Look what was in the NY Times today - Page 5

Shurikane · 01-26-2008, 08:22 PM

To loosen the atmosphere, a gold nugget I found on Rooster Teeth:

Jason -- "I didn't play any of the previous Battlefield games, so I went to the Battlefield Heroes website to try to get the scoop. I was instructed to purchase the March issue of Games for Windows magazine for more info. I'm already not enjoying my "free" game experience."

**skullhedman** · 01-27-2008, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tarenth

Mechassault 2 actually did something like that with its Conquest mode. Digging a little I pulled this from teamxbox.

Suffice to say I believe it failed.

The concept sounds cool. Did it fail because of the conquest system? Or did it fail because of the game mechanics?

Zoraster · 01-27-2008, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSUNABULA

As a games developer for an up-coming MMOG I have inside experience with the issues you're concerned with. I can categorically say that:

BFH will not allow you to purchase upgrades with respect to performance

It is morally ambiguous and in some countries illegal. The "microtransactions" are in regards to aesthetics that will not impact gameplay (unless you purchase a glowing-neon pink helmet that can be seen from miles around - in which case be prepared to be head-shot a lot)

Why would it be either morally bad or illegal? You get the game for FREE. They want to make money off of it though, of course, so they can let you get certain advantages for paying them. I see nothing wrong with that. I think it'd be unwise for them to let people who pay extreme amounts of money to be unstoppable because then people would be turned off the game, but I see nothing wrong with allowing them to allow upgrades with regards to performance.

Lots of games already do this. Take one game: www.albatross18.com. It's a golf game where you can essentially purchase more control, power, accuracy etc. There's nothing wrong with that. People of all types benefit. I'd rather have a game where I can try the full extent of the game for free and then pay if i want to be really competitive than the traditional demo model that doesn't show a whole lot, personally.

All that said, perhaps I simply misunderstood you?

**Photometric** · 01-27-2008, 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaBrit

Yeah, I don't like the sound of it at all, especially this:
“The existing Battlefield games are fairly deep; you have to be pretty good or you’ll die pretty quick,” Mr. Florin said Friday in a telephone interview from Geneva. “Now we’ve toned down the difficulty, shortened each game session to 10 or 15 minutes and made the visual style more cartoony.”

It sounds like all it'll really have in common with the current BF games is the name before the colon.

[sarcasm] Oh I don't know....I was looking forward to the day when all people...noobs and l337 can come together and say with one collective word.....BORING [/sarcasm]

**INSUNABULA** · 01-27-2008, 12:04 PM

When creating a game like this and especially with a particular demographic in mind there are certain economic philosophies that need to be taken into account.

If you want a game to be viable in the long-term then you don't want to discourage the core player-base by offering advantages to those who happen to have a little more coin than others. Allowing this would create a 2-tier system that would sour the gameplay for others as it endorses discrimination.

The whole premis behind this recent shift by EA is to induct new players to the fold much like TG does: with a carrot not the stick. People will play because it's free and the only way they will enjoy the experience and stay is if they are able to advance at the same rate everyone else does. Nobody likes to see a noob walk in, purchase all the great hardware and own everyone around - people will just leave with a sour taste in their mouth and the whole experiment being conduted by EA will be killed.

Saying all this, it may turn out that EA prefers to make their money quick and then pull out and move onto the next game but that tactic will only tarnish their name and make it harder to do the second time round as people will know what to expect.

There is enough money to be made with in-game advertising and 'aesthetic' purchases and to keep the fans loving EA and keep them playing longer they will keep performance upgrades attainable only by playing the game itself. The longer people play, the more likely to purchase even more aesthetics and of course the more people online, the more companies will be lining up to advertise in the game to reach that audience.

Repaq · 01-27-2008, 01:24 PM

Skullheadman check out www.wwiionline.com for your MMO FPS. It's a pretty good game but also a steep learning curve.

**skullhedman** · 01-27-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repaq

Skullheadman check out www.wwiionline.com for your MMO FPS. It's a pretty good game but also a steep learning curve.

It sounds cool. I'm just not ready to give up on BF2142.

Zoraster · 01-27-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by INSUNABULA

When creating a game like this and especially with a particular demographic in mind there are certain economic philosophies that need to be taken into account.

If you want a game to be viable in the long-term then you don't want to discourage the core player-base by offering advantages to those who happen to have a little more coin than others. Allowing this would create a 2-tier system that would sour the gameplay for others as it endorses discrimination.

The whole premis behind this recent shift by EA is to induct new players to the fold much like TG does: with a carrot not the stick. People will play because it's free and the only way they will enjoy the experience and stay is if they are able to advance at the same rate everyone else does. Nobody likes to see a noob walk in, purchase all the great hardware and own everyone around - people will just leave with a sour taste in their mouth and the whole experiment being conduted by EA will be killed.

Saying all this, it may turn out that EA prefers to make their money quick and then pull out and move onto the next game but that tactic will only tarnish their name and make it harder to do the second time round as people will know what to expect.

There is enough money to be made with in-game advertising and 'aesthetic' purchases and to keep the fans loving EA and keep them playing longer they will keep performance upgrades attainable only by playing the game itself. The longer people play, the more likely to purchase even more aesthetics and of course the more people online, the more companies will be lining up to advertise in the game to reach that audience.

This may be true, but that's a very different argument than it's morally ambiguous and possibly illegal.

I think that EA will want to create to some level a 2-tiered system. They don't want the game to be unplayable by those who haven't purchased anything, but I think they'll want to give a distinct advantage to those who have. Even 2142 does this to a small degree: the boots, IDS and extra rockets are very valuable add-ons that you can only get through purchasing NS or field upgrades.

I'd be unsurprised if EA starts with only minor performance additions to begin with and then as the game goes along they introduce more and more purchasable upgrades. That way, it'll keep costing new people the same amount of money to join the paying ranks but older gamers who want to keep up with the curve will have to shell out twice as much money.

I agree with you that EA doesn't want it to be too out of whack, but I disagree that they'll want to make the things you can buy purely cosmetic. Despite trying to attract a more casual crowd, I don't think they're trying to create Battlefield: Second Life.

nuckj · 01-27-2008, 04:50 PM

Why not just go ahead and pre order BF3? LOL.

http://www.game.co.uk/PC/Action/~r333421/Battlefield-3/

Adeimos · 01-30-2008, 09:19 PM

Main reason I'm not getting this game: I don't need any more prepubescent punks yelling "OMG I JUST PWND DIS DOOD LOLOL!" into my ears.

01-26-2008, 08:22 PM	#61 (permalink)
Shurikane Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 275	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today To loosen the atmosphere, a gold nugget I found on Rooster Teeth: Jason -- "I didn't play any of the previous Battlefield games, so I went to the Battlefield Heroes website to try to get the scoop. I was instructed to purchase the March issue of Games for Windows magazine for more info. I'm already not enjoying my "free" game experience." __________________ GOD IS DEAD. THE N00BS TEAMKILLED HIM.

01-27-2008, 12:04 PM	#65 (permalink)
INSUNABULA Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto Age: 30 Posts: 1,565	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today When creating a game like this and especially with a particular demographic in mind there are certain economic philosophies that need to be taken into account. If you want a game to be viable in the long-term then you don't want to discourage the core player-base by offering advantages to those who happen to have a little more coin than others. Allowing this would create a 2-tier system that would sour the gameplay for others as it endorses discrimination. The whole premis behind this recent shift by EA is to induct new players to the fold much like TG does: with a carrot not the stick. People will play because it's free and the only way they will enjoy the experience and stay is if they are able to advance at the same rate everyone else does. Nobody likes to see a noob walk in, purchase all the great hardware and own everyone around - people will just leave with a sour taste in their mouth and the whole experiment being conduted by EA will be killed. Saying all this, it may turn out that EA prefers to make their money quick and then pull out and move onto the next game but that tactic will only tarnish their name and make it harder to do the second time round as people will know what to expect. There is enough money to be made with in-game advertising and 'aesthetic' purchases and to keep the fans loving EA and keep them playing longer they will keep performance upgrades attainable only by playing the game itself. The longer people play, the more likely to purchase even more aesthetics and of course the more people online, the more companies will be lining up to advertise in the game to reach that audience. __________________ * INSERT RIBBONS HERE *

01-27-2008, 01:24 PM	#66 (permalink)
Repaq Join Date: May 2007 Location: Easton, Pa Age: 35 Posts: 173	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Skullheadman check out www.wwiionline.com for your MMO FPS. It's a pretty good game but also a steep learning curve. __________________ New to TG? Start here - 21st TCIU Tactical Wiki

01-27-2008, 04:50 PM	#69 (permalink)
nuckj Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Charlotte, NC Age: 30 Posts: 426	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Why not just go ahead and pre order BF3? LOL. http://www.game.co.uk/PC/Action/~r333421/Battlefield-3/ __________________ 9th MID \| 2142 Profile \| New to TG?

01-30-2008, 09:19 PM	#70 (permalink)
Adeimos Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Canada, eh? Age: 16 Posts: 31	Re: Look what was in the NY Times today Main reason I'm not getting this game: I don't need any more prepubescent punks yelling "OMG I JUST PWND DIS DOOD LOLOL!" into my ears.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links