gaming Micro-transactions in Video Games

[Lunar Echo 10,335]

So how do you feel about the current trend of micro-transactions in video games with games like EA's Star Wars Battlefront 2 being called out for putting too much weight behind the paywall for progress? I have been seeing this trend for online and offline games more and more recently, especially with triple-A titles, it has always been there but not on the same scale as we have it today. Just how far will some companies push these micro-transactions, one example I can give of it going too far would be in World of Tanks, I saw a bundle being sold for 900 odd dollars for a bundle with virtual tanks (most of which were pretty trash and probably will never use)! Do you think the system should be overhauled, removed or kept the way it's?

[zaqwert11 70]

As long as its not pay to win. i dont see the problem with people being able to spend their money on skins and such in a game. as long as it doesnt do anything els than being a skin. but ive never been a fan of games that allows you to be a 'wallet warrior' where free to play and buy to play, players doesnt stand a chance. 

[Will Guide 21,360]

@Lunarlicious

@Fennekin 

@Cypherlicious definitely-not-meme

I mentioned you guys because I think you guys might want to add your thoughts.

As for me, I think paying for DLC that comes out only a few times a year is fair. However, if by microtransactions you mean paying for every single things on a daily basis otherwise you can't even play, then yes, it's unfair.

[Libra 11,691]

it honestly depends on the content.

if microtransactions just add more stuff for customizable avatars, im okay with that. Ive bought in app stuff before. However, im not okay with them shoving it down peoples throats, adding it in every game series they have, and just non stop "give us money" games.

gamers should not be seen as piggy banks for triple a gaming industries.

[Twisted Cyclone 🚓 6,259]

Not gonna lie, I'm perhaps guilty of buying a few Shark cards in the past for GTA V. 

In all seriousness, as long as you don't have to pay to progress in the game and/or win, it's not that bad. 

[Cherry-Pie 176]

I don't mind skin deep DLC, like in Friday the 13th or sonic forces, but when DLC effects game play it ruins the game. Look at some of the DLC weapons in FF15. If you could just pay $4 for a super weapon at the beginning of FF7 it would not have been a beautiful epic experience, it would be a cash grab. I 

[Flutterstep 47,069]

It really depends on the game to be honest, because as much as I hate micro-transactions, they're the reason some games continue to be updated, like Grand Theft Auto: Online for instance.

It's games like Call of Duty and Battlefield I completely disagree with. For starters, those games are not worth the full price on their own. They are certainty not worth the premium price for a few added maps that wasn't good enough for the final project. Micro-transactions only make it worse since in these games you can not choose what content you want; it's a gamble that rewards the richer players instead of the actually fans of the game, as those players have to grind the game till it's boring just to get a chance of reciving something you like.

[Untitled Goose Q 5,137]

As others have said, depends on the content being unlocked.

If it's purely cosmetic, like skins (or mounts/transmog items in WoW) then I don't mind, even if the game itself is one you pay for.

If it's required to progress in the game, then no, I do not like. It's not so bad if the micro transaction merely speeds things up, but even then I don't typically like it, because most games in my experience make it progressively harder to advance.

One game I think has done it perfectly is the mobile game Plague Inc. Free to play, can pay a small amount to remove ads and allow for speed up of in game time, and you can also pay (also small amounts) to unlock content- but said content is pretty easy to unlock through just playing the game.

[LunarThunder 373]

I don't have much (if any) game that you need to pay more to progress so I don't know much.  Only game I really know has this thing is EA's battlefront 2 (new one). You either play 4500h to unlock everything or play 2100$... that's just stupid... I don't know anyone who has played one game 4500h (there probably are ppl that have but I just don't know)... there is also this Bethesda's thing called creator's club where you have to pay for MODS. Like wtf. (if you want to know more about it go google it or ask someone else...I'm too tired -w-...)

[Toastypk 923]

Angry Birds does it best.

They give you handfuls of powerups, and you can beat the game without them.

But if you pay a little, you can get a load of them to help you.

[Here No Longer 5,276]

Microtransactions are fine as long as it doesn't have an impact on the game itself *cough cough* Battlefront 2, Paladins *cough cough*

[Rikifive 24,128]

If these grant you cosmetic stuff, then I'm usually okay with that. If purchasing gives you a boost... Then I'm generally avoiding these games. I'm not even going to mention what I think about microtransactions, that give you powerful items, that aren't obtainable in any other way. These kind of microtransactions ruin the balancing of the game, as it is on a tiny border of cheating. It literally is like a cheat code, that you get when you pay. 
The game is designed to be played from the beginning to the end - purchasing microtransactions usually allows you to skip the beginning, by giving you overpowered items granting you the ability to rush through the story. If it's a singleplayer game, I won't care that much, but it's absolutely not fair when it comes to online gaming.

Game's balancing is a really important thing for me. I don't like when you easily can get overpowered, nor I don't like when there are tons of useless items/skills, that actually *should* be useful. Exceptions are garbage items in, for example, open-world games, that involve collecting almost everything. That's understandable there and I even like this. Having, let's say, 10 skills, where you keep using only one is the poor balancing I have in mind. I really love to blow my mind trying to compare things and use them smartly. I really love to see the progress through the whole game- constantly improving skills, equipment and such. Microtransactions with items usually take that fun away.

I totally prefer to pay once and have equal chances- fully experience and discover game's content, rather than constantly having to pay to be better than the others. P2W games always were a disaster for me.  

 

What's worse is the fact, that these microtransactions usually are really, really, really expensive. Literally, instead of purchasing a single silly microtransaction, that would give you few items in one game, you could buy many other games. It's just not calculating for me, I find it really stupid - which makes me not want to play the game even more.  

 

TL;DR - If these give cosmetic stuff, like skins, I'm okay with that. If these directly affect the gameplay - there's an extremely high chance, that I'll not even touch the game and consider it as a poorly balanced game.

[Mirage 24,747]

They've gone too far in my opinion.

Loot boxes in Overwatch - completely fine with it. No game boosts - all cosmetic AND you get a chance to grab stuff without being forced to buy anything. I will support the art and the continuation of new content for good games like this and buy a little something here or there.

Loot Boxes in CoD WWII - ruins the spirit of the game. Totally out of place. They should have set up an in-game trading post or something with some role-play. The micro-transactions should obey the spirit of the game as much as possible.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

15 years ago, you had to unlock something by actually playing the damn game. Because who needs to collect 100 of something that isn't easy to get to unlock that new skin for a gun that looks cool, when you can just whip out your wallet instead!

The fact there are people who are accepting of this is just further evidence that consumers are the root of the problem.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[CypherHoof 26,482]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

15 years ago, you had to unlock something by actually playing the damn game. Because who needs to collect 100 of something that isn't easy to get to unlock that new skin for a gun that looks cool, when you can just whip out your wallet instead!

The fact there are people who are accepting of this is just further evidence that consumers are the root of the problem.

And yet we always had that - people who would spend hours getting the 100 items, so they could sell them on ebay to someone who didn't want to spend the time doing the work. The only real difference is that now the company gets the money, instead of some random goldfarmer...

[Castle Bleck 19,333]

As many have already said, it can be done right (for example, EA's Battlefront II is the perfect guide on what to do the opposite of).

Edited December 28, 2017 by A.V.

[Scrubbed user 3,416]

9 minutes ago, Cypherlicious definitely-not-meme said:

And yet we always had that - people who would spend hours getting the 100 items, so they could sell them on ebay to someone who didn't want to spend the time doing the work. The only real difference is that now the company gets the money, instead of some random goldfarmer...

No. I'm not talking about stuff to sell on online markets. That's free-to-play stuff. I'm talking about getting items or in-game currency, the kind you have to earn yourself, to actually unlock everything in the game.

These days, most of that stuff is behind a paywall. There is hardly any skill or dedication behind having them.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Vulon Bii

[CypherHoof 26,482]

Just now, Vulon Bii said:

No. I'm not talking about stuff to sell on online markets. That's free-to-play stuff. I'm talking about getting items or in-game currency, the kind you have to earn yourself, to actually unlock everything in the game.

These days, most of that stuff is behind a paywall. There is hardly any skill or dedication behind having them.

No, it was items or in game currency then too - they called them goldfarmers for a reason.

But I think it becomes more of an issue if items are ONLY available via the pay-to-win route, and there is no way to get them by level grinding instead.

[Rikifive 24,128]

54 minutes ago, Cypherlicious definitely-not-meme said:

And yet we always had that - people who would spend hours getting the 100 items, so they could sell them on ebay to someone who didn't want to spend the time doing the work. The only real difference is that now the company gets the money, instead of some random goldfarmer...

That's true, but that's not always legal. Players will always find a way to cheat or get profit, but let's leave that to them. That activity is discouraged in general, as not only it may be illegal (against EULA), it always involves risk of being scammed. Buying stuff that way is like cheating (searching online for items~ buying things from 3rd party users- against the game's will), so that's all players' fault, unlike with microtransactions, where the game constantly encourages you to buy something.

Searching stuff on your own because you like to cheat is something else than a game poking all players practically suggesting ways to cheat.

Also, player-to-player transactions involve only items, that are obtainable in a legit way, as they have to acquire said items first (assuming the game doesn't have microtransactions). So... it is possible to deal with that. In-game microtransactions on the other hoof tend to offer special content, that makes you feel worthless when not purchasing those. A content, that is not obtainable in a legit way, that wouldn't involve real money, such as special abilities or even just the items, that most of the time are untradeable, to make it all more painful. Examples are many MMORPG's, that used the feature of binding items to characters. No trading, unless you bought an item to unbind these via microtransactions. I remember how "Runes of Magic" and many similar games used these ridiculous tactics to get profit. 

A game constantly asking you to pay for more content- that's the problem.

Edited December 28, 2017 by Rikifive

[Megas 27,572]

This shit doesn't belong in full budget AAA games and that's final. It comes off as blatantly nickle-and-diming the consumer and nowadays, the fact that these games are being built around these systems, to the point where you have to buy microtransactions and lootboxes is fucking vile

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

3 hours ago, Kiryu-Chan said:

This shit doesn't belong in full budget AAA games and that's final. It comes off as blatantly nickle-and-diming the consumer and nowadays, the fact that these games are being built around these systems, to the point where you have to buy microtransactions and lootboxes is fucking vile

The worse case example happened to be Star WArs: Battlefront II.  In order to level up your character, you had to acquire Loot Boxes.  Inside the box was random content. You could get stuff like new skins, new weapons, new experience points for your characters, or even new characters.  Before the outrage, there was an option to pay money just to open these loot boxes to advance your character.  Thanks to the outrage, the Microtransaction part was taken out.

[KirbyFluttershy 2,523]

It depends on what games though. For Team Kirby Clash Deluxe, It's not much if you wanna get things done quickly although it gets tricky as you progress so you'll need money to buy gem apples and to grow the gem apple tree if you want to progress further. Pokémon shuffle and rumble world is optional. Plants vs zombies 2, well it depends on your situation in the game and the endless zones and some plants have turned into gem-based instead of money-based however any contents you purchased with money will be shared to other profiles. Yo-Kai watch wibble wobble, well it relies on micro-transaction heavily because of the normal and lucky / oni crank-a-kais and not to mention economy class too in order to get the extra items and yo-kais although it is optional since most ppl including myself know how to farm y-money easily without exchanging real money for y-money, but we don't get the economy class.

[BlueCoats 19]

I've already bought the game, what more do that want?

[Angle Alastor 3,805]

it depends on the game if its just costumes/paint jobs or maps thats fine but everything else makes you feel like you payed half of a game......like weapons,cars and etc.

[King of Canterlot 9,603]

In some games I feel that it's fine to have micro-transactions, though only when it's not needed to beat the game or to be able to play some vital aspects of the game. If the gaming industry is trending towards most if not all games have micro-transactions that are required to even be able to beat the game, I would be concerned. Hopefully that doesn't happen, because it could really affect the gaming industry, in the number of games that are sold, as the high price of the games and the fact that you would almost have to make micro-transactions to unlock essential features of the game would simply turn most people away. Let's hope that game developers decide to not take that risky route of potentially ruining the game industry itself.