Your Opinion on Microtransactions - Share Here!

[PerlsteinProps 26,289]

I don't play games though the very concept of micro transactions makes me on edge. Companies trying to suck every bit out of money of people as they can. It's quite disgusting. 

[Literatel 144]

7 hours ago, Passion said:

 

I agree with Lootboxes and Pay-to-win, but not with microtransactions and I'll quickly explain why below.

 

 

That's how addictions are developed. From an adult standpoint, you know that such stuff is irrelevant to your gameplay or game enjoyment. But that's not a case for a lot of teenagers who do not understand the value of money. I've seen with my bare eyes cases of people so affixed on getting that one cosmetic, that they HAD to spend hundreds of dollars. And it's not the case of these people deciding if they want to buy it or not. It's the randomized system and glorification of said cosmetics that builds up envy and desire in easily influenced minds, to the point they feel they MUST buy these items to feel better about themselves.

It's one of typical gambling psychologies. If you went to a casino and saw someone win, wouldn't you feel more motivated to play so you can win as well?

 

 

Now to explain my lootbox vs microtransactions approach:

If it's a paid game, the very idea of having lootbox and microtransactions is ridiculous. You paid for the game, you shouldn't be having any content paywalled AFTER you have paid for it. It's in the files. It literally is in the files on your PC, but you cannot access is until you pay.

Free to play: I present to you:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

Also known as the game that makes everyone questions "Why aren't other online games like this?" and state "I can't believe this is free..."

 

Warframe is a Prime example of what online gaming SHOULD be. There are no lootboxes there as company behind it avoids any forms of systems resembling gambling like wildfire. But it has microtransactions. You can buy literally everything you want with real money, including warframes, weapons, skills etc. But guess what? I've played it a lot, and you can literally farm up these items as well. And it doesn't take eternity. You don't have to farm stuff to be able to farm stuff which will allow you to farm stuff thanks to which you'll finally be able to farm the last stuff you want. No. If you want something really bad, you just have to focus on that objective. Many items are available to you for farming up nearly from the beginning of the game. And the amount of content this game has is RI-DI-CU-LO-US.

I've been spending cash in this game gladly because game is clear about what you get with it. I don't buy accursed lootboxes hoping that MAYBE I'll get what I want one day. I buy things like I was in the shop. I go in, say I want "That one" and I get that one.

 

If any companies like EA or Activision state that they NEED to maintain lootboxes etc to uphold game revenue, or anybody ever states that games need lootboxes, I want to point them towards Warframe's Digital Extremes company which has massive respect to players and works with dedication to upgrading their game so that it creates revenue but does NOT s*** on their userbase.

 

I have never heard of this game. I'll have to check it out. ^^

As for the last thing you said, the CEO of Blizzard (or was it EA?) recently said, "We will continue to support the practice of direct out-of-game/in-game purchases [aka lootboxes, etc.] because they are making us money." In other words, he does not give an actual f*ck about the playerbase, as long as they are buying.

[Nye 1,652]

I’ve hated micro transactions in any game, and whenever I find any game with the option, I show the people who spend money on them that you can do all the stuff they do for free.

[Literatel 144]

6 hours ago, SaburoDaimando said:

In terms of Mobile and (Especially) F2P games, it depends on how the Microtransaction is carried out, and how much one is willing to pay.  But in $60 retail titles, there is no excuse to use any form of Microtransactions, or even Loot Boxes, in these kinds of games.  Especially not for Pay 2 Win mechanics.

One game use to have Microtransactions: Middle-Earth: Shadows of War.  They were Loot Box-based and they gave the player Orcs if they spent the money to open these Loot Boxes.  And these Orcs would help the player beat the game.  I found it to be a BS system, and I never found anything Optional about this(Besides the fact that not going down this path means a long grind).  But as I stated, the game no longer has Microtransactions.  In fact, I heard it's no longer as grindy as it once was, which meant the Microtransactions were only made to fill up Warner Bros' coffers.

Furthermore, there's also the new Call of Duty coming out.  Microtransactions and Loot Boxes, as bad as they are for the game, aren't the only problems with Call of Duty 2018.  There are other problems like trying to copy Fortnite's Battle Royale, and eliminating Single player.

And I think you all know about Star Wars: Battlefront 2, which locked progress behind Loot Boxes.  

One could also make the argument that games are a lot more expensive to make than what they used to. In other words, they need the funds in order to survive.

As for the last part of your sentence, I am not surprised. When loot boxes were much more heavily featured in Star Wars: Battlefront II (are they still?), you had to grind for thousands of hours or something like that just to unlock Luke Skywalker or - not and; or - Darth Vader. When the consumer made a riot about it, they cut down the time in half, trying to pull off the "good guy EA" bullsh*t.

If you know the Diablo franchise, there is a rumor going around the Diablo IV will not have the option to play single player. Again, they (Blizzard) want to mimic Fortnite's Battle Royale system. A bunch of video games wish to do just that, actually. There is even rumors that 7 Days to Die may one day be a Battle Royale game, and that's it. Same thing for Path of Exile.

There is a reason why we are seeing a decline in single player games. 1) Multiplayer games have become increasingly more popular over the years. 2) The gaming companies want even more opportunities to introduce loot boxes, microtransactions, and pay-to-win mechanics in their games.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Melody2222

[AJ2489 2,855]

I’m against micro transactions that give players an edge over others like COD and Battlefront 2 have done in the past. 

 

However it it is hard to ignore the fun in the opening of loot crates etc like the alpha packs in rainbow six- purely cosmetic yet still quite addictive to open 

[Literatel 144]

2 minutes ago, AJ2489 said:

I’m against micro transactions that give players an edge over others like COD and Battlefront 2 have done in the past. 

 

However it it is hard to ignore the fun in the opening of loot crates etc like the alpha packs in rainbow six- purely cosmetic yet still quite addictive to open 

Hence why I agree with Overwatch's loot box system. If you had to play the game to earn in-game currency/items which you could then use to open loot boxes to acquire cosmetic items, that would be ethical.

[AJ2489 2,855]

10 minutes ago, Melody2222 said:

Hence why I agree with Overwatch's loot box system. If you had to play the game to earn in-game currency/items which you could then use to open loot boxes to acquire cosmetic items, that would be ethical.

Definitely but when loot boxes can give players an advantage over others, it sorta ruins the game in a way 

[Literatel 144]

Just now, AJ2489 said:

Definitely but when loot boxes can give players an advantage over others, it sorta ruins the game in a way 

Or when certain content is locked unless you purchase it/them, or if you need to gamble in order to progress further in a game. You are at level 80. You need a level 100 weapon (since you are now level 100) in order to fairly play. "What's that? There are no in-game weapons above level 100? Well, visit our store and purchase this level 100 weapon for 10 dollars!" Or, "What's that? You are now level 100 and you need higher level weapons in order to progress further into the game? Well, purchase some loot boxes, silly!" $400.00 later...

That stuff sickens me. ._.

[AJ2489 2,855]

1 minute ago, Melody2222 said:

Or when certain content is locked unless you purchase it/them, or if you need to gamble in order to progress further in a game. You are at level 80. You need a level 100 weapon (since you are now level 100) in order to fairly play. "What's that? There are no in-game weapons above level 100? Well, visit our store and purchase this level 100 weapon for 10 dollars!" Or, "What's that? You are now level 100 and you need higher level weapons in order to progress further into the game? Well, purchase some loot boxes, silly!" $400.00 later...

That stuff sickens me. ._.

Yeah I absolutely hate that!

[Literatel 144]

Just now, AJ2489 said:

Yeah I absolutely hate that!

Try purchasing WWE 2K17 (or don't). You will be TICKED OFF. I didn't buy it (I'm not into those games anyway), but supposedly, over 70% of the in-game content was locked.

[AJ2489 2,855]

yeah My friend had it I used to go over to his and play it- It was like playing an unfinished game 

[Literatel 144]

2 minutes ago, AJ2489 said:

yeah My friend had it I used to go over to his and play it- It was like playing an unfinished game 

And that is not including the fact that every single WWE game looks like a clone of the previous one, and their mechanics and graphics are so horrible, that only Vince McMahon could love them. XD

I recommend to you: Dust: An Elysian Tale. And no, I am not advertising. It is just simply an adorable game. :3

[AJ2489 2,855]

Yeah theres a few game series out there exactly like that- WWE, Fifa, etc 

 

Never played that one but I'll check it out!

[Literatel 144]

Just now, AJ2489 said:

Yeah theres a few game series out there exactly like that- WWE, Fifa, etc 

 

Never played that one but I'll check it out!

Fifa. Oh my f*cking god. Oh my god... Don't get me started on the microtransactions for those line of games...

Random question: Are you one of those people who likes to go into a game blind? If not, I could send you one picture of the game, so you can judge its style. :3 (Also, if we are to continue this topic, we should do it on PM.)

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 40,561]

I have the opinion that season passes are worse than microtransactions, on average and micro transactions can be done in a way that doesn't hurt the experience, while season passes tend to split up the playerbase of multiplayer games and can also contain cut content. There are obvious examples of doing microtransactions horribly, like in Battlefront 2 originally or any modern Call of Duty game. To me, a game is at its worst when it has both, having both of these things is abysmal and Call of Duty fits that bill. It has both microtransactions and a season pass each year and that is where I draw a huge line. I cannot stand that. Have one or the other, preferably have only micros or neither at all, but having both? That is greed in the highest order.

[SaburoDaimando 1,196]

1 hour ago, Melody2222 said:

One could also make the argument that games are a lot more expensive to make than what they used to. In other words, they need the funds in order to survive.

As for the last part of your sentence, I am not surprised. When loot boxes were much more heavily featured in Star Wars: Battlefront II (are they still?), you had to grind for thousands of hours or something like that just to unlock Luke Skywalker or - not and; or - Darth Vader. When the consumer made a riot about it, they cut down the time in half, trying to pull off the "good guy EA" bullsh*t.

If you know the Diablo franchise, there is a rumor going around the Diablo IV will not have the option to play single player. Again, they (Blizzard) want to mimic Fortnite's Battle Royale system. A bunch of video games wish to do just that, actually. There is even rumors that 7 Days to Die may one day be a Battle Royale game, and that's it. Same thing for Path of Exile.

There is a reason why we are seeing a decline in single player games. 1) Multiplayer games have become increasingly more popular over the years. 2) The gaming companies want even more opportunities to introduce loot boxes, microtransactions, and pay-to-win mechanics in their games.

And yet, Activision was surprised that a updated remake of the Crash Bandicoot Trilogy sold really well across the board.  Even the Switch version did well in sales.

[Literatel 144]

2 minutes ago, SaburoDaimando said:

And yet, Activision was surprised that a updated remake of the Crash Bandicoot Trilogy sold really well across the board.  Even the Switch version did well in sales.

That is because, for the most part, companies would rather sell a product that is popular, rather than by selling something new. For example, what would most people buy? The next Star Wars game, or a new game entirely? Answer: Always Star Wars. Every single time. It is a big risk to release a movie or a game that does not have a bit of nostalgia behind it, thus they very rarely do so. Activision was surprised, not because the chance of releasing a remastered version of a game, or an entirely new game, has a small chance of success (most of the time), but because it is much safer to release a game, in which the franchise is already known and is kicking.

[Envy 6,039]

I begrudgingly accept microtransactions that are just DLC, if you're counting that as microtransactions. They have to be low in price and you are getting what you pay for. I'm used to this kind of DLC because I've been playing The Sims on PC since 2004. The Sims 3 is the worst I've ever seen with this model of DLC. EA split up content into so many formats and basically made you have to be rich to be able to fulfill being a completionist. Nevertheless, I accept them to a point because they keep a game alive and fresh with content.

BUT when I think of microtransactions, I'm not thinking of straight-up DLC like that. To me, microtransactions started with F2P mobile games, where you don't have an actual complete game to play in front of you, and the company allows those limitations to be lifted as long as you start paying money here and there. That's a rather crappy model, especially since mobile games that operate with this model generally aren't good games to begin with. Even if you were able to get them complete, they're repetitive, simplified versions of games.

But that model wasn't good enough. Now these games like RNG pulls. They are gambling. And it is the absolute worst trend I have ever seen happen in gaming and I will seriously have to stop playing video games if this nonsense bleeds out of the mobile games into the actual mainline series on consoles/PC, etc. Not only is that practice just horrible beyond belief by default... The prices they expect you to pay are outrageous. Calling these a "micro"transaction is just laughably bad. I got into Kingdom Hearts Union Cross (originally Unchained) because my crush played it (yeah. D: ) and it has really shown me how awful this model really is, and how the prices are actually VERY high. Thankfully, I know the game is trash so I don't spend money on it... but other people do. People actually spend $15 to $20 for a SINGLE. RNG. PULL. The medals they get from doing those pulls are made irrelevant in a month's time, sometimes much quicker. Also the god awful VIP subscription model of that game is paying $15 a week. The subscription doesn't really do much, either. Also, currently the game is shooting out new medals several times a week, and is expecting people to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars every single week. They actually have added two boards in the last couple of weeks, both of which require you to spend $800 a piece.

"Micro"transactions my butt. This is gambling and robbery.

[Literatel 144]

15 minutes ago, Envy said:

I begrudgingly accept microtransactions that are just DLC, if you're counting that as microtransactions. They have to be low in price and you are getting what you pay for. I'm used to this kind of DLC because I've been playing The Sims on PC since 2004. The Sims 3 is the worst I've ever seen with this model of DLC. EA split up content into so many formats and basically made you have to be rich to be able to fulfill being a completionist. Nevertheless, I accept them to a point because they keep a game alive and fresh with content.

BUT when I think of microtransactions, I'm not thinking of straight-up DLC like that. To me, microtransactions started with F2P mobile games, where you don't have an actual complete game to play in front of you, and the company allows those limitations to be lifted as long as you start paying money here and there. That's a rather crappy model, especially since mobile games that operate with this model generally aren't good games to begin with. Even if you were able to get them complete, they're repetitive, simplified versions of games.

But that model wasn't good enough. Now these games like RNG pulls. They are gambling. And it is the absolute worst trend I have ever seen happen in gaming and I will seriously have to stop playing video games if this nonsense bleeds out of the mobile games into the actual mainline series on consoles/PC, etc. Not only is that practice just horrible beyond belief by default... The prices they expect you to pay are outrageous. Calling these a "micro"transaction is just laughably bad. I got into Kingdom Hearts Union Cross (originally Unchained) because my crush played it (yeah. D: ) and it has really shown me how awful this model really is, and how the prices are actually VERY high. Thankfully, I know the game is trash so I don't spend money on it... but other people do. People actually spend $15 to $20 for a SINGLE. RNG. PULL. The medals they get from doing those pulls are made irrelevant in a month's time, sometimes much quicker. Also the god awful VIP subscription model of that game is paying $15 a week. The subscription doesn't really do much, either. Also, currently the game is shooting out new medals several times a week, and is expecting people to pay hundreds and hundreds of dollars every single week. They actually have added two boards in the last couple of weeks, both of which require you to spend $800 a piece.

"Micro"transactions my butt. This is gambling and robbery.

I've never personally played the Sims myself, but I have heard similar complaints. And there are two reasons why another Sims and Spore 2 would never happen (thankfully): 1) Maxis was given the axe. 2) The number of MTX they would put it them would be ridiculous. Think about it. Another Sims or Spore 2 would be MTX HEAVEN!!! -_-

But I agree with you. I prefer paying the full price for the game, expecting the entire game to come with my initial purchase, and only having to pay for DLC (for a reasonable price) months or a year+ after the game is initially launched. If a game is launched on, say, July 17th, and I purchase it the next day, I absolutely do not want to here a month later that a DLC was released for said game. DLC's take time to make, just like games take time to make. If a DLC is announced shortly after the game was released, you can bet your pretty little a** that the DLC is not a DLC by tradition, but a scam.

Here is another example. For Honor had a huge amount of hype around it, and at a Con, someone asked if For Honor would have microtransactions or loot boxes. The CEO said, "Absolutely not! :)" Two hours before the game is available for public use, they quickly introduce loot boxes. It completely broke the game.

And to make matters worse, people still bought the game. They knew, they had a couple hours in advance, but the game still sold millions of copies, from what I heard. It doesn't matter if people think gambling in games - even those geared towards children - is completely unethical and appalling, the gaming companies will continue to make money. And that is all they care about: MONEY. I'm glad I am only interested in a few specific games, for I will never support these corporate jackasses. They have turned a free exhibit and put a major price tag per minute of you looking at it.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Melody2222

[BlinkZ 1,151]

On one hand, I understand why they exist. But...they are often very manipulative and at worst are pay to win. People paying money for pixels that we'll only do them good in that game alone. I don't like them, i think they are under handed scum of the video game industry. The "just Cosmetic" escuse is more flimbsy then a house of cards during a tornado 

[BlinkZ 1,151]

10 minutes ago, Melody2222 said:

I've never personally played the Sims myself, but I have heard similar complaints. And there are two reasons why another Sims and Spore 2 would never happen (thankfully): 1) Maxis was given the axe. 2) The number of MTX they would put it them would be ridiculous. Think about it. Another Sims or Spore 2 would be MTX HEAVEN!!! -_-

But I agree with you. I prefer paying the full price for the game, expecting the entire game to come with my initial purchase, and only having to pay for DLC (for a reasonable price) months or a year+ after the game is initially launched. If a game is launched on, say, July 17th, and I purchase it the next day, I absolutely do not want to here a month later that a DLC was released for said game. DLC's take time to make, just like games take time to make. If a DLC is announced shortly after the game was released, you can bet your pretty little a** that the DLC is not a DLC by tradition, but a scam.

Here is another example. For Honor had a huge amount of hype around it, and at a Con, someone asked if For Honor would have microtransactions or loot boxes. The CEO said, "Absolutely not! :)" Two hours before the game is available for public use, they quickly introduce loot boxes. It completely broke the game.

And to make matters worse, people still bought the game. They knew, they had a couple hours in advance, but the game still sold millions of copies, from what I heard. It doesn't matter if people think gambling in games - even those geared towards children - is completely unethical and appalling, the gaming companies will continue to make money. And that is all they care about: MONEY. I'm glad I am only interested in a few specific games, for I will never support these corporate jackasses. They have turned a free exhibit and put a major price tag put minute of you looking at it.

Pretty much agree with all that you said, oh and let's not forget the scandle of Loot boxes. they pushed and pusehd so hard that Goverment itself got involved. I persoanlly don't play Sims 4 but udderly hate its buiness model of chipping up features int 15 dollar packs/stuff packs. Pets should have been in the game on launch not 3 years alter!? or hell even seasons. I udderly can't stand the industy, and i don't play muliplayer games.

[Literatel 144]

Just now, BlinkZ said:

Pretty much agree with all that you said, oh and let's not forget the scandle of Loot boxes. they pushed and pusehd so hard that Goverment itself got involved. I persoanlly don't play Sims 4 but udderly hate its buiness model of chipping up features int 15 dollar packs/stuff packs. Pets should have been in the game on launch not 3 years alter!? or hell even seasons. I udderly can't stand the industy, and i don't play muliplayer games.

Aaaaand the gaming companies found a loop hole. Again. For many games that have loot boxes, they changed the mechanics ever so slightly. Now, when you spend money to pull open a loot box, you know the three things you are going to get. However, you have to pay for that loot in order to open another loot box. Not only is this asking you for double the money, but the gambling addiction is still there. But these game mechanics are legal somehow.

[Here No Longer 5,271]

Microtransactions are okay as long as it doesn't affect the game itself (cosmetics, voice packs, announcer packs, et cetera). There shouldn't be an issue with the people behind the game trying to make a few extra bucks on things like that. (though I do have an issue when they get overpriced *cough cough LEAGUE LEGENDARY SKINS cough cough*)

If it does affect the game, I'm totally against them. That is because those are the ones that make the game no fun, and force players to cough up insane amounts of money just to get somewhere. It is totally filthy and wrong.

[BlinkZ 1,151]

2 hours ago, Melody2222 said:

Aaaaand the gaming companies found a loop hole. Again. For many games that have loot boxes, they changed the mechanics ever so slightly. Now, when you spend money to pull open a loot box, you know the three things you are going to get. However, you have to pay for that loot in order to open another loot box. Not only is this asking you for double the money, but the gambling addiction is still there. But these game mechanics are legal somehow.

Celestia dam it...it's Gambling yet legal because they show you what you get. Greedy componies exploiting addictions...why is that not illegal. this is why i Trust indie componies more then AAA companies. There not one high end company at the top that hasn't pulled of such sleezy tactics.  esh now i sound like Jim Stirling lol

[Literatel 144]

1 minute ago, BlinkZ said:

Celestia dam it...it's Gambling yet legal because they show you what you get. Greedy componies exploiting addictions...why is that not illegal. this is why i Trust indie componies more then AAA companies. There not one high end company at the top that hasn't pulled of such sleezy tactics.  esh now i sound like Jim Stirling lol

It isn't illegal... because it isn't. Plain and simple. And even if new laws were made, the gaming companies have their ways. The bigger something gets, the more carefree and corrupt it gets.

And do you know the fourth worst thing in gaming right now: Battle Royale Mode! The next COD will have it, the next Battlefield will have it, the next Star Wars will have it, the next Diablo will have it... OMG!!!