I've only found micro transactions worthwhile when they add to the experience, rather then make the experience tolerable. I've always been wary of 'always online' requirements when they're not necessary and if I have the option to not use it, then I'll take it. If the option isn't there, then they'll lose a customer (unless the game's really, really good, in which case they'll get a grumpy customer who still doesn't like their shit, but can tolerate it enough for now (which to be honest is a problem in itself)).
Jimquisition: The Trap Of Gamer Gratitude
- Thread starter Jimothy Sterling
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, before anything, I have to give Jim mad props for following up on last weeks episode and mentioning the response he got from Sony. Far too often gamers and video game commentators fall into the trap that the big companies can do no right. Only last week I was told I was a moron for even entertaining the idea that a big companies might have the moral high ground. Not just in that specific instance, but that it was even possible at all. This is not a healthy attitude. It is nice to see someone acknowledge when a company at least appears to be making a good faith effort and not immediately dismiss that out of hand as lies. If we never reward good behavior then companies will never improve and the few good things they do will eventually disappear.
As far as the whole garden warfare thing... whoever wrote that article for kotaku needs to be fired. It is really depressing to see people celebrate the addition of micro transactions.
As far as the whole garden warfare thing... whoever wrote that article for kotaku needs to be fired. It is really depressing to see people celebrate the addition of micro transactions.
1.) For the love of god Jim, the shirt and the tie lock worse than ever. Buy a bigger shirt so you are able to close the collar and learn to tie a tie. Or get a cliptie.
2.) Most customers are stupid, thats it. They get what they deserve.
3.) The game looks like a regular FPS that went through germanys censorship for violent games.
2.) Most customers are stupid, thats it. They get what they deserve.
3.) The game looks like a regular FPS that went through germanys censorship for violent games.
A-fuckin'-MEN, Jim!!! I reallllllllly HATE when they do this and some numbskull starts drooling all over them for "fixing it". They made it so it could (and they knew it WOULD) break down often, but hey, this way they can milk you for money and sell you shit you don't really want to pay for. Looking at you with rage still, Diablo III auction house!!!
Ah...so the final bit was a subtle reference. Kudos, Jim!jdarksun said:
It's just too bad we can't come down on developers for pulling this bullcrap. Hell, sometimes we can't even complain about it without them throwing a hissy fit and claiming copyright violation or some other crap so our comments are removed. *sigh* Apparently, the First Amendment doesn't exist if you are a gamer...
I have very little I disagree with, although did get a bit confused on the topic of creating games with micro-transactions in mind.
I believe that if a title intends to microtrans, especially around core systems, that the game should be free. Delaying the release of that shop and asking for $30 up front is a bit intense. When designing games of a free nature, one must design in a number of ways has to take into consideration at what level a player can choose to pay. I'm usually a loud advocate for free to play games, though I haven't played Garden Warfare, but on these basic ideas alone I feel like they've dropped the ball.
With microtransactions becoming a real, and mostly honest form of getting content, it's sad to say that, in my opinion, consumers need to become more scrutinizing in order for those companies who take advantage to change their tactics. I wish I could believe that Jim's idealization of how a company SHOULD act would be true -- I just don't think the people that run them think in those terms. I've worked at these companies....and what it comes down to is who's doing it best (which is the amount of dollars being generated).
But 'best' can be defined by those people playing. Don't pay for drivel. Pay for an experience -- if there's a free to play out there you think is doing it right, throwing them a few bucks can be the difference between an EA who shoe-horns in shit, and an EA who makes positive experiences with these microtransaction models.
I believe that if a title intends to microtrans, especially around core systems, that the game should be free. Delaying the release of that shop and asking for $30 up front is a bit intense. When designing games of a free nature, one must design in a number of ways has to take into consideration at what level a player can choose to pay. I'm usually a loud advocate for free to play games, though I haven't played Garden Warfare, but on these basic ideas alone I feel like they've dropped the ball.
With microtransactions becoming a real, and mostly honest form of getting content, it's sad to say that, in my opinion, consumers need to become more scrutinizing in order for those companies who take advantage to change their tactics. I wish I could believe that Jim's idealization of how a company SHOULD act would be true -- I just don't think the people that run them think in those terms. I've worked at these companies....and what it comes down to is who's doing it best (which is the amount of dollars being generated).
But 'best' can be defined by those people playing. Don't pay for drivel. Pay for an experience -- if there's a free to play out there you think is doing it right, throwing them a few bucks can be the difference between an EA who shoe-horns in shit, and an EA who makes positive experiences with these microtransaction models.
Here here. The subject does play into the main topic Jim brought up, doesn't it? Sony is incredibly sorry for holding back its content and deserves a polite "thank you" for owning up to that. It doesn't deserve, "Praise be Sony, the wise and merciful, for promising to bring to us, mere consumers, the content we all crave."Uriel_Hayabusa said:
EA rolls out monetization tactics for a game that has a purchase price. Yes, well played, EA. Your profit-reaping skills are quite effective. But no, you should not be lauded to the skies for employing a sales tactic that everyone saw coming a mile off that you are trying to pass off as a means of empowering the player.
The tactic has been used as a plot point in quite a few movies, the first of which coming to mind is "V for Vendetta". Create a problem, make sure it's one that affects a large population, then become the wonderful hero when you introduce the solution to the problem you created. As publishers have demonstrated, people can even know you are the one that made the problem and they'll still be grateful for providing the solution.
It's sad and it's human. People care more about the end result than how to get to it and if it means we get cheated along the way, so be it.
I see Jim's week on YouTube, reviewing Steam Greenlight trailers which feature "walls of shit", has finally had an effect on his professional work too. Brilliant metaphor going on there, Jim.
We reached a point where Publishers just became outright disgusting. Most of the people seem so forget about problems so they can become status quo, if the steps the games industry is going are just small enough to provoce no xbox one reaction.
So what is next, do we have to pay for a patch, or per hour of play time? Thank god for jim and other critics that save from buying games like that
So what is next, do we have to pay for a patch, or per hour of play time? Thank god for jim and other critics that save from buying games like that
Thank God for EA! I mean, for Jim! I mean, my loyalties are split! Who do I trust?
You don't recognise Hagrid from the Chronicles of Narnia?Transdude1996 said:
I'm inclined to agree. If the consumer was smart, we wouldn't be here.canadamus_prime said:
Unless they're just blowing hot air. While it's nice they talked to Jim, they've claimed support or features "coming" before so I'll wait until I actually see this new indie support.lord.jeff said:
I just wondered if I'm tanking God, is Jim healer or DPS?josh4president said:
Jim, you always bring up EA as an example, but have you looked elsewhere? Codemasters could be a good example as an alternative, as they've recently announced GRiD: Autosport as an answer to the not inconsiderable criticism directed at GRiD 2 (good game, but paled in comparison to GRiD 1 and seemed obsessed with roping in a market that didn't exist or wasn't interested). While I appreciate they're trying to make amends to the racing fans who were sorely disappointed in GRiD 2 (something I do appreciate), I'm still watering any optimism with caution as they've not produced something truly brilliant since DiRT 3.
When did you play PvZ2? After they revamped it a while back and removed the bullshit gates system it suddenly became a solid game. It's one of the better tower defense games I've played, and although it is very challenging at points, I never felt like I needed to buy the microtransaction cheats. There's not a ton of padding and all the content except a handful of plants can be played for free - And the microtransaction plants are really only needed if you just really really don't want to adjust your tactics from PvZ1.Lyvric said:
Seriously, they did a lot of cool stuff that resulted in interesting and challenging levels that make it one of my favorite tower defense games I've played recently. If only they had released it in this state instead of the terrible grind-walled mess it was at launch.
I think large publishing houses are doing what they are to pick up pennies. They can't (or aren't able) to pivot the way a new company or small studio can when it comes to free to play titles. So, they split the difference and try and jimmy it in. They wouldn't still be doing it if it weren't profitable at some point.Ichigo said:
I doubt we'll see pay-for-patch, and play-per-hour was actually the 90's and it failed pretty hard...although if the content is rich enough, and the game disposable enough, that model could work. But probably not all that lucrative.
Jim Sterling for Game of Thrones Season 5?
OT: There's a reason I put practically zero credence behind any articles written over at Kotaku. It might be that I'm casting my net a bit too wide by blanketing the entire website, but honestly, it's been a long time since I saw them put up any pieces that were actually worth reading. If someone were to ask me what is the poster-boy for "schlock tabloid gaming website", I'd point to Kotaku without a second's thought.
As for the issue brought up by the episode itself, like most in gaming entertainment the answer lies somewhere in the middle, I feel. Unwarranted gratitude for publishers who fix problems they've created is bad, but unending rage because of things they've long since fixed isn't much better.
OT: There's a reason I put practically zero credence behind any articles written over at Kotaku. It might be that I'm casting my net a bit too wide by blanketing the entire website, but honestly, it's been a long time since I saw them put up any pieces that were actually worth reading. If someone were to ask me what is the poster-boy for "schlock tabloid gaming website", I'd point to Kotaku without a second's thought.
As for the issue brought up by the episode itself, like most in gaming entertainment the answer lies somewhere in the middle, I feel. Unwarranted gratitude for publishers who fix problems they've created is bad, but unending rage because of things they've long since fixed isn't much better.
Well, you pretty much said everything I would have said there and more Jim.
So I have nothing to add except "Thank god for you."
So I have nothing to add except "Thank god for you."