Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 907 Location: New Jersey, USA
Call of Duty: Online - For China « Thread Started on Jul 3, 2012, 9:37am »
New trailer hit today. It looks sick. To bad we will never play it. I say it looks sick because it's free to play, and features a ton of weapons. In the trailer I saw a Model 1887 (MW2 Style!) on Wet Work. MP5k on Overgrown. And MW2 SPAS-12. Oh god I want! It seems to be a mash up of CoD 4 and MW2. The holy grail of CoDs?
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #5 on Jul 3, 2012, 12:34pm »
Rationale behind why this is attempted in China but not in US:
"This “pay for in-game items” thing is normal in China and heresy in America. Even the word “microtransactions” sends chills up gamers’ spines here, and the concept has been met with strong disapproval. Yet it’s a very successful model in China, and it makes sense use that model for this project. Western gamers get everything for one price, and Eastern gamers get a free game but pay for individual elements. Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks."
Joined: Jan 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 907 Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #7 on Jul 3, 2012, 12:45pm »
I would gladly take a Call of Duty remake with all the bull doo-doo taken out. Could you imagine MW2 without Skill Cannons, nukes, and OMA? Then add in all the maps from CoD4? Instant classic. Note that I'm not saying CoD:Online is this.
But Meh.
« Last Edit: Jul 3, 2012, 12:46pm by MoopusMaximus »
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #8 on Jul 3, 2012, 1:16pm »
Paying for in game stuff doesn't sit well if it affects how well you perform in game. It puts a clear divide in who can win against who then they throw everybody together so the non payers of the latest "I kill you faster" weapons get beaten until they either choose to pay to be competitive or quit playing.
Paying for in game stuff doesn't sit well if it affects how well you perform in game. It puts a clear divide in who can win against who then they throw everybody together so the non payers of the latest "I kill you faster" weapons get beaten until they either choose to pay to be competitive or quit playing.
This is why using micro-transaction to get an edge over other players is considered "heresy" here in US, as it feels this fundamentally violates the principle of equality.
This is an interesting topic though if you think of it in a different way. Would you rather pay $50 up front to get everything, or spend less (maybe significantly less) to only get/upgrade the weapons (and any other performance enhancing game elements) you like?
Another aspect to think about: game designers for a free-to-play game that rely on micro-transaction to earn money would have a lot more incentive to improve the game continuously, and they would take community's feedback much more seriously. Would this result a much better game over time?
Note: I don't have an opinion on this yet, just found it interesting topic to discuss, hence the 2 open questions to see what other bros think
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #13 on Jul 3, 2012, 1:35pm »
Regarding the perceived inequality due to how much money players are willing to pay, IMHO it is much less severe than imagined. For players who spend a lot of time playing a game, I imagine most of them would get the top "upgrade" to stay competitive. So eventually these players are on equal grounds "equipment" wise.
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #14 on Jul 3, 2012, 1:36pm »
Quote:
Another aspect to think about: game designers for a free-to-play game that rely on micro-transaction to earn money would have a lot more incentive to improve the game continuously. Would this result a much better game?
This is what I hate the most about it. If you have a set amount of stuff to put in for dlc that will make you competitive then you go and 'improve' the game by putting in better weapons and nerfing the old overpowered stuff how is that not a money grabbing tactic that directly exploits a gamers desire to win and be competitive.
Another aspect to think about: game designers for a free-to-play game that rely on micro-transaction to earn money would have a lot more incentive to improve the game continuously. Would this result a much better game?
This is what I hate the most about it. If you have a set amount of stuff to put in for dlc that will make you competitive then you go and 'improve' the game by putting in better weapons and nerfing the old overpowered stuff how is that not a money grabbing tactic that directly exploits a gamers desire to win and be competitive.
Good point, It is definitely a very real concern. There are huge incentives for the game designers to try to take advantage of players' desire to get any edge they can over others and profit from it.
On the other hand, they also need to be concerned about maintaining a health player population. If they are too greedy and a competitor can provide better options, they could lose players quickly and fail.
So it is a delicate balance: try to make as much money as possible while not pissing off the fans (at least not too quickly ). Whether it would be successful or not remains to be proven by the market. The reason why ActiVision is doing this in China is because almost all successful game making companies there are doing it this way. Vast majority so far are MMO games though, I think CoD might the first attempt in the FPS genre. The one thing they are counting on is that CoD already is proven to be a game that can attract huge number of fans so they can have an easy start: small investment (relatively speaking) in terms of development cost by reusing existing gaming elements, good probability of success.
Overall, IMHO this is a smart business move to get into the potentially lucrative China market.
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #16 on Jul 3, 2012, 2:06pm »
As an mmo starts to die one of three things could happen, I think. They will start offering free stuff to appease the player base and try to get new players, they will destroy the game balance hoping for a few more sales before it collapses on itself, or they sell it off to someone else and wipe their hands clean of it. If they sell it now the buyers have to restructure and advertise the game to make back their money.
I can't fault ActiVision for wanting to make money from a business perspective, but I'm glad they were smart enough to do this in a part of the world that isn't hostile toward the idea of pay to win.
As an mmo starts to die one of three things could happen, I think. They will start offering free stuff to appease the player base and try to get new players, they will destroy the game balance hoping for a few more sales before it collapses on itself, or they sell it off to someone else and wipe their hands clean of it. If they sell it now the buyers have to restructure and advertise the game to make back their money.
I can't fault ActiVision for wanting to make money from a business perspective, but I'm glad they were smart enough to do this in a part of the world that isn't hostile toward the idea of pay to win.
That's a very good point as well. Although as long as CoD series keep having record breaking sales they have no incentive to try something else, it does not hurt to experiment with the micro-transaction idea and gain experience about this style of business practice, so they can be prepared in case that it becomes popular in the future.
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #19 on Jul 4, 2012, 8:32am »
According to a tmartn vid on this China has banned gaming consoles since 2000 due to b!tchy parents complaining that it will corrupt their youth. How they rationalize banning it altogether instead of assuming that the parents themselves that buy it don't mind consoles I don't know. They grew up on MMOs instead so banning them was clearly a big success.
Re: Call of Duty: Online - For China « Reply #20 on Jul 4, 2012, 8:43am »
The stigma that was borne from the infant state of F2P is no longer necessary in the present. Of course it still sticks because some games still do it (they don't last long, big surprise).
The cash shop was just the way it went in many asian countries. In the majority of the world, PC gaming is the biggest market by a significant margin. The only country where the console is truly dominant is Japan, which also happens to be the only country that is also still Arcade heavy. BUT most PC players don't actually have a good gaming PC of their own. China, Korea, others, they mostly all play in internet cafes. That also means things like a subscription fee were probably a big security liability in public areas, hence the growth of the free to play MMO.
Renting time to play means they're on the wire, they gotta go fast. The cash shop grew from that, shortcuts to expectantly let them get to where they want to be in less time AND with less cost. So they generally put in everything. Resources, overpowered weapons and armor, functional advantages, premium packages, whatever. The old F2P transactions starting in MMOs like Lineage were "anything goes".
Transliterate that over to the west, with our leisure time at home letting us play as much as we want, and someone winning just because he puts down more money is just craaaaaaaaaaaaazy. Even in the areas of the world where the free game with optional pay as you go charges is the standard, most games with overbearing demand on having to pay to "do well" don't usually last.
Comically, the biggest offender and still current adopter of the old style of Free to Play microtransactions today is EA. Pay for power, pay for advantages, pay for things that free players will never gain access to until they put real money down. See: Battlefield Play4Free The Free model has grown up far past that, yet EA seems to be doing their hardest to make that stigma stick.
The modern Cash Shop model is a very appealing one (for both players and the producers), as it is designed to appeal to the people who would want to spend their disposable income. The "Casual" player feels overwhelmed and the "Hardcore" player feels cheated when things that make you fundamentally better than the opposition are put into play. Today however, each shop's menu almost entirely absent of any form of functional item. At best, ancillary boosts that may improve things like how fast you level up, but don't actually improve your active performance. It's all cosmetics and minor conveniences that would otherwise take a long time to grind to achieve in-game. Players love to dress up and stand out.
I'd pitch the Ghost Recon Online cash shop concepts to Bobby Kotick. Ten cents / 100 Duty Points for eight 40mm grenades.
LOL, yes! MW2 Uzi is so awesome. I still don't understand why they nerfed it so hard in MW3.
Seriously. All they needed to do was a straight port of the MW2 Uzi with +5 Max damage. It would still be outclassed by the MP7, but it would be at least a decent gun.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author![[avatar]](http://images.wikia.com/callofduty/images/b/be/ArmyPro.png "[avatar]")
It seems to be a mash up of CoD 4 and MW2. The holy grail of CoDs?
Logged![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/nvBbE.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.abload.de/img/hitgirl200p4dznx.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img860.imageshack.us/img860/8809/realden1.png "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://i.imgur.com/RcPaMhA.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i46.tinypic.com/33jlaqc.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lthwz9TU5h1qf0yovo1_500.gif "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5917/11245sh.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.photohistory-sussex.co.uk/SeafordNicHeenan.jpg "[avatar]")