So SimCity. Who's getting it

[Conure]

Have you played Diablo3? Because I'm not sure what you are talking about here.

 

The only "microtransactions" that I am aware of (though it was a while since I played it), is the real-money marketplace they implemented. This is NOT a microtransaction in the sense of paying Blizzard to spawn kit for you. This is a player-to-player marketplace!

 

If you find good loot and don't want it yourself, you can do one of two things:

 

1) Sell it on the marketplace. This auctions the item for in-game money.

2) Sell it on the real-money-marketplace. This auctions the item for real money.

 

AFAIK, Blizzard takes a share on the RMT transactions, can't remember the percentage.

Fishy? Well, consider this: these trades would happen anyway. "Illegal" trade of items is rampant in almost all online games, and people are getting scammed left-right-and-center. Blizzard implemented this because it gives a "legit" alternative where THEY control that the item really exists and that the buyer really does pay for it. And with there being a legit marketplace, it kicks the feet from the scammers that hitherto have profited greatly from the black markets that existed in Diablo 2 and almost any other similar game.

 

I don't think this is what EA mean when they're talking about microtransactions, so it is sort of off-topic, but I thought it needs clarification since you seem to be having the wrong idea about what the "microtransactions" are in Diablo 3.

 

I know exactly what the microtransactions are - they are are an attempt by Blizzard to make money out of otherwise valueless transactions (which is fine...?) - but I do believe it is sneaky when the game also comes with a significant upfront cost. I would define microtransactions in modern games as "paying for the privilege of something which has no production cost to the producer" - Good for the shareholders, bad for us. I suppose the microtransactions could be justified on the basis they contribute towards server upkeep, and honestly, if microtransactions went completely to them + wage paying I would consider it fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion it probably just lines shareholder pockets.

 

Which is the whole issue in my mind, gaming is moving from being an art form, to "how much money can we make for our shareholders, whilst minimising out input and costs" - I believe that this model is out of sync with consumer requirements.

 

Still, games are businesses and I understand they have to make money.

 

you have been very selective in your response, does this mean you agree with the rest of my post? If it helps validate my argument somewhat, I believe ED have a fantastic model. More expensive than Diablo 3? absolutely. But the content is worth the price of admissions (many times over!).

Edited March 11, 2013 by Conure

[EtherealN]

"paying for the privilege of something which has no production cost to the producer"

 

You just included the entire computer game in that. Doesn't cost all that much to deliver your game over the internet. Boom - should be free?

 

How about physical copies? Average cost of production and handling is about $4. Why do you accept the game costing more? That's the cost to the producer!

 

Basically, you are confusing concepts all over the place. "Microtransactions" are a designated revenue stream, they are "how the game makes money" in the F2P model. However, the Diablo 3 RMT auction house is NOT that. Yes, it makes revenue. How exactly do you know they make a profit though? You need to realize that in order to make that happen, Blizzard had to become a legally sanctioned banker*! (This will costs millions and millions of dollars in legal and administrative bull before you even know you can go ahead and develop your stuff.) They have costs for processing these payments, most likely through outsourcing it to an actual bank to handle it. And said bank does... what? They take a percentage.

 

There is a HUGE difference between the Farmville model of giving something for free and specifically designing the game around making you pay to get anywhere in it, and what Blizzard did here: they took a peripheral part of the game that has however bred a huge black market that is filled with scamming of customers, and ensured that there is a secure alternative. Not the same thing, at all, and if you think it is you only show that you don't understand what these things actually do nor how the market itself actually works either.

 

- Good for the shareholders, bad for us.

 

Show me EXACTLY how I, as a Diablo 3 player, suffers from the RMT? What exactly do I lose? Nothing. What do I gain? The security that if I do decide to purchase in-game stuff for real money (remember: this happened before, on the scale where big companies were based on it - the company that made Civony/Evony started as such a house and made millions - but the user never had security because it was illegal).

 

That was blizzard understandinf that "this will happen whatever we do, we can either keep tonnes of people on staff trying to hunt it down, and legal expenses trying to catch people in other countries through lawsuits that will go nowhere, or we can eliminate the scams through creating an obvious and controlled alternative".

 

I suppose the microtransactions could be justified on the basis they contribute towards server upkeep, and honestly, if microtransactions went completely to them + wage paying I would consider it fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion it probably just lines shareholder pockets.

 

Underlying sentiment: making profit is evil?

 

Why should they create this thing, costing a lot of money? Out of the good of their hearts? Well, again, as I told you: go back to your "free" games and see which were good. And this time, please don't just select a long string of mods that relied on someone else doing for-profit work first.

 

Which is the whole issue in my mind, gaming is moving from being an art form, to "how much money can we make for our shareholders, whilst minimising out input and costs" - I believe that this model is out of sync with consumer requirements.

 

Welcome to business.

 

Looking at creating maximum value at minimum cost is what makes businesses successful. Your argument assumes that people magically lose pride in their work the moment they become anything but a grunt. As an example, in a recent interview with Dustin Browder at Blizzard, he stated that the original WoL he felt he was "done" at a point where Morhaime, the CEO of Blizzard, said "no, you're not, give it 3 months more of polish please".

 

you have been very selective in your response, does this mean you agree with the rest of my post? If it helps validate my argument somewhat, I believe ED have a fantastic model. More expensive than Diablo 3? absolutely. But the content is worth the price of admissions (many times over!).

 

I could say exactly the same about you. ;)

 

No, it means absolutely nothing of the sort. Only means that I have limited time to spend on this, especially since I consider some of the points I've made here to be extremely basic within the subject (but maybe that's because it's more than 10 years since I got involved in computer games professionally as a game reviewer for PC Gamer), and I selected some points where I would respond.

 

*Not sure if "banker" is the right word in english. "Company that processes monetary transactions for services."

Edited March 11, 2013 by EtherealN

[Conure]

You just included the entire computer game in that. Doesn't cost all that much to deliver your game over the internet. Boom - should be free?

 

How about physical copies? Average cost of production and handling is about $4. Why do you accept the game costing more? That's the cost to the producer!

 

Basically, you are confusing concepts all over the place. "Microtransactions" are a designated revenue stream, they are "how the game makes money" in the F2P model. However, the Diablo 3 RMT auction house is NOT that. Yes, it makes revenue. How exactly do you know they make a profit though? You need to realize that in order to make that happen, Blizzard had to become a legally sanctioned banker*! (This will costs millions and millions of dollars in legal and administrative bull before you even know you can go ahead and develop your stuff.) They have costs for processing these payments, most likely through outsourcing it to an actual bank to handle it. And said bank does... what? They take a percentage.

 

There is a HUGE difference between the Farmville model of giving something for free and specifically designing the game around making you pay to get anywhere in it, and what Blizzard did here: they took a peripheral part of the game that has however bred a huge black market that is filled with scamming of customers, and ensured that there is a secure alternative. Not the same thing, at all, and if you think it is you only show that you don't understand what these things actually do nor how the market itself actually works either.

 

 

 

Show me EXACTLY how I, as a Diablo 3 player, suffers from the RMT? What exactly do I lose? Nothing. What do I gain? The security that if I do decide to purchase in-game stuff for real money (remember: this happened before, on the scale where big companies were based on it - the company that made Civony/Evony started as such a house and made millions - but the user never had security because it was illegal).

 

That was blizzard understandinf that "this will happen whatever we do, we can either keep tonnes of people on staff trying to hunt it down, and legal expenses trying to catch people in other countries through lawsuits that will go nowhere, or we can eliminate the scams through creating an obvious and controlled alternative".

 

 

 

Underlying sentiment: making profit is evil?

 

Why should they create this thing, costing a lot of money? Out of the good of their hearts? Well, again, as I told you: go back to your "free" games and see which were good. And this time, please don't just select a long string of mods that relied on someone else doing for-profit work first.

 

 

 

Welcome to business.

 

Looking at creating maximum value at minimum cost is what makes businesses successful. Your argument assumes that people magically lose pride in their work the moment they become anything but a grunt. As an example, in a recent interview with Dustin Browder at Blizzard, he stated that the original WoL he felt he was "done" at a point where Morhaime, the CEO of Blizzard, said "no, you're not, give it 3 months more of polish please".

 

 

 

I could say exactly the same about you. ;)

 

No, it means absolutely nothing of the sort. Only means that I have limited time to spend on this, especially since I consider some of the points I've made here to be extremely basic within the subject (but maybe that's because it's more than 10 years since I got involved in computer games professionally as a game reviewer for PC Gamer), and I selected some points where I would respond.

 

*Not sure if "banker" is the right word in english. "Company that processes monetary transactions for services."

 

 

Sorry - I meant my other post, regarding Ubuntu, security etc. I was interesting in your reasoning for believing Linux is only more secure as a result of obscurity - Does your knowledge of software come from your time at PC Gamer, or do you have formal security/cryptographc training? The reason I ask is because I work with Ubuntu a lot (and a great deal of my internship over the last 6 months involved intense penetration testing (lol)). I don't believe you've got your facts straight when it comes security - separate debate? Perhaps, but I know you like to get things right so thought it best to correct the misconception. (No offence meant, I have many misconceptions).

Edited March 11, 2013 by Conure

[EtherealN]

Rgr, well, that's the time-thing. :)

 

Anyways, we are derailing from the subject I think.

[Conure]

Rgr, well, that's the time-thing. :)

 

Anyways, we are derailing from the subject I think.

 

Agreed - I sort of wish I hadn't spent so long arguing against SimCity now - It would be laughable for me to buy it now...

[cichlidfan]

Agreed - I sort of wish I hadn't spent so long arguing against SimCity now - It would be laughable for me to buy it now...

 

I promise not to laugh! :)

[Conure]

In all seriousness, does it have an edge over Anno 2070 for complexity/city building? Or is it completely different?

[Wolf Rider]

 

I would define microtransactions in modern games as "paying for the privilege of something which has no production cost to the producer" - Good for the shareholders, bad for us. I suppose the microtransactions could be justified on the basis they contribute towards server upkeep, and honestly, if microtransactions went completely to them + wage paying I would consider it fine, but I have a sneaking suspicion it probably just lines shareholder pockets.

 

Which is the whole issue in my mind, gaming is moving from being an art form, to "how much money can we make for our shareholders, whilst minimising out input and costs" - I believe that this model is out of sync with consumer requirements.

 

 

 

Microtransactions, are just that... small transactions

 

Gee whizz, there are those big bad shareholders again. Have you ever stopped to think that shareholders are investors, suppliers of the oft banged on about financial resources? (Kickstart is a similar system but with differences - there is no onus to supply an ongoing return) The laws in most countries require the company to achieve maximum returns on the investment for the shareholder.

 

I wonder why they don't including such in the: "Hating the shareholder 101" course..

[Fabri91]

Got it today! Someone's up for creating a DCS region?

[Conure]

Microtransactions, are just that... small transactions

 

Gee whizz, there are those big bad shareholders again. Have you ever stopped to think that shareholders are investors, suppliers of the oft banged on about financial resources? (Kickstart is a similar system but with differences - there is no onus to supply an ongoing return) The laws in most countries require the company to achieve maximum returns on the investment for the shareholder.

 

I wonder why they don't including such in the: "Hating the shareholder 101" course..

 

I understand the economics behind shareholders entirely. I also understand that service to shareholders can result in sacrifice to the customer.

 

Balancing service to stakeholders/shareholders/government/customers is an important attribute to any business, but in some scenarios the balance is tipped too heavily in the favour of the shareholder which offers short term capital investment. This can lead to a loss of favour with the customer, which leads to loss of sales over the long term.

 

Do you understand how, in the long term, this could be disadvantageous to the business? The "pleasing the shareholder" model has resulted in crap music, repetitive re-franchised games and rushed and buggy software.

 

Yes, shareholders can be a nice way to raise capital - selling high quality products is a better way for long term profitability. That is, unless you're suggesting a business can survive on shareholder investment alone? I can also see how this relates to needing to charge for microtransactions, but if it means people stop buying the software, it won't get them far.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Conure

[Krunkskimo]

What a ****ing roller coaster. The servers have been either overloaded or down for nearly a week after U.S. launch. I had to eventually just stop trying to play it because it was nearly impossible to to get pass the damn login server. yesterday i picked it up back up again and seemed more stable.

 

My first city a neighbor moved in and put a water tower by ever sewage system in his city. crime spilled into my city as if there was no more crime to possibly commit in his own city. It's as if his city was purely setup to troll.

 

Tip: Be careful who you move-in downwind from.

 

as far as complexity goes its a city management sim where you fine tune your creations. filling the block can happen under a hour. I joined a mature region yesterday which already had a finical department, took out 3, 100,000 simolean loans, filled the whole map w/ roads, zones, and services/utilities, and all that was left to do was let it grow, place some parks, and infrastructure tweaks.

 

There is still some lag on their servers so transactions can take awhile. If you want to buy services from people be sure to buy before you need it otherwise you'll be waiting for EA to process the transaction while your city falls apart.

 

All in all. I'm claiming my free game if its not select titles which EA is offering to buyback their customers. I actually didnt have a problem w/ allways online(ish) games like SC2 and Diablo3 but after this I'm not picking up another EA title with DRM.

Edited March 11, 2013 by Krunkskimo

[Conure]

Interesting short article:

 

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/11/simcity-is-inherently-broken-lets-not-let-this-go/

[cichlidfan]

I think RPS's squirrel fell off of the wheel.

 

EDIT: Finally got a connection. That is not an article, it is a rant. It's really not even about Sim City, it's about always-on DRM.

Edited March 11, 2013 by cichlidfan

[Wolf Rider]

I understand the economics behind shareholders entirely. I also understand that service to shareholders can result in sacrifice to the customer.

 

Balancing service to stakeholders/shareholders/government/customers is an important attribute to any business, but in some scenarios the balance is tipped too heavily in the favour of the shareholder which offers short term capital investment. This can lead to a loss of favour with the customer, which leads to loss of sales over the long term.

 

Do you understand how, in the long term, this could be disadvantageous to the business? The "pleasing the shareholder" model has resulted in crap music, repetitive re-franchised games and rushed and buggy software.

 

Yes, shareholders can be a nice way to raise capital - selling high quality products is a better way for long term profitability. That is, unless you're suggesting a business can survive on shareholder investment alone? I can also see how this relates to needing to charge for microtransactions, but if it means people stop buying the software, it won't get them far.

 

 

You're conducting your own circular argument there :music_whistling: how unique

[Conure]

You're conducting your own circular argument there :music_whistling: how unique

 

There's nothing circular about my argument, let me state it for your simply.

 

A: Shareholders are a good way to raise initial capital (and for raising capital for future projects and expansion, of course).

 

B: Providing good quality products (at a relatively low production cost; though this is irrelevant - this is software we're talking about) is a good way to provide long term profitability.

 

C: I believe that by charging for multiple DLC + Micro transactions + initial unit cost, it prejudices a companies position in terms of long term profitability (as a result of a knock on reputation) as is evidenced by plummeting user reviews. Long term profitability will be compromised when shareholder satisfaction is placed upon above that of customer happiness.

 

D: I believe micro transactions benefit shareholders but provide no significant benefit to consumers. Please see point A and work through to point C for why this isn't a good thing.

 

This is quite simple economics, I'm not sure what it is you're saying is circular? Unless you believe that negative reviews and extremely poor customer feedback is a benefit?

Edited March 11, 2013 by Conure

[Wolf Rider]

 

C: I believe that by charging for multiple DLC + Micro transactions + initial unit cost, it prejudices a companies position in terms of long term profitability (as a result of a knock on reputation) as is evidenced by plummeting user reviews. Long term profitability will be compromised when shareholder satisfaction is placed upon above that of customer happiness.

 

 

On reviewing your points A ~ C... Cite examples of which companies you refer to here

[winz]

There's nothing circular about my argument, let me state it for

D: I believe micro transactions benefit shareholders but provide no significant benefit to consumers. Please see point A and work through to point C for why this isn't a good thing.

Microtransactions are a tool. A tool for monetization of your game, if done right it can benefit the player while bringing steady revenue for the developer (AAA game development is insanely expensive) . One of such games is Team Fortress 2, which is free, but you have the ability to buy items with IRL money. But those items don't break the balance of the game, most of the stuff is purely cosmetic and the weapons are not better then the ones freely available.

This model benefits me, because I'm able to play a AAA multiplayer shooter for free.

 

DLC, Microtransaction, etc are all tools, they aren't nor good, nor bad, it's the way they are implemented that can be either good or bad.

Edited March 11, 2013 by winz

[EtherealN]

This really is derailing, so we should get back to SimCity, but one quick point: get numbers on how many games actually make a profit.

 

The reason they are pursuing this is that only about 1 in 10 games turn a profit. A few more might break even, barely. The rest are losses.

 

When you wonder why publishers get stuck in the "tried and true" sellers: that is why. If they find something that actually is profitable, they home in on it rather than seek risky projects with low prospects. (There are other models as well, when I held shares in DICE, before they were bought up, their model was to effectively "contract" to publishers, meaning that they would get little profit if the title was successful, but they were guaranteed that they'd never make crippling losses if their adventure didn't pan out. The publishers assumed those risks. This is what lead to how publishers became so big: they could offset the losses of one title through another, and purchase those studios that showed consistently good product.)

 

DLC, microtransactions etcetera can help here: it offers the developer and publisher a way to "rescue" games financially that were not initially successful enough in the marketplace to pay for their development. This can (hopefully) allow more games that try new concepts to get green lights from publishers.

 

DLC, microtransactions, etcetera are not the devil. Even if the unit came at an initial charge. It's all about how it's done. Some games do this wrong, some do it right, but the main point is that we need publishers to dare take a risk again. And if their only recourse to revenue is initial sales... not going to happen, at least not for AAA titles, since they are reaching a billion dollars or more to develop. Too many eggs in one basket.

 

Reward the games that do it right, don't purchase games you don't want. Really is that simple. But berating others for purchasing a game they want... That's not kosher.

 

Now, what are the odds that we can return to Sim City in this topic? I could split the discussion, but I'm not sure it would lead to anything productive.

[cichlidfan]

 

Now, what are the odds that we can return to Sim City in this topic?

 

Slim, but I shall try.

 

Have you seen zombies yet? I saw a message once (at the top of the screen) about zombies, as I was hitting exit, so I never actually saw what it was about.

[Mr_Burns]

Is this always online issue an anti piracy tool?

 

I quite fancied a modern Sim City and was looking forward to this, I was looking for larger cities though with more detailed blocks, I understand this is smaller cities than before?

 

Things like the airport and docks were a joke, there would be like 30 runways in a zoned area, a good sim city could have one and different terminals and extra runways at that level.

 

Hmmm, see I have little sympathy for producers who just pump out crap games, Carrier Command Gaea Mission was a joke, that was a completely unjustified to release such a shallow game so I hope they made a loss.

 

On the other hand, XCom release game was worth the money, I will pay for things like DLC - they could release a special forces mod. Similary Jagged Alliance was a good game, they could release DLC for that (Zombies).

 

Hmmmm

[EtherealN]

Slim, but I shall try.

 

Have you seen zombies yet? I saw a message once (at the top of the screen) about zombies, as I was hitting exit, so I never actually saw what it was about.

 

I've seen messages about Zombies, but didn't look close enough to see if there actually were zeds on the streets. Laughed a bit at it though. There's a lot of humor hidden away in this game. :P

[EtherealN]

Is this always online issue an anti piracy tool?

 

I quite fancied a modern Sim City and was looking forward to this, I was looking for larger cities though with more detailed blocks, I understand this is smaller cities than before?

 

Things like the airport and docks were a joke, there would be like 30 runways in a zoned area, a good sim city could have one and different terminals and extra runways at that level.

 

Hmmm, see I have little sympathy for producers who just pump out crap games, Carrier Command Gaea Mission was a joke, that was a completely unjustified to release such a shallow game so I hope they made a loss.

 

On the other hand, XCom release game was worth the money, I will pay for things like DLC - they could release a special forces mod. Similary Jagged Alliance was a good game, they could release DLC for that (Zombies).

 

Hmmmm

 

If what you SPECIFICALLY AND ONLY want is "big cities", no, this is not it.

 

If you want a citybuilder with depth? This is pretty good.

 

Do not make the mistake of thinking that small city equals no depth. There's plenty for you to do. I giggle at the people that can't even manage to get above 25k people in their cities because... well... I dunno what the heck is going on there. Having chaos around 80-100k I can understand, took me a good bit of thinking to learn how to make a city efficient enough to house that and more.

[Wolf Rider]

Is there any inkling yet that "continued growth" isn't sustainable?

[EtherealN]

Not sure what you mean there?

 

Just like the old SimCity games, there is a point where "growth" is no longer possible. However, compared to those, this is now not really linked to map size ("filling the map"), and more a very careful process where your city "graduates" through technologies of your choosing.

[Wolf Rider]

That sort of answers what I was asking. (personally, I don't have the sim)

 

Perhaps I'd ask again later whether, a certain maximum size could be reached, whilst keeping an equilibrium, then exceeding that would have a deterioration/ degradation. ?