Microsoft To Introduce "Consumables"

[Skrying]

The items in MMORPGs are really the only way buying items would work well. It already happens its just not done by the publisher yet, and I think this is what will happen. The publisher realizes that there is a lot of money to be made letting some people just simply buy there way to the top.

It works well in an MMO also because MMO's are not about skill in the first place, they're about time spent. So what's another layer on that? Nothing to a publisher.

 

[Qroach]

I don't see this happening, that's just horrible game design. With 50% or more of your potential consumers never going online, are you really going to create a game so difficult that it can't be passed without purchasing some bonus weapon online? And the reviewers would absolutely slam the game.

Exactly. Develoeprs aren't goign ot do this on purpose as it will drastically affect the sales of teh game ( the main money making part of teh equation. As I said before theya ren't going to purposely block users form playing a game. btw, there's already incredibly frustrating parts in games. That is nothing new.

 

[AzBat]

The items in MMORPGs are really the only way buying items would work well. It already happens its just not done by the publisher yet, and I think this is what will happen. The publisher realizes that there is a lot of money to be made letting some people just simply buy there way to the top.

Agreed, from what I've read elsewhere(Gamasutra) it seems it's firmly targetted at MMORPGs where there are things like money, potions, etc that are consumed(used) and later need to be replenished. Just like paper and toner are considered consumables for laser printers.

Anyway, to me it makes perfect sense if it gets Blizzard to reconsider bringing World of Warcraft to the 360. I don't think these "consumables" would actually work in any other type of game per se, since it would wholly require a persistent connection to Xbox Live. But some ideas that developers may be considering could be things like actually having to pay real money for gas to be put in your racing car. Having to actually pay real money for bullets for your gun. Stuff like that. I don't see those kinds of play mechanics for this generation, but wouldn't be surprised if it happened next gen. Again, I doubt we'll see any "consumables" outside of MMORPGs.

Tommy McClain

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't see this happening, that's just horrible game design. With 50% or more of your potential consumers never going online, are you really going to create a game so difficult that it can't be passed without purchasing some bonus weapon online? And the reviewers would absolutely slam the game.

It was an extreme example to show the way this is headed. We already have duff aspects to games where the developers have been content to leave in boring or difficult parts, even in highly rated AAA titles. Rather than work at redesigning the levels to be better balanced, level the offline folks struggling and let the online folks buy other solutions.

But some ideas that developers may be considering could be things like actually having to pay real money for gas to be put in your racing car. Having to actually pay real money for bullets for your gun.

Then you basically paying a subscription for the games. If they want to do that, they should scrap game-buying altogether and go to a rent model instead. If I want to lose loads of money playing a game I'll pop down the arcades, but that's precisely the reason I don't go down the arcades! Having to keep putting money in to keep your 'fun' going (Driver 4, just about caught the baddie and suddenly out of gas, please transfer $2 to your gamer account to continue!) isn't a gaming model I'm likely to be a part of. I'll buy a game to play, and buy extra additions if they extend the game somehow, but paying to continue playing a game I've already bought is a very naff idea. Isn't that why DivX failed? Would anyone be happy with the euqivalent in buying a DVD and then also having to pay extra every time you want to play it?

 

[Sethamin]

I think that everyone getting all worked up about this should get off their high horse. The fact of the matter is that in any game with a persistent economy (e.g. MMOs) a market WILL develop for any virtual goods which are perceived to have value. The developer can try to limit that to a certain extent, but it's inevitable, since people will always be willing to pay what they think those things are worth.

Rather than fighting against those natural market forces, I think it makes perfect sense for publishers and developers to reap the profit here rather than gold farmers. It ultimately makes for a healthier games industry, undercuts the "black market" of gold farmers and the like, and allows the developers to regulate and control the flow of goods so as not to upset the balance of the game. As with any dynamic in games, some will implement it poorly, but it's certainly possible to do it in a way that doesn't ruin the game mechanics.

The best analogy I can think of for it is illegal drugs (in the real world). You can try to educate people not to buy those goods (from gold farmers), or you can try to shut down the supply (ban the gold farmers), but as long as the demand is there it'll ultimately prove ineffective. The best possible strategy is really to legalize it so that you can regulate it, control it, and profit from it. It may upset the game purists, but it's still the best overall strategy.

 

[fearsomepirate]

The problem with the analogy is that the gold farmers are basically selling their gameplaying time to another person. A better analogy is perhaps to a taxi owner-operator. He spends the time he could be using his Ford to drive to places he wants to go ferrying you in exchange for money, and there's nothing Ford can do about it.

 

[Chris123234]

I guess as the original gamers grow up and the new ADD teen gamers come into the majority the game developers are going to cater their games to them. Who else would actually spend $100 on 1000 gold for WoW (actually it costs more than that right now) which is the equivalent of a horse.

Who else wouldn't be upset that the days of getting updates and addons from the developers themselves for free are gone. Do you think the Battlefield games are going to get new maps from the developers now? No. Even the original Morrowind: Elder Scroll 3 had official addons before (nickle and dime you into) Oblivion came out. All that is going to stop eventually when people are so whole heartedly for this rip off style payment system.

Also I really doubt that blizzard needs to adopt anything like this since they already get 6000000 x 15 a each month from WoW.

 

[Sethamin]

The problem with the analogy is that the gold farmers are basically selling their gameplaying time to another person. A better analogy is perhaps to a taxi owner-operator. He spends the time he could be using his Ford to drive to places he wants to go ferrying you in exchange for money, and there's nothing Ford can do about it.

I'm confused by that analogy. Why would Ford want to do something about it? Why would they care?

The fact that they're selling their game playing time is incidental and unimportant. That's simply how they get the goods in question to sell.

 

[Inane_Dork]

It isn't MS's responsibility to disallow developers from screwing up their games. So if anyone complains about these consumable MS Points, complain to the developers who make the games or the publishers who want the extra revenue stream. MS's audience with this is the developers and publishers, not us.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Epic has all but promised free DLC for GOW on the 1up podcast. We'll see if MS actually lets them.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Why do we expect upgrades to be free in the first place?

Because thats how they were in the PC model?

I would imagine console gamers would be glad to have the ability to get new content. It's the PC gamers who are upset because they are used to not only getting new content, but getting it for free.

I don't see consumables as being anything more than time saving measures, just like gold farmers. Let's not forget the basic purpose of the game is to have fun. I think The Gamers Manifesto from PWoT mentioned these things.. why do I have to defeat enemy X in order to see cut screen 12? I bought the game, I own cut screen 12, I should be able to watch it whenever I want. Why force me to do something I find boring or mundane in order to get the gold to get the magical sword so I can kill enemy X so I can see Cut Screen 12?

So essentially, they're saying 'the game is designed for you to do A-B-C, but if you pay us some extra, you can skip B'.

I don't really see how, philosophically, it's any different than 1-900 Help Lines.

 

[Hardknock]

Why do we expect upgrades to be free in the first place?

Because thats how they were in the PC model?

I would imagine console gamers would be glad to have the ability to get new content. It's the PC gamers who are upset because they are used to not only getting new content, but getting it for free.

I don't see consumables as being anything more than time saving measures, just like gold farmers. Let's not forget the basic purpose of the game is to have fun. I think The Gamers Manifesto from PWoT mentioned these things.. why do I have to defeat enemy X in order to see cut screen 12? I bought the game, I own cut screen 12, I should be able to watch it whenever I want. Why force me to do something I find boring or mundane in order to get the gold to get the magical sword so I can kill enemy X so I can see Cut Screen 12?

So essentially, they're saying 'the game is designed for you to do A-B-C, but if you pay us some extra, you can skip B'.

I don't really see how, philosophically, it's any different than 1-900 Help Lines.

You own cutscene 12 but now are forced to pay extra to see it and you don't have a problem with that?

These are the equivalent of cheat-codes yet they are charging people for them. Ridiculous.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

You own cutscene 12 but now are forced to pay extra to see it and you don't have a problem with that?

These are the equivalent of cheat-codes yet they are charging people for them. Ridiculous.

Well, in a perfect world, the game would provide you with the cheat-codes, they would allow you open access to every aspect of the game because you own it. That's what the Gamer's Manifesto was championing, anyway.

I still see the ability to purchase cheat codes as better than the inability to have cheat codes at all.

For example, there times I'd like to go back and play Halo with a rocket launcher or sniper rifle on levels where you aren't suppose to have them.

I can't do so because there aren't any cheat codes for Halo. The end result is I don't go back to play Halo. So it sits there unused. If they'd sell me cheat codes for $5, I'd buy it in order to get another hour or so play time from my $49.99 investment back in the day.

 

[scooby_dooby]

These are the equivalent of cheat-codes yet they are charging people for them.

As long as you still have the option to get the content for yourself I'm fine. IF peole want to pay for cheat codes, let them, I won't.

I don't really care if some 15 year old buys a level 50 sword for $20 on his dads credit card, cause I don't game to compete with 15 year old kids. I enjoy the game for what it is, and unlocking stuff/earnign rewards is probably what I enjoy most, buying anything to skip levels would just ruin the game for me personally.

I don't see a problem with this, unless they start holding back content on purpose, or do what Shifty proposed, where there are items that are not even available in the SP campaign, and MUST be purchased. The former will probably happen, the latter I doubt it.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I'm confused by that analogy. Why would Ford want to do something about it? Why would they care?

Because someone's using a Ford product to make money and THAT'S NOT FAIR.

Only in the software industry do the producers of goods expect to have a sympathetic audience when they whine about the consumers finding ways to use the goods to make money.

Imagine the outrage if a builder got sued by DeWalt for violating a license agreement by using the $100 "Student Edition Drill" instead of the near-identical $1000 "Professional License Drill" to build an addition on a house. Or if the local nursery sued you for breeding the flowers you bought from them and selling them. Or if Toyota execs started throwing tantrums because they weren't getting a cut of every used Toyota sold by a non-certified car lot or in the Trader. I find all complaints of this nature from the software industry utterly ridiculous and refuse to entertain them. If you can't make money from selling your products in the manner people have been doing for centuries, it's your business model that's broken, not the market. Don't sell me something and then throw a fit because I didn't use it the way you planned on me using it. You got your money, so shut up. If you don't like it, sell it for more or make a better product. That's what everyone else in the world does.

 

[Chris123234]

Well, in a perfect world, the game would provide you with the cheat-codes, they would allow you open access to every aspect of the game because you own it. That's what the Gamer's Manifesto was championing, anyway.

I still see the ability to purchase cheat codes as better than the inability to have cheat codes at all.

For example, there times I'd like to go back and play Halo with a rocket launcher or sniper rifle on levels where you aren't suppose to have them.

I can't do so because there aren't any cheat codes for Halo. The end result is I don't go back to play Halo. So it sits there unused. If they'd sell me cheat codes for $5, I'd buy it in order to get another hour or so play time from my $49.99 investment back in the day.

There have always been cheat codes in games... you use the "internet" to find them. From your words I assume you never knew games have had cheat codes in them before.
/sarcasm

The point is, is that just because consoles never had the ability to offer content back in the day when pc's did doesn't constitute an excuse for ripping people off now for the same content pc gamers have be receiving for ages. Did you have to pay for that high resolution texture patch for your unreal tournament back int he day? No? Well now you do. Good job at supporting that bullshit.

And as for your sniper halo cheat. Do you think its fair that now you get to snipe those people who refused to spend 5 dollars on bullshit, and therefor have an advantage over them?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

There have always been cheat codes in games... you use the "internet" to find them. From your words I assume you never knew games have had cheat codes in them before.

Really? Cool. Please post the link to the website for the Halo cheat codes.

The point is, is that just because consoles never had the ability to offer content back in the day when pc's did doesn't constitute an excuse for ripping people off now for the same content pc gamers have be receiving for ages.

No, the point is that only PC gamers who are used to getting the content for free have any problem with this. Since the majority of console gamers aren't PC gamers, the majority of console gamers won't have a problem with this because they know nothing else. Therefore, it is wise for MS (and others) to create a revenue stream that won't alienate the majority of their users. That revenue will help to increase profits, thereby keeping MS's gaming division (more) viable, resulting in increased competition. If you want Sony to be the only manufacturer of video game consoles, great. However, I don't. They're already shoving blu-ray down their consumer's throats, and I can only imagine what they'd do if they didn't have the 360 to compete with.

And as for your sniper halo cheat. Do you think its fair that now you get to snipe those people who refused to spend 5 dollars on bullshit, and therefor have an advantage over them?

Uhh.. there's no online multiplayer in Halo, so I don't see how your scenario is relevant.

 

[Chris123234]

Really? Cool. Please post the link to the website for the Halo cheat codes.



No, the point is that only PC gamers who are used to getting the content for free have any problem with this. Since the majority of console gamers aren't PC gamers, the majority of console gamers won't have a problem with this because they know nothing else. Therefore, it is wise for MS (and others) to create a revenue stream that won't alienate the majority of their users. That revenue will help to increase profits, thereby keeping MS's gaming division (more) viable, resulting in increased competition. If you want Sony to be the only manufacturer of video game consoles, great. However, I don't. They're already shoving blu-ray down their consumer's throats, and I can only imagine what they'd do if they didn't have the 360 to compete with.



Uhh.. there's no online multiplayer in Halo, so I don't see how your scenario is relevant.

I guess you fail to see my point and I will simply cast my vote by playing the systems that don't encourage ripping off gamers with bullshit "microtransactions".

 

[Inane_Dork]

...I will simply cast my vote by playing the systems that don't encourage ripping off gamers with bullshit "microtransactions".

It's not the systems' fault. MS is just enabling this to take place. Sony will do or at least try to do the same thing. I bet even Nintendo will allow such stuff to take place.

The problem, if anywhere, is with developers and publishers. Not the systems themselves.

 

[Chris123234]

It's not the systems' fault. MS is just enabling this to take place. Sony will do or at least try to do the same thing. I bet even Nintendo will allow such stuff to take place.

The problem, if anywhere, is with developers and publishers. Not the systems themselves.

Exactly. And I'll just have to hope they don't all 3 enable this nonsense.

Am I the only one who laughed in disbelief when Microsoft first announced microtransactions at their presentation at E3?