Senior Member
ANY micro transactions in a game you pay for I think we can ALL agree is never a good thing.
I used to defend the presence of micro transactions in Wildlands as long as there was no clear pay to win balancing to the gamesplay — i.e deliberately making the game grindy to incentivise their purchase. And that ALL of the content could be unlocked by playing the game.
However I am starting to understand that the very presence of micro transactions in our favourite games now points to a grim future for gaming.
I don’t think people realise the long term implications of micro transactions.
I think people need to realise that micro transactions, if allowed to persist unchecked (i.e consumers don’t protest or complain about their presence in games), and they continue to prove profitable for companies, then they could single-handedly change the face of gaming as we know it.
ALL future AAA game design will be built from the ground up with micro transactions and their subsequent systems in mind.
This could very well lead to an erosion and the complete extinction of certain genres of games that are not so easily monetised.
Which means, passively accepting micro transactions now, may well mean saying goodbye to games you like in the future.
I know some people have a kind of learned helplessness about all this and are resigned to a Pavlov’s dog position — that we can do nothing to change the status quo so what’s the point?
But this is simply not true. If history has proved anything, people actually can affect change and consumers have at numerous times by kicking back against overtly greedy practices.....
Just a thought folks.
Member
For sure the MTX way of profit has changed the way games are made. This is not even something that takes much insight or knowledge to observe. Just having enough experience of seeing a range of games from the original Doom up to now is enough. But yeah, not too much to say on it really, I like the games I like and aside from that I do other things for enjoyment.
What I think is likely, given what you have said along with what seems to be the norm, is that we will start to see the divide between publishers/developers who are primarily after money, and those who pursue their craft. In that light I can't help but think of Konami as a real life example. They pretty much came out and said that they are shifting their focus to the mobile market because they can easily make more for less. I'm sure most Metal Gear and or Kojima fans are well aware of that case. I imagine that we will start seeing that message from more and more companies over time.
Senior Member
Senior Member
There's more to microtransactions than just corporate greed. I've said before. How do gamers want games with ongoing support to function? It's been said that gamers hate expansions, map packs, microtransactions unleess they're extremely cheap. Hell, there are even gamers that complain about $60 price of games.
Let's talk niche genres. How many AAA games still turn-based combat? Not many. Why? It's not worth the development to please enough to justify production of 40 million or higher. There's a reason for indie markets. Niche genres only require smaller budgets because a turn-based game will not sell enough to cover production on the scale of a BioWare/Bethesda title. Microtransaction from my understanding act as a safety net in case of game not making its money back because it allows players that enjoy the game to pay for items that the average gamer does not.
Did you know the average gamer never even gets past the tutorial or beats the games they have?
Senior Member
Well the way I am starting to percieve it is that games have been locked into the $60 basic price tag for many years. In the mean time costs have increased and pressure for profit has increased and the Brilliant move of MicroTransactions has creeped into AAA titles because this is a way of making up for the extra costs/profits now incurred.
If they were honest, they would just give some kind of mild, honest, apology and increase the basic price of standard games to $70 or $75 dollars and quit with the deceptive compromises we have had to endure for the last 5 or so years. You either buy the game at $75 or you dont. I mean hey I never buy the season passes and I have yet to be disappointed that i didnt buy, or even Gold Editions which are way more than the standard now.
Senior Member
Unfortunately. You'd have the same outrage from mtx take effect if games started costing more than 60.Originally Posted by Agent...Tex Go to original post
Junior Member
Senior Member
The premise that selling extra content on top of base content is corporate greed seems to be at the heart of this. In just about any product or service that you buy you will see the same model. Extras on flights, more channels or HD channels on TV packages, finishes and parts on cars, room service in hotels, you name it. Some will see it as consumer choice and some will see it as exploitation. It's how our world of commerce works, though, and if you are upset by it then living off the land in remote area may be a better lifestyle choice for you.
As long as the company are not forcing me to buy items in order to play the game then I see no harm in them making more money selling something to someone who wants it. The Catch 22 being if enough people are annoyed that Ubisoft are selling a particular item, then they (Ubisoft) would have been mad to have given it away in the first place. The indignant YouTubers and angry reactions may be having the opposite effect to what you expect as it is re-enforcing the point that people want this stuff. What will make micro transactions go away is apathy towards them and non-participation in them. That's where I'm at; you won't find me buying a cosmetic item and you won't find me making a scene in the local pizza restaurant because I can't have all the fillings they sell for nothing.
Member
It's like people try to miss the root points of the micro-transaction concern. Plainly and simply for little ol me, it is when the presence of such sales practices clearly becomes a driving influence on how a game plays. The features, mechanics, and possibly every part of it. Of course this can't be proven directly, but it can be observed by users and viewers none the less. Since people like metaphors: An Escher piece and the Starbucks logo are both technically art, but there is a big difference in what went into making them and what they represent.
Senior Member
With all of this nonsense where some people believe that microtransactions and always online are a requirement going forward in gaming, all I have to say is there is a reason I'm playing Borderlands 3 more than Destiny 2, or the Division 2, and part of the reason why I have not picked up Breakpoint. I've enjoyed not having an in-game store constantly slapped on a menu. You are absolutely right when it comes to games and gamers all being effected by microtransaction design models that include such things as boosters, skill points, resource packs, etc... its just a matter of factors such as do you enjoy the grind, have the time, or don't mind the grind. That time savers are present which by all indications point to a game requiring so much of your time, especially in battle pass reward systems. These features don't have to necessarily be bad, but the way they implement them are typically in a way that limits and timegates progress to encourage player retention and tempt people to spend actual cash on boosters. Even locking away certain cosmetics is clearly a scumbag move. To have base level common items such as crye clothing and the multicam pattern locked away is nonsense in a tactical shooter. Its the equivalent of selling a car without any paint and flat tires if there even are tires to begin with. Sure it won't cost as much as the car to address those issues, but you just bought the car advertised as new, its not like it was given to you for free. Horrible and scummy decisions.
