Micro-transactions and the future of your games! | Forums

[Virtual-Chris]

One thing that I read in a review earlier I thought was very profound... It was something like, it's no longer "pay to win" but "pay not to play". In other words, companies are selling stuff that enables you to fast-track the game and skip playing to get the results.

I have a mixed view of MTX. On one hand, I don't care if someone wants to buy a blueprint or a skill point rather than have to go searching for it. Another way to look at it is that some people don't want to spend time developing an RPG character... they just want to shoot guys and do missions. So buying stuff to start on a strong footing, is almost like paying for a NG+ experience. You can skip the RPG and just get on with the game with a well developed character.

On the other hand, putting very popular items like a MK18, a Crye shirt, some essential camo patterns, behind a paywall is gouging. They did it in Wildlands, and the number of people who popped out their wallets for a Crye shirt with rolled sleeves has forever doomed us to paying for popular items. I don't think there's anything we can do to change it. Even if the small community here boycotts MTX, it's not going to change anything. Droves of gamers will still buy gear they want.

Economics wise, game prices haven't gone up much over the years, but the cost of developing a AAA game has gone way up as expectations have gone way up. So if you keep the price of the game fixed, the only way to make up the extra is through MTX. And we all know public companies like Ubisoft are under shareholder pressure that matters way more than some small vocal community pressure.

When I buy a game, I expect to spend money on MTX. It's just a fact of life. Like when I buy a car, I now expect to have to pay extra for extras that I think should be included in the price of the car (or as AI Blue stated above, this model is on just about everything you buy these days).

[X_____ACE_____X]

What a lot of you fail to realise is that the microtransactions cause a drop in quality of games because the whole premise of having microtransactions to begin with was to implemented a system out of greed to maximize on profits once they saw how much money EA was making with the FIFA franchise and thought "I´ll av some of that" this was before it was needed for increased development costs. The result was games being built with this in mind from the ground up to lure a lot people into feeling they need to buy these "extras" the same "extras" that used to be part of the full game. Perhaps if they just stuck to making great games and relying on high sales figures to make their profits their reputations would still be intact and gamers would be relatively fine with paying more for full games. Also I feel as long as DLC was substantial enough most gamers would have no problem with that either as long as they put the same amount of passion into them as they did with the full release.

[bigbstaB]

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.

Blue — you know I disagree with you.

Well — I agree it’s not yet pay to win, at least as far as I’m aware?
Although they did take the most popular cosmetic items in the base Wildlands game (stuff that was free) and put them behind a paywall for Breakpoint — which personally think was a fairly scummy move to the loyal fan base. Maybe you don’t?

But I’m talking about the principle. How egregious, how in your face it all is in a Breakpoint.

I think if this was just the same in principle as horse armour and expansion packs, why have micro transactions even become a controversial thing in recent years?

If this were such a non issue then why the scandal? Why the controversy? Why are these business practices finally being scrutinised at the highest level, government legislators, and safeguarding watchdogs?

This is not simply wanting extra pepperoni on your pizza for free.
I think you over trivialise the issue and you practically absolve the company from any ethical over step.

This is not the way others see it.

Why do you think nearly every gaming site who has featured or reviewed this game all mentioned almost verbatim how riddled with micro transactions the game is — nearly every item and every aspect of this game has been monetised.
And let’s be real — it’s clearly been designed that way.

There’s a reason every major franchise Ubisoft has, they have in recent times introduced these same mechanics — obviously so they can be monetised.


And I know I know.... Breakpoint is no different to Wildlands right?

Oh but it is... I remember Wildlands coming out, I remember reading the reviews some of the reviews mentioned micro transactions, but only that they were there, nothing more. Whereas with Breakpoint the presence of the micro transaction seems to have provoked a different response, right? There seems to be a bit of an outcry, you might say.

They can’t all be wrong...


If you don’t see that there has been a definite shift (compared with Wildlands) in how unabashed and unashamedly Ubisoft are going for the $$$ with this game, then we are seeing two different games.

Look at RDR2 folks — biggest selling game of all time? I think made Rockstar a wee bit of cash. It doesn’t have any of this bs.
You could cite other big games, The Witcher etc.

At the end of the day yeah, it’s a business.
But you know what? I like to think a little thing called integrity is still important to some out there.

LaMOi

[LaMOi]

Not sure why seems to be switching my profile. BigbstaB?

[LaMOi]

Perhaps if they just stuck to making great games and relying on high sales figures to make their profits their reputations would still be intact and gamers would be relatively fine with paying more for full games. Also I feel as long as DLC was substantial enough most gamers would have no problem with that either as long as they put the same amount of passion into them as they did with the full release.

Agreed.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

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.

Ubisoft games are built around mtx first and foremost gameplay is likely 4th or 5th down the line. Every open world they do is vast empty worlds with no imagination put into them at all. No decent set plays and no decent stories any more but worst of all filled with checklist gameplay and 50-80 hours plus of doing the exact same thing over n over n over... Ubi devs are just puppets with little input or being able to use their own creativity.

I hope the AAA industry falls on its arse and we can get rid of these predatory practises from Ubi and also move away from vast empty open worlds.

[LaMOi]

I hear you. I agree.


But not to say I dislike everything about Ubisofts game design over the years, let’s face it we all like something otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

I have really appreciated some of their games over the years and especially Wildlands — it has to be the most non linear, non scripted game I’ve played on console. I HATE linear games, so I really appreciated that.
I really loved a lot about that game.

Ubisoft have made some great games over the years, so their shift in design ethos and to monetise every damn thing in sight in recent times has for me, been like watching one of my favourite Pubs burn down....

It’s a damn shame.

[AI BLUEFOX]

Ubisoft games are built around mtx first and foremost gameplay is likely 4th or 5th down the line. Every open world they do is vast empty worlds with no imagination put into them at all. No decent set plays and no decent stories any more but worst of all filled with checklist gameplay and 50-80 hours plus of doing the exact same thing over n over n over... Ubi devs are just puppets with little input or being able to use their own creativity.

I hope the AAA industry falls on its arse and we can get rid of these predatory practises from Ubi and also move away from vast empty open worlds.

They will make what sells, they are a business. What sells is what their customers want. What most of their customers want is your issue and that has been the case since Wildlands. For me as long as there is a decent GR game among the options and the levelling system and there isnt a pay to win store then I'm happy. In spite of the levelling, and lack of AI team I am enjoying the game. Underneath the skin the game is a decent GR which has improved over Wildlands.

[AI BLUEFOX]

I hear you. I agree.


But not to say I dislike everything about Ubisofts game design over the years, let’s face it we all like something otherwise we wouldn’t be here.

I have really appreciated some of their games over the years and especially Wildlands — it has to be the most non linear, non scripted game I’ve played on console. I HATE linear games, so I really appreciated that.
I really loved a lot about that game.

Ubisoft have made some great games over the years, so their shift in design ethos and to monetise every damn thing in sight in recent times has for me, been like watching one of my favourite Pubs burn down....

It’s a damn shame.

Its a decent game underneath the levelling system. You'd like it.

[Flaw3dGenius23]

They will make what sells, they are a business. What sells is what their customers want. What most of their customers want is your issue and that has been the case since Wildlands. For me as long as there is a decent GR game among the options and the levelling system and there isnt a pay to win store then I'm happy. In spite of the levelling, and lack of AI team I am enjoying the game. Underneath the skin the game is a decent GR which has improved over Wildlands.

I played the beta and honestly thought it had regressed in most areas. I dont believe Ghost Recon fans wanted Wildlands or this. I did say in a thread i created that bad reviews dont matter to Ubi as they have their open world fans who crave the checklist gameplay and will purchase every open wotld game blindly even if every one of them is poor or bang average. The Apple of the gaming world if you like.

They should never of brought the Ghost Recon name back for Wildlands or this it should of been a new ip.