How Should 2k Respond to Community Disappointment over Features Cuts?

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by LorenzoDC

It sounds like you're saying that posters around here know all the information in advance about a game before it releases. But that's patently not true. People pay attention to the public statements and read the tea leaves on e3 video footage, etc., precisely because there's no clear public information, and what there is, is incomplete. I don't understand your argument, which seems to be, hey, if you're surprised, it's your own fault, because you didn't pay close enough attention to all the readily available information here on this site prior to launch.

He's saying that before you buy the game there are more than enough guys on this site that have it and will post videos, impressions, etc. for you to see it and decide whether or not you like what the game has to offer. Nothing about having info prior to release. There's no law out there saying you have to buy the game within the first twenty minutes of release or else you're excluded from buying it after that.

Quote: Originally Posted by VDusen04

Yes, that's exactly right. I'm absolutely questioning their direction based off of my personal likes and dislikes. When I made the transition from NBA Live 2002 to NBA 2K2, it was because 2K's direction seemed plainly clear to be in sync with what I was looking for out of an NBA basketball game. 2K made no qualms about it, they were out to make the most realistic NBA simulation of all-time and because that's exactly what I was looking for, it was a match made in heaven.

And this is my point. They're still making a realistic, simulation basketball game. Just because you don't personally like the RPG element of a career mode doesn't mean it's not a realistic simulation game. I don't understand how the idea of VC or create-a-player getting left out one year translates to their direction not being the most realistic NBA simulation ever.

Quote:

In part, what this thread is touching on is the recent lack of clarity from 2K. A lot of us can no longer make sense of their overarching mission statement. Is it to make the most realistic NBA simulation ever, both on and off the court? Is it to give what active social media consumers vote for the most? Is it to sell as much product as possible by any means possible? I'm curious to know whether this direction change shall continue into the future, building off of NBA 2K13 and NBA 2K14, or if we can ever expect a return to a lot of the more realistic and controllable aspects I most value. I am a consumer who is questioning whether a product I've loyally followed over the past 12 years is slowly moving away from my personal preferences. In lieu of explanations (though I appreciate Leftos saying what he's allowed to say), I have a lot of questions.

Again, explain to me how adding virtual currency is moving away from realistic simulation basketball? I'm not even trying to be funny here, I'm trying to see where you're coming from and right now, I'm a blind man.

Quote:

I believe this may be a little bit aside from the original thread topic, but I do not think all microtransactions were created equal. There's a difference between GTA V offering me a blimp for pre-ordering their game and NBA 2K carpet bombing their entire product with virtual currency.

Quote: Originally Posted by BluFu

no, those are things that are not in the base game that the company charges for an additional price. the major problem with VC is that it was littered (or "carpet bombed" as VDusen kindly said) on things that we already had access to free from the start in previous games.(ie. tats and accessories in mycareer, star players in blacktop)

You don't have to spend your own money on VC. Do you not buy tats in GTA? Are clothes not bought in GTA for your characters? Cars? Haircuts? Is it okay because in GTA it isn't called VC they still call it money? Explain to me how you're becoming less realistic having to spend money on clothes, tats, etc. in game? You earn money doing jobs in GTA that can be used on real estate, cars, etc. You earn VC in 2K by playing the game, doing your career and so on. Is it really that different?

[LorenzoDC]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

He's saying that before you buy the game there are more than enough guys on this site that have it and will post videos, impressions, etc. for you to see it and decide whether or not you like what the game has to offer. Nothing about having info prior to release. There's no law out there saying you have to buy the game within the first twenty minutes of release or else you're excluded from buying it after that. You don't have to spend your own money on VC. Do you not buy tats in GTA? Are clothes not bought in GTA for your characters? Cars? Haircuts? Is it okay because in GTA it isn't called VC they still call it money? Explain to me how you're becoming less realistic having to spend money on clothes, tats, etc. in game? You earn money doing jobs in GTA that can be used on real estate, cars, etc. You earn VC in 2K by playing the game, doing your career and so on. Is it really that different?

I'll chime in on the two questions I bolded.

First, I understand what he's saying now, but I still don't see how it's relevant to the question of how 2k responds to hard core game fan disappointment. The timing of the consumer reaction doesn't really matter. Sure, as a consumer, it's a better strategy to wait and resist the marketing hype before game launch. But I'm not asking about consumer strategy, I'm talking about game maker communications strategy.

From the game publisher's perspective, launch day and launch day response is important, because buzz makes or breaks sales, and investors watch it closely. Loyal customers create that buzz. 2k pays people whose only job is to manage communications with hard core fans, so they think it's important, too. They have developers who, like the Valve devs in article linked in the OP, recognize that some of the best ideas come from the engaged fans. Those devs recognize the value in product creation that the loyal customers can deliver.

So, to my mind anyway, it's best not to do what EA does and leave negative reactions linger out there if they don't have to. Some questions can be answered, and good marketing and product management doesn't let stuff like that create a negative trend. This is basic business stuff, it's kind of surprising to me that anyone would find my merely asking the question of how they should respond to be somehow. . . what. . . uppity, inappropriate? Nowhere have I ranted or engaged in hyperbole or conspiracy thinking, etc.

Second, from what I can tell, the VC objections are about the pricing and balancing mostly. In GTA5, you can make enough money pretty easiy to buys stuff and customize your toons. I'm one of those people you mention who has not bought a new console yet as I didn't want to be first out of the gate, but from what I can gather, VC prices and toll booths are steep enough and pervasive enough that players are finding they get in the way of playing basic parts of the game. And GTA5 doesn't offer you the option of coughing up your credit card for in game cash, so that game is not trying to harvest residual revenue from the title beyond the initial purchase price and some future DLC..

[VDusen04]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

And this is my point. They're still making a realistic, simulation basketball game. Just because you don't personally like the RPG element of a career mode doesn't mean it's not a realistic simulation game. I don't understand how the idea of VC or create-a-player getting left out one year translates to their direction not being the most realistic NBA simulation ever.

Again, this thread is about communication more than what I prefer in a game. But in regards to your response, I suppose it's a matter of opinion. Personally, I do not find virtual currency contracts and leveling up to be even vaguely realistic. But again, that's about three rabbit holes removed from the topic of the thread at hand, which is about communication, clarity and information.

Quote:

Again, explain to me how adding virtual currency is moving away from realistic simulation basketball? I'm not even trying to be funny here, I'm trying to see where you're coming from and right now, I'm a blind man.

I find virtually nothing realistic about the manner with which NBA 2K has implemented their fictional golden coin currency in their off-the-court modes. If others find the manner with which they've handled this implementation with great, realistic aplomb, so be it. But once again, that's kind of not the point of this thread, at all.

[NvME]

No different than how they've responded to prior complaints. Just send your PR guy in.



"We're listening, guys."

[RogerBlack]

Quote: Originally Posted by spankdatazz22

I get that some of you feel slighted, but in the end there's nothing they're going to be able to tell you that you'll accept. And in the end, if they do a worse case scenario and don't add back some of the features that were present in current gen, what good would an apology/acknowledgement today mean? To make you feel better for a while?

I disagree with the red part.

In short, "The truth about the future of the game" is acceptable.
(That's what they could tell us.)

One way to look at it is....

Both Sony and Microsoft have released new consoles that have EXPONENTIALLY more computing power than the last generation. (So forthcoming games can do even more than ever!)

Yet 2K just released an NBA game that contains like HALF of the content as the last version... which ran on machines that had a FRACTION of the next-gen computing power.

And that doesn't seem odd to you?

Think about it...

The hardware gets much BETTER.... but the game gets kinda WORSE?
This is what leaves some folks confused. And unsure.

Some folks are OK with that.... or even feel GRATEFUL about it.

And some even give 2K 'a pass'... without even knowing the truth about what their 'roadmap' for the future is.

Whoa, slow down.

Well, before I give 2K a pass this year, I just want to feel confident that the game modes & features that I enjoy... WILL return. (Or at least just feel confident that the question itself is not being completely ignored.)

But what if those features don't return next year?

Personally, I'm not looking for any "apologies" if they do not bring them back. smh.
Either way, that's their decision.

Bottom line, I just want to know what's in store for NEXT YEAR.
(Whether good news, or bad news).

Some 2K fans who felt slighted are really just looking for 'concrete' reasons to get EXCITED about the game again. (Not just marketing lingo, or catchphrases, or buzzwords.)

The sooner that happens...
The sooner these threads & complaints die down.

This year is what it is. What's done is done.
No turning back now.

Another way to look at it is...

- If a TV Network cancelled your favorite show OF ALL TIME... you would probably want to know "WHY?"
- But if they said they were going to bring it back again... you would DEFINITELY want to know "WHEN?"

Dig me?

[spankdatazz22]

Quote: Originally Posted by RogerBlack

- If a TV Network cancelled your favorite show OF ALL TIME... you would probably want to know "WHY?" - But if they said they were going to bring it back again... you would DEFINITELY want to know "WHEN?" Dig me?

No, I don't. If HBO cancels the Wire or the Sopranos, they don't owe me an explanation why they cancelled it. Sure I'll wonder why, but they don't owe me some detailed blow-by-blow account of what the decision process was.

Quote: Originally Posted by RogerBlack

One way to look at it is.... Both Sony and Microsoft have released new consoles that have EXPONENTIALLY more computing power than the last generation. (So forthcoming games can do even more than ever!) Yet 2K just released an NBA game that contains like HALF of the content as the last version... which ran on machines that had a FRACTION of the next-gen computing power. And that doesn't seem odd to you?

Again, no. Since when do people expect everything with a launch game other than this year and with this game? By most accounts NBA2K14 made the biggest leap and has the biggest distinction between it's current gen version and the next gen version. It stood out as an almost must-buy as a launch game. It doesn't matter how powerful the new systems are, you're completely ignoring the fact that most of the launch games were ports and this one wasn't. 2K said repeatedly the next gen game was going to provide a distinct experience from the current gen game.

Again, what do you want to hear? If they say "We plan to add x-y-z back to the game next year" - will that make you feel better? That's what this is all about, having your feelings soothed? They don't owe you anything, anymore than a network owes me a detailed rundown on what the decision process was when they cancelled a show.

THE ONLY REASON WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION IS BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF NBA LIVE. Some of you are acting like you're "loyal 2K customers", but that's complete BS. A loyal customer is labeled as a fanboy, which is frowned upon here. If the competition provided a better alternative, most of you would bounce in a heartbeat. We wouldn't even be having this conversation if NBA Live was the better game. Or if it were NBA2K14's equal. Because most of you would simply go to the better game. If my girlfriend left me when I was down, or a ballplayer leaves his team because he can make better money elsewhere that's not loyalty - yet you feel they owe you something?

This situation is completely about some people feeling hurt and wanting to have their feelings massaged imo. Again, if the competition were better you wouldn't be pleading with 2K about providing you with some roadmap - you'd simply go to the better game. Many have mentioned they would've already. The complaints are because the people complaining know they have no where else to go. Because frankly, if the missing features are *that* important to you, you do have an NBA alternative. And that's the crazy thing. Given all these years not releasing a game, where was the expectation of NBA Live to hit a grand slam out of the park as a launch game? Why only expect that of NBA2K14?

[Saturnis]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

You don't have to spend your own money on VC. Do you not buy tats in GTA? Are clothes not bought in GTA for your characters? Cars? Haircuts? Is it okay because in GTA it isn't called VC they still call it money? Explain to me how you're becoming less realistic having to spend money on clothes, tats, etc. in game? You earn money doing jobs in GTA that can be used on real estate, cars, etc. You earn VC in 2K by playing the game, doing your career and so on. Is it really that different?

no one is saying the VC system is bad, the VC system is unbalanced. UNBALANCED for crying out loud, and thats why it therefore IS BAD. If it was fixed then it wouldn't be an issue.

since we bring up the GTA example, lets roll with that.



i believe the tattoos are slightly more expensive online correct? safe to say? Online, missions range from maybe 2,000 dollars all the way up to 25,000 and even more. Let's say i want a tattoo that is 1,000. I can buy that specific tattoo twice over by just playing the lowest payout mission gta offers. This is evident throughout the whole game with engine upgrades, car colors, body kits, weapons, etc etc. i can essentially buy decent items after playing a couple missions for about 20-30 mins.

now lets move on to 2k's VC system.



This is about as high as you can get, he would have gotten more had it been a key game im sure since key games payout more. You essentially have to play this good to get a decent payout and you won't always have a perfect game. Not to mention he didn't even receive all his VC for this match, he was cheated out of his VC and only received 600 vc. you can view that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg639jN0gaI



So lets say your average VC is around 500-700, and if you play long quarters (7-12 mins) you're looking at making about, potentially anywhere between, 500-800(depending on key games) VC for about 20-30 mins worth of time. What can you buy with that? lets look.



if you make about 600-700VC (im being nice because usually you can also make less) a game, thats about 10-13 games you would have to play, each lasting about 20-30 mins, just to get yourself a pair of Jordans. Where not even talking about applying attribute points to your character, were talking about Jordans.



Even the price of generics went up which made me giggle. I didn't notice until comparing them. 3pt attribute sleeves are also 5k. The VC system is this unbalanced all over the place and these are just some set examples. I didn't even go over dunk packages, jump shots, animations etc etc. Trust me theres a lot more.

here is something i said in another thread which applies here:

"These aren't micro transactions, these are manipulated ways to make you spend more. I bought a game and I should be able to enjoy it as intended like I have with my previous 2k games (before vc) without purchasing anything extra. But when you constantly receive minuscule amounts of vc for all the hard work you put into the game it becomes a chore, its not fun anymore. Its something you begin to just shrug off. I love basketball but every passing year I hate basketball games.

You're confusing micro transaction with what 2k is doing. Micro transaction is put in to give you a little head start, an incentive, or just something extra.

Think games that let you purchase new masks (the last of us) maybe some different kinds of guns, or gta by purchasing money to buy things. Now although they offer these as micro transactions, You do not need to purchase this to enjoy the game or play as it was intended. You'll still have other free masks other things to customize your character. But in 2k EVERYTHING requires vc. And seeing as you only make enough for one sleeve and Nike's halfway into a mode is ridiculous.

here is another relevant post by someone who grasps the concept and sees theres a problem here. posted by El_Poopador

"this. its not that vc is a bad idea. just the opposite actually. it can add a sense of realism in having to spend money (in the game) on things like shoes and accessories. and it can give you a head start if you choose to buy it.

but there are two issues with the way its implemented:

1. the vc earned versus the cost of various things is incredibly unbalanced. in my career for example lets say i earn 500vc per season based on my contract. that means that i need to spend my entire contract on a sleeve. or i need to play 2-3 non-key games to earn enough for the same sleeve. thats 2-3 games where i cant upgrade my attributes or anything if i want that sleeve asap. with how low you start out attribute-wise its ridiculous.

2. you have to pay for things with vc that are basic functions. in mygm why would you not have the ability to change your lineup from the start? you have to spend vc just to be able to change your rotation. that is ludicrous. you have to spend vc to be able to meet with a player. then you have to spend vc to actually meet with a player. then what if i want to have more than one mygm? i would have to respend more vc on those same unlocks.

like saturnis said it should be an optional incentive to purchase vc if you want a head start. but the way its set up now you almost have to buy it just to be able to play the game as intended. either that or spend hours grinding just to earn enough to unlock the base features like changing rotations."


you all are just justifying everything and are not actually looking around and seeing things for what they are. No one is actually being a realist here and admitting theres a problem with this system. It's not a problem for 2k it's a problem for the consumer. If that didn't help you then i don't know what will.

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by Saturnis

no one is saying the VC system is bad, the VC system is unbalanced. UNBALANCED for crying out loud, and thats why it therefore IS BAD. If it was fixed then it wouldn't be an issue. since we bring up the GTA example, lets roll with that. i believe the tattoos are slightly more expensive online correct? safe to say? Online, missions range from maybe 2,000 dollars all the way up to 25,000 and even more. Let's say i want a tattoo that is 1,000. I can buy that specific tattoo twice over by just playing the lowest payout mission gta offers. This is evident throughout the whole game with engine upgrades, car colors, body kits, weapons, etc etc. i can essentially buy decent items after playing a couple missions for about 20-30 mins. now lets move on to 2k's VC system. This is about as high as you can get, he would have gotten more had it been a key game im sure since key games payout more. You essentially have to play this good to get a decent payout and you won't always have a perfect game. Not to mention he didn't even receive all his VC for this match, he was cheated out of his VC and only received 600 vc. you can view that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg639jN0gaI So lets say your average VC is around 500-700, and if you play long quarters (7-12 mins) you're looking at making about, potentially anywhere between, 500-800(depending on key games) VC for about 20-30 mins worth of time. What can you buy with that? lets look. if you make about 600-700VC (im being nice because usually you can also make less) a game, thats about 10-13 games you would have to play, each lasting about 20-30 mins, just to get yourself a pair of Jordans. Where not even talking about applying attribute points to your character, were talking about Jordans. Even the price of generics went up which made me giggle. I didn't notice until comparing them. 3pt attribute sleeves are also 5k. The VC system is this unbalanced all over the place and these are just some set examples. I didn't even go over dunk packages, jump shots, animations etc etc. Trust me theres a lot more. here is something i said in another thread which applies here: "These aren't micro transactions, these are manipulated ways to make you spend more. I bought a game and I should be able to enjoy it as intended like I have with my previous 2k games (before vc) without purchasing anything extra. But when you constantly receive minuscule amounts of vc for all the hard work you put into the game it becomes a chore, its not fun anymore. Its something you begin to just shrug off. I love basketball but every passing year I hate basketball games. You're confusing micro transaction with what 2k is doing. Micro transaction is put in to give you a little head start, an incentive, or just something extra. Think games that let you purchase new masks (the last of us) maybe some different kinds of guns, or gta by purchasing money to buy things. Now although they offer these as micro transactions, You do not need to purchase this to enjoy the game or play as it was intended. You'll still have other free masks other things to customize your character. But in 2k EVERYTHING requires vc. And seeing as you only make enough for one sleeve and Nike's halfway into a mode is ridiculous. here is another relevant post by someone who grasps the concept and sees theres a problem here. posted by El_Poopador "this. its not that vc is a bad idea. just the opposite actually. it can add a sense of realism in having to spend money (in the game) on things like shoes and accessories. and it can give you a head start if you choose to buy it. but there are two issues with the way its implemented: 1. the vc earned versus the cost of various things is incredibly unbalanced. in my career for example lets say i earn 500vc per season based on my contract. that means that i need to spend my entire contract on a sleeve. or i need to play 2-3 non-key games to earn enough for the same sleeve. thats 2-3 games where i cant upgrade my attributes or anything if i want that sleeve asap. with how low you start out attribute-wise its ridiculous. 2. you have to pay for things with vc that are basic functions. in mygm why would you not have the ability to change your lineup from the start? you have to spend vc just to be able to change your rotation. that is ludicrous. you have to spend vc to be able to meet with a player. then you have to spend vc to actually meet with a player. then what if i want to have more than one mygm? i would have to respend more vc on those same unlocks. like saturnis said it should be an optional incentive to purchase vc if you want a head start. but the way its set up now you almost have to buy it just to be able to play the game as intended. either that or spend hours grinding just to earn enough to unlock the base features like changing rotations." you all are just justifying everything and are not actually looking around and seeing things for what they are. No one is actually being a realist here and admitting theres a problem with this system. It's not a problem for 2k it's a problem for the consumer. If that didn't help you then i don't know what will.

Relax man, I'm well aware of the pricing issue with VC. There are very few people that complain about VC that are complaining about the pricing of the things and rather complaining about the fact that VC even exists. Look in this thread, it's not mentioned at all about the pricing being off. So again, relax, don't come at me with the 'nobody is saying such and such' argument. I'm not "justifying everything" don't paint me as somebody that turns a blind eye to things because that's not me. If I see something I have problem with, I'll voice that.

You quoted somebody talking incorrect information anyway. Specifically in his MyGM example. He said he would have to spend more VC on the same unlocks if he started another GM. Incorrect, once it's unlocked to your MyPlayer it's already unlocked for the new GM. I know because I've started two different GMs and saw that the rotation ability was already unlocked. Just like accessories and gear is already unlocked for your MyPlayer once you spend the initial VC on it.

The only real problem with VC is as pointed out the balancing on it. The reason it's so unbalanced anyway was because guys were complaining about how quickly players were progressing their characters to 99s and then dominating online. As usual no matter the fix attempted, somebody is going to be pissed and rather than looking at it rationally and taking things like that into account people go off on tangents and act like it's evil 2K sitting in their evil creepy castle trying to figure out a way to screw you out of money for something YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY.