Op Ed

Graham Jans' Blog - Microtransactions Under the Microscope. Thanks Mike Martinez.
As mentioned above, the value of real-money purchases is largely defined by the player's perspective within the game world. But additionally, the real-world value of items affects their perception within the game. The obvious case of this is that selling a top hat item for $1,000 will provide a kind of instant prestige for any player owning that item, even if it has no intrinsic value or significant aesthetic value. It's valuable because it's expensive.

There is a more subtle case with content that can be accessed both through real money and in-game effort. Take, for example earning a new Champion in League of Legends. On one hand, the paying player can say, "Woo, I payed $5 and saved myself 5 days of effort!" But the non-paying player can also say, "Woo, I earned this myself, and saved $5!" It actually gives an extrinsic value to the time the player is spending in the game.

View : : :
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
17.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 6, 2011, 11:05
17.
Re: Op Ed Sep 6, 2011, 11:05
Sep 6, 2011, 11:05
 
I know this topic is now age old but i just want to say

Thanks Bhruic, its true i never looked at it that way and you make a very good point.. that actually changed my opinion on this...
Avatar 54727
16.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 6, 2011, 10:06
Beamer
 
16.
Re: Op Ed Sep 6, 2011, 10:06
Sep 6, 2011, 10:06
 Beamer
 
You're seriously going to play GoW3 for 100 hours..?

I think I put 30 into the beta.
That game is startlingly deep multiplayer.
15.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 6, 2011, 00:39
15.
Re: Op Ed Sep 6, 2011, 00:39
Sep 6, 2011, 00:39
 
Especially now. I mean, hell, it's been a slow year but November will give us Skyrim, Saints Row 3 and Gears fo War 3. Those 3 games alone will give me 100 hours each and keep me occupied until February or March...

You're seriously going to play GoW3 for 100 hours..?

Will anyone here say that Diablo wasn't fun?
Anyone? I didn't think so.

I will. But then, I don't like the hack 'n slash genre at all.
Avatar 20715
14.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 4, 2011, 13:19
14.
Re: Op Ed Sep 4, 2011, 13:19
Sep 4, 2011, 13:19
 

Games are new being designed from the ground up so that they can charge folks to experience the game.

That is a huge problem if the trend lasts. huge.



13.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 4, 2011, 07:27
13.
Re: Op Ed Sep 4, 2011, 07:27
Sep 4, 2011, 07:27
 

Or you could play a game thats 100% fun.. theres plenty enough games like that, for each genre.

There really isn't. There are very few games where you enjoy every aspect of the game equally. There are very few games where you can't think of something they could have changed to make the game more enjoyable.

The sort of argument you are making is generally made by people who have more time than money. For whatever reason, they don't seem to recognize that quite a few people have more money than time. If, for example, someone likes, say, BF:BC2, and wants to have access to all the items in the game, they could spend long hours playing the game until they leveled up and unlocked everything. But if they don't have long hours to put into the game, and they have plenty of money, why not spend a paltry amount and skip to the end? Playing the game is fun, having to unlock the weapons isn't.

Personally, I'd probably never do that, but for me, my time is less valuable than my money, because I have more spare time than money. Or, at least, the spare money I have is allocated for other things. But lots of other people approach things differently. As long as you aren't ruining the game by allowing people to buy things, I can't see any reason not to let people.
12.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 4, 2011, 01:13
Beamer
 
12.
Re: Op Ed Sep 4, 2011, 01:13
Sep 4, 2011, 01:13
 Beamer
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 3, 2011, 23:49:
You have a point, but that does not change the fact that people paying money of game items when the game itself is not fun to them are bonkers.

No, playing any game you don't find fun is definitely bonkers. It's why so many games get about 30 minutes from me then never touched again - if they're not fun in that first 30 minutes I have to be very convinced they'll change otherwise I'm not going back (I've stuck with games where I enjoy the mechanics but not the content, but rarely the other way around.)

Especially now. I mean, hell, it's been a slow year but November will give us Skyrim, Saints Row 3 and Gears fo War 3. Those 3 games alone will give me 100 hours each and keep me occupied until February or March... Or maybe not, Deus Ex seemed to last me a week. An extremely compulsive week, but only about a week - I've tried a second playthrough but my first was such an even mix of guns and stealth that any adaptation in play style feels repetitive.
11.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 23:49
11.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 23:49
Sep 3, 2011, 23:49
 
You have a point, but that does not change the fact that people paying money of game items when the game itself is not fun to them are bonkers.

Its like letting yourself be tortured and when you say "i enjoyed that, let me pay you for that" at the end you get a candy.

Ok, maybe a bad analogy ;p
Avatar 54727
10.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 21:36
Beamer
 
10.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 21:36
Sep 3, 2011, 21:36
 Beamer
 
Or you could play a game thats 100% fun.. theres plenty enough games like that, for each genre.

Will anyone here say that Diablo wasn't fun?
Anyone? I didn't think so.
Did anyone here cheat in Diablo to get the Plate of Whales? Be honest? Or anything similar?
I see a whole lot of hands up.

How is paying money for the plate of whales any different than downloading a "trainer" to give it to yourself?
In truth, I never took the Plate of Whales, but I did take lesser items. I also would have hated playing online knowing people cheated for their stuff, so I'll avoid games where people can pay instead of cheat, but I don't see a huge difference.
9.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 21:29
9.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 21:29
Sep 3, 2011, 21:29
 
I once believed in a concept called expansion packs and mods.

Now, it's all bastardized DLC and micro-transactions and modding is a second thought or completely swept off the table.

That's the real shame of modern PC gaming. Everything is getting locked down and we're being charged for what used to be provided for free through either our own efforts or other modders.
Avatar 50040
8.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 20:13
8.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 20:13
Sep 3, 2011, 20:13
 
Or you could play a game thats 100% fun.. theres plenty enough games like that, for each genre.

You make it sound as playing games is a life or dead decision, if it ain't fun theres no reason to pay money to it. If its only partially fun then stop playing (and paying!) and look for something better.

This comment was edited on Sep 3, 2011, 21:04.
Avatar 54727
7.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 17:12
7.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 17:12
Sep 3, 2011, 17:12
 
"prestige" of paying $1k for a tophat?

If I know gamers, they would mercilessly mock you for buying something for that much money.
6.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 16:51
6.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 16:51
Sep 3, 2011, 16:51
 
It's valuable because it's expensive.

Ah yes, the old DeBeers principle... Sad how many people still believe this.

Creston
Avatar 15604
5.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 16:43
5.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 16:43
Sep 3, 2011, 16:43
 
You're taking a much too black-and-white viewpoint on things. Most games have a variety of activities in them. Various people like some of the activities more than others. So if you can spend money to avoid doing the things that you find "tedious" so that you can spend more of your gaming time doing the things you find "fun", that makes perfect sense.
4.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 15:49
Quboid
 
4.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 15:49
Sep 3, 2011, 15:49
 Quboid
 
eRe4s3r wrote on Sep 3, 2011, 14:18:
If you see the time you spend in a game as "meh, i really do not want play this so i'd rather pay"

Then that is totally absurd. Why are you playing if it ain't fun?

Indeed:
"Woo, I payed [sic] $5 and saved myself 5 days of effort!"

Seriously? Why would you pay for a game and then pay to not play it?
Avatar 10439
3.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 15:37
3.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 15:37
Sep 3, 2011, 15:37
 
but its so MEANINGFUL!
2.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 14:57
2.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 14:57
Sep 3, 2011, 14:57
 
Agreed. It seems it's not about the game with this business model, it's people wanting to collect stuff.
Avatar 56136
1.
 
Re: Op Ed
Sep 3, 2011, 14:18
1.
Re: Op Ed Sep 3, 2011, 14:18
Sep 3, 2011, 14:18
 
If you see the time you spend in a game as "meh, i really do not want play this so i'd rather pay"

Then that is totally absurd. Why are you playing if it ain't fun?
Avatar 54727
17 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older