[NSFW/Language] Nerd³'s Poop Games of 2013 Awards - Microtransactions.

Hey,
Yes, the total amount of work the modder put in his mod is far less than the work the devs produced, but it's still work that should be remunerated if the person want it. Getting a % of it is unfair.
However, putting a small fixed (or proportionnal to the size on the product in our case, bandwith is not free) "put in production" fee could be acceptable, as the dev would provide the storage, payment method and distribution of the product.
It's not incompatible

And i agree, everybody would profit from the deal you are mentioning.
But again, everything depend on the price.
I refuse to pay let's say $5 a unit skin or a UI mod when i payed a full game $50. I just find this completely incoherent.
To an extend, i would prefer to send $5 to the devs via paypal (like that, boom, with nothing in return) than to buy an overpriced item/skin/whatever from a store.

in LOL the only thing that you need to pay is skins... champs too, but this is a option...

yep they will made balance, I think that the changes will be on chassis to chassis...

wrong, you would know if you had played it.

An extremely well camouflaged pay-to-win is still a pay-to-win in my books.

the fact that a lot of players have to be lied to to achieve it does not change that.
People who defend the game as scarless and immaculate will not want to hear it but they effectively do use real money to buy champions (even if once in every blue moon, or if "that one time doesn't count because.." or "not all the time pay-to-win") and champions are indeed buffed to force onto the players the obvious truth that they are indeed stronger than the rest of the champions already in the game when they come out, then patched down to even it out (quickly, so as to not leave enough time for the game-earned currency and...) to allow the next champ to step in.

Its so subtle that it's a very long phrase that's needed to explain in what way exactly LoL is pay-to-win to a person that's never heard of LoL (or, for that matter pay-to-win). Such a person would take a very long time of playing it to notice it. Or would instead fall in and start consuming like the rest, without seeing the real reason he first put real money into it. After the first dollar, it's over, you won't have any scruple or doubts paying them anymore.

The obvious reason why it's toned down so much and very tricky to notice is that I would hurt the LoL name alot as the people that have strong moral beliefs would turn away from it.

but I Urge the LoL players (that play more than just casually) to dig up the total money they've paid to Riot. You may be really shocked at the total amount.

And in the pro players... sheesh, not a single one hasn't paid tons to Riot.

And then these fools go complain that PA is "90 bucks". with that it wouldn't be surprising that Uber be jelly of LoL's paying system (one could even theorize that if they had the choice they would've but were forced into the extreme opposite because severely lacking initial investment for the project at hand).

@Neumeusis:
What a "good" price is in the end will be decided by what people are willing to pay.

It's the market rules :-D

Of course you can compare indie games to other games. If an indie developer makes or try to make similar games as larger studios then you can compare the products quite objectively.
But I agree with the sentiment. As a small game developer you cant set out a goal to make a title to compete with GTA V because there is simply too much work that needs to done.
A small developer have to develop a game with their own limitations in mind and quite often they can be much more inventive and creative as bigger companies doesn't dare to risk to develop a game that might not sell.
About the customers stance I'm not sure. Does it matter if one lone indie developer makes Angry Birds or if a big company makes it?
In many cases, a small game developer can be closer to the audience and like in PAs case listen to the fans and develop a game for their taste which is where smaller game developers might shine.

This is not all there is to microtransactions. You are basically bringing up the worst cases.

This is why I don't like subscription based games as well. I don't wanna be locked up playing a single game or feel like I'm wasting money if I don't play.

It's kinda funny how reluctant people are to pay for the time spent on a game yet we do it all the time with other stuff. We pay for the time when we go to the movies, when we visit an internet café. I bought a new computer for Supreme Commander and if I averaged all the play time divided with the cost of the computer I'd probably still average above 0.4$ per hour.
Of course its' sort of unfair if we are to be charged per hour we play the game when we pay for the computer and internet connection ourselves but on the other hand there will be server costs and support costs to keep the game up and running. This have to be funded somehow and if there is no stream of revenue, the servers might eventually be shut down by the company.
Many games keep servers running even after the main servers have been shut off provided by private individuals or funded by donations.
"Pay 2 Pretty" doesn't sounds that bad in order to keep the servers up and running and maybe even support further development of the game. That is basically how Team Fortress 2 does it.

Nerd 3 is absolutely right. There are no exceptions, and even if there where, **** them, microtransactions are made to ruin gameplay.

I'd say that the collectable card game Magic is as egregious as Pay 2 Win and can be likened to any bad video game microtransaction scheme.
I don't think that bad micro-transactions are anything new to just to video games.
I don't think there is much difference between paying several dollars for a small piece of paper or access to the use of an ingame weapon on a server.
Penny Arcade did 2 episodes on the subject:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/collectable-games-part-1
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/collectable-games-part-2
Someone mentioned that Extra Credits sold out. This video actually makes me think so as they argue that reselling the same item to the same customer is a good thing.
I think that purchasing ingame goods should be done in a vein of supporting the game and the developer or a way to express yourself ingame.
I think that there is room for expressing yourself in the Commander but not in units as any graphical change to the units make the game readability worse if units can have different skins for example.

I looking forward to see what Uber have in store for their mod distribution platform.
Uploading user content and selling it as described by ColaColin sounds interesting if implemented well.

he's only reffering to the mod market, for some dark reason he's not differentiating the two though.

I think it's very important to highlight that paying money for a mod is very different from paying money to win matches.

The problem with Free-to-play I see is the tendency to make a game less fun.
By using the model of "pay to speed up XP", I find that it turns the games you play into a grind.

So in my opinion:
- "pay to bling" = good
- "pay to speed up XP" = bad
- "pay to win" = terrible


Thus far, we know that PA is not a free-to-play model (yet?).
We do have "pay to bling" in a sense from the high tier custom commanders, as well as the higher tier alpha and beta commanders. For the sake of game integrity, I hope we don't see anymore.


Mods on the other hand are a whole different story.
Uber is allowing modding. Yay!
Uber is supporting modding. Double yay!!!

From what's been described on the livestream, it sounds like Uber wants to adopt a model similar to the Steam Workshop.
For those that don't know, this is where modders submit mods so central store to be sold back to other players.
I'm hoping these will be more in the form of total conversions (TA anyone? ), and new game modes or like a single player (multiplayer? ) campaign.
I feel that selling "hats" or all-player-visible bling can hurt the integrity of the core game, it will definitely be confusing.

Valve apparently makes a lot from their Workshop.
Uber's already mentioned they want to keep pushing developing this game post release.
If they keep buffing the engine and and adding content, perhaps this game can sustain Uber working on it for a long time to come. That's win-win for everybody.

Random raging at gamecontent trough microtransactions

-edit because rage

People who rant at microtransactions in games, why not rant at weapons in games?

Both are a tool. Both can benefit the developer. Both can benefit the community.

It all depends on how they're implemented. Whining about a bad F2P model is just like whining about a bad FPS game. It doesn't make the model itself bad.

I can simplify.

pay to own game=good

pay to anything else in game, or play game=bad


Seriously if you think not only real life bling is noteworthy, but also extend this belief to fictional, virtual bling, you seriously need to review your standards. You might even be in need of some friends and some therapy.


Let alone if you think it's noteworthy you win games with your cash.

In that case, seriously, go F*** yourself. You're ruining gaming worldwide for everyone.

You are being terribly rude to people on this forum. Please remember that people with opinions other than your own are not always wrong, and they almost never deserve this sort of personal attack.

By the way, personal attacks are very much against the forum rules, as stated here;
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/forum-rules-and-guidelines.444/

Always remember - If you feel the need to be an ******* on the internet, you're probably the one that is wrong.

Why wouldn't bling extend to an online world? After all, in many cases we don't judge clothing on their quality or utility but simply by their brand.

"we" do?

I'm sorry but, personally I don't. I don't go buy gucchi or prada or lacoste. because I know that in anycase they're being made by the same starving children halfway around the world as the generic brand. Actually most times, buying local or fair trade avoids this. but then again it dis-serves those kids.

So here you have an example of a person that does not judge clothes by their "bling".

I don't mind judging the people who wear them, though.

Well I don't really judge clothes by their "bling" as well.

But it is a common practice IRL. I can see that you want to stop the transition into videogames but its gonna be hard fought where you are gonna have to judge a lot of people.

hehe yeah, I don't think i'll win alone.

yes, exactly, thank you.

What if you pay for something ingame that doesn't help you win the game?

That breaks your entire, retarded post.

It's not for us to judge how others spend their money. If they've gone out and earned it, let them do with it as they wish.

If you find a particular game goes against your principles, don't play it.