Microtransactions Are Here to Stay; It's How Deal With Them That Matters.

[TheLiamK]

I did have a long post planned out but, well, I'm pretty lazy so I'll just make my point quickly So, micro transactions, a pox on the gaming industry that are now infiltrating their way in to single player games( ) Cosmetic purchases, free-to-play elements in fully paid games and god help us, loot boxes, not only are they not going away they have and will continue to become more prevalent. Simply put, it's big money so companies aren't going to stop because we want them to. Now, I tend not to support this stuff, I've spent, at most £20 on micro transactions in my life, but a lot of people spend money on them; I believe it was Ubisoft who announced that their micro transactions bring in more revenue than all of their digital game sales so they, and every other(nearly) company are going to be pushing them as hard as they did DLC.

 

So what can we do about it? Nothing, which kinda of sucks. All we can do is accept that they are going to be a part of our hobby from now on and not support it  as much as we can. It's easy for us to say 'it's nothing to do with me, I don't care' and not worry but the more money they take and the more they get away with the deeper they will integrate them in to the games themselves. It makes you wonder how long it will be before they do with microtransactions what they do with DLC and start taking things out of the game, or artificially restricting the experience in order to lock it behind a paywall. 

 

Game devs are business', they will keep pushing until they find a breaking point. This is just a desperate plea that will be but a drop in the ocean but I implore you: next time you think about buying an Overwatch loot box during the next seasonal event, or a loot crate trying to get that sweet new gun skin in CoD, or a nice powerful weapon in Shadow of War, or easy fatalities in Mortal Kombat. Don't 

 

P.S I get that in some scenario's Micro transactions can be fine, if you want something but haven't got the time to unlock it that's fine but, outside of expansion content, if you buy a game nothing in it should ever be exclusively  locked behind a paywall, especially an RNG paywall.

[German_Atheist]

What we can do: Boycott this shit! Buy games used. Wait for a GotY edition.

[Maxie_M0us3]

@Sargon Don't worry, I'm on this for years.

[Dreakon13]

Personally, I don't really like the genres predisposed for microtransactions and lootboxes (open world RPG-lites, competitve multiplayer games, anything built around repetition) so it's a "problem" I'm not entirely familiar with.  That said, I'd blame it on two things...

 

1. As you said, these companies are built to make money and they'll push as far as we let them.  If you don't like something, don't buy it.  If enough people don't like something (and you aren't just blowing smoke), it'll make a difference.

 

2. The death of the linear AAA single player game.  Everyone clamors for games to be bigger and longer, and celebrate "dynamic" systems that generate an endless amount of (typically boring as hell IMO) content, more repetitive the better so long as you "got your money's worth"... it was only a matter of time before companies found ways to monetize it.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Dreakon13

[itsFIGJAM]

Just ignore and enjoy the game or buy it during a sale? Been playing for decades and MTs never bothered me. Sure missed shiny stuff but that hasn't hindered anything. 

[Satoshi Ookami]

35 minutes ago, Sargon said:

What we can do:

Not play AAA games  

[NaseemJohn]

I think as gamers we should start looking at it from both perspectives because it seems like most don’t understand.  

 

Games have been the same price for years now but they’ve also been getting more complex, they require more people to work on them, more risky, have been getting more expensive to make and advertise. I highly doubt that 60$ is even nearly enough to cover what it costs to make a triple A game. I think they’re simply trying to make up for all the costs without going bankrupt or shutting down studios so that’s where all the micro transactions, DLC and season passes come in. It doesn’t bother me at all cause I don’t participate in buying micro transactions but it just comes down to how it’s implemented in games honestly, that’s just my opinion tho and I’m probably in the minority. 

[g-bake_1986]

11 minutes ago, NaseemJohn said:

I think as gamers we should start looking at it from both perspectives because it seems like most don’t understand.  

 

Games have been the same price for years now but they’ve also been getting more complex, they require more people to work on them, more risky, have been getting more expensive to make and advertise. I highly doubt that 60$ is even nearly enough to cover what it costs to make a triple A game. I think they’re simply trying to make up for all the costs without going bankrupt or shutting down studios so that’s where all the micro transactions, DLC and season passes come in. It doesn’t bother me at all cause I don’t participate in buying micro transactions but it just comes down to how it’s implemented in games honestly, that’s just my opinion tho and I’m probably in the minority. 

 

This is the excuse that publishers use but games have not been the same price for years. Take a look at the upcoming AAA releases and see how many editions there are. The standard game is now $60 but if you want to experience the full package of content you now pay upwards of $100. They can hold back any content they wish and lock it to more expensive editions, initially it was just cosmetics but now higher edition include extra sidequests.

 

Personally I now look at games more closely before I buy them, if I find the microtransaction system in a game too intrusive then I'll refuse to buy it. I passed on Shadow of War, I'll pass on Battlefront 2. Maybe years ago that would have been a hard decision but there are so many other great games at the moment I don't miss them so much.

Edited November 11, 2017 by g-bake_1986

[Dreakon13]

33 minutes ago, NaseemJohn said:

I think as gamers we should start looking at it from both perspectives because it seems like most don’t understand.  

 

Games have been the same price for years now but they’ve also been getting more complex, they require more people to work on them, more risky, have been getting more expensive to make and advertise. I highly doubt that 60$ is even nearly enough to cover what it costs to make a triple A game. I think they’re simply trying to make up for all the costs without going bankrupt or shutting down studios so that’s where all the micro transactions, DLC and season passes come in. It doesn’t bother me at all cause I don’t participate in buying micro transactions but it just comes down to how it’s implemented in games honestly, that’s just my opinion tho and I’m probably in the minority. 

 

I largely agree, that there's a lack of being able to see the bigger picture for a lot of people.  The word "microtransaction" just makes them see red, like "DLC" used to and "season passes".  Some arguments are legit, most are just blowing smoke.

 

However, there's a reason why every couple years we have a new "highest grossing game of all time".  The price has stayed largely the same, but the number of people buying games has grown steadily (both as the Earth overpopulates and as gaming has become more mainstream).  The money IS coming from somewhere.  Plus many, many games nowadays use stock engines like Unreal or Unity alleviating one of the biggest pain points in game development (in terms of money and time investment) back in the day... leading to quicker development cycles, leading to more games getting pumped out, leading to more money coming in, rinse and repeat.

 

 

22 minutes ago, g-bake_1986 said:

 

This is the excuse that publishers use but games have not been the same price for years. Take a look at the upcoming AAA releases and tell me how editions there are. The standard game is now $60 but if you want to experience the full package of content you now pay upwards of $100. They can hold back any content they wish and lock it to more expensive editions.

 

Personally I now look at games more closely before I buy them, if I find the microtransaction system in a game too intrusive then I'll refuse to buy it. I passed on Shadow of War, I'll pass on Battlefront 2. Maybe years ago that would have been a hard decision but there are so many other great games at the moment I don't miss them so much.

 

In fairness, the vast majority of single player games are complete experiences without season passes, DLC or collector's edition content (or are priced accordingly ala Telltale and episodic games).  And microtransactions for that matter.  The effects in Shadow of War were embarrassingly overblown (but what isn't nowadays)... though good on you for not supporting practices you disprove of.

 

Multiplayer games are inherently incomplete experiences, as you're always reliant on something other than the disc in your console (other players).  Not that it makes it okay to lock half the game behind map packs or whatever... but I can't feel too bad for people who didn't see that coming 20 years ago.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Kittens Are Awesome]

Don't like it, speak with your wallet. However, many of us know you won't. They don't do microtransactions and lootcrates because people DO NOT buy them. Why would they waste their time? Many of you guys bitching about this still have a profile riddled with CoD and Battlefield and Battlefront games.

 

If you really gave a fuck, you'd stop complaining on forums and just don't buy their game....at all. Even buying the goty edition or buying used is still putting bodies in their servers. It's still giving the pubs/devs motivation to continue doing what they do. You want to blame somebody? Look in the mirror.

[Bullstomp]

1 hour ago, Sargon said:

What we can do: Boycott this shit! Buy games used. Wait for a GotY edition.

^^This

 

I don't buy games at launch anymore. The last two I bought, Deus Ex and Persona 5 (both for the collector's edition) are still unopened. I wait for the GotY edition. Why pay full price + season pass to play through day 1 glitches, server issues and other assorted bs?

 

Nah, gots more than enough backlog to keep me happy?

[AndresLionheart]

1 hour ago, NaseemJohn said:

Games have been the same price for years now but they’ve also been getting more complex, they require more people to work on them, more risky, have been getting more expensive to make and advertise. I highly doubt that 60$ is even nearly enough to cover what it costs to make a triple A game.

 

Thats not completely true. You are forgetting that 35% of sales are now all digital, which means they get much more from that $60 than they used to (not to mention that physical copies have no manuals and now don't even come with the warranty sheet, its usually printed in the back of the cover). On top of that, most AAA titles have product placement, a billion special editions and use premade game engines.

 

They were fine, but this is free money, every business wants that.

Edited November 11, 2017 by AndresLionheart

[Dark Layla]

1 hour ago, Sargon said:

What we can do: Boycott this shit! Buy games used. Wait for a GotY edition.

Only a small number of people will do this unfortunately

[German_Atheist]

17 minutes ago, Rose Amicitia said:

Only a small number of people will do this unfortunately

Those other people actually deserve to get ripped of. People have to learn to be patient. I haven't bought Final Fantasy XV yet because I'm waiting for a complete version. I latetely purchased Dragon Age Inquisition including all DLCs for just 9,99 € on PS Store. How much money did I save? 70 €? 80 €? That's what I'm talking about: Patience and self-control.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Sargon

[Dark Layla]

3 minutes ago, Sargon said:

Those other people actually deserve to get ripped of. People have to learn to be patient. I haven't bought Final Fantasy XV yet because I'm waiting for a complete version. I latetely purchased Dragon Age Inquisition including all DLCs for just 9,99 € on PS Store. How much money did I save? 70 €? 80 €? That's what I'm talking about: Patience and self-control.

There is a topic on this site where i left an image about development companies doing nowadays (I can't remember the name of the topic)
if it were easy to change people's minds: for example there was no war in the world!
Btw dragon age inquisition is a great game i got platinum on my old acc with all dlc's

[TheLiamK]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Don't like it, speak with your wallet. However, many of us know you won't. They don't do microtransactions and lootcrates because people DO NOT buy them. Why would they waste their time? Many of you guys bitching about this still have a profile riddled with CoD and Battlefield and Battlefront games.

 

If you really gave a fuck, you'd stop complaining on forums and just don't buy their game....at all. Even buying the goty edition or buying used is still putting bodies in their servers. It's still giving the pubs/devs motivation to continue doing what they do. You want to blame somebody? Look in the mirror.

People want to play the games but they don't want to be harassed with micro-transactions? Saying "Well if you don't like micro-transactions don't buy games with them in" is so stupid. If they sell less of a game, they will be more motivated to prop up profits with micro-transactions. If people buy the game but don't partake in micro-transactions then they would be less likely to focus on them.  "You want to blame somebody? Look in the mirror." Stop acting like an edge-lord teenager.

[Doomsdayman]

The biggest problem are the casual gamers since they are the majority. They will just keep buying them even if they are infested with pay to win microtransactions.

 

Hell I saw a article where EA said "I've seen people literally spend $15,000 on Mass Effect multiplayer cards".

 

I fear it's going to get a lot worse.

[Tesla_Rules]

I just buy the games I like and to hell with any transactions.  There are so many game out there that aren't going this route I'm sure I'll find something to play.

[Satoshi Ookami]

1 hour ago, Bullstomp said:

I don't buy games at launch anymore. The last two I bought, Deus Ex and Persona 5 (both for the collector's edition) are still unopened. I wait for the GotY edition. Why pay full price + season pass to play through day 1 glitches, server issues and other assorted bs?

But P5 doesn't have these AAA ugly thingies

[Dreakon13]

1 hour ago, Sargon said:

Those other people actually deserve to get ripped of. People have to learn to be patient. I haven't bought Final Fantasy XV yet because I'm waiting for a complete version. I latetely purchased Dragon Age Inquisition including all DLCs for just 9,99 € on PS Store. How much money did I save? 70 €? 80 €? That's what I'm talking about: Patience and self-control.

 

There's value to be placed on literally waiting years after a games release before playing it.  Personally, I loved Final Fantasy XV.  If, as of this point in time, I was still another year away from finally playing it... that'd be pretty uncool.  As someone with steady employment and disposable income despite my car payments, utilities and mortgage (score one for living within my means), I'll take that $50 hit... hell, I bought the expansion pass, a collectible guide and some other trinkets on top of the full price of the game after the fact to show my support for it.

 

I'm glad you found a system that works for you... if my situation changes, so will my habits most likely... but let's not pretend that what works best for you, is how everyone should operate.  I'm sure as hell not waiting around years to play my favorite games in some sort of pro-"poor college kid" anti-"corporate fat cat" protest.  Gaming was never a cheap hobby.

 

 

47 minutes ago, TheLiamK said:

People want to play the games but they don't want to be harassed with micro-transactions? Saying "Well if you don't like micro-transactions don't buy games with them in" is so stupid. If they sell less of a game, they will be more motivated to prop up profits with micro-transactions. If people buy the game but don't partake in micro-transactions then they would be less likely to focus on them.  "You want to blame somebody? Look in the mirror." Stop acting like an edge-lord teenager.

 

He's not wrong.  It's funny how this generation clings to entitlement.  "If I don't like something about a game, I'm not going to NOT buy the game, it's inconvenient to deprive myself of something I actually want...  I'm going to buy it anyways and complain until the game is changed." Microtransactions are one thing, there are arguments to be made against them, but that idea has been seeping through the gaming community for years now for a variety of legitimate and illegitimate reasons to not like games.

 

Also, if no one buys the game, no one is buying the microtransactions.  In what world would that motivate them to invest anything in that game?

Edited November 11, 2017 by Dreakon13

[Elvick_]

I don't care honestly. If a game does it badly I will just stop playing and note that in the future that dev is a twat and not buy their games since they design them poorly to "encourage" microtransations. If they are just there for peopel who are lazy af and want to get ahead faster [as long as not MP... though I don't even play MP games that much] then it's not even know. JRPGs have been selling Experience and other things since last gen. Cross Edge has lot of that stuff as DLC.

It's just switching the terms around and the method you buy them. Instead of directly in the PS Store or storefront, it's by buying "gems" or whatever bullshit and trading that in for what you want to hide the cost. Which is scummy, but I care more about that than I do about microtransactions existing in general.

Just make it all DLC for the lazy. But that won't happen, casuals don't care about this stuff. And that's who is buying most of it.

[TheLiamK]

2 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

 

He's not wrong.  It's funny how this generation clings to entitlement.  "If I don't like something about a game, I'm not going to NOT buy the game, it's inconvenient to deprive myself of something I actually want...  I'm going to buy it anyways and complain until the game is changed." Microtransactions are one thing, there are arguments to be made against them, but that idea has been seeping through the gaming community for years now for a variety of legitimate and illegitimate reasons.

 

Also, if no one buys the game, no one is buying the microtransactions.  In what world would that motivate them to invest anything in that game?

 

Yes, he is wrong. It's not about entitlement or how much it costs it's about not wanting to be fucked around by bad business practices. I think it's perfectly fair to want to buy a whole product and then expect to have the whole product? It's not the game I have issue with, it's the bad business surrounding it. I buy the game but take issue with the business practice.  When nearly every game has micro-transactions it's pointless saying "Just don't buy games that have them".

 

 

but people are always going to buy the game. Let's say they make a game for a  £100 budget. They want to make that £100 back right?  Let's say that from selling the game they make £80 and from micro-transactions they make £20. Now let's say people stop buying the game, and so from sales they make £50 they are now going to need to make the remaining £50 from alternative sources i.e. more micro-transactions. If they make a game for £100, make only £80 in sales and 0 from micro-transactions then it might make them think "hey, maybe we should make the game for £80 instead of spending way too much on developing the game and making the users pay two to three times as much in order to get the complete game to make up for it"  I would happily pay £50 - £60 for a game as opposed to £40 as long as I get the whole game.

[xZoneHunter]

28 minutes ago, Satoshi Ookami said:

But P5 doesn't have these AAA ugly thingies

 

Better charge 50€ for costume DLC amirite? 

 

[Dreakon13]

34 minutes ago, TheLiamK said:

 

Yes, he is wrong. It's not about entitlement or how much it costs it's about not wanting to be fucked around by bad business practices. I think it's perfectly fair to want to buy a whole product and then expect to have the whole product? It's not the game I have issue with, it's the bad business surrounding it. I buy the game but take issue with the business practice.  When nearly every game has micro-transactions it's pointless saying "Just don't buy games that have them".

 

 

but people are always going to buy the game. Let's say they make a game for a  £100 budget. They want to make that £100 back right?  Let's say that from selling the game they make £80 and from micro-transactions they make £20. Now let's say people stop buying the game, and so from sales they make £50 they are now going to need to make the remaining £50 from alternative sources i.e. more micro-transactions. If they make a game for £100, make only £80 in sales and 0 from micro-transactions then it might make them think "hey, maybe we should make the game for £80 instead of spending way too much on developing the game and making the users pay two to three times as much in order to get the complete game to make up for it"  I would happily pay £50 - £60 for a game as opposed to £40 as long as I get the whole game.

 

To the bolded: So in other words... the path of least resistance.  Of course.

 

I can count maybe 2 games in my 30-40 game PS4 collection (retail disc copies so mostly AAA) with microtransactions.  Probably none with microtransactions that impact gameplay.  So no... not "nearly every game" has them.  Not even close.  Maybe if you buy 4 games total and they're all recent multiplayer FPS's/Shadow of War.

 

Too much hypothetical in the rest to properly respond.  We don't know what margins any specific publisher/developer hopes to meet between launch prices, sale prices, development costs and microtransactions.

Edited November 11, 2017 by Dreakon13

[nyonmyan]

Devs who spend 80% of the budget on marketing have no right to complain about increased development costs.