Fable III to include microtransactions

[entrerix]

i bought and played fable 2. it was ok for about 10 hours. i also have no interest in replaying it.

 

i think i'll pass on part 3. i HATE extra fees. i'd rather pay an extra 10$ up front for the full experience than have to buy a bunch of little bull**** items later.

 

i understand the thinking though, some people like that extra stuff, and if they can earn some extra skril by doing it, then more power to them, im sure somebody bought horse armor...

 

i just hope that enough people think like me that extra fee's go the way of the dinosaur.

 

i also dont play mmo's that have monthly fees. if wow 2 costs 100$ and has no fee, i might be willing to try it. i WONT be willing to try it if its like wow 1.

 

i DO like DLC packs that offer real content though, if its essentially a 10$ expansion pack with 1/3 the content of a 30$ expansion pack, then i might buy it. (see broken steel & point lookout dlc's)

[Bos_hybrid]

I will probably get Fable 3, nakkid drunk farting and playing a King Henry VIII type character would be extremely funny. Besides I should use my 360 for something.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Bos_hybrid

[mrmud]

Not only does it save money, it's also somewhat more effective than complaining about it on the internet.

For maximum effect you do both.

[Masterfade]

It sounds to me like they're charging to go to places you otherwise would have to work through in the game. Like if Bioware offered to bring your character to the Underdark in BG2 for a few bucks. You'd get there even if you didn't pay but it eliminates the hassle of, you know, playing the game. That is assuming that the areas in question aren't DLC. It's not entirely clear from the quote.

 

If they aren't, that tells us 3 things about Molyneux and Fable 3, things that we should already know, really.

1. The narrative is an optional framing device for the game experience. Fable 3 is either sandbox or episodic in its setup.

2. The game design abhors difficulty in all its forms (duh)

3. Giving players instant gratification is important.

 

I'd wager that these are the reasons why Fable is the most popular RPG franchise ever created (I think?) but then, I'm also pretty sure the National Enquirer gets better circulation than the Economist.

 

I don't think Fable is that popular, Square-Enix probably doesn't think so either. I'm sure even TES outsells Fable.

 

But otherwise, yeah I agree with you. Although the concept of paying money to not playing the game may sound paradoxical, people are already doing that. A lot of people pay leveling services to play their MMO characters, for example. Some MMO companies even legitimize it by offering player the option of paying real world money for the access to a built-in bot mode (I think I've read a report about legal, in-game bot feature on Massively).

[alanschu]

I'm curious if people would be okay with something like this, if the game itself only cost a marginal fee like $10?

[Purkake]

People are never "okay" with anything. They'll complain about free stuff just as they do over everything else.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Pay $10 for a bare bones game that's only designed to be a vehicle for further marketing? No thanks.

[alanschu]

Even if that $10 game still had content?

 

Even if, by the end of buying all of the content expansions, you pay $60 for 40+ hours of gameplay?

 

 

Fine then, lets make it free. Still Boo-urns?

Edited October 26, 2009 by alanschu

[Tigranes]

You're going this at it the wrong way alanschu. It's not a question of short-term value, i.e. am I going to pay two more bucks in the end for a certain amount of content for Fable 3. Its a question of a new emerging business model that has the potential to affect game development and consumer value / experience in a negative way (obviously, from my point of view).

 

i.e. A $10 base game with options that led up to a $60 game that provided a similar level of content as, say, Dragon Age: Origins? Sure, for most people that's same value, for some it's better value (e.g. I could save a few bucks, not pay for the crap romances, and actually improve my playing experience.) But you have to think about the fact that:

 

a) There is a most obvious potential for commercial exploitation whereby companies begin to plan out their content in terms of such a business model. Sometimes, though not always, there will be cases where content is deliberately withheld for paid expansions (or rather, content is deliberately apportioned in such a way as to maximise the appeal of these now separate commodities). It's not a case of executives cackling in evil laughter and withholding function X for expansion Y (I think it woudl happen, just rarely) - more a case of devs thinking about how to ensure there are a maximum number of expansions for one base game, maximum level of appeal for each expansion, and that there is a synergy between base game and expansions, and expansions and expansions, so that it makes you want to buy more. So the commercial logic is going to drive much deeper into game development. This is really the big reason I oppose the whole process. I can easily imagine situations in the future where we are going to get more indulgent about development (people want pornography? go ahead, we'll make it an add-on that you can buy, but you don't have to), games that are going to try and use this modular system to appeal to even more customers by creating add-ons of every conceivable mainstream genre-style (think Operation Anchorage, but on a more extreme scale), etc.

 

b) This is related to the fact that there will be a fragmentation of the game text as an integral entity. Some people will just play the base game and stop there (which, I imagine, would eventually replace the demo - 'try the base game for free, want to go further, buy the rest'), others will have this and that add-on, etc, etc. Firstly that's going to change the landscape of consumption - I can hardly talk about Dragon Age with my buddy Bob if I've played the base game with this and that add-on, and he's played completely different add-ons. The advertising discourse tells us that more personalisation, more customisation is always better (and it sometimes is, like my example above about not buying romances if I don't want to), but that's going to change the way we talk about games, it's going to make the modding scene a lot more complicated and thus less thriving (though the increased modularity of game architectures that will come simultaneously with this commercial development would help it). I'm not saying this stuff is bad - it's just one consequence, and lends to the point that this is a major development in the industry. You can just be a Volourn about it and say "I'll just buy what I like and not buy what I like", but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

 

c) The kind of language displayed in certain posts in this thread shows that the advent of these kind of microtransactional, modular game commodity models will be supported by a discourse that leverages on the rampant levels of PC piracy to gain legitimacy. I'm not criticising the posts, but I think it's accurate to point out that both amongst the public and from institutional sources we are / will begin to see arguments that imply and leverage off the fact of piracy to subtly undermine the positions of those who argue that this is all capitalist fat cats out to extort more money. I think some would even see and proclaim this model as a partial solution to piracy, a way to rework the commercial model so that there is enough choice and value for consumers to make legitimate purchases the obvious thing to do - breaking down the level of legitimacy or justification piracy has, explicitly or implicitly, in large sections of the gaming populace. Is that good? Not sure... I don't really think it will do a huge amount to reduce piracy (it will increase revenue, I imagine, as a whole, though), but it will be a discursive mechanism used.

 

Oh, nota bene, b) and c) aren't necessarily 'bad' even in my opinion, as I said. I'm just pointing out, for a general audience, that going 'DONT LIKE IT DONT BUY IT' or 'oh this doesnt really change anything' is, IMHO, not very accurate.

[MacMichael]

Seems BioWare is doing something similar for their DLC on Dragon Age. From what the devs are saying, it sounds as though the quest givers for the DLC expansions will be placed in world, and if you come upon one of them without the DLC installed, they bring up a menu that allows you to make the purchase, if you decide you want it. Then it downloads in the back and installs and opens up access to it all without having to leave the game. If it is already installed, then its seamless with the original content.

 

It's triggered a pretty long thread (this in just the dev posts) over on their forums, with everything from, "It sounds like a good idea," to "It's the end of gaming as we know it!"

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...if you come upon one of them without the DLC installed, they bring up a menu that allows you to make the purchase...

 

Urgg... That sounds like a horrible, horrible idea.

[Monte Carlo]

Do you think we are going to see the distinction between MMOs and SP games simply vanish?

 

You buy the core product for World of Zorg* or you DL it for free. You then pay for the MMO module with MP functionality, or the SP quest pack or the add-on NPC pack (etc). Hell, the game even upgrades itself if you subscribe.

 

Not saying I'm liking it, but Dragon Age is quickly becoming a DLC whorefest and I'm sure EA are seeing dollar signs. It sounds like the future, which, unsurprisingly, sucks. Lots of people here tell me I'm living in the past for wanting a physical product when I buy software, being suspicious of web-purchased content, not wanting to surrender to Steam and so on... can you see where I'm coming from now?

 

Don't get me wrong, as a way of delivering content I'm happy with the internet, I just can't get away from the uneasy feeling that the games industry has looked at user-created content and modding and thought "we can charge for that."

 

Cheers

MC

 

* Easy, this games design, isn't it?

[HoonDing]

From what the devs are saying, it sounds as though the quest givers for the DLC expansions will be placed in world, and if you come upon one of them without the DLC installed, they bring up a menu that allows you to make the purchase, if you decide you want it.

The only thing I can think of that is more immershun breaking than that, is a BSOD.

[alanschu]

a) There is a most obvious potential for commercial exploitation whereby companies begin to plan out their content in terms of such a business model. Sometimes, though not always, there will be cases where content is deliberately withheld for paid expansions (or rather, content is deliberately apportioned in such a way as to maximise the appeal of these now separate commodities). It's not a case of executives cackling in evil laughter and withholding function X for expansion Y (I think it woudl happen, just rarely) - more a case of devs thinking about how to ensure there are a maximum number of expansions for one base game, maximum level of appeal for each expansion, and that there is a synergy between base game and expansions, and expansions and expansions, so that it makes you want to buy more. So the commercial logic is going to drive much deeper into game development. This is really the big reason I oppose the whole process. I can easily imagine situations in the future where we are going to get more indulgent about development (people want pornography? go ahead, we'll make it an add-on that you can buy, but you don't have to), games that are going to try and use this modular system to appeal to even more customers by creating add-ons of every conceivable mainstream genre-style (think Operation Anchorage, but on a more extreme scale), etc.

 

As someone pointed out to me earlier, Bethesda's history is First Person shooter style games, going back as far as the original Terminator game. So it's not really that surprising that Operation Anchorage is a shooter style addon to Fallout 3. There's been a lack of isometric turn-based addons for Fallout 3, however. I think it's a stretch that BioWare would start trying to create add-ons of every conveivable mainstream genre-style. Look at the best selling games. Almost without exception, they are games that are done really well with a singular purpose. Even with more mainstream games, it's not like Electronic Arts turned the Sims into anything that wasn't an extension of its original gameplay. If you were to introduce a 2D action platformer level to Half-Life 2, you'd not be appealing to the people that all picked up Half-Life 2. As much as I think the general fanbase can be absurd, I'm also confident that in the end, ****ty games will be ****ty games and not particularly profitable. I do not feel as though a haphazard game with no particular scope or focus is the avenue to success.

 

b) This is related to the fact that there will be a fragmentation of the game text as an integral entity. Some people will just play the base game and stop there (which, I imagine, would eventually replace the demo - 'try the base game for free, want to go further, buy the rest'), others will have this and that add-on, etc, etc. Firstly that's going to change the landscape of consumption - I can hardly talk about Dragon Age with my buddy Bob if I've played the base game with this and that add-on, and he's played completely different add-ons. The advertising discourse tells us that more personalisation, more customisation is always better (and it sometimes is, like my example above about not buying romances if I don't want to), but that's going to change the way we talk about games, it's going to make the modding scene a lot more complicated and thus less thriving (though the increased modularity of game architectures that will come simultaneously with this commercial development would help it). I'm not saying this stuff is bad - it's just one consequence, and lends to the point that this is a major development in the industry. You can just be a Volourn about it and say "I'll just buy what I like and not buy what I like", but that doesn't mean that's all there is to it.

 

It'll also lead to you talking with Bob about your addon and glowing about it, and making Bob go "Man, I like Tigranes' taste in games. Maybe I'll try that one out too." Or, as you mention, there will be discussions about "How was YOUR experience through the game?" "Oh it was cool, I went here, here, here, and here." Having said that, I'm skeptical that the MO for games will be releasing disjoint packages that are dependent on one another in order to get the full picture of the story until that point in time.

 

I don't think the modding community will be that affected. Except for perhaps people that want to just play with the toolset of a game not having to pay full price for a game they do not want.

 

c) The kind of language displayed in certain posts in this thread shows that the advent of these kind of microtransactional, modular game commodity models will be supported by a discourse that leverages on the rampant levels of PC piracy to gain legitimacy. I'm not criticising the posts, but I think it's accurate to point out that both amongst the public and from institutional sources we are / will begin to see arguments that imply and leverage off the fact of piracy to subtly undermine the positions of those who argue that this is all capitalist fat cats out to extort more money. I think some would even see and proclaim this model as a partial solution to piracy, a way to rework the commercial model so that there is enough choice and value for consumers to make legitimate purchases the obvious thing to do - breaking down the level of legitimacy or justification piracy has, explicitly or implicitly, in large sections of the gaming populace. Is that good? Not sure... I don't really think it will do a huge amount to reduce piracy (it will increase revenue, I imagine, as a whole, though), but it will be a discursive mechanism used.

 

Fair enough.

 

Oh, nota bene, b) and c) aren't necessarily 'bad' even in my opinion, as I said. I'm just pointing out, for a general audience, that going 'DONT LIKE IT DONT BUY IT' or 'oh this doesnt really change anything' is, IMHO, not very accurate.

 

If there remains a market for "complete games" then people will continue to make those games.

[alanschu]

To be clear, Dragon Age's in game DLC "menus" are seamlessly integrated into the conversation nodes.

 

That is, for say something like Warden's Keep, when talking with the chap about it he'll say something along the lines of "Are you interested in helping me out?" and your responses will be something like:

 

 

1 - Let me think about it

2 - At this time I won't be able to

3 - Okay, but let me get my things.

4 - (Download New Content) Okay, lets head there now.

 

 

If you already have Warden's Keep downloaded, then option 4 will simply say "Okay, lets head there now."

 

Picking option 4 will create a save and take you to the purchase screen.

 

 

 

 

It sounds like the future, which, unsurprisingly, sucks.

 

Baldur's Gate was once in the future.

[Tigranes]

My comments were on long-term wide industry trends of which Dragon Age: Origins is but a miniscule and early symptom - they should not be taken as indicative of the current state of events for a particular situation, in which case it would simply be hyperbole.

 

Meaning, to stay relevant, I might as well make a comment on DA:O system; I think that extent is fine. If you're going to have a DLC, I'd imagine that being able to d/l in-game and keep going is much more enjoyable than having to go through various shenanigans - the decision to put it in an in-game NPC in itself is simply good work, IMO.

[alanschu]

I agree that the in game cues for DLC is a fantastic idea, and in my lack of knowing any better, seems like a solid way to advertise them to people that otherwise wouldn't know any better.

 

 

I wonder if they have any metric for determining whether or not the DLC is purchased from in game or not.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Even if that $10 game still had content?

 

Even if, by the end of buying all of the content expansions, you pay $60 for 40+ hours of gameplay?

 

 

Fine then, lets make it free. Still Boo-urns?

Then why don't they sell me the whole game for $60? Obviously they're hoping to get a lot more. How do you make a compelling game out of all these separate pieces anyway?

 

Regardless, it's coming:

BIZ: Can you bring the mid-session model to the U.S. market?

 

Moore: It's a great question, something we're looking at. Mid-session games are certainly something we're learning an awful lot about. We're going to be with NBA in certain countries in Asia. And I think attracting a consumer, and as you know with a mid-session game, you either give it away for free, or for a nominal charge, and then, depending on how deep you want to get into the game, you download more stuff and do micro-transactions and bring more levels, or teams or stadiums...

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/features...iz=1&page=3

[entrerix]

Even if that $10 game still had content?

 

Even if, by the end of buying all of the content expansions, you pay $60 for 40+ hours of gameplay?

 

 

Fine then, lets make it free. Still Boo-urns?

 

 

i'd rather just buy one 50$ game that comes with everything in it. it's easier than buying 5 ten dollar mini-games. if the 50$ game has some extra stuff that looks fun, i might consider it, but i would skip a ten dollar game that hinges on the idea of me buying 3-5 more ten dollar parts of it.

[alanschu]

Then why don't they sell me the whole game for $60?

 

I think the idea is that it'd take longer. The new Sin game was planned to be an episodic game until Ritual was bought out. People can look at this and go "see!" except that had it not been an episodic game, we'd never have seen the first one which was a lot of fun and for all intents and purposes still a complete game. Well worth the low price it sold for too, IMO.

 

Valve championed the idea of faster releases, though they haven't really been very good on their word. At the same time, Valve is also a company that seems to silently change projects without telling anybody, and are Blizzard-esque in their release schedules it seems.

 

 

Regardless, it's coming:

 

Of course there will be experiments looking into it.

 

Given that the end user cost of buying a game has decreased over time (particularly due to inflation), it's not surprising that game companies will be exploring other alternatives to making money.

 

 

i'd rather just buy one 50$ game that comes with everything in it.

 

At the same time, would you as a consumer rather play $50 for a game you outright didn't like, or $5 for a game to realize that it wasn't for you?

 

Though for people such as yourself, assuming the business model works, you can buy all $50 of content once it's completed and it'd functionally be the same.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't mind episodic content, it's the model of first selling the bones then the meat separately I don't like. And let's face it, the DLC always costs a lot more per unit of content than a full game, which is why publishers like it so much. I understand the economics of the business give them a strong incentive to do that, but it doesn't mean I'm willing to play along. The only way I'll get paid DAO DLC is when it's all in one package and at a reduced price which I believe to be fair for the amount of content.

[entrerix]

i'd rather just buy one 50$ game that comes with everything in it.

 

At the same time, would you as a consumer rather play $50 for a game you outright didn't like, or $5 for a game to realize that it wasn't for you?

 

Though for people such as yourself, assuming the business model works, you can buy all $50 of content once it's completed and it'd functionally be the same.

 

 

i really just buy games that i'm 90%+ certain im going to like. if im not certain, then i wait till its a bargain title. but yeah i can definitely wait until all the content is released, and the whole product is judged for the entirety of itself, and then decide if i want it, it just seems like a hassle to break it up in the first place.

 

then again, i'd have an easier time writing a book if i could sell it 20,000 words at a time... so i can see the appeal for the developers!

[Masterfade]

A constant stream of DLCs, to some degrees, keep players from trade-in their copies. I think publishers now begin to realize it's fruitless to fight piracy, so they're turning their attention to the second hand market.

 

DLCs are particular important for single player games since they can not rely on multilayer mode to keep players playing (so they won't sell their game to GameStop). That's why DA:O comes with a free DLC instead of just putting the context on the disc, and why BioWare had gone out of its way to emphasize DLCs for DA:O.

 

DLCs and episodic delivery are fine for me if they're the only ways to keep making single player games financially viable.

[alanschu]

I think publishers now begin to realize it's fruitless to fight piracy, so they're turning their attention to the second hand market.

 

Actually, DLCs probably aren't that bad of a way to combat piracy either, now that you mention it.

[entrerix]

fighting internet pirates is like fighting water. you punch it, and nothing really happens except you piss off some fish.

 

fish = paying customers.