being seen and bought by its large customer base.

Yes, EA's funding of games is one of the good aspects of EA like I've already told you twice. But EA doesn't fund indie games, or give them any kind of support at all, instead pouring money into bloated projects so unnecessarily expensive that they have to sell more units than they likely will, just to break even. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/117931-EA-Aims-to-Broaden-Dead-Space-Audience]

Valve were the beginning of the Call of Duty era

You telling me that's not giving them credit? Give me a break.

I went on to explain. Didn't you read any further?

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,

Counter-Strike wouldn't have "sold" a single unit without Valve, because it was a mod. Valve did the heavy lifting, making Half Life and the modding tools that were used to create Counter-Strike. The fact that those guys made any money at all is proof of benevolence by Valve, because they couldn't have legally sold Counter-Strike without Valve. So Valve employed them, and one of the two people [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jess_Cliffe] is still employed (reading the other's wikipedia page [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minh_Le] seems he left of his own volition).

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.

Yet in other posts you call them Scumbag EA?

Seriously, you quoted a portion of text, and you didn't actually read it?

Calling them Scumbag EA doesn't mean I think everything they do is bad. It means I think they are scumbags. And the reason is in the text you quoted and I emboldened it, so you can see.

The point is if you have a great idea for a game, and you want full creative control, either make it yourself or man up to the potential consequences of asking people for money or to buy your studio.

Not every writer is a CEO, you know that right? Some people are part of a studio when their magnus opus gets taken away from them by someone else selling the studio. Then the consequences aren't your choice to risk, it was thrust upon you. And when someone sells a studio, for the new owners to deprive all of those developers of their work, possibly even irreplaceable work, because the new owners made some bad business calls, is not okay.

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.

Oh see you were on the right track when you called me out on hypocrisy but then at the end you not only support this guy but personally attack me again.

I supported that guy, yes.

I personally attacked you again? Now, you're making it up.

I said "You're making these claims when you really don't have any idea what the reality is" and you don't. You don't know what his or my qualifications are, and yet you say;

The point, you don't work on an artistic trade. Do you?
Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

And yet you have the audacity to claim that you have a better understanding than I do? Get lost.

Hell have you even modded a game? Created new models, new levels, new missions? I have. So my knowledge of "game design" is probably more advanced than yours as well.

Just because you doodle in your sketchbook doesn't make you an artist.
Plinking around on an instrument a few hours, or writing a song, doesn't make you an artist.
Writing a short story now and again, doesn't make you an artist.

What makes you an artist is working 8 hours a day, 5 days a week.

And until any of you are in that position none of you know a damned thing about the creative entertainment industry.

So, there is evidence of you making claims about things you know nothing about, which is just a different way of saying what I already said.

Yeah, after you insulted me about 5 or 6 times

No. After I pointed out that you were lying, and being hypocritical about 5 or 6 times. There's a difference. Telling me that I "know shit all" is an insult. Calling you a liar, when you're lying, and I have evidence; that is not an insult.

And even after you called me a hypocrit you come out and say that your own, hobbies are worth sevenfold the effort of mine?

That's not what I said. Please, I am honestly pleading to you, stop adding meaning on top of the words I write.

What I said

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.

The clarification: You mention 4 months actually creating shorts. I tell you that in no way compares to writing full length stories and single projects that would take sevenfold the sum of your experience to make (7 x 4 months, since that's what you cited as your experience personally creating art, rather than the vague, nebulous "working in the art industry" you've been talking about).

What I didn't say: "My hobbies are worth sevenfold the effort of yours!"

So, please. Stop it. You are derailing this conversation, by making me clarify my each and every word.

 

[Rachmaninov]

The point, you don't work on an artistic trade. Do you?
Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

So, there is evidence of you making claims about things you know nothing about, which is just a different way of saying what I already said.

Do you understand what a question is? A question, is a statement followed by a question mark.
For example

"You do know the definition of a question. Right?"

Now notice how that structure of that is similar to:

"The point is, you don't work on in artistic trade. Do you?"

Do you see the parallels?
Good, now you know it's not a claim.

Now, I'll ask you; do you know the difference between a genuine question, and a rhetorical question intended just to make a claim?

This:

The point, you don't work on an artistic trade. Do you?
Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

Is the latter. Notice the part where you say:

Neither does Rachiman or whatever his alias is.

That is because the question was rhetorical, and you turned it into a claim that the answer to the question was no.

A question would have looked like this "Do you work on an artistic trade?" instead of "You don't work on an artistic trade. Do you? Neither does the other guy." which is paraphrasing what you actually said.

I can't believe that you're trying to wriggle your way out of this. You made a bunch of baseless claims, and you know you did. That whole block of text I quoted was written as an attack on our qualifications. There wasn't a single genuine question there, because with the very next lines, you assumed the answer was no.

You must think I know nothing about English, to think you could pull the wool over my eyes so easily. Because that is what you are doing. You are lying, on purpose. Offering a twisted perspective on your mistake in the hopes of not having to apologise.

Either way, as for personal attacks.
Claiming that a person has 'no idea of reality' is an insult.

This is painful to read. You honestly think me saying;

You're making these claims when you really don't have any idea what the reality is.

Is me saying "you have no idea of reality"?

I'm genuinely sorry if you think I said that, and I mean no insult when I say this, but; is English your first language?

Particularly when you are claiming they have no idea of what it's like working in a deadline-orientated, creative industry when in fact that person does exactly that.

I claimed you had no idea of what it's like making full length stories and video games. And you don't, by your own admission. You said you work in the film industry, and that you have experience drawing shorts, neither of which are comparable to video games. (Read; comparable to. I'm not saying your hobbies are worse, I'm saying you can't compare them)

Especially when on top of the fact that you, yourself, do not evidently work in such an industry despite some apparent underlying ambitions.

You know where I said "You're making these claims when you really don't have any idea what the reality is." and you said you don't...

Well you just did, right there. You claim I "evidently" "do not work in such an industry despite some apparent underlying ambitions". You have no idea if I work in such an industry or not, and this is exactly the kind of claim-making that you so sarcastically claimed not to be doing, a minute ago.

Like claiming that Steam will revolutionize the console market by doing the same thing everyone else is doing...

I crossed this out, because I've already explained to you twice how this isn't the case. You just ignored me.

...just with a "little computer". When in fact anyone anywhere in the world right now can hook up their tower to their TV to accomplish exactly the same thing.

Problem is that doesn't appeal to console gamers...

Except it's not the same. The Steam Box is designed to be simple, so that it behaves more like a console and less like a PC. It has more in common with a "PS4 that runs Linux, plays Steam games and can be manufactured by anybody, with a wide range of hardware" than it does with a PC.

Take care. Further replies will not be responded to.

And apparently neither will many of my arguments, which stand ignored and unanswered, which is a shame since I put effort into writing them and sourcing information for you.

And all because you can't find it in yourself to apologise for the rampant, baseless claim-making that I've twice proven you to make.

It's a shame. I was enjoying our conversation, before you became too focused on claiming you had all the credentials and I had none, without any evidence to support either side of that argument.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

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.

That's not what it says on their [http://www.teamfortress.com/freetoplay/faq.php] site or the wiki, and I can't find anything to back that up.

It says F2P players can get weapons and crates, just no cosmetic items or anything rare. It would defeat the purpose of their F2P model if the free players couldn't get the weapons through in-game means.

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.

Yes I'm aware.

 

[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.

That's not what it says on their [http://www.teamfortress.com/freetoplay/faq.php] site or the wiki, and I can't find anything to back that up.

It says F2P players can get weapons and crates, just no cosmetic items or anything rare. It would defeat the purpose of their F2P model if the free players couldn't get the weapons through in-game means.

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.

Yes I'm aware.

Whoops, my bad. I just checked again, and you're right. The restriction is only on rare and cosmetic items. Well, and some restrictions to the trading and crafting system.

Sorry.

Raminov or whatever your alias is. You don't have arguments. You have technical side steps

I don't suppose you have any evidence of any of the many arguments I've made being technical side steps, do you? Let alone all of them. I've made a fair few in the last few pages of discussion.

You don't actually RESPOND to what I'm saying.

Actually, I do, and both this post, and any post you care to read would prove you wrong there. I've answered all your questions. I've responded to as many as like twelve individual quotes from your posts individually. I've taken a great deal of care in responding to what you're saying.

If by "RESPOND" you mean "BLINDLY AGREE WITH" then you're right.

Is English my first language? Fuck man, is it yours? Seriously.

I asked not intending offence. I don't think you afforded me the same courtesy.

You couldn't tell the difference between "You're making these claims when you really don't have any idea what the reality is." and "You have no idea of reality." which should be completely obvious to someone who is fluent in English.

I asked, because I was going to apologise for giving you a hard time, if English wasn't your first language. And all you want to do is reflect it back at me, like it's an insult you want to return. That's not polite.

I ask if you if you've been paid for writing and then rather then respond you introduce some irrelevant technicality that avoids the initial question. Have YOU BEEN PUBLISHED? Scripts purchased? Etcetera.

Actually, you told me you don't care, and then asked anyway, so I asked you "Do you care or not?" and you never answered. Go back and read it if you don't believe me. That's what happened.

I followed that question by pointing out how truly arbitrary those questions are.

But since you are fascinated with my qualifications; I have been paid for my work recording and editing music for a few amateur bands, I've been paid for some gigs in a band including supporting a popular band or two, I've written some short stories and two long ones (two-hundred and sixty-one pages for one, two-hundred and nine pages for the other) and turned both of those stories into RPGs. I've not tried to sell any of them yet, because to be honest I don't consider them finished.

And it's arbitrary because you'll never know if the above is true, and you'll never prove whether or not your own claims are true. So it never mattered in the first place, besides apparently to you, because you want to say "HA! YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED!" rather than actually responding to my arguments. I'm sorry to say, whether or not you consider me "qualified" my arguments still need to be answered. You can't pretend I'm instantly wrong about everything because you're supposedly "in the biz" and I'm not.

And we both know you're not going to front any evidence you're "in the biz", either. Or that you're anything more than someone's assistant, claiming that it makes you knowledgeable about art.

I tell you I've worked for 6 years in a creative industry and you waive it away as meaningless because you know, "it's not video games" and no I'm not going to say what I worked on, I do not represent those companies or those projects on this forum.

Funny, I honestly didn't read this part before I made my prophecy. Looks like it had already come true. It's a shame, because without evidence, your claim to be "in the biz" is meaningless. I could've lied, and said I was too.

There's a difference between a baseless CLAIM and a claim based on observation.

And your basis for claiming Rogue had no experience, when in fact he did? I've told you already, you're not going to pull the wool over my eyes so easily. You had no observations for evidence I didn't work in the business, since I told you right off of the bat that I've made games. And actually, I said I do know those people, because I do. I got to know them through my friends, but I do know them.

So you claim that I don't have any idea of what reality is (in video games)

You still haven't read that right.

I claim you have no idea of what reality is in our lives. You claim you do, but you don't. Even now you don't. Even after I've told you about myself, you still don't.

But you presume you do, and you will continue to presume that you do.

You don't work in games. That's clear.

More presumptions. I've made games, spent hundreds of hours doing so. I suppose that doesn't qualify me as "working in games" to you, because I've not taken it as my chosen profession.

So you question my understanding yet offer no support for your own?

I'm not questioning them, I'm point out that you in fact do not understand. Inspiration to create something prolonged is not something you can force, and through countless examples given to you (and almost entirely ignored) I have proven that.

If I am incorrect, please, go and invent something incredible, because clearly thinking really hard is all that's between you and a great idea. You'd be rich.

But hey, rather than dispute my actual argument better try to find a completely nonsensical (since you claim experience and won't prove it) way to point out that I'm not qualified to make one in the first place, and then just pretend that it wasn't because you just couldn't argue it. Right? Now that was a claim based on observation, because I can see this little trap you're feverishly trying to set up.

Arguing "qualifications" is complete nonsense even if you can prove your "qualifications" but you're not going to, which only compounds the degree of nonsense.

you're evading a discussion by continually introducing things that aren't relevant to the original point.

Oh, what you mean like you are? Like calling my qualifications into question instead of answering my arguments?

In fact, can you even prove that I'm evading a discussion, beyond that I've been evading this pointless "qualifications" argument? Do you even have a single quote of me evading anything else?

I'm evading this because you're not going to prove what you're telling me, and I'm not going to prove what I'm telling you, making the whole thing pointless.

And I'm responded to pretty much everything you've said, every argument you've made but time and time again you just avoid my responses and tell me "oh you're just repeating things" without actually addressing what I'm saying.

Prove it, if you can. I know you can't.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Case in point:
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).

To which I responded "Steam is a closed system" effectively. And to which you responded 'oh I was only talking about hardware'.

Read the quote from me.

"The Steam Box isn't to fix the stagnation of video games"

Then you say it's a closed system to do with games. Clearly not having read that simple line.

I said I was only talking about hardware, because I was only talking about hardware, and right in that quote you quoted, I said I was only talking about hardware.

Honestly. Enlighten me, how can you read me say "It's not about video games" and then tell me I was talking about video games? I said "It's not about video games" because it was about the hardware (and actually the operating system, which I have mentioned. Guess that got ignored).

I just don't understand. You read me say "Not about games" and then tell me I'm side-stepping when you say "BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT GAMES" and I tell you I wasn't.

...but "cracking open" the console market by doing the same thing everyone else is doing isn't cracking nothing.

Except I've already explained to you twice how they're not doing the same thing as everyone else only to be ignored.

It's the hardware. If you can't tell, when I was talking about the hardware, it's because I was talking about the hardware.

Have I said hardware enough times yet?

Notice, in that quote you borrowed, I said "(proprietary everything)"? Did you actually read it? All of the hardware for consoles is proprietary. Like I already said

If you want an Xbox made by someone other than Microsoft, tough luck

whereas Steam Boxes can be made upgraded, and altered by anyone. If you want to upgrade a part, you can, and without buying it from Valve. It'll give you freedom to use whatever peripherals you want, whatever operating system you want. If you want to buy a Steam Box made by Microsoft, and play Halo on it, with an Xbox controller and Windows 8 installed, then go right ahead.

That is what I mean by an end to divisive practices. But I've told you this already twice only to be ignored.

It's pretty obvious you don't like Steam. And that's a shame, because Steam is amazing. Yes, it requires you to run it to play the games on it, but it has next to no impact on your CPU while it's running, so you wouldn't even notice. Yes, it will sometimes pop up an advert screen after you finish playing, but that usually only pops up when there's something they genuinely think you'll want, like DLC for a game you own or a fantastic deal on one you don't. And that brings me to another thing about Steam; the sales. No one can even come close to matching it, they offer a massive list of games up to as much as 80% off, even offering some new games for 50% off. Just a few months after it came out, I bought Deus Ex: HR for my best friend because it was £3.74 in the sales. I'm not sure what Steam did to you to make it irrationally hate it, but rest assured that the hate is irrational.

27 MILLION UNITS. Is how many CS have been sold as of 2011. Do you think the modders got even 1% of those profits for the rights?

Do you want to make a prediction, so I can call you a hypocrite for ragging on me for "conspiracy theorist thinking"?

The answer is, neither of us know.

If I paint a picture on the bonnet of your car, and you sell it, you don't have to pay me a dime no matter how nice the picture was. Half Life is Valve's car. Counter-Strike was the pretty picture.

Like I've already explained (but apparently one of the long list of things you ignored) one of the two of them is still employed with Valve. That's more than Valve had to pay him, for making a mod for their game, no matter how successful it was. The modders couldn't have sold a single copy of CS if it wasn't for Valve, so every cent of profit they made was more than they intended to make, and more than Valve had to pay them.

 

[Rachmaninov]

Yes and if I had asked you in 2010 when Team Fortress 2 was going to be free what would have been your answer? The answer is you wouldn't have an answer. So I appreciate the fact you're trying to make a point by asking an unanswerable question, but you're not.

Also the fact that TF2 became free to play didn't change the fact that millions of people bought it.

I notice you're avoiding my question because you can't actually directly address my core point.

You, yourself, made the claim that TF2 and Dead Space 3 were "very similar" situations. So it is a perfectly fair question to ask.

But since you refuse to give the answer, I'll give it for you: *never*. Dead Space 3 will never be Free-To-Play, ever. That alone illustrates that your original point was entirely wrong. They're not the same situation, they're not the same structure, and not run by the same company. The fact that you even tried to compare the two games illustrates, at least to me, that you've no clue what you're talking about.

Ever heard of this:
http://blogs.battlefield.com/2012/11/download-bf1942-for-free/

It's called Battlefield 1942. It's a game published by EA.
It's available for free.

So your answer, no, sorry your "guess", a guess which is not objective but rather self-serving is based on the assumption that EA never releases free games. But that's identifiably not the case, now is it?

So thank you, for your "guess" but it does not change the fact that TF2 and DS3 were both retail games that included MT.

I notice you're still avoiding their point.

When with DEAD SPACE THREE be F2P?

Not BF1942, that's always been free.

To my knowledge EA have never turned a game F2P, besides ones that started F2P and failing MMOs. Never have they made a game even remotely like DS3 F2P.

And TF2 didn't include MTs for the first three years, a key difference you're just glossing over.

 

[Vigormortis]

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.

But that's...not true?

You get just as many weekly drops as any "premium" player. The difference is, until you buy something from the store, you can't trade anything your "free" account has received in drops.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My God, there has been so much hyperbole, vitriol, and misinformation in this thread it's become nauseating. Not to mention some people have been on the warpath in trying to spread the misinformation.

I think we've all lost sight on the point of this thread. I.E. pointing out how utterly ridiculous CliffyB's statements have been lately.

Can we get back on topic please?

 

[Aslyn]

I'm probably restating, since I didn't read m/any of the comments. But, I agree. This is an industry that exists to make money. Like in movies, there are some that push boundaries and are extremely artistic, but as whole, it's all about the benjamins.

I do hate how sneaky they try to be about microtransactions though. It gets to the point where some games are saying "Give me a dollar and I'll shut up"

 

[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.

But that's...not true?

You get just as many weekly drops as any "premium" player. The difference is, until you buy something from the store, you can't trade anything your "free" account has received in drops.

Yeah, sorry, I was wrong. Someone else already mentioned it. In fact, I'll go back and add a note to make sure I don't confuse anyone else.

My God, there has been so much hyperbole, vitriol, and misinformation in this thread it's become nauseating. Not to mention some people have been on the warpath in trying to spread the misinformation.

I think we've all lost sight on the point of this thread. I.E. pointing out how utterly ridiculous CliffyB's statements have been lately.

Can we get back on topic please?

I'd like that.

Unfortunately, the problem with me and Akalabeth at the moment seems to be that he won't hear me out unless he thinks I'm qualified to have an opinion in the first place, despite the fact that there's blatantly going to be no evidence given from either side. So I don't know if I'm going to be able to stay on topic with him.

I'm sorry for my part derailing this thread.

So can I ask you what you think?

 

[Rachmaninov]

I'm not avoiding their point because they don't have a point.
They're presenting their opinion that Dead Space 3 will never be free based on what? Their opinion? The fact that Dead Space 3 is EA? Yet EA has released games free to play so the precedence is there and their point, is meaningless even though it was already meaningless.

EA never turned a game that wasn't originally F2P, into the F2P model besides failing MMOs, though.

Just because a company releases an F2P game, does not mean it is reasonable to expect all of their retail titles to become F2P.

Ruling out failing MMOs and TF2, can you actually think of an example of when that has happened? I can't.

Isn't the fact that besides TF2, it's basically never happened, a good reason to assume that DS3 will not do it?

 

[Rachmaninov]

Team Fortress 2 was released as a retail game like any other. It was available for 60 bucks, full priced game.

Incorrect. It was available in a pack of five games, for 60 bucks. If we divide that equally, that's 12 bucks a piece. Maybe, if EA were selling Dead Space 3 for 12 bucks, you'd be right, but you're not.

English second language my ass.
The key word in what I say is "AVAILABLE" for 60 bucks

This isn't an evasion, it's an answer. Might be an answer you didn't like, but it's still an answer.

And I emboldened part of your original post "full priced game". In what universe is a game which comes with 4 other games/episodics/whatever-term-you-find-acceptable-remember-that-conversation considered full priced?

Even if you don't accept my logic of evenly dividing the prices, you can't say $60 for one game and $60 for The Orange Box is equal. So it's not a full priced game. So my point stands, and is not an evasion.

Thank you for that subjective understanding with no scientific basis. It proves nothing. (social recognition vs game progression need)

Actually, this does have scientific basis. I'm just not going to go to enough effort to dig up studies for someone I strongly suspect would just ignore them anyway.

Oh, no sources eh? Evasion.

For one, that's not evasion. I admitted I wasn't going to go to the effort of providing the sources. You're free to believe me or not.

So that's not an evasion AND you were guilty of it just afterwards, yourself, which I called out your hypocrisy on. So get off your high horse.

You found no evasions. Good job.

You know Mass Effect 3 had a different lead writer, right?

Okay, I missed that question, my bad. Let me answer it now.

Yes, a different lead writer. Rest of the team was the same. Meaning little should have changed. Does a new lead writer immediately turn the rest into morons? And only for the last tiny segment of the game?

Even if you look at ME3, it was still brilliant up until the end. Sure, it was different. Sure, the story had a bit of a different feel. But was it shit? No. Was the ending? Yes.

Oh what about this gem you conveniently haven't mentioned:

Before Mass Effect 3's release date was delayed to 2012,

*snip*

So what, Mass Effect 3's release date was pushed back? Three months. And the ending still sucked? Hmmn. Interesting.

So let's see what we have:
1. Different lead writer
2. Delayed release date (extra time)

So Bioware had a deadline, they couldn't hit, the ending was going to suck then they got another 90 days and with that time, the ending still sucks.

And yet the fault is still EAs? Right.

Who says the deadline was extended to work on the ending? What if the deadline was extended to shoehorn in the MT system? You don't know any better than I do, on that subject.

And yes, the game was delayed once, probably because in some way or another it was actually unfinished. And then they used those 90 days to rush what they hadn't yet completed?

We're both guessing here. And I'm the only one blaming both sides. Why is it you're so keen to make sure that despite the fact it could have been EA's fault - and you haven't proven it couldn't - that you're so keen to make sure EA gets none of the blame? Not even a little bit?

you believe that I'm NOT qualified to have any idea of what it's like to work in such an industry, despite the fact that I DO work in such an industry and you don't.

This has nothing to do with you not being qualified, but rather you showing a total lack of understanding of the difficulties of undertaking a project like making a game.

I don't care what your qualifications are; it's clear you still don't understand.

I've already told you: If I'm wrong, and thinking really hard is all you need to come up with a good idea, go invent something incredible and become rich.

You can't, and you know you can't, and that's the third time I've said it without so much as a single response the first two times. You must know it's not that simple, and that is all I've been trying to explain to you, while you got all twisted up with the qualifications nonsense.

Inspiration isn't a case of "thinking really hard", especially for a long project like a game, and since I have made two, that is a subject I know.

Yes and no Retail-priced game has included optional MT at launch has it?

Actually, ME3 did, in the multiplayer.

You claim there's no precedence, but no precedence doesn't prove anything.

No precedence means there's no good reason to believe something will happen. There is no good reason to believe DS3 will go F2P, and plenty of precedence to believe it won't, like the fact that it's only ever happened once before and that was by a different creator, with a different type of game.

The fact is, both TF2 and DS3 were initially AVAILABLE at full retail price.

I agree, if you say "TF2 was available at full retail price, with four free games", otherwise your statement is deliberately misleading.

The fact is, that both games have included micro transactions while still being sold.

True, but also deliberately misleading, since TF2 was only being sold for one year while it had MTs, and that was three years after it came out.

Now, at least we're kind of back on topic with TF2 vs DS3. On topic is good.

 

[Gameguy20100]

What I don't get is why people hate day one Dlc so much think about it its the best place for it how many times have you heard about some dlc for a game though"hu that looks cool I may look into it after I finish these other games Im playing"
And then Leave that spesific game to Rot on your shelve or In your trunk or whereever you keep your games