More Comments from EA_CIRE on the New Command & Conquer

[Guest Stevie_K]

Yes, Cypher, there always is a goal. Whether it's dictated by the game or by the player. That goes for ME3 as well.

[Cypher 4]

Oh, and what goal is that?

[Guest Stevie_K]

Oh, and what goal is that?

It's the the core drive in every game. Having to achieve a goal. Unlocking a new achievement or asset, hell it could be anything that the game dictates or whatever you set as goal for yourself to achieve as a player.

What Pay2Win does is that it's encouraging bad game design by needing to make the goals too hard to achieve or too time consuming, in order to attract players to pay their way past it or to achieve some kind of progress. Else it doesn't work.

[Cypher 4]

Why is that bad game design?

 

Also, again - the feeling of achievement is much more real when you achieve it, and not pay for it. So, again, your point being?

[BigJoe 4]

I'm pretty sure that those of you who are complaining about Pay2Win mechanics in a single player game are suffering from an entitlement complex. Seriously? How does someone paying for an in-game advantage in a SINGLE PLAYER environment, in any way at all, affect YOUR PERSONAL time and effort playing the same single player content? What's stopping you from calling said person a lazy idiot and then just playing the game the way you want to or, here's a thought, ignoring him altogether! If you're going to complain about Pay2Win PvE content then you might as well get mad at people who use cheat codes to beat games.

 

I feel like I should just noclip my way through Half-Life 2 and post it on youtube just to spite some of you.

Edited August 22, 2012 by BigJoe

[Guest Stevie_K]

Why is that bad game design?

Because Pay2Win needs to be incorporated into the game itself, by creating problems that encourages the player to pay money. It's that simple.

It's a douchebag concept that more and more publishers and studios are designing their games around. Simply because it's currently the better way to make money.

 

Also, again - the feeling of achievement is much more real when you achieve it, and not pay for it. So, again, your point being?

Define what "real" is to you.

How "real" does it feel to spend 10 hours to grind for a good weapon in Diablo3 opposed to how easy it is to just pay a silly little amount of money for it? I can tell you, it makes the player feel like he's not supposed to grind for that weapon, but instead go and pay for it. I'm not saying it's always like this. I'm not saying it never is either.

 

I'm pretty sure that those of you who are complaining about Pay2Win mechanics in a single player game are suffering from an entitlement complex. Seriously? How does someone paying for an in-game advantage in a SINGLE PLAYER environment, in any way at all, affect YOUR PERSONAL time and effort playing the same single player content?

There's no one complaining about Pay2Win in relation to Singleplayer. Keep off the grass.

 

If you're going to complain about Pay2Win PvE content then you might as well get mad at people who use cheat codes to beat games.

I might as well. You might as well want to check why your'e saying things that doesn't make any sense.

 

I feel like I should just noclip my way through Half-Life 2 and post it on youtube just to spite some of you.

Oh please do BigJoe. Follow your feelings.

[Troopzor 5]

Because Pay2Win needs to be incorporated into the game itself, by creating problems that encourages the player to pay money. It's that simple.

It's a douchebag concept that more and more publishers and studios are designing their games around. Simply because it's currently the better way to make money.

 

You've never played League of Legends have you? Or DotA2? or TF2?

[Blbpaws 1]

Yes, you can make new factions and new sub factions, and if they are balanced, that's perfectly fine.

And yes, the micro transactions of skins, decals and the likes work well in F2P games.

In addition, the end goal is to also have the other C&C universes on the same service - so that's new factions again (Soviets, Allies, Nod, GDI, maybe even LOTR stuff...).

Also, DLCs of maps, missions, campaigns etc' etc'.

 

The possibilities are endless.

 

On some level, I agree with this. There's a lot of possibilities when you radically change the model. There's a couple reasons why I'm not at all optimistic.

1) If you're going to start out a new model, it might be a good idea to do it with new IP, rather than by taking one of the few decades-old storied franchises out there and trying to shoehorn it into something else. Doing it EA's way means you have thousands of fans revising their expectations, confused about what exactly you're changing (EA has been unable to convince people it's not a browser game at this point, thus negating the selling point of a nice engine), and angry that you're destroying what they took as part of a rich tradition.

 

2) If you're going to radically change the model, it's probably a good idea to not cut the exact things the company you brought in (Bioware) is known for doing really well: story and singleplayer engagement. EA hyped the Bioware move and it made a lot of sense as a way to return C&C to its roots and now, eight months later, they're backing away from it. Looks like erratic decision making as part of a broader corporate push to move to a service model. That kind of erratic decision making almost always results in disaster, to say nothing of the months of developed time EA wasted on trying to have a plot and use Bioware's skill set.

 

3) If you're going to claim to a skeptical fanbase that you can change the model (see number 1) with people who you hyped as being good at something else (see number 2), you might want to put the details of that model out early on. They didn't. Now they have to figure out how after the fact to convince people of what it is they're producing--most fans right now are confused about the name of the game, for goodness sake, to say nothing of the nuances of free to play vs. play to win. This furthers the impression its a rudderless ship, with no clear vision, subject to broader corporate whims.

 

4) If you're going to do 1, 2, and do it in such a way that it essentially amounts to "Just trust us, we'll tell you the details later when we figure them out" (3), it's probably best if you're not a widely distrusted company with a long history of overpromising and underdelivering in your previous "innovations," especially in the C&C franchise. Remember the C&C Generals ladder kit, the future of multiplayer? Remember The First Decade, supposedly in development by a second team in EA, but really outsourced to another company? Same with Kane's Wrath? Remember the promised "Live support team" to develop Mod support and patches--now all fired? Remember Tiberium, C&C's glorious return to FPS? Remember the claim that C&C 4 could credibly take on Starcraft 2? Who trusts the promise that this time is different? Why?

 

5) If you're promising this time is different, don't do it with something you tried and failed at before (EA claimed that C&C 3 would supposed to dominate e-sports, promising matches with "thousands" of spectators), and that your nearest competitor, Starcraft 2, has been perfecting for years, while you're starting over, again. No one will believe you.

 

That's just it. I don't believe EA on this. I have zero faith, zero trust, zero evidence that they have any capacity whatsoever to pull this off. Since at least 2007 or 2008, and probably before, C&C has been a bumbling, misguided ship with no clear direction at the mercy of broader EA corporate whims. Cypher, you've been around the community as long as I have. I value your view. Why do you think this time is different?

 

There's one final part: I really want to be wrong. I love C&C, consider it a true part of my childhood and adolesence. I'm proud to have orchestrated and designed three of the most well-received C&C mods ever, including two that introduced new players to past games and the series's rich tradition. I loved going to EA, and I'm immensely grateful that Aaron Kaufman gave me the chance to do it. I met a lot of really nice, cool, people there, folks who--in an honest moment--would admit to exactly what I wrote above. They want to make games people like, they got jobs they thought were dream jobs, and they're at the mercy of broader decision makers who are short-sighted and tone deaf. I feel bad for Eric, because I'm sure he's a fan, and he knows, or will know soon enough, that this thing is off the rails. He's a good guy, and it's his job to sell this, so I'm not trying to attack him. I just wish I believed what he and his bosses had to say.

[Golan 6]

Blbpaws, I couldn't have put it better myself! Great post.

You've never played League of Legends have you? Or DotA2? or TF2?

Those games are not P2W. Sadly, that makes them the exception on the market. Edited August 23, 2012 by Golan

[Cypher 4]

Those games are also the model here - part of it, at least - Golan.

 

 

Because Pay2Win needs to be incorporated into the game itself, by creating problems that encourages the player to pay money. It's that simple.

It's a douchebag concept that more and more publishers and studios are designing their games around. Simply because it's currently the better way to make money.

Again with the not sense making.... Oy.

 

The problems are created not to encourage paying money, but to encourage further play.

It is up to the player to choose if he wants to invest work or money.

 

Yes, part of the repetition would, in theory, encourage paying instead of working/playing.

However, I personally believe this is flawed. Very flawed.

I'm very much against P2W, and I really don't understand why we keep arguing about it.

The point is that P2W is a bad idea, in PvP specifically. I contend that it's also a bad idea in PvE - however, your reasons for it are not the right reasons. I wrote this yesterday:

http://theravencypher.blogspot.co.il/2012/08/pay-2-win-in-pve-good-for-retention.html

 

Define what "real" is to you.

How "real" does it feel to spend 10 hours to grind for a good weapon in Diablo3 opposed to how easy it is to just pay a silly little amount of money for it? I can tell you, it makes the player feel like he's not supposed to grind for that weapon, but instead go and pay for it. I'm not saying it's always like this. I'm not saying it never is either.

It's Psychology 101. I think you'll be able to extrapolate from the blog post above.

 

There's no one complaining about Pay2Win in relation to Singleplayer. Keep off the grass.

I believe he means to group Single Player along with non competitive PvE - you know, like ME3's multiplayer?

 

 

@Blbpaws,

 

1. That's true. However, they still need brand recognition.

And in this case Generals is a good choice, because you still get the full MP the original Generals was known for - without the SP... the original Generals was also notorious for

 

2. Yeah, that's absolutely correct. I made the same point when I first heard about it. Something they need to overhype if and when they do make the SP DLCs. That really was a miscalculated move, in that regard. And I think that it will get to the Bioware front as well, to add to the recent turmoil around the ME3 ending, then these conspiracies about Zeschuk's leaving of Austin.

 

3-5... Same. Agree. The strategy can be much better.

 

I don't think you're wrong.

I'm just willing to wait.

If you're asking why I'm willing to wait - because this isn't just another whim regarding C&C.

The F2P, or rather the Service model is something being done EA wide. It was announced at E3 this year. Across most of EA's franchises.

This is the first time it's actually being done as part of a company wide strategy. C&C, in this case, is not just another marginalized franchise to shoot.

C&C4 already did that.

[Golan 6]

Those games are also the model here - part of it, at least - Golan.

You were asking him why P2W was bad even for SP. He gave you an answer.

It's pretty irrelevant for that answer how games that are not P2W fare, because they obviously won't have the problems of P2W.

 

F2P is already being done by EA, and it's being done poorly. Most of them ahve transformed into P2W. And yes, P2W is a problem for SP as well, so if after all they've messed up they now go "there won't be P2W as it'll hurt MP" I'm sure as hell not going to trust them that the same will apply to SP.

I too am willing to wait. For them to proove they have changed. Until then, I don't see any reason to assume the opposite.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Golan