Skip to content

Microtransactions how do you feel about them?

mlnevesemlnevese Member, Moderator Posts: 10,214
edited July 2014 in Off-Topic
Lately all games seem to come with micro transactions, some have become pay to win games where you have no hope of completing the game without buying in-game itens.

I have no problems with DLC when it is done right. New areas, new stories, new quests, I'll gladly pay for them as long as they are expansions to the game and not parts of the game that were ripped off and sold separately.

Really nowadays I run away from most "free" games but now this trend of micro transactions is finding its way into full priced games.

I fear soon I will only be able to play old games...

What do you all think about it?
Post edited by mlnevese on
CorvinoCrevsDaakDemonoid_Limewire

Comments

  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,870
    The only game which features any kind of money transactions that I play is DDO. And that's pretty much only because it's the probably last 3.5 edition D&D game made at this point. I've purchased a couple of races, classes and the Forgotten Realm add-on there to increase the replayability. But as for anything else in their online shop? No way!

    As a rule of thumb I hate to spend real money for game items, costumes, hairstyles, pets and whatever else pointless eye candy the developers threw at players with a passion. The same goes for bloody, monthly game fees as well.
  • FinneousPJFinneousPJ Member Posts: 6,455
    Pretty much the same as you. I avoid these games, but if I do get one (Angry Birds Epic for example, so much mobile fun), I absolutely refuse to make any payments.
    CrevsDaak
  • SquireSquire Member Posts: 511
    I don't mind the idea of paying a bit for extra stuff, but I don't like it when it's necessary to play the game. I really hate pay-to-win games.

    The only game like that that I'm currently playing is Rise of Flight, but at least I can have a decent game using the planes that came with the Channel Battles Edition.
  • TarotMasterTarotMaster Member Posts: 147
    edited July 2014
    Sp many crates but i wish keys did not cost 2 $'s US....... I have only paid for a few DLCs in Killing Floor and for Boarderlands 2. one cost 10$ the other cost 8$ seems overpriced. I also was addicted to the FTP version of RIFT i would have tottaly paid alot for that.
  • meaglothmeagloth Member Posts: 3,806
    I hate freemium games. Hate. them.
    CrevsDaakDemonoid_Limewire
  • elminsterelminster Member, Developer Posts: 16,315
    I normally avoid these sorts of games.
    CrevsDaakDemonoid_Limewire
  • Awong124Awong124 Member Posts: 2,643
    I'll still play the games. I just won't spend money on the microtransactions. Genererally it's the things like spending money for in game currency so you can progress faster. I'd never pay money for that.
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    I dont mind a game that makes unlocking stuff very difficult or tedious, but mandatory imho is not going to get me.

    Much moreso if I actually PAID for a game. I dont play any games with an ongoing fee, never have and dont think I ever will. If a developer charges for actual content, no problem, no complaint, ie DLC npc or mini-expansions (ie new features, options or areas, as applicable). Bigger expansions arent really micro, but as long as they add something I dont mind paying a bit. I enjoyed HoW, though Trials was a very welcome addition.

    Buy to win = extortion, pay to save time/patience = good design and good business
  • CorvinoCorvino Member Posts: 2,269
    edited July 2014
    It seems bizarre that some games make a large part of "the game" about grinding up resources/gold, and then also sell resources/gold as microtransactions. These people must have deliberately made bits of their game un-fun in order to sell stuff. Which is bad.

    I have no problem paying full price for a game and getting a full product. Overhaul, with their full price and all DLCs included (on PC) approach got this right. Paying full price, getting half a game and then having a company's hand in your pocket until you get bored and stop playing is another matter. Frustratingly it's a popular option now. Day 1 DLC on full-price products is an insult to gamers. (*Edit* - that's not aimed at Overhaul, I understand the entire iOS approach there.)

    The old "expansion pack" approach, or even a collection of bundled DLCs seems much more appealing. It always seems you get more value that way as a consumer. The "expansion pack" mentality that you pay half full-price, but get an additional campaign of about half the length of the base product (and a few extras) seems to be mostly extinct.
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 7,811
    I like micro transactions to an extent. It rewards the developer for creating a game that I enjoy playing and keeps it shelf life much longer when it is done properly.

    An example of that Civilization 5. When it was first released it had 18 civilizations you could play back in June 2012. Now it has over 50 with two expansions and a couple of DLCs that not only added the new civilization to the game but a custom scenario as well. Two additional years of development that kept the game fresh and exciting.

    I also bought the season pass for Injustice, not because I wanted to play the new heros, but because I wanted to reward the developers for a job well done. I bought a couple of the costume packs as well for this reason and some of them were released for free.

    Another game that I am playing but haven't given money to, is War of Omens over on Kongregate. It is one of the freeium games people hate however, it isn't as much as a pay to win as in a play differently to win. Players who support the developers by giving them kreds aren't doing it to win, they are doing it so they have more options to play and besides doing less grinding, are not given that much of an advantage to those who choose not to pay.

    I also finally bit down and purchased the majority of DLCs for both DA:O and the Mass Effect series (only one and two at the moment, and not the costume or gift packs) and even though I feel like I had complete games before I bought them, they both give a little something new to experience after playing the games a couple times.

    That said, I only buy DLCs and the like AFTER completing the game. If I enjoyed it and want to play it again, I might throw money towards the developers that way but it is rare.
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    The only games I seriously play outside the BG saga (I never got into IWD, and PS:T does not have much replaybility value) are Angband, the Marathon saga and NetHack. You can get all of them for free, and they aren't too new I should add...
  • KaltzorKaltzor Member Posts: 1,050
    I don't mind microtransactions too much, the only ones I have a problem with are boosts that can be used in a PvP environment.
    DreadKhan
  • Demonoid_LimewireDemonoid_Limewire Member Posts: 424
    mlnevese said:

    Lately all games seem to come with micro transactions, some have become pay to win games where you have no hope of completing the game without buying in-game itens.

    I have no problems with DLC when it is done right. New areas, new stories, new quests, I'll gladly pay for them as long as they are expansions to the game and not parts of the game that were ripped off and sold separately.

    Really nowadays I run away from most "free" games but now this trend of micro transactions is finding its way into full priced games.

    I fear soon I will only be able to play old games...

    What do you all think about it?

    Very sad and disappointing, the turn modern gaming has took towards quick cash and short lived games (usually, of low quality). Now, sir, you made me sad.

    Once upon a time, game creators had talent and inspiration. Games weren't created with DRM as their foremost priority, they lasted much longer than 1-2 playthroughs, and were released in huge physical boxes, which were LOADED with physical extras, like hand-drawn manuals, artbooks, etc. When they neared the end of their lifespan, they got ONE, only ONE release of extra content, named "expansion", which most of the times was of high quality too, and was pretty long, full of extra content, not some quick swipe, aiming for quick bucks...

    There was an era without preorders featuring extra content, countless different versions of the same game, an endless list of ambiguous quality, let alone practicality, DLCs, and worst of all, legal money swindling, as i like to call the entire phenomenon. I hate it how devoted customers are punished (get the same content for triple charging), with the preordering day 1, getting DLCs separately, etc. And cheapskates, clever investors or old gamers, such as we, simply wait patiently for that goty, enhanced, or complete edition, at half price, 2-3 years later. I hate DLC pimping. As i like to call it. It is a bad system. The expansion system and era really rocked. I miss it dearly.

    Yet, there are some companies, even in this time and fashion, that beg to differ. That try to give us the most out of games. Good old games, AND new ones! Companies who abolish DRM, use fair pricing system, turn the preorder and DLC system into a consumer friendly system altogether (either they offer DLCs for free, or they assemble them all together and sell with one game at the same price, and usually discounted, or use preorder well and even give refunds or gifts in the form of other, older games), etc. People like them restored my faith into our hobby's viability and grim future.

    With online games, or MMO, it is even worse. Microtransactions my ash! Never paid anything. Once upon a time, i tried to immerse myself into an MMO, and thankfully, i didn't make it. People are very elitistic, snobbyish, but worst of all, no-lifers. I have a life, i have free time (but limited), and i have other things to do, especially when i am not welcome into the party (noob, we go to a raid, you need to get that better equipment, you suck at pvp, you didn't heal us as you should, quit trying to do damage you are a healer, etc). No, thank you. I prefer quality games, even if older. When YOU play the game, and the game doesn't play YOU. Games that you can solo, if you so much wish.

    Also, even monthly subscriptions seem shady. Systems like those of Guild Wars, or the late Diablo 2 (compete for free over battlenet, multiplayer yes, free yes, mmo and subscription NO...), are what games and companies, should be aiming at. I feel sorry for those who make some swindlers filthy rich. People should learn to vote with their wallet, and avoid flashy mainstreams/trends/fashions. But alas, people do not even know the rights they have as a consumer, the standards they have as hobbyists (i won't say gamers), and what it is trully better for them to demand. They do not bother to compare and contrast, seek for alternatives, or even more rarely, peek to the past, to see what was going on then, and how different that is from today. As the saying goes: "Those who do not know history, they do not have a future". In any matter this can be applied to.

    Corvino
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    One issue with gaming then vs now, I'm pretty sure development costs are substantially higher. Games early on could be made by a very small group, possibly with only a handful of coders, graphics artists and maybe someone brought in to work out a storyline/write some dialogues. Games now require vast heaps of bells and whistles, unless you develop for a mobile based ap. These costs are a risk... think of how the movie industry reacts to a true and largely unexpected megaflop. Apparently one bankrupt United Artists, and we had many years of very lowest common denominator type movies. Movies are still made, but risks are weighed very differently... think sbout how many games flop. :s lots werent really big name productions, but most big companies dont take very big risks. Through in the relative ease of pirating games, and the situation gets uglier. Its all economics, the behavior stuff.

    Bottomline, companies have to make a profit, and as such they like derivitive games. Serious innovation costs money, and gamers are very fickle as a market. I think Nintendo was onto something with he idea of the wii, trying to reach out to non-traditional markets. Hardcore gamers might not always be the best market to aim for, IE the original pokemon game. Anyone could play it, and it was fun enough that people bought gameboys to play it, or dug one out of the attic. RPGs, as a storytelling machines, are a good choice imho for this. Everyone loves stories, but RPGs are often made very much 'for' gamers atm, ie skantily clad women and all that. DLC likely is less offensive to non-gamers, same with 'pay to play', as they wont have the expectation of getting everything up front.

    TLDR hardcore gamers are starting to become dinosaurs, even white elephants. :s
  • LiamEslerLiamEsler Member Posts: 1,859
    I really wish you could all work as game developers for a couple of weeks and see the other side of things. ;)

    DLC is a pretty awesome thing for our industry, for players, and for games. Pay-to-win sucks, but DLC - downloadable content - is pretty fantastic, for so many reasons. Anyone who argues DLC is 'content removed from the game so players can pay for it' is usually pretty ignorant of the reality of game development.
    DreadKhan
  • ZanianZanian Member Posts: 332
    @LiamEsler While I do agree to a certain extent, it does seem to be a growing trend for companies to actually remove/delay content so it can be sold as dlc.
    Several game companies in the last few years have released dlc weeks, and even days after the official game release. It's kind of hard from a consumer's viewpoint to not have a sour taste in your mouth when that happens.

    Luckily most companies don't do that, and hopefully never will.
    elminster
  • LiamEslerLiamEsler Member Posts: 1,859
    @Zanian Content may have been cut from development and then finished as DLC, but that doesn't mean it was "removed" or "delayed" to make into DLC.

    The reality is that without DLC, that content would just never have seen the light of day. DLC allows us to actually add stuff we were forced to cut due to time constraints, budget, etc. back into the game - but of course it costs money to do so, and so it has to be paid content.
    DreadKhanAstroBryGuy
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,857
    I can only agree once for each of @LiamEsler‌ 's posts, and provided there are relatively few bugs and the content adds something, its good for everyone. Paid for DLC encourages a company to produce a much, much better final product. It's the revolution gamers didnt know they were waiting for; companies that make bad DLC and just put out unreliable games with little support will be outcompeted. This will also allow a business to allow more of a personalozed game... basicly, think professionally done mods with a real budget! Didnt like some aspect of a game? If enough people feel the same way, guess what? The company can DO something about it.

    It's the fully realized vision we glimpsed with Trials of the Luremaster: a company actually caring about its purchasers enough to make good games great, and great games timeless classics.
  • CaloNordCaloNord Member Posts: 1,809
    I'm not overly bothered, I enjoyed Star Trek Online immensly, despite the obscene sums of money it managed to extract from my bank because the premium pay for me ships were a fair bit more powerful then the default ones with a lot more customization.

    As long as you don't churn it out like EA with the Sims games. There is a new piece of DLC every 8 minutes, another expansion every 2 hours and a new sims title every week. It's insane. :P :P
Sign In or Register to comment.