gaming Micro-transactions in Video Games

[Misty Shadow 7,084]

So long as they're just for extras, I really don't care as much as I don't care for them and prefer "working for things the honest way" in games. If we're talking promoting people "paying to win" in the main game, that's another story.

[LunarWave 106]

Definitely depends on how it's implemented 

Most cosmetics are fine. Selling power (especially in PVP) is awful. The way Warframe did it - awesome. 

[Divine plywood 1,232]

Majority of former posters seem to agree that micro-transactions are ok as long as players can't buy actual power up and they should be limited to being visuals and skins only. I strongly agree. Comparing pay-to-win lootboxes to cheat codes was very good comparison.

In older days when games had DLC's you had to pay, content locked behind paywall was truly something new. New maps, weapons, story etc. Otherwise customers wouldn't have bought them. This was case in Oblivion for example.

Later, somewhere in early 2010's season passes started to occur - many story driven telltales used this methode. Base games where rather cheap and buying content with 20 bucks or so you could have new expansion to the story, new charachters and so on. Still fair deal in most cases.

All the time in the backround there were free-to-play mobile- and internet games. Problems like children using their parent's credit cards were very common. In general, more that you could spend, the more stronger your character became.

 

When big AAA-games first started to adopt micro-transactions in later years of 2010's you still purchased functional game somewhat worth their cost. Then companies really digged in to this new opportunity and started to strip their games from original content and shutting it behind paywall. What I didn't see previous posters to pick up is that today we can't really talk about micro-transactions but rather casino economy. Gamers don't see what they are purchacing when they buy lootboxes. They can only hope that literal slotmachine buid inside the game would reward their investment.

 

This current trend is quite shady and anti-customer. But, these games that we purchace aren't what devs, writers and other various artists have originally in mind. These talented people, many gamers themselves, are forced to water down their creations because companies' owners and stockholders orders them to do so. Whenever fans and customers are angry for EA, 343 Industries, or even Hasbro, I feel sorry for these hardworking idividuals who are forced to create shity products.

The corporations, man!

[ultrairongorilla 2,064]

I'm mostly ok with DLC mission packs as long as they actually add something worth while to the overall game or story, but when they lock main content like extra classes to play as behind a pay wall like the way South Park The Fractured But Whole did, or incorporate micro-transactions as part of the main game like in Star Wars Battlefront 2 as sort of like a cheat code, then I think it's a load of crap. 

The worst offender of this has to be Final Fantasy All The Bravest, when every time you want to revive a fallen party member you have to pay real money. I'm not kidding...

Edited January 30, 2018 by ultrairongorilla

[honk friend 1,972]

Games are getting more expensive to make, but the MSRP of new games hasn't shifted from $60 in almost 15 years. It's natural that AAA developers and publishers are trying to squeeze more money out of games while the indie industry is booming with cheap-to-produce, cheap-to-sell games.

[MickeyAdaptus 2,209]

 

Watch this video and let that information sink in for a bit, because this shows just how deceiving and greedy companies are with those microtransactions, and yes, I am talking about you, EA and Activision.

 

After all, who doesn't want *pride and accomplishment* when purchasing loot boxes with microtransactions?

 

 

But to give my full honest oppinion, companies are thinking they can get away with the scummiest of things when given the chance, and when they are called out on it, they quickly take the famous EA route with making false promises or give pathetic excuses.

I especially loved how the EA Ceo refers to games as *services*.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Mickey Adaptus

[LunarWave 106]

1 hour ago, Annie said:

Games are getting more expensive to make, but the MSRP of new games hasn't shifted from $60 in almost 15 years. It's natural that AAA developers and publishers are trying to squeeze more money out of games while the indie industry is booming with cheap-to-produce, cheap-to-sell games.

That is no excuse for predatory practices and unbelievable levels of scumminess.

Besides, they aren't really game developers anymore. Most of the games we're talking here are uninspired, safe, by-the-numbers crap that's only purpose is to give publishers money. And just so happens, there's an audience around the concepts that were once awesome and new and that audience can still pay for it. But with increased desperation, or greed, or whatever is UbiActiEA's motivation I doubt it's going to stay like this for long.

And indies are not only cheap to produce games, there's a huge variation in what classifies as an indie. There is cheap stuff, sure, but then there are releases that are very well executed, and ones that costed quite a bit. Subnautica took around 3 years and $ 9 million to make, and it's still a true indie. Cuphead took even longer and it's sales figure put some AAA releases to shame.

As for the Twiple-Aye market... Maybe next couple of years we'll see responsible game models rise. Maybe we'll see price increase, or maybe those releases will go subscription route, integrating with the game store offerings, like Origin's subscription. Or maybe the people will have enough and make those companies die. It has happened before, and there' no guarantee it won't happen again.

[honk friend 1,972]

Just now, LunarWave said:

That is no excuse for predatory practices and unbelievable levels of scumminess.

MTX and DLC aren't predatory by default, they're the AAA industry's best way to keep turning a profit without raising MSRP and thus decreasing sales.

1 minute ago, LunarWave said:

Besides, they aren't really game developers anymore. Most of the games we're talking here are uninspired, safe, by-the-numbers crap that's only purpose is to give publishers money. And just so happens, there's an audience around the concepts that were once awesome and new and that audience can still pay for it. But with increased desperation, or greed, or whatever is UbiActiEA's motivation I doubt it's going to stay like this for long.

Not true. The "uninspired, safe, by-the-numbers" content out there usually goes ignored or forgotten, such is the case with THPS5 and CoD:WW2. AAA titles with predatory practices like SWBF2, and to a lesser extent Fallout 4/Skyrim SE and GTA5, only become relevant through intense negative backlash.

1 hour ago, LunarWave said:

And indies are not only cheap to produce games, there's a huge variation in what classifies as an indie. There is cheap stuff, sure, but then there are releases that are very well executed, and ones that costed quite a bit. Subnautica took around 3 years and $ 9 million to make, and it's still a true indie. Cuphead took even longer and it's sales figure put some AAA releases to shame.

And usually the more expensive indie games are crowdfunded or funded by bigger studios, like how No Man's Sky was funded by Sony. Even so, $9 million is a fraction of what big AAA studios spend on game development by comparison. Bringing up the sales figures kind of proves my entire point that indie games are flourishing, because they're cheaper to sell and don't have intrusive DRM, MTX, or DLC.

[AlbaTross 1,581]

MTs were introduced as a new way for games to make money, so that companies could charger players little bits throughout instead of for the initial download.  Not in addition to.  Instead of.  It's a formula known as free to play (F2P) or freemium, as the game itself is free, but there are purchases that can be made inside the game to enhance the experience or make it less of a grind, and in return the studio behind the game can make money.  It's a formula that has worked especially well for more casual and/or mobile titles.  

Returning to the premise of forgoing the initial purchase, that's the reason why people don't feel cheated by MTs in those games.  Well, so long as they're priced reasonably.  *Angrily glares at some of the ridiculous prices for the MLP Gameloft game and Disney's Crossy Road, which can eclipse the price of entire games.*. I'm pretty good at avoiding paying anything in general in freemium games, but once in a blue moon I might be inclined to make a small purchase of a few dollars or less, and I think that's perfectly fair if the title in question has entertained me for a while.

What makes EA's MTs evil and wrong is that they're charging full retail price for their games and then imposing MTs on the player.  They can't just fuse standard retail pricing and the formula for F2P titles together as a means of double-dipping on the consumer's dime.  They use the excuse that they have families to feed but that doesn't explain how they fed their families before implementing MTs or how many studios still release games without MTs and profit from them.  No argument they can make for MTs in full retail games will be accepted, and if they want to start an argument they will have already lost.  

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

As you can tell, I have a beef with this kind of stuff, especially in retail titles.  And lemme say this: Game companies are only coming up short and disappointed NOT because a game undersells(Some games sell in the millions and are still considered flops), but the fact that the gaming industry is catering to its shareholders, not to the consumers.  

And it's not just EA that's putting in stuff like Loot Boxes.  Activision(Destiny 2 and the recent Call of Duty games), Warner Bros(Middle-Earth: Shadows of War), and Ubisoft(Assassin's Creed: The Later games) also pull this stunt off.  And so far, there has been backlash against the rise of Loot Boxes and Microtransactions in Retail titles(Destiny 2 and Star Wars: Battlefront II).  It will get worse if the gaming industry continues down this destructive route.  Hell, I won't bat an eye if the Triple A industry goes under because of this over-obsession with this kind of greed.

But one thing that grinds my gears about this is the fact that some people WANT Microtransactions in the game.  Why?  So they don't need to Git Gud with a game and get all the weapons(I am not kidding.  I frequent the SEGA Forums, and I find it baffling that some people want Splatoon 1 and 2 to have Microtransactions just to bypass levels and get every weapon available).  

 

Note: If anyone watches the Jimquisition, Jim Sterling does do a number of rants on Microtransactions and why he doesn't think it's Optional in a retail title, even if it were cosmetic.  Many people often accuse him of beating a dead horse over Microtransactions.  But he keeps raising the awareness of the problem ad nauseum just to remind people what their purpose is

 

Folks, do yourself a favor and check out the Jimquisition on Youtube.  But be warned: Very mature and saucy content.

[LunarWave 106]

16 hours ago, Annie said:

MTX and DLC aren't predatory by default, they're the AAA industry's best way to keep turning a profit without raising MSRP and thus decreasing sales.

They became predatory by-default at this point. They might be good in some games, but there is a reason everyone that isn't AAA studio wants to get the hell away from the perception EA created for them.

Quote

Not true. The "uninspired, safe, by-the-numbers" content out there usually goes ignored or forgotten, such is the case with THPS5 and CoD:WW2. AAA titles with predatory practices like SWBF2, and to a lesser extent Fallout 4/Skyrim SE and GTA5, only become relevant through intense negative backlash.

Doesn't really matter if it gets forgotten, if it sells after the initial marketing push.

Quote

And usually the more expensive indie games are crowdfunded or funded by bigger studios, like how No Man's Sky was funded by Sony. Even so, $9 million is a fraction of what big AAA studios spend on game development by comparison. Bringing up the sales figures kind of proves my entire point that indie games are flourishing, because they're cheaper to sell and don't have intrusive DRM, MTX, or DLC.

And I think that's freaking awesome that they are funded in this way. $9M might not be a huge budget, but it sure was enough to craft a unique experience. And I'd take that any day over a bloated corporate monster that needs unicorn-level success or predatory tactics to survive.

[Denim&Venöm 16,503]

You know it's an issue when the states of Hawaii and Washington and even the country of belgium are looking into seeing if these qualify as gambling, and even if they don't, is it worth warning parents and adding regulation over.

[LunarWave 106]

Oh god, latest Jim's video is just putting a grin to my face

https://www.youtube.com/user/JimSterling/videos

Edited January 31, 2018 by LunarWave

[Mystic Brush 102]

Literally the mlp game. $400 for ONE pony and, getting gems are the hardest thing ever.

[LunarWave 106]

16 hours ago, Mystic Brush said:

Literally the mlp game. $400 for ONE pony and, getting gems are the hardest thing ever.

Jebus... for $400 you can make a tabletop model of a city in those games, and play in IRL

[EpicEnergy 22,074]

I think there should be some way developers make money from a video game, but not unpleasant and game-breaking ways.

[Sonic Shimmer 4,116]

Not a fan, but I almost exclusively play single player games so I don't come across them often.

[DixonTheAdversary 1,631]

I don't usually play too many games that have microtransactions, so I don't normally encounter them. The only game I play a lot of that has them is TF2.

[Chadbacca 375]

I usually now steer clear of any games that have microtransactions in them.  Yeah, there are free to play games with microtransactions that do them right such as Path of Exile and Team Fortress 2 and in the case of such titles, it's for to support the developers and provide to the in-game economy, but for "AAA" games that have them, it's more often than not to milk as much money as possible from players just so it can make a few people at the top insanely rich.

[Jon the VGNerd 842]

Remind me again why microtransactions even exist in the first place? Just to fuel the gaming developers' greed?

[Jon the VGNerd 842]

5 hours ago, Chad327 said:

I usually now steer clear of any games that have microtransactions in them.  Yeah, there are free to play games with microtransactions that do them right such as Path of Exile and Team Fortress 2 and in the case of such titles, it's for to support the developers and provide to the in-game economy, but for "AAA" games that have them, it's more often than not to milk as much money as possible from players just so it can make a few people at the top insanely rich.

I stopped playing TF2 because of the P2W nature, along with egregious matchmaking that makes it all the less fun, same for CSGO. I'm not giving them a single dollar for cosmetic stuff that loses their charm after a short time. If they can't introduce in-game credits without the need of having to pay real money for rare items, then Valve is dead to me. They can join EA, Activision, Ubisoft, Rockstar Games, and other devs because eventually, Valve will become a target for lawmakers for their P2W nature.

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

I think the reason why people are defending Microtransactions even in spite of all evidence is this: Some people have a sense of achievement for buying these kinds of things.  A feeling they get for getting that rare character, weapon, or skin.  And yes, even if there are non-MTX games that makes unlocking skins a piece of cake.  They feel as if it held value, like a trading card, or a collectible figure.  I also figured that the same thing can be said of Loot Boxes.  Some people like having a surprise come out of it, hence why they're willing to part with hundreds of dollars on Loot Boxes.(And I think that's crazy, as one who has played F2P games).

What I find really said is how many defend Microtransactions and Loot Boxes in $60 games(Soon to be $70 games), even in spite of more expensive editions and DLC.  It's rather obvious that it makes the Triple A industry look greedy in hindsight.  But even if they came out and admit that this was all a scam, some will still defend it to the very end.  

 

 

[Retro*Derpy 3,081]

I'm against games hiding content behind a paywall, especially if you have to buy the game in the first place. Even cosmetic items should have a chance of being obtained from playing it.

[Astralshy 23,555]

Some years ago I thought  micro transactions would be okay for cosmetic items only. Then  I witnessed how this was used in games and I changed my mind. These days I'm against hiding content behind paywalls in bought games.

[Rainbow Dash 1,471]

4 years later microtransactions are still a massive issue. I can see how SOME mobile games have these but fully flushed out games, sometimes triple a games? It should be illegal. Its like going to a movie theatre but having to pay extra for the bloopers, directors cut or after credit sequences. Its like buying an album from the itunes store but they are filled with ads and you can only get rid of them by buying an ad free download pass. 

"But paying for cosmetics is fine" Is it though? Back in the old days of gaming, you had to use skill to unlock cosmetics. This also taught alot of 80s and 90s kids(and some 2000s-2006 kids) that hard work and preservation would help them get a satisfying pay off. Now these games are teaching kids "money gets you anything you want.".

I can understand small game companies doing microtransactions to pay for servers and pay the wages of their IT departments but triple a studios like EA should never have an excuse to charge for microtransactions.