Thoughts on Micro-transactions

[Skip]

A L R I G H T H E L L O

So, with newer games releasing with outstanding graphics and more so expectations, there is still that one lingering thought of "Will there be micro-transactions?". The word itself has earned a rather unwelcome reputation among the gaming community, well for those that are not as wealthy as others. They are seen as a form of laziness, and not having to earn items in games. For example, a rather notorious game from a once prestigious franchise, Halo 5.

Halo 5 has since obtained the micro-transactions system in a form of "Req Packs". These packs grant a variety of items from common to legendary. These packs can also be bought with in game currency that the player must earn to actually buy these packs. However, as stated previously, they can be bought with real life money, in which can lead to a great many arguments of "Halo 5 is a pay to play game" but with other arguments stating that "The time it takes to earn enough points to buy a req pack of Gold tier (the highest tier) takes too long and therefore it is easier to buy one instead of grinding for it." Both sides have a rather understandable argument and comes from a variety of different gamers that have their own thoughts on the matter, so I would like to hear yours.

Sincerely,

Skip
AKA a rather c00l d00d

 

[Supreme Leader Snoke]

I believe only for certain games like massive multiplayer online role play games Like Elder Scrolls online and maybe Destiny with a ton of DLC's and updates in which case a subscription or season pass would come in handy, but not for games that are mainly First person shooters like battlefront and call of duty.

 

[Skip]

I believe only for certain games like massive multiplayer online role play games Like Elder Scrolls online and maybe Destiny with a ton of DLC's and updates in which case a subscription or season pass would come in handy, but not for games that are mainly First person shooters like battlefront and call of duty.

Right, and that's understandable, but for me games like Destiny (that comes from Bungie) you really wouldn't expect a mass amount of required DLC ya kn0w?

 

[Gladdy]

I honestly have very mixed feelings about micro transactions... it depends on the way that they affect the actual game. If they affect the specific game in a ''pay to win'' then I strongly disagree with micro transactions. A good example of ''okay'' use of micro transactions, is, for example, Overwatch. Yes, you can buy points/crates with real life money but also with leveling up. Each level is a crate. What's good about this system is that the crates do not affect the actual gameplay... they just contain cosmetic things. Skins, sprays, and so on.

Then you have games like Hearthstone, where if you want to compete at a higher level you NEED to buy the card packs so you can build your deck. You really need specific cards that will destroy the opponents and so on. Sadly, too many games abuse the micro transactions as saying ''hey the game is free to play'' when it really isn't.

 

[Supreme Leader Snoke]

T

Right, and that's understandable, but for me games like Destiny (that comes from Bungie) you really wouldn't expect a mass amount of required DLC ya kn0w?

True, they should've of just shoved as much as they can during the release and only have small updates over time, not an unfinished game that takes 6 hours to complete

 

[PenguinManiac]

I'm totally against them. I consider them equal to DLCs, since they usually provide a similar experience. DLCs, however, can sometimes give access to a remarkable amount of new content (see The Witcher 3's expansions), whereas micro-transactions cannot. This already puts them under a bad light to me.
That argument brought up in favour of Halo 5's micro-transactions makes sense, but it stands on shaky premises. It's better to pay rather than to grind for a counterproductive amount of time, but why are these packs so hard to get in the first place? Better weapons are supposed to be a reward for dedication and skills, not money: the very existence of micro-transactions is unfair. It's more convenient to pay to save time, but you shouldn't be able to. You shouldn't have an obviously faster and easier choice. It would be like paying a one-time fee to get the R.Y.N.O. in Ratchet & Clank. Where's the fun in that?

You're paying extra to get items that should be accessible through other means and that are expressly made to be tedious to get, in order to discourage gamers from walking that path. Not hard, tedious.
What makes it all worse is that this system can put you at an obvious advantage over those who decided not to/couldn't pay. Optional content locked behind a pay wall is immoral, but as long as it's optional we'll hardly ever get a word in it: when it becomes mandatory to stay competitive, however, I can't find it acceptable.

 

[Fordo]

All DLC can eat my nuts Base games should be complete! Just another way for publishers to get our hard earned cash.

 

[OursIsTheFury]

If you're gonna create a game, might as well create a complete one before releasing it. Games these days stopped doing that and simply publish unfinished games, while charging people on the finished product and fixes in the form of DLCs and microtransactions. It's a shame because that's the trajectory we're headed since more and more games opt to do that; I mean, what's the point of delaying a game to finish it, when you can make profit as early as beta, and just charge people for the finished updates?

 

[lindbergh]

If the game is free to play, micro transactions is acceptable. Like Clash of Clans for instance. But for games that you need to purchase in order to play, micro transactions are not needed in these. I don't want to pay money for special items in a game that I have paid for in order to play. Paid games that still offer micro transactions are designed by companies that just care about your money and nothing else. I hope that companies would stop doing this in the near future.

 

[giovanniiiii]

It really seems that the developers are milking us for money, especially if the game costs like $30. I don't get why some games charge us for actual features of the game and to me, it's really good way to make a bad taste of game for those who play the game. I think it's fine that they charge for the DLC and it has a lot of new content to it. Micro-transactions are just very inconvenient and they hinder the players from getting the full potential of the game.

 

[BeardedMamba]

Not a fan of it and never purchased one. One thing that I don't like is that as OP said, it kind of falls into the category of pay to play game. It destroys the balance of the game.

 

[JaiGuru]

I generally regard any further expenditure a company offers for a game to be anti-consumerist. Even in free to play games I find developers rarely keep these transactions to strictly aesthetic offerings. Usually you have to make purchases to make the game playable. If the game had simply been designed to be playable from the ground up and sold for a reasonable price that would have been infinitely better. I don't even accept the "marketing" excuse for this as releasing a free to play demo of your title would have served the same purpose without treating your potential customers like rats in a Skinner Box. It's a blatantly predatory financial model.

 

[Xilkozuf]

I'm not a fan of micro transactions, mostly because I have yet to see a game that use them well. Most of the time they are just there in pay-to-win games, and offer little to nothing. Why should I pay more to have a new weapon, a new outfit, or new powers? To unlock new level and character, and micro stuff like that...

In free apps and free games they should be used to offer an optional GOOD bonus, while letting other players the chance to win and actually have fun without having to pay for something.

 

[kenoobie]

I believe that micro transactions should have limits. It should only affect cosmetics and a bit of Quality of Life if there is a leveling system and not really affect the game play that much by itself, like for example one can get a legendary gear or upgrade a gear safely to a certain level, or the game becomes "Pay to win".

 

[Lem]

If you didn't pay for the game in the first place, then micro-transactions are absolutely a thing that I can get on board with. I don't mind at all playing a game for free on my phone, and then being asked to pay for upgrades or something like that. However, if I paid for the game in the first place, then I definitely don't want to be paying more to access things. I'm a grown adult - I should have been able to buy all of the content in one go!

Having said all of that, I think it's totally fair to charge to access multiplayer servers. Those things cost money to run, and they'll go down if we don't keep paying a subscription to them.

 

[Denis_P]

Ultimately, I don't think I've ever had a problem with offline micro-transactions, so long as the developers don't design the game around them. If you can play the game and have fun without paying for anything extra, that's great. But if you're one of those people who wants to have an easier time and is willing to pay for bonuses like money or equipment, then be my guest.

Micro-transactions in multiplayer games are bit a questionable to me though. I don't think it's fair to give players with more money the advantage over others.

 

[Soulwatcher]

Micro transactions are the worst thing that has ever came to gaming. Microsoft started it on the original xbox and it has only gotten worse from there. I do believe that Evolve had $1200 worth of micro transaction on release day. And developers keep getting more and more brazen which every game. They are going to get to the point where they are going to cause gaming to crash just like it did in the 80's. Right now if you want to buy the full game, almost every game developer is going to have a season pass which is going to make the game cost $100+.

 

[reginafalange]

I'm not a fan of them but if not buying them doesn't affect the game too much I don't care about it and just play without buying anything. The problem is when you have to buy them to get through something or the options are really limited. It's not fair if you have to buy something in order to win the game.

 

[kenoobie]

If you didn't pay for the game in the first place, then micro-transactions are absolutely a thing that I can get on board with. I don't mind at all playing a game for free on my phone, and then being asked to pay for upgrades or something like that. However, if I paid for the game in the first place, then I definitely don't want to be paying more to access things. I'm a grown adult - I should have been able to buy all of the content in one go!

Having said all of that, I think it's totally fair to charge to access multiplayer servers. Those things cost money to run, and they'll go down if we don't keep paying a subscription to them.

I totally agree with you. When I already have paid for the game itself, I don't really want any micro transactions just to have access to something. I don't mind if its cosmetics as long as its reasonably priced.

 

[pauldox3]

i'm quite okay with micro transactions. I mean they invested so much time and money on the product so it's only common sense that they're gonna try to earn as much as they could from that product. i understand that alot of people doesnt like micro transactions but we still have to respect these games cause these games are a work of art and there's noothing wrong wif they're trying to earn a bit of coin from their hardwork. Dont get me wrong tho, i what im also believe that games were alot better back when micro trans was non existent